This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A corporation wants to build a Muslim community in Texas, and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is asking for a Department of Justice investigation to find out if there are violations of federal laws involved in the scheme.
The plan for the project, led by the East Plano Islamic Center in Josephine, Texas, is for the community to have single-family homes, townhomes, apartments, a mosque, a K-12 faith-based school, assisted living, and other things. And it would cater to Muslims.
In a letter to the DOJ, Cornyn asked for an investigation into whether the plans would violate the constitutional rights of Jewish and Christian residents by "prohibiting them from living in the community and discriminating against them."
The senator wrote to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and said, "Religious discrimination, whether explicit or implicit, is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of our nation's values, and I am concerned this community potentially undermines this vital protection."
According to a report in the Washington Examiner, the plan already has been investigated at the request of Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Paxton, but it was unclear what those results included.
Abbott, at one point, said, "To be clear, Sharia law is not allowed in Texas. Nor are Sharia cities."
At a recent public hearing on the plan, Texas resident Brandon Burder explained, "I have very grave concerns about the EPIC City project. First of all, under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, all citizens of the United States have the same right to purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real estate. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1968, known as the Fair Housing Act, Congress passed a law prohibiting discrimination in housing based on race, color, national origin, or religion."
Project planners said they would abide by the Fair Housing Act, but also, "will conduct thorough individualized assessments of prospective buyers to ensure they align with our goals of safety and security."
The project earlier had stated, online, that it would "limit sales to only persons we believe will contribute to the overall makeup of our community and are legally eligible to invest and buy property in the United States."
Cornyn was blunt, in his letter, stating, "I am concerned that the Center, through its for-profit affiliated entity, is attempting to create an enclave that will discriminate on the basis of religion, and, further, is hiding this intent from the public."
County planners have not yet been given the paperwork needed to start an evaluation.
But the facts are that there are "no-go" zones across the United Kingdom, where Muslims have moved in, essentially taking over local governments, and making the regions unfriendly to anyone not a Muslim.
North Carolina’s state Supreme Court ruled Friday that the majority of ballots cast in the 2024 election must be counted despite missing information, The Hill reported. The 4-2 ruling is a blow to the GOP candidate's challenge to the election but could still sway it in his favor.
The case centers on nearly 60,000 ballots cast in the race for Supreme Court justice in the state. The Republican candidate, Justice Jefferson Griffin, was only a few hundred votes behind Democratic Justice Allison Riggs in the November 2024 race.
Thousands of ballots were submitted without required information, such as driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers, in the extremely close race. A lower court had determined that ballots missing key identifiers should be thrown out altogether.
While the state Supreme Court technically ruled in favor of the Democrat, this decision could help Griffin. The voters who cast the ballots must provide the missing information to identify themselves, or their votes will not count.
The high court found that problems with registrations shouldn't disenfranchise voters. "Under this Court’s longstanding precedent, mistakes made by negligent election officials in registering citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote will not deprive the citizens of their right to vote or render their vote void after they have been cast," the court's decision said.
Still, Michael Purser, director of data science at Decision Desk HQ, described the scenario that would give the race to Griffin. "Friday afternoon, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck a blow to Justice Allison Riggs, paving the way for challenger Jefferson Griffin to eventually win November's election (in June)," Pruser posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday.
He noted that voters, including military personnel serving overseas via the Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, "would be given 30 calendar days to do so or have their ballots thrown out." Pruser also noted that the appeals court directed a subset of these ballots to be thrown out completely, which Friday's decision also confirmed.
"The court also left in place the appeals court decision to toss 273 UOCAVA ballots because these voters have never lived in North Carolina and were deemed ineligible to vote in non-Federal races," he went on. Pruser believes if Riggs can't successfully appeal this decision, Griffin has a good chance of winning.
Friday afternoon, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck a blow to Justice Allison Riggs, paving the way for challenger Jefferson Griffin to eventually win November's election (in June).
The high state court ruled that the 60,000+ ballots lacking proper registration details… pic.twitter.com/1RX87SmZD1
— Michael Pruser (@MichaelPruser) April 12, 2025
It's likely that many of the votes tossed will be from military personnel because of the particulars of the ruling. Riggs objected on those grounds to the court's decision in a statement Friday, NC Newsline reported.
"I’m the proud daughter of a 30-year military veteran who was deployed overseas, and it is unacceptable that the Court is choosing to selectively disenfranchise North Carolinians serving our country, here and overseas," Riggs said. She added that she was "gratified" by the decision to keep the votes, but noted it was "an attack on the fundamental freedoms" of "military members and their families."
North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein also railed against the decision. "The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that certain active duty military voters serving our nation must jump through hoops that other voters don’t," he posted to X.
"All voters have a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law — it is foundational to our democracy. It’s unconscionable, and this decision cannot stand," Stein added.
This issue is complex and encompasses many problems that arise due to modern voting methods. The high court's decision seems to have fallen favorably for the GOP, but this remains a close race at the ballot box and in the courts.
President Donald Trump continues fighting multiple legal battles, mostly against activist federal judges who are working overtime to stop the president from exercising his executive authority.
According to Breitbart, that was evidenced once again this week as an Obama-appointed federal judge "blocked the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan migrants with temporary protected status (TPS) after it was revoked."
The ruling is the latest in efforts to wage "lawfare" against Trump and his administration on the deportation front, and on his broader immigration policies.
It came in the wake of the Trump administration's removal of TPS from nearly 500,000 immigrants, which was granted under former President Joe Biden.
Trump's order to remove the temporary status from the half-million immigrants also came with a warning from the Department of Homeland Security. DHS warned that those affected had 30 days to "self-deport" or face the prospect of federal authorities hunting them down and doing it for them.
"DHS has determined that a 30-day wind-down period provides affected parties sufficient notice while also preserving DHS’s ability to enforce the law promptly against those CHNV parolees lacking a lawful basis to remain in the United States," the DHS notice read.
It added, "Accordingly, DHS is opting not to increase the wind-down period to more than 30 days."
It didn't take long for a Democrat-appointed federal judge to step in and temporarily quash the order.
Breitbart reported:
Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts ruled Thursday that she would issue a stay on the order, which was set to cancel the TPS for approximately 532,000 migrants on April 24, the Associated Press reported.
"The nub of the problem here is that the secretary, in cutting short the parole period afforded to these individuals, has to have a reasoned decision," the judge said in her ruling.
She added, "There was a deal and now that deal has been undercut."
Users across social media, on both sides, had plenty to say about the judge's ruling.
"O'bummer appointed activist judge," one X user pointed out.
Another X user wrote, "Ah yes Indira Talwani another foreigner judge acting like the president."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As part of President Donald Trump's agenda to make America more secure, he's been deporting those individuals, including students, who create issues in communities or on university campuses that the government fears may be a threat.
One such individual is Mahmoud Khalil, who was part of a protest group at Columbia University advocating for Palestinians in Gaza and against the nation of Israel's military actions to defend itself after the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre of hundreds of Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists from Gaza.
He was ordered deported earlier for his role in confrontations with school officials in which students demanded they cut ties with Israel and divest from Israeli companies, and a groundswell among leftists protested.
Now a judge has ruled that he can be deported, based on Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination that Khalil's presence in the U.S. "would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest."
A report from ABC said the judge found the deportation is allowed "on grounds that he threatens foreign policy," as alleged by the Trump administration.
The report said his supporters were stunned, and the case could imply ramifications for other international students who have been involved in such protests, violent or not.
The judge did allow Khalil's lawyers until April 23 to file applications for relief. Absent such a ruling, a deportation order would be issued.
Khalil is a green card holder and permanent legal resident who is married to an American citizen. His lawyer, Amol Sinha, told the court, "Today's ruling is a rush to judgment on baseless charges that the government presented no evidence to substantiate because no evidence exists. Our client, Mr. Khalil, has been unlawfully detained in direct retaliation for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights. This finding of removability is a dangerous departure from the fundamental freedoms at the bedrock of our nation that protect free speech under the First Amendment."
The report noted, "Rubio wrote that Khalil should be deported because of his alleged role in 'antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.'"
In fact, the situation has gotten so severe at some pro-Hamas protests around the country that Jewish students have been prevented from utilizing the campus where they attend classes.
Khalil also talked to the judge, Jamee Comans, charging, "I would like to quote what you said last time that there's nothing that's more important to this court than due process rights and fundamental fairness. Clearly what we witnessed today, neither of these principles was present today or in this whole process. This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, 1,000 miles away from my family. I just hope that the urgency that you deemed fit for me is afforded to the hundreds of others who have been here without hearing for months."
A separate deportation case still is pending in New Jersey, which now apparently will keep Khalil from being deported soon.
The government has explained under the Immigration and Nationality Act, it believes migrants are deportable "if the secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe that the alien's presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States."
A judge has refused to dismiss a defamation case against President Donald Trump brought by the so-called Central Park Five, Newsweek reported. Trump repeated accusations about the men Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise, who had their 1989 conviction overturned decades later.
The group was convicted of brutally raping Central Park jogger Trisha Meili after offering their confessions to police. The initial crime made headlines for its brutality among those allegedly involved, as did their later dismissal.
Trump, a New Yorker, was incensed over the crime and urged the city to "bring back the death penalty" in a full-page New York Daily News ad at the time. Trump doubled down on them during his 2016 campaign, though by then, the courts had already overturned their conviction.
Trump said that "they admitted they were guilty" and "the police doing the original investigation say they were guilty." Trump made similar remarks again in the 2024 election during a debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
During the debate, Harris goaded Trump about the full-page ad to smear his tough-on-crime image. "They come up with things like what she just said going back many, many years when a lot of people, including Mayor Bloomberg, agreed with me on the Central Park Five," Trump pointed out.
He said the five men "admitted—they said, they pled guilty, and I said, well, if they pled guilty, they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately. And if they pled guilty—then they pled we're not guilty," Trump incorrectly recalled.
Based on these statements, Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that she would not dismiss the case on the grounds that he was sharing an opinion. Because Trump's statements "can be 'objectively determined' to be false," his claims "must be construed as one of fact, not opinion," the judge wrote in her decision.
"The Defendant, in his briefs, urges the Court to contextualize the statement as a response to Harris's statement sixty seconds before and to interpret the statement as his recollections of why he placed the 1989 ad. Before addressing that point, however, as an initial matter it is necessary to determine exactly on what portions of the statement Plaintiffs premise their claims," Beetlestone went on.
"Given that Defendant's communications were reasonably capable of conveying the particular meaning ascribed to them by the plaintiff, the next question is 'whether that meaning is defamatory in character,'" she later added. The only point Beetlestone gave to Trump was that the plaintiffs did not prove they endured "severe emotional distress and reputation damage" from his statements.
Although the Central Park Five had their case dismissed, conservative commentator Ann Coulter believes there are more questions about their involvement. In her October 2024 substack post, Coulter contended that this lawsuit might actually be a net negative for them.
"I'm not sure the Central Park Five really want a civil trial on what happened the night of April 19, 1989, but by suing Donald Trump for defamation, that's what they're going to get," she wrote. Coulter pointed out that many troubling facts were never explained away despite the dismissal.
"This is a wonderful opportunity to prove the truth in a court of law! They asked for it," She added. Coulter made the case that the accused then-teenagers admitted to being in the park, and some even admitted they had a role in victimizing Meili.
Their confessions were videotaped, with some of the boys' parents present, before Meili had even awoken from a coma. "Weren't the detectives worried that if they bullied five innocent boys into making false confessions, the jogger might suddenly emerge from her coma and be able to identify her attackers? What if she woke up and blurted out, “My boyfriend did it!”?" Coulter pointed out.
The fact that this case will continue on may shed some light on what really happened that night. If nothing else, it's another chance for Trump to clear his name against people who have tried anything they can to get to him.
The Trump administration has pushed a California judge to recuse herself from a suit concerning immigration and someone she was formerly affiliated with.
Aracelia Martinez-Olguin previously served as the managing attorney for the plaintiff, Community Legal Services, according to a report by The Washington Free Beacon.
Olguin, who is now a federal judge in San Francisco, ruled that the Trump administration should restore funding to the tune of $769 million for a federal program that provided legal services for illegal immigrants.
The Biden administration appointee was previously the lead attorney for the case plaintiffs.
The administration asserts that her past work for the plaintiff in the case is a "concerning conflicts of interest that has created a serious appearance of impropriety."
In addition to her actual affiliation with the group with which she ruled, Olguin also has a history of harsh opinions for President Donald Trump over his immigration policies.
The judge previously worked as an attorney for the nonprofit law firm in question, and as part of her day-to-day responsibilities, she represented many of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
the Department of Justice cited those facts when calling on Olguin to recuse herself from the case that it would appear she has a strong vested interest in, and dissolve her ruling demanding that the Trump admin fund her former employers.
"A reasonable person would likely question Judge Martínez-Olguín’s impartiality, and accordingly, recusal is required," wrote Department of Justice attorneys.
Olguin co-founded the Immigrants' Rights Project at CLSEPA in 2017 and worked there until 2018. During that time, she "identified issues for local or state policy advocacy and impact litigation."
While at CLSEPA, Martinez-Olguin advocated for a taxpayer-funded program to offer legal assistance to undocumented immigrants with San Mateo County officials.
CLSEPA is one of 11 subcontractors who brought suit against the Trump administration, asking that funding be restored for the legal services that CLSEPA and others offer to minors found at the broader without guardians.
Before she was confirmed in 2023, Olguin also worked for the National Immigration Law Center, representing plaintiffs in similar cases.
In it's court filings, CLSEPA said federal money "is one of our primary sources of funding for our immigration work," and makes up 15 % of the organization’s immigration cases budget.
Should the government funding be upheld, "CLSEPA will need to find another source of funding to continue representing our clients," CLSEPA attorney Martha Ruch said in last month's court filing.
From mass deportations to mass layoffs, President Trump is fighting to defend a series of sweeping actions in the federal court system. After a string of setbacks from "activist" judges, Trump started to catch a break this week from the highest court in the land.
In a reversal, the Supreme Court blocked a lower court order forcing Trump to hire back 16,000 probationary federal workers.
Two of the liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, would have kept the reinstatement order in place.
The court's brief, unsigned opinion noted that the plaintiffs, a coalition of public sector unions and non-profit organizations, do not have standing to bring the case. The federal workers themselves are not part of the lawsuit.
“The [California] District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing,” the unsigned order read.
“This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary injunction.”
The Supreme Court's ruling offers Trump a reprieve from the flood of court injunctions that has jammed up much of his agenda. The administration has repeatedly complained about overreach from federal judges who are stepping on the president's executive authority.
Trump's purge of the federal workforce has sparked an outcry among Democrats and public sector unions, which comprise a strongly Democratic constituency. An appointee of President Clinton, Judge William Alsup, called Trump's firings a "sham" and ordered Trump to hire back employees at a number of federal agencies.
“There is no doubt that thousands of public service employees were unlawfully fired in an effort to cripple federal agencies and their crucial programs that serve millions of Americans every day,” the plaintiffs said in a statement responding to the Supreme Court's decision.
A day after the Supreme Court's intervention, a Virginia appeals court sided with Trump in a separate challenge to his firings.
A divided panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled James Bredar, an Obama appointee. The appeals court found the Democratic attorneys general who brought the case did not have standing.
Trump also scored significant wins on immigration this week, with the Supreme Court approving his use of the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport suspected gang members.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has been a critic of Joe Biden's demolition of the nation's border security ever since it happened.
That was when the Democrat took office in 2021, after Trump's first term, in which he cracked down on the rampant flood of illegal aliens, started assembling a massive border wall, and more.
Biden went the other direction, canceling all of Trump's nation-protecting plans, even setting up special programs to facilitate illegals' access to America, and then providing them special protections after they arrived.
Evidence subsequently confirmed even terrorists took advantage of Biden's agenda.
And that scenario has prompted a harsh verdict from Trump, now in his second term and working again to secure the nation. The president spoke Tuesday at the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in Washington, D.C.
He pointed out how Democrats now are not afraid that his America-first policies will fail, but that "they'll succeed."
Trump noted his party, the Republican Party, is "going to get bigger and stronger and better," so he's looking forward to the coming midterm elections.
He said the results will show Democrats "their years of treasonous betrayal will not be forgotten."
"What they did is treason. When they allowed millions of people to pour in through open borders from all over the world, they came. To me that's treason," he said.
Comments were documented by Twitchy, which said, "He also called out former President Joe Biden (or whoever was actually in charge) and other Democrats for the 4-year illegal alien invasion at our southern border. Trump called it 'treason.'"
One social media statement said, "I agree. I cannot fathom that anyone could do what they have done. The trafficking, the lethal drugs, the crime, the cost. It has to be addressed. Maybe they can't get Joe, but he needs to know what we know."
Another called for "every one of them prosecuted!"
For the second time in two days, a higher court has put on hold a decision that would have employed thousands of government workers who were fired en mass at the recommendation of the Department of Government Efficiency.
The legal effect of this ruling is that thousands of probationary workers are once again at risk of being out of a job due to government downsizing, as Fox News reported.
A three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals briefly overturned a Maryland judge's order that agencies in 19 states and the District of Columbia had to hire back their workers. The vote was 2-1 in favor of the Trump administration.
The majority thought it was likely that the government would be able to show that the Maryland district court did not have the power to hear the states' claims that federal agencies had engaged in an illegal Reduction in Force (RIF).
The decision comes just the day after the Supreme Court issued a different stay that had a similar effect on a California court's decision that forced some agencies to bring back probationary workers who had been fired.
On Tuesday, the high court put the preliminary stay on hold while claims of illegal firing go through the appeals process. The order was not signed, but it was made public, impacting the government's response.
In the Maryland case, however, Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin said she would have let the preliminary order stay in place, which was keeping the affected probationary workers from being fired.
“The states clearly have standing to challenge the process by which the government has engaged in mass firings,” she wrote in a dissent. “I see no reason to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction pending its appeal.”
Although court orders barring agencies from large-scale probationary worker terminations are on pause, this week's verdicts are not the end of the Maryland or California cases.
In the Maryland case, which alleges the government engaged in RIFs without the required notice to the states, the Fourth Circuit is rushing to hear full arguments on whether the preliminary injunction was legal.
In California, the court is considering issuing a new preliminary injunction to fight the Supreme Court's order from Tuesday.
The justices found that outside organizations harmed by the mass firings lacked standing to sue, but left open the possibility that other plaintiffs, including federal unions, could win an injunction.
On Wednesday, Judge William Alsup of the San Francisco Superior Court heard arguments concerning the standing of the unions to sue and obtain a second injunction.
He delayed a ruling until attorneys in the case provided more information, including data on how many employees were affected by the mass terminations, what their relationships are with the union plaintiffs, and possible evidence that the agencies' firing decisions were made at the Office of Personnel Management's request.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Federal district judges across the nation, at the behest of leftists who oppose President Donald Trump and go judge-shopping for the best ruling they can get, have been extremely liberal in their use of nationwide injunctions to try to stop the president's plans.
But the Supreme Court's decision that James Boasberg's decision from his Washington court bench that Trump was not allowed to deport criminal illegal aliens was simply irrelevant is being considered a slapdown to federal judges and their overreach agenda.
Just the News reports the Trump administration has endured a record number of temporary restraining orders against its policies, with low-level federal judges imposing their own political ideas with vast orders and restrictions.
"The Department of Justice has repeatedly urged the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of federal injunctions or to clarify the extent of lower court judges' authority to interfere in executive branch operations," the report said. And in fact some justices on the high court have said the issue needs to be addressed.
This week's 5-4 decision by the justices opted to overturn Boasberg's order halting Trump's enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act and it went much further, declaring Washington was an inappropriate venue for the case even to be heard.
That's because the gang members' detentions are in Texas.
The court did say that the gang members need to be given timely notification and be allowed to challenge their removals.
They wrote, "For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today's order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement."
The report noted Texas is in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction, one of the most conservative courts across the country, and those courts are expected to be receptive to Trump's plan to secure America by removing criminal illegal aliens.
The provision for due process, however, likely will slow down the process.
Chief Justice John Roberts also blocked another order from Boasberg, who demanded that Trump bring back to America an illegal alien who was deported.
The ruling regarding deportations explained Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., "provides only a temporary reprieve in one case among many where partisan federal district court judges are throwing up roadblocks to frustrate President Trump's efforts to honor his campaign promise to secure the border and deport illegal immigrants."
He called for the Supreme Court to do "far more" to put a leash on radical liberal judges who are presuming to take over portions of the responsibilities of the Executive Branch of the American government.
Added Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, "[I]t looks like SCOTUS will rule that Trump has broad substantive power to deport but he must exercise that power within due process constraints."
The report said the ruling was one of the first actions to "chastise" district judges for their overreach, and the forum shopping done by leftist groups bringing cases. The cases have covered handing out taxpayer cash to wildly inappropriate causes, dismissing federal workers, realigning agency responsibilities, securing America's borders, and much, much more.
The Trump administration has called out those courts for issuing "more universal injunctions and TROs" in one month than the total issued during the first three years of the administration of Joe Biden.
"That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this court's emergency docket," acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris explained.
The report said the latest rulings could indicate how the justices may address some other appeals.
The Supreme Court already has acknowledged the scheme of leftists hunting down leftist judges for favorable rulings.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito, on a ruling from a lower court that demanded Trump continue handing out taxpayer cash through USAID programs, said, "Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned."
Boasberg, meanwhile, has canceled a planned hearing he was going to hold in the case of the illegal aliens deported under the federal AEA law. He said, after the Supreme Court ruling, that the appropriate venue is Texas, where the suspects are held.