This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The legal team at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, during the Joe Biden administration, took on the United States Department of Agriculture for programs that were race-based, and ended up injuring those of the wrong race.
But the problems were not eradicated, and the legal team now is confirming that Wisconsin dairy farmer Adam Faust is telling the feds to fix the rest, or be sued again.
The issue is that the programs violate both the U.S. Constitution and President Donald Trump's executive orders from earlier this year.
They are similar to the fight handled by WILL under Biden.
"If not corrected within 60 days, a federal lawsuit will be filed on Mr. Faust's behalf against the Trump administration," the legal team's report said.
Deputy counsel Dan Lennington explained, "The Trump administration has taken some commendable steps to root out race discrimination in many agencies, but we have a long way to go. Millions of farmers face economic uncertainty, from unpredictable weather to rising input costs, all of which are far beyond their control, only then to be punished economically because of their race. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and it's time for it to stop once and for all. The clock is ticking, and we won't hesitate to take the Trump administration to court to protect farmers from race discrimination."
The team's client, Faust, said, "USDA offers important resources for dairy farmers, including margin coverage, loan guarantees, and grants. But it is outrageous that some farmers get a better deal based on race. I am hopeful the Trump administration will change course and fix these discriminatory programs."
Faust runs a dairy in Chilton, Wis., and like millions of other American farmers, is a white male.
He successfully sued the Biden administration for race discrimination in the Farmer Loan Forgiveness Program, in which a federal court held that granting loan forgiveness only to "socially disadvantaged farmers" was, in fact, unconstitutional race discrimination.
Congress eventually repealed that scheme.
But the USDA still is "running over two dozen race-based programs that unconstitutionally discriminate against farmers and ranchers every day," WILL said.
Among those is the discriminatory Dairy Margin Coverage Administrative Fee.
That "offers financial assistance when the margin between the milk price and the average feed cost falls below a coverage level chosen by the producer. All 'socially disadvantaged farmers' are exempt from the fee. USDA regulations define this phrase to include only the following racial groups: American Indians or Alaskan Natives, Asians or Asian Americans, Blacks or African Americans, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and women," WILL said.
Others include the Loan Guarantee Program and the Environmental Quality Incentive Program.
Liberals on both sides of the Atlantic let out a collective wail of despair as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom officially ruled that biological men are not to be considered women under the law.
The shock ruling is the fruit of a hard-fought legal battle brought by For Women Scotland, an anti-trans feminist organization.
The case turned on the interpretation of "woman" in the Equality Act, a comprehensive civil rights law passed by Parliament in 2010.
The unanimous verdict is a rare victory for common sense over the leftist ideology that has sowed confusion about biological truths throughout Western societies.
In the United States, a backlash against "woke" ideology has been credited as a factor in the Democrats' devastating wipeout last November, and some ambitious Democrats have started to distance themselves from the transgender movement and its absolutist demands.
President Trump has fought to defend women's sports under Title IX, a civil rights law that bars sex-based discrimination in education. Title IX was repurposed during the Biden presidency to include gender identity.
The Supreme Court of the U.K. ruled that defining "sex" as a chosen identity certified by paperwork leads to "incoherent" and impractical consequences.
"The practical problems that arise under a certificated sex approach are clear indicators that this interpretation is not correct," the judges wrote.
The court's decision means that single-sex spaces are protected under the Equality Act. The ruling does not disturb anti-discrimination protections relating to gender reassignment, the court said.
"The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex," said Justice Patrick Hodge.
"But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not."
Many British women responded to the court's ruling with euphoria.
"Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex," For Women Scotland co-founder Susan Smith said.
"Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling."
Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling wrote, "It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK."
It is remarkable that it required a Supreme Court case to vindicate the simple reality that men are not women, but it's a step in the right direction.
Judge James Boasberg determined Wednesday that he has "probable cause" to hold Trump administration officials in contempt of court for defying orders to stop a pair of deportation flights, Breitbart reported. Boasberg previously issued a temporary restraining order on the deportations.
President Donald Trump designated MS-13 and Tren de Aragua as terrorist organizations. He began deporting these criminal illegal aliens using the Alien Enemies Act.
Predictably, the left was incensed at the idea that criminals in the country illegally would be removed. The Soros-backed Democracy Forward organization and the American Civil Liberties Union represented five suspected gang members who were illegal aliens to challenge Trump's use of the law.
However, two flights had already taken off with as many as 300 of these types of suspected criminals on board. They were headed to El Salvador when Boasberg issued his temporary restraining order, thus making it impossible to comply with his order.
Although Boasberg tried to stop the deportation, the planes had already landed at their destination. Later, the Supreme Court vacated the order anyway, finding Trump was within his rights to use the Alien Enemies Act as long as those deported received due process.
Nevertheless, Boasberg announced in a memo that the Trump administration showed "willful disregard" for his orders. "As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt," Boasberg wrote.
"The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory," the judge claimed.
Boasberg claimed that just because the Supreme Court later vacated his order doesn't mean the government could disregard it. "Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order "must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it," the judge added.
He added that the move undermined the courts and contradicted the Constitution. "For the foregoing reasons, the Court will find probable cause that Defendants’ actions constitute contempt," Boasberg added.
This inflammatory move from the judge is no surprise, as Boasberg has a history of decisions that Trump sees as judicial activism. According to Fox News, the Obama-appointed judge has a hand in several cases involving the president and his administration.
Last month, Boasberg was assigned to preside over a case between the administration and the National Archives and Records Administration. Trump took to his Truth Social on March 27 to rail against Boasberg's appointment to that case.
"How disgraceful is it that ‘Judge’ James Boasberg has just been given a fourth 'Trump Case,' something which is, statistically, IMPOSSIBLE. There is no way for a Republican, especially a TRUMP REPUBLICAN, to win before him," the president claimed.
"He is Highly Conflicted, not only in his hatred of me — Massive Trump Derangement Syndrome! — but also, because of disqualifying family conflicts," Trump claimed and later asserted it was impossible for him to get a fair trial anyway. "There must be an immediate investigation of this Rigged System, before it is too late!" Trump added.
The left is trying to stop Trump with challenges in the courts and other tactics. Whether Boasberg proceeds with his threat or not, he has escalated the standoff between him and the administration.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
At issue is the meaning of 14th Amendment's 'And subject to the jurisdiction thereof' clause
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the U.S. Constitution actually includes "birthright citizenship," the idea that any baby born on U.S. soil regardless of the legal or illegal status of the parents is a U.S. citizen … or not!
That has been the accepted standard for years now, but Trump, pointing out that there remain open questions about the meaning of one of the clauses in the amendment, moved another direction with his executive order.
He pointed out the 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
At issue is the meaning of "And subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
He simply said that children born to illegal immigrants or those who are in the U.S. on temporary non-immigrant visas are not automatically citizens by birthright.
The court justices will hear arguments on the differing interpretations on May 15.
A report at Fox News explained the Trump administration reached out to the high court after lower courtrs refused to accept that interpretation of the Constitution.
The administration asked the court to allow a narrow version of the order to proceed.
This is another one of the situations where district judges, at the entry level into the federal court system, took on the authority to manage the executive branch decisions by themselves, with nationwide injunctions coming from judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.
"Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the justices to limit the scope of the rulings to cover only individuals directly impacted by the relevant courts," the report explained.
"These cases – which involve challenges to the President's January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship – raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border," Harris said.
Ultimately, nearly two dozen leftist states and organizations have sued.
Those political interests claim that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to people born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances.
Similar opposing arguments were presented to the high court during Trump's first term, when he barred immigration from countries that supported terrorism, and a long list of groups complained that he was unconstitutionally targeting "Muslim" countries.
In that case, the justices eventually affirmed Trump's policy.
This video shows Trump comment on the case the moment he heard the news it would be heard by the nation's highest court:
WND previously has reported that Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Trump's position.
"Courts are empowered by the Constitution to resolve cases and controversies, not to issue sweeping policy proclamations or manage the executive branch," Skrmetti said in a statement. "The American people are the ultimate source of authority and legitimacy for every branch of our government, and every court interpreting the Constitution must therefore adhere to the understanding of the voters who adopted the constitutional language.
"Undermining the sovereignty of the American people through judicial overreach threatens to alienate the people from our constitutional system and thereby cause grievous harm to liberty and public order. Our system depends on checks and balances and each branch of government, at both the federal and state levels, is by design intended to push back against overreach by the other branches. That tension between branches is how we prevent the concentration of undue power in any one place and thus keep Americans free. We look forward to the Supreme Court clarifying these fundamental issues and will continue to litigate strategically to advance the interests of Tennessee."
His announcement explained, "According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, over nine million illegal aliens have entered our country in just the past few years. After crossing the border, many illegal aliens have moved into interior states like Tennessee. This voluminous influx has caused significant strain on resources and poses ongoing economic, health, and public safety challenges for Tennessee and many other states. While lax border security in the past caused much of the problem, it was incentivized and compounded by an expansive interpretation of the Citizenship Clause which is not consistent with numerous sources contemporaneous with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment."
It said, "The Supreme Court of the United States has never squarely addressed the scope of the Citizenship Clause, though government actors have for decades operated under the assumption that the clause guarantees birthright citizenship in almost all circumstances."
A decision that the "jurisdiction" clause limits those who are granted U.S. citizenship would be a huge weapon in the arsenal presidents have to protect the integrity of America's borders, the nation's security, and its citizens.
Tennessee's filing supports Trump's application to stay sweeping preliminary injunctions by multiple district courts in cases addressing birthright citizenship.
It stresses that courts should interpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution "in accordance with its original public meaning and should only exercise their judicial power within the confines of specific cases and controversies and consistent with principles of separation of powers."
Trump's Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," is his belief that there should be limits. Otherwise, the practice encourages a thriving "birth tourism" industry where illegals break into the U.S., give birth, then obtain public benefits through the status of that child.
The clause was ratified in 1869 and addressed the infamous Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott that denied citizenship to blacks.
Trump's argument is that the protections of citizenship do not automatically fall on children born of illegal aliens, or those who are in the nation of temporary visas, as there remain questions whether those are "subject to the jurisdiction."
Earlier, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost signed on to a brief supporting Trump's position. He joined 17 other Republican attorneys general to endorse the clarification that children born of illegals inside the United States do not qualify for automatic citizenship.
The states are harmed because such an agenda imposes costs on them.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
More review needed to determine whether climate organizations can take $20 billion from taxpayers
A video of a former employee of the Environmental Protection Agency last year explained how Biden administration officials were trying to hand taxpayer money out to various organizations and foundations very fast, before the administration of President Donald Trump came into office.
The worker said, "It truly feels like we're on the Titanic, and we're throwing like gold bars off the edge."
Now an appeals court has ordered a halt to the tossing.
A report from Washington Examiner said the D.C. Court of Appeals has put on hold an order from Tanya Chutkan, a leftist whose antagonism to President Trump is well-established in the court records, and had issued an order that gave various climate groups access to the funds being held in Citibank.
The appeals court said it wants to review Chutkan's full order before moving on with the dispute, in which the new EPA managers want to terminate some $20 billion in grants, to save taxpayers from those handouts.
"The purpose of this order is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the district court's forthcoming opinion in support of its order granting a preliminary injunction together with the emergency motion for stay pending appeal and any response thereto, and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion," the appeals court said.
That decision is just the latest development in the fight brought on by three climate groups against the EPA. The funding comes from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which was part of Joe Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which even leftists have admitted was not intended to, and did not, reduce inflation.
Climate United official Beth Bafford said her group stands firm "on the merits of our case." Her group, along with Coalition for Green Capital and Power Forward Communities, all sued, demanding delivery of the tax funding they want.
However, Lee Zeldin, appointed to head the EPA under President Trump, explained the grant money was distributed improperly, because it was routed through Citibank.
The funds were frozen and there was an order to cancel the handouts.
Chutkan has tried, through a preliminary injunction, to order Citibank to hand out the money.
Taxpayers could be forced to hand out is $14 billion that the three nonprofits are demanding.
A previous report confirmed that there were many "financial conflicts of interest and billions of questionable expenditures under Biden's EPA."
And House investigators are reviewing the problems.
It was in a letter House Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.; and Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo.; asked Zeldin for a briefing, while also commending Zeldin for identifying waste, fraud and and abuse in the agency.
The report explained, "The letter from Comer and Burlison, the chairman of the Oversight's Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs, seeks more information on the EPA's "allocation of funding resources to outside groups and its novel agreements."
Zeldin has explained the Biden administration parked the $20 billion at Citibank "to distribute climate grants to avoid oversight."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Boasberg says a president can 'clear' the case by returning deportees
A federal judge is threatening President Donald Trump and his administration with criminal contempt charges for removing illegal aliens, those who were also described as members of violent criminal gangs, from America.
The judge had ordered several jetliners carrying the deportees, apparently already in flight, to turn around and bring the criminals back to America, and the administration didn't, as it explained the flights already were in international airspace and the judge had no authority for his order.
Now the judge, James Boasberg, who is well known for his open antagonism toward the president, has unleashed his ire.
He claims to have decided there was "cause" to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for refusing to follow his political ideology.
Boasberg now alleges the administration can "clear" the contempt by following his latest strategy to accommodate illegals, likely members of criminal gangs.
The judge said, "Given the finding of probable cause for contempt set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, the court orders that; {1) if defendants opt to purge their contempt, they shall file by April 23, 2025, a declaration explaining the steps they have taken and will take to do so, and (2) if defendants opt not to purge their contempt, they shall instead file by April 23, 2025, declaration{s} identifying the individual{s} who, with knowledge of the court's classwide temporary restraining order, made the decision not to halt the transfer of class members out of U.S. custody on March 15 and 16, 2025."
The demand for "steps" suggests that the judge is insisting the criminals be brought back to the United States, a move that the president of El Salvador where they now are imprisoned has said, in another similar high-profile case, won't happen.
The judge, in his opinion, said he had decided that the administration's actions were a "willful disregard" for the court.
Of course, the judge has no resources to enforce his "contempt" campaign.
Fox News reported, "The Justice Department could then request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government and, should they decline to prosecute the matter, could 'appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Ruling represents apocalyptic loss for LGBT activists
The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom, which has been at the heart of a lot of left-leaning precedents for citizens there, stunningly has decided that men who say they are female are not "women."
The Telegraph called it a "landmark" ruling and quoted "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling, who has been badgered and bludgeoned by those in the transgender agenda for her criticism of the movement, saying it would protect "the rights of women and girls across the U.K."
It's an apocalyptic loss for the LGBT activists, especially those pushing the transgender agenda, as Joe Biden did for four years while he was president in the United States.
The court ruling, a unanimous decision, said "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not a belief expressed by a male that he is suddenly female. In fact, following the science, changing gender does not happen, as being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level.
The ruling comes in a years-long legal war between campaign group For Women Scotland and the Scottish government over the definition of a woman.
The ruling said, "The unanimous decision of this court is that the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex."
Further, that ruling adopted what President Donald Trump recently, by executive order, concluded about sex in America: It is binary.
He, in fact, said the American government recognizes two genders, male and female.
The UK court's 88-page decision said the "concept of sex is binary" under the Equality Act 2010.
The report noted "Labour Women's Declaration, a gender-critical group, called on Sir Keir Starmer to take concrete action to ensure the judgment is fully reflected in all public sector guidance."
The group said, "The government now needs to instruct all government departments to bring their policies, training and guidance into line with the judgment. The 'clarity and confidence' the ruling brings must also be applied to all positive action initiatives and associations for women within the Labour Party, such as women's branches and committees."
Mermaids, promoters of the transgender lifestyle, claimed the ruling could have "harmful implications."
"We are deeply concerned at the widespread, harmful implications of today's Supreme Court ruling. As LGBT+ organizations across the country, we stand in solidarity with trans, intersex and non-binary folk as we navigate from here…"
Amnesty International claimed, "The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment,' as well as other provisions under the Equality Act."
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pointed out, "Supreme Court rules that a woman is legally defined as … a woman. … Yes, the science was settled in the Precambrian [era]. Nice that the law has finally caught up."
The Scottish Parliament created the disaster in 2018 by adopting quotas for transgenders on public sector boards.
Rowling said, "It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the U.K.. For Women Scotland, I'm so proud to know you."
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said, "Women are women. We didn't need a court to tell us that. But here we are. It took a Supreme Court decision to confirm what we all know: that a piece of paper cannot make a man a woman. For too long the price has been paid by individual women taking action to uphold the law, at great personal cost."
John Swinney, first minister for the Scottish government, said, "The Scottish Government accepts today's Supreme Court judgement. The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions."
The decision even was applauded by organizations for lesbians, who long have sought to exclude males who say they are female.
A statement from Reem Alsalem, the United Nations "special rapporteur" on violence against women and girls, praised the decision.
"It represents the triumph of reason and facts based deliberations and the return of common sense. Congratulations to For Women Scotland and all their allies that have supported them in their quest to uphold the rights of women to equality and non-discrimination. The ruling is a recognition that the erasure of the ordinary meaning of sex in law and in policies has rendered it impossible to upholding the protection [of] women, including lesbians on the basis of the characteristic of sex. Beyond the U.K., I hope other jurisdictions are paying attention to this groundbreaking ruling."
A longtime liberal justice on the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has officially been replaced.
Governor Kevin Stitt (R) handpicked Travis Jett to fill the vacancy left by Justice Yvonne Kauger, who lost a retention election in November.
This is Stitt's fourth Supreme Court appointment, the most of any Republican governor in the state's history.
In Oklahoma, Supreme Court justices are nominated by a judicial commission and appointed by the governor. Justices must then face voters at the end of each of their terms.
Kauger, who was appointed in 1984 by Democrat George Nigh, was voted out last year, becoming the first Supreme Court justice to ever lose retention in the state.
Jett has ties to Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a conservative advocacy group that has called for overhauling the judicial nomination process.
The group has cited research showing that Oklahoma's Supreme Court is much more liberal than the state's voters, who tend to lean conservative.
The Judicial Nominating Commission sent three candidates for Stitt to choose from, including two judges, Donna Dirickson and Jon Parsley. Jett, a private practice lawyer, has never served as a judge before.
“I am humbled and honored by the governor’s trust,” said Jett. “It will be the privilege of a lifetime to serve on our state’s Supreme Court. I will approach my service with thoughtfulness, impartiality, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law.”
The governor's office pointed to Jett's experience as a litigator, with clients including a former governor, the State Board of Education, publicly traded corporations, privately held companies, family farms, and more.
“Travis Jett is a man of integrity, wisdom, and deep respect for the rule of law,” said Governor Stitt. “He brings an impressive legal mind, a servant’s heart, and a wealth of legal experience to our Supreme Court. I am confident he will uphold our Constitution and apply the law fairly and faithfully for Oklahomans."
State Supreme Courts have grabbed more attention in recent years as America's cultural divide has deepened, making Supreme Court elections in some states expensive and overtly partisan affairs.
Jett received praise from Retired Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Steven Taylor, who said he would be "fair and impartial."
"Travis Jett will be a great Justice. Oklahoma can comfortably place total confidence in him to be fair and impartial. He is a leader, experienced and academically gifted. He now makes the life-changing transition from advocating for his clients to serving as a Justice; where he will faithfully uphold the Rule of Law and zealously protect the independence of the Judiciary."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats long have linked threats, specifically the threat of violence, to their opinions about their political foes.
Joe Biden once boasted if younger he would have taken Donald Trump out and beaten him up.
U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer stood in front of the Supreme Court and threatened justices would suffer the consequences if they ruled against his opinion.
The New York Post condemned the party for accepting their supporters' "escalating calls for violence."
That would be to include those protesting on behalf of murder suspect Luigi Mangione, accused of the shooting death of health care executive Brian Thompson.
One leftist message in Denver's protest read, "Hands off or heads off."
The Washington Examiner documented how a new study found that 55% of all self-identifying "liberals" confirm they believe killing President Donald Trump is "a justifiable means of pursuing their political goals."
The report revealed, "This is the fruit of hysteria that Democratic politicians and their allies in the news media have nurtured in their followers for the past eight years. This is a political faction that considers 'misgendering' to be 'literal violence,' but it is one also building an assassination culture."
To that end, comments by George Soros-linked Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner that Trump and his supporters should be "punched in the face as hard as possible" is just one of many.
But a report in the Daily Wire confirms it's likely to rebound politically.
"The Republican Party of Pennsylvania told The Daily Wire on Monday that it asked the Justice Department to investigate Krasner over his March suggestion that Trump and his supporters were 'fascists' who needed to be 'punched,'" the report said.
Krasner is running for his third term in office, but Pennsylvania GOP spokesman Greg Rothman told the DOJ, "Violence and threats are never acceptable, but they are particularly egregious when used as a political tool targeting the President of the United States of America and his supporters."
The letter, obtained by the Daily Wire, said, "The safety of President Trump, Republicans, and the integrity of our American republic rely on threats like District Attorney Krasner's being investigated and, if appropriate, punished to the fullest extent of the law."
The letter suggested the investigation could focus on whether Krasner made a "potential criminal threat" against Trump.
Krasner, making the challenged comments, had fallen back on a common Democrat talking point: Trump and Republicans are Nazis.
He said, "Trump likes crime. Fascists like crime. Right-wing Republican MAGA people like crime and they like it because it gins up a crisis that doesn't have to be, which allows them to scapegoat different groups of marginalized people so they can eliminate our rights. This is a very old playbook.
"I know exactly where we need to be with this one: loud, proud, standing up and in their faces. These are fundamentally fascists, and it will not do us any good to try to appease them. They are bullies who need to be punched in the face as hard as possible, and that is the only way that all the people around us who are so frightened will understand they can stand up, too."
Tellingly, amid Democrat calls for violence, there have been two assassination attempts against Trump and at least one against a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Texas Supreme Court Justice Jeff Boyd will retire this year, leaving an opening for Republican Governor Greg Abbott to fill.
Abbott, who was a state Supreme Court justice before becoming governor, has appointed six of the nine justices on the top court.
Boyd has deep ties to the state's Republicans, having worked for Governor Rick Perry as a chief of staff and general counsel before the governor appointed him to the Supreme Court in 2012.
In the early 2000s, Boyd worked under Texas' then- attorney general John Cornyn, now a U.S. senator facing a primary challenge from current attorney general Ken Paxton.
Supreme Court elections in Texas are partisan and for six-year terms. Boyd won re-election in 2014 and 2020.
Governor Abbott will appoint a placeholder, who would need to be confirmed by the Texas Senate.
Boyd, who was educated at Abilene Christian University and graduated summa cum laude from Pepperdine University School of Law, announced his retirement with a quote from Scripture.
"There is a season for every activity under the heavens," he wrote on X.
“I am honored and blessed to have served on the Texas Supreme Court these past 12 years," he continued in a statement.
"I’m especially grateful to Governor Rick Perry for appointing me to the Court in 2012, to the many Texans who have encouraged, supported, and voted for me through two statewide elections, to my many Court and campaign colleagues and co-workers for their friendship and inspiration, and to my wife Jackie and our children for reminding me daily of life’s most important blessings."
"It’s now time to let another take the helm. I will not be running for re-election in 2026 and will retire from the Court this summer, near the end of its current annual term. May God continue to bless Texas and this honorable Court.”
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock called Boyd a "model of integrity, impartiality and diligence.”
“His sharp insights and thorough analysis have shaped and strengthened the opinions of the Court, and his abundant good humor around the office have made him a beloved friend and mentor to Justices and staff alike,” Blacklock said. “Justice Boyd leaves the Supreme Court, and the law of our great State, better than he found it.”
Texas has two separate top courts. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal on civil matters, while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals handles criminal cases.