This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An analysis of this week's Supreme Court arguments in a Maryland fight over a school's decision to teach sexually deviant behaviors to children and not allow parents to opt their kids out of those classes has concluded that Justice Ketanji Jackson is "either the dumbest or most evil member" on the court.
Dumbest might be in ascendance, as this was the same individual who, during her Senate confirmation hearing, was unable to tell inquiring senators what is a "woman."
A recording of her revealing her agenda was posted online:
An analysis at RedState explained that it should have been a "red flag."
On the court, she's reliably been a "left-wing vote," it said.
"There is no level of partisanship she won't stoop to in order to defend a Democrat viewpoint, and that was on display again in recent oral arguments surrounding parental rights," it said.
"While a majority of the court seemed to be leaning toward affirming that obvious right, Jackson showed she's either the dumbest or most evil member of the court," it said.
It pointed out that she wasn't even "aware" of the fact that the fight is over Montgomery County School District's actions, which "require" the books to be taught.
She argued that perhaps those books are just "sitting on the shelves," meaning that a temporary injunction to affirm the parents' rights would be inappropriate.
The analysis notes that Jackson does come across "as vapid and ill-equipped," … or "the other option is that she's just evil, and the rest is an act."
"Returning to the core issue, why is it this important for public schools to talk about topics that violate the religious principles of some parents?" the analysis noted. "Does LGBTQ ideology really trump religious liberty? It doesn't, but Jackson thinks it does, and that's a scary proposition. Imagine a court with a few more justices in her mold, and where that would leave the country."
It explained, "Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought some sanity to the discussion by pointing out how absurd Jackson's arguments were."
A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's administration from defunding Voice of America, The Hill reported. Trump previously signed an executive order closing the federally funded news outlet's parent agency, the U.S. Agency for Global Media.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered USAGM to rehire employees previously dismissed from VOA, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Network. The judge said that the agency must not stop the "consistently reliable and authoritative" new outlets from operating.
The cuts at the agency came courtesy of former Arizona GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake. She was charged with slashing "waste, fraud, and abuse running rampant" at the government agency.
The Department of Justice argued that staff cuts are "adverse employment actions" that warrant only monetary compensation, rather than an injunction. Lamberth disagreed, stating that her USAGM's actions threaten the "very existence" of the news outlets.
In Tuesday's decision, Lamberth made the case for propping up USAGM. The judge claims that the cuts were "immediate and drastic" and made "without considering its statutorily or constitutionally required functions as required by the plain language of the EO, and without regard to the harm inflicted on employees, contractors, journalists, and media consumers around the world," Lamberth wrote.
"It is hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary and capricious actions than the Defendants’ actions here," he added. VOA was put on the chopping block as part of the executive order to shut down USAGM.
Following the order, contractors and employees of USAGM were placed on administrative leave. In response to this move, affiliated labor unions, reporters, and the activist group Reporters Without Borders filed a lawsuit against the administration.
They requested additional funding for VOA and other networks under USAGM, including Radio Free Asia, Open Technology Fund, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. It claimed these were essential organizations and that dispensing with them would undermine the interests of the U.S.
"In many parts of the world, a crucial source of objective news is gone, and only censored state-sponsored news media is left to fill the void. The second Trump administration has taken a chainsaw to the agency as a whole in an attempt to shutter it completely," the lawsuit stated, according to Fox News.
The USAGM was just another in a target-rich environment of wasteful government programs. As one of Trump's first orders of business, he created the Department of Government Efficiency to trim the fat across the board.
Besides the waste, the administration believed the news organization served as a mouthpiece against Trump, backed by taxpayer dollars. "Voice of America has been out of step with America for years," a senior White House official said.
"It serves as the Voice for Radical America and has pushed divisive propaganda for years now," the official added. The Associated Press noted that the VOA was established to counter enemy propaganda during World War II and has long been lauded as a necessary entity.
While it's true that it is created through statute for an important purpose years ago, it does not diminish the fact that it has a liberal bent today. Even without that fact, there is a glut of news outlets that already exist that will further the interests of the U.S.
This move by the judge is another way to thwart the Trump agenda and its effort to cut government spending. However, the checks and balances afforded by the courts are an essential part of keeping the government balanced, and sometimes that means stopping the president from fulfilling his agenda.
Protesting what they saw as pressure from the Justice Department to express remorse for pursuing the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams, three federal prosecutors from Manhattan resigned on Tuesday.
Celia Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach, and Derek Wikstrom all accused DOJ Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche of trying to get the to lie and "express regret" to re-establish their employment in relation to the case that accused Adams of accepting bribes from Turks in exchange for travel perks, the New York Post reported.
“We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none,” the three prosecutors, who had been placed on “administrative leave,” wrote in a scathing one-page letter obtained by The Post.
The DOJ under President Trump “has decided that obedience supersedes all else, requiring us to abdicate our legal and ethical obligations in favor of directions from Washington,” the prosecutors claimed.
Dale Ho, the judge presiding over Adams' case, recently ruled that the prosecutors involved were only acting within the bounds of legality, which led to the departures.
“The record before the Court indicates that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York prosecutors who worked on this case followed all appropriate Justice Department guidelines. There is no evidence — zero — that they had any improper motives,” the judge wrote.
During their time working for the SDNY office, Rohrbach, Cohen, and Wikstrom mentioned that they had experience working under both Republican and Democrat presidents.
This is the office is responsible for supervising high-profile trials, such as the Sean "Diddy" Combs case. According to the outgoing employees, they’d been allowed to do their jobs “without fear or favor."
Both Rohrbach and Cohen were heavily involved in the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, who was a client of Jeffrey Epstein, and Cohen was in charge of a number of local mob prosecutions.
The resignations occurred on the very first day that Jay Clayton, who was appointed by Trump to serve as an interim leader of SDNY, assumed office. The Department of Justice's February campaign to dismiss Adams' case led to the resignation of five SDNY prosecutors.
In her resignation letter, the then-interim head of the SDNY, Danielle Sassoon, accused the White House of arranging a corrupt "quid pro quo" arrangement in which Adams consented to meet Trump's demands over immigration policy in return for the dismissal of his case.
Hagan Scotten, who was the primary prosecutor in the Adams case, has also stepped down.
Danielle Sassoon was part of the turnover, tendering her resignation in February in protest of the Justice Department's order to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Because of that change, Matthew Podolsky agreed to step down and took over for Sassoon.
Following Trump's firing of Edward Kim, who had served as U.S. attorney throughout the transition in administrations, Sassoon was appointed to the position.
Until federal judges in Manhattan confirm or appoint him, Trump's choice Jay Clayton will serve as an interim for a maximum of four months. Throughout Trump's inaugural year in office, Clayton oversaw the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Prior to becoming head of the SEC, Clayton advised Wall Street firms and other corporations on complying with federal regulations while working as a partner at the New York law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.
The Supreme Court shut down an effort by Democrats in Minnesota to restrict 18-to-20-year-olds from buying guns.
The court let stand an Eight Circuit ruling that vindicated the rights of young people to carry firearms under the Second Amendment. Minnesota's attorney general, Keith Ellison (D), had asked the court to uphold "modest" restrictions that make it a crime for people under 21 to carry in public.
The ruling is the latest in a cascade of Second Amendment victories to follow from the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, which requires gun control regimes to be "consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The court later refined the Bruen test in United States v. Rahimi, clarifying that courts do not need to identify a "historic twin" to uphold modern gun restrictions, but instead should look at the "principles underlying historical restrictions on firearms."
Citing Rahimi, Minnesota urged the Supreme Court to reconsider an Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that struck down Minnesota's age limits, but the Supreme Court left the lower court ruling alone. The Eight Circuit found that the age limits do not pass the Bruen test.
“The Second Amendment’s plain text does not have an age limit,” wrote Judge Duane Benton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.
Moreover, the 26th Amendment unambiguously incorporated young people into the political community by granting them voting rights, the appeals court ruled.
Minnesota argued its "common sense" restrictions were necessary to address gun violence among young people. The state called its limits "modest" since young people can access firearms at any age with parental supervision, and by age 14 they may possess guns unsupervised on their property or for hunting.
Groups including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition challenged Minnesota's restrictions.
"Politicians should carefully consider the legal ramifications of infringing on Second Amendment rights,” Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus (MGOC) Senior Vice President & Political Director Rob Doar said.
“The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and its allies will relentlessly pursue legal action against any unconstitutional measures introduced in Minnesota.”
The Supreme Court has been slow to intervene in gun disputes since ruling in Rahimi last year, when the court found that people with restraining orders for domestic violence can be temporarily disarmed.
The court's reluctance to revisit the gun debate has cut both ways. While it has resulted in a win for gun rights in Minnesota, the justices recently declined to upset New York's new gun licensing regime, which was adopted in response to Bruen.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawyer for parents calling for protections for their religious rights has told justices on the Supreme Court the practices by the school district in Montgomery County, Maryland, don't involve "exposure" to children of its LGBT ideologies.
"It's indoctrination."
"Our clients' faith teaches they shouldn't expose children during their years of innocence to instruction about sexuality without moral context," Becket lawyer Eric Baxter told the justices. "That's not just exposure — it's indoctrination."
A report from the Washington Examiner pointed out that at least five of the justices appeared to be willing to be granting protections for parents' religious rights in the fight.
The dispute is over the decision by school officials to push LGBT ideologies to children as young as three years old, and then refuse permission for parents to opt their children out of indoctrination that would violate their religious faith.
Bringing the case was a coalition of Muslim, Christian and Jewish parents.
"Several justices appeared sympathetic to the parents' concerns, especially regarding the young age of the students. Justice Samuel Alito noted that some of the books were approved for children as young as three or four years old," the report said.
Baxter explained Montgomery County's curriculum imposed a "uniquely coercive" environment on much younger children, in part by designing instruction to "disrupt cisnormativity:" and challenge traditional gender beliefs.
Leftists on the court argued for giving the school district absolute authority to decide what its mandatory lessons would include, the report noted. "Justice Elena Kagan warned that granting such a right whenever a parent has a sincere religious objection could effectively turn every classroom into a battlefield."
Baxter explained there are three levels of violation in the district program: Substantial interference with religious upbringing, pressure to abandon beliefs to access a public benefit, and discriminatory treatment, such as granting opt-outs for some religious views but not others."
The Daily Caller News Foundation explained Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that Maryland was founded on religious liberty, but now appears intent on denying it.
"Maryland was founded on religious liberty and religious tolerance, a haven for Catholics escaping persecution from persecution in England going back to 1649," the justice said. "I guess I'm surprised, given that this is the hill we're going to die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty."
The arguments revealed the district does allow opt-outs for musical performances, dissections, high school sex ed classes, and more, but refuses to allow them for the books used to indoctrination young children.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that the district presents the LGBT ideology as fact, and that's not the same as simply exposing students to an idea.
A federal appeals court recently put a temporary halt to contempt proceedings initiated by a U.S. District Judge against the Trump administration concerning deportation flights to El Salvador, The Hill reported.
The divided ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit does not address the merits of the administration's appeal but stalls U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s efforts to hold government officials in contempt over the March 15 deportation flights.
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by former President Donald Trump, supported the stay, while Judge Cornelia Pillard, appointed by President Barack Obama, dissented.
Judge Boasberg previously identified probable cause for holding officials in contempt due to an alleged disregard of a court order halting the deportation flights. The Supreme Court had lifted Boasberg's prior order, dictating that migrants must seek judicial review in their respective detention locations. This appeal coincided with an emergency hearing reviewing a new potential wave of deportations to El Salvador.
During the hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign clarified that no deportation flights were scheduled through Saturday, but emphasized the government's authority to conduct such flights when needed.
The appeals court's decision aims to buy time for further examination of the administration's actions without rushing into contempt proceedings.
Judge Pillard presented a dissenting view by arguing there was "no ground" for an administrative stay in the absence of an appealable order. Her position underscores a judicial divide on the appropriate balance of power among federal authorities in immigration matters.
Despite the ongoing legal back-and-forth, Judge Boasberg acknowledged his role was limited following the Supreme Court's previous stance on his order. He expressed understanding of the concerns raised but indicated his inability to take further action given the high court's ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a key player in this legal battle, has filed requests with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, seeking further intervention on this complex issue. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt conveyed frustration at the current legal deadlock, likening it to a seemingly perpetual cycle without resolution.
The broader context includes the ACLU's persistent efforts to safeguard the rights of individuals facing imminent deportation. They argue these government actions circumvent lawful review processes and fail to protect vulnerable populations.
Judge Boasberg’s earlier finding of probable cause for contempt reflected the gravity of the government’s alleged misconduct in executing deportation orders against his directive. The contention revolves around the intersection of judicial authority and executive implementation of immigration policy.
As the legal proceedings unfold, both sides of the debate remain committed to their positions. Government lawyers assert the legality and necessity of their actions in enforcing immigration laws. Meanwhile, civil liberties advocates emphasize the essential nature of court oversight in ensuring fair and just proceedings.
The appeals court's stay will serve as a temporary pause, allowing further deliberation on the intricate issues at hand. Its outcome could hold significant implications for future deportation policies and judicial authority.
For now, the legal community and affected individuals await further developments as the court system grapples with the complexities of immigration law enforcement. Decisions in this and related cases may ultimately carve new paths in how the executive branch navigates the contentious terrain of immigration regulations and judicial orders.
President Trump's ambitious immigration agenda is causing a dramatic shakeup at the Supreme Court, as the conservative justices split over Trump's deportations.
In a shocking rebuke of Trump, the court issued a ruling just after midnight Saturday that blocks him from using the Alien Enemies Act to remove suspected gang members detained in northern Texas.
Only two justices, neither of them appointed by Trump himself, voiced concern about the court's move. In a fiery dissent, Samuel Alito, joined by Clarence Thomas, said the court issued a hasty and premature ruling without clear jurisdiction.
"When this Court rushed to enter its order, the Court of Appeals was considering the issue of emergency relief, and we were informed that a decision would be forthcoming. This Court, however, refused to wait," Alito wrote.
Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport alleged gang members has led to a dramatic standoff between the judiciary and the executive branch.
The president's critics, including the federal judges blocking his moves, have accused him of ignoring court rulings and suspending due process, while Trump and his supporters say activist judges are trying to thwart Trump's electoral mandate to deport illegal aliens.
Prior to Saturday's midnight ruling, the Supreme Court had allowed Trump to continue using the Alien Enemies Act to carry out deportations but ordered the government to provide "reasonable time" to contest them.
The Supreme Court's midnight intervention came after the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union scrambled to file challenges in Texas, Louisiana, and Washington D.C. all in a matter of hours on Good Friday.
Alito's dissent noted that the Supreme Court did not wait to hear the Trump administration's side of the story, instead relying on "dubious" evidence that a group of Venezuelans being detained in Texas would be imminently deported.
"In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order," he wrote.
"I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order atm midnight was necessary or appropriate," he wrote.
Alito concluded, “Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Democrat judge in New Mexico has resigned, fleeing his office, after a suspect, allegedly a member of the violent Tren de Aragua gang from Venezuela, was found living at his home.
A report from Fox News explains, "Doña Ana County Magistrate Judge Joel Cano's resignation letter is dated March 3, but a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) told Fox News Digital it was not received by the Supreme Court and 3rd Judicial District Court until March 31."
The report explained Homeland Security Investigations in Las Cruces started looking into Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, a native of Venezuela, described as an illegal alien and a suspected member of a criminal gang."
The allegations included that he was living with other gang members and "in possession of firearms."
Then, two search warrants were executed at a home that was identified as owned by Cano's wife, Nancy Cano.
"Ortega-Lopez and his roommates were taken into custody, and agents seized four firearms from April Cano's residence.' April Cano is the daughter of Nancy and Joel, court documents state," according to the report.
Further, Ortega-Lopez had posed on social media with various weapons, the report said.
The suspect admitted he entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico in 2023, and was living in an El Paso apartment with others when he met Nancy Cano "to install a glass door for her," the report said.
When he was later evicted from the apartment, the report said, Nancy Cano offered a place for him to live in the back of the home she shared with husband Joel Cano, the report said.
Property records show the home is owned by Nancy and Jose Cano, "who goes by Joel."
Officials said the state Supreme Court has now scheduled a hearing regarding Cano.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A top Republican senator says the federal district judge who has opposed President Donald Trump's deportation flights of violent, criminal illegal aliens apparently wants to be president instead of his current position on the bench.
"It can't be like getting an act of Congress every time you want to export a dangerous violent felon illegal immigrant," Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on "Sunday Morning Futures" on the Fox News Channel.
"And yet, you've got people like Judge [James] Boasberg who apparently wish they had gone into politics and would rather be serving as president of the United States than a federal district judge who are essentially cosplaying as chief executive officers of the United States government."
"The minute you start to have judicial officers performing the tasks that belong fundamentally to the either the executive or legislative branch, you've got a problem. And I'm hoping the Supreme Court can help us get this cleared up and cleaned up quickly."
Lee noted: "We've been flooded with millions, some would say tens of millions, of illegal immigrants."
The senator also expressed support for Trump's efforts to change the way birthright citizenship is handled in America.
"What President Trump has done is issue an executive order directing agencies prospectively, not to recognize the birthright citizenship … unless at the time of their birth they had at least one parent who was either a citizen or a lawful permanent resident," Lee explained.
"This is a close question. It's a debatable case, and I think it could go either way. I look forward to hearing the arguments and I hope the Supreme Court will sustain what President Trump is trying to do to clean up this invasion that President Biden invited into our country."
"Ideally we should pass legislation," he added. "Harry Reid who later became the Senate Democratic majority leader introduced in 1993 legislation that would do what essentially President Trump is trying to do by executive order."
Lee also voiced support for the SAVE Act, requiring identification to be provided by voters.
"We want to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat," he said.
President Donald Trump had plenty of legal issues leading up to his election, and while he managed to navigate most of those just fine, he faces a new challenge of judicial activism regarding his bold and decisive border policies.
One of those issues deals with U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to halt the Trump administration's deportation flights last month, specifically the flights bringing violent and dangerous illegal migrants to El Salvador for imprisonment.
According to The Hill, after Boasberg called for contempt proceedings against the president and his administration, a divided appeals court shot down that notion this week, scoring a win for Trump and his lawyers.
Judge Boasberg is one of several federal judges, all of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, who have attempted to interfere with Trump's executive powers to manage the southern border crisis as he sees fit.
The federal appeals court released its decision this week, essentially saying the Trump administration has a right to the appeals process before legal actions can be taken.
The Hill reported:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit indicated its order is intended to provide “sufficient opportunity” for the court to consider the government’s appeal and “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.”
Judge Boasberg, last week, had found grounds for contempt, slamming the Trump administration's refusal to turn the deportation flights around "a willful disregard" of the federal court's order.
Not surprisingly, the federal appeals court in charge of the decision split down party lines. The Hill noted:
The three-judge D.C. Circuit panel split 2-1. The two Trump appointees, Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, ruled for the administration. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of former President Obama, dissented.
Judge Pillard wrote, "In the absence of an appealable order or any clear and indisputable right to relief that would support mandamus, there is no ground for an administrative stay."
Judge Boasberg has been on Trump's radar -- and not a good one -- ever since he intervened in the president's decision to utilize the rare and nearly-forgotten Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport certain illegal aliens.
Users across social media weighed in on the ongoing situation, with some calling for Boasberg's impeachment as a result of his seeming activism.
Appeals judges have BLOCKED Judge Boasberg's effort to hold President Trump in contempt of court for not "undeporting" MS-13 gang members.
Now, Congress should impeach this partisan dummy and investigate his bank account. pic.twitter.com/BWMbWuEOk4
— George (@BehizyTweets) April 18, 2025
"This man belongs as far away from the bench as possible. There is no room for activists in the judiciary," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "He should not serve as a judge."