U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell has concluded that the $500 million U.S. Institute of Peace headquarters may be transferred to the General Services Administration at no cost, Wired reported. This was decided even as legal battles continued.
The fight over the building came after the Department of Government Efficiency dismissed 10 USIP board members on March 14. When DOGE workers tried to enter the building, the USIP staffers physically prevented it.
Since then, DOGE received a physical key and took over the space, which Howell has acknowledged in the decision not to stop them at the moment. "Ambiguity persists given the paucity of apposite law regarding USIP's proper classification as an ‘independent establishment’ or ‘Government corporation’ that rests outside of or within the executive branch and whether it qualifies as an agency," she wrote.
However, the judge indicated there would be further review and had previously denied USIP's request to reinstate the board. "This issue will be more fully addressed in the expedited summary judgment briefing being prepared by the parties," Howell said.
As of Saturday, the building and its contents were turned over to the GSA. Howell's decision Tuesday took that fact into account, though it doesn't mean it's a final determination of what's to become of the property.
"The deal is no longer merely ‘proposed’ but done, rendering plaintiffs’ requested relief moot as to that property," Howell wrote. This is a measured approach, but USIP general counsel George Foote took issue with Howell's rationale.
"That’s like letting a burglar break into your house, steal your TV, and have the court say, well, there’s no TV to adjudicate, so I can’t do anything about it," he said. However, USIP was the party in the wrong when staffers engaged in a standoff after being ordered out.
According to Fox News, President Donald Trump's executive order in February demanded that USIP, which was established in 1984 and funded by Congress, would have to cut staff to a bare minimum. After refusing to do so, the Trump administration moved as it had warned.
"Rogue bureaucrats will not be allowed to hold agencies hostage. The Trump administration will enforce the president’s executive authority and ensure his agencies remain accountable to the American people," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said.
Amid the row over the building and contents, another issue has emerged regarding what the USIP was doing, according to the Washington Times. In an exchange on X, formerly Twitter, a user posted a headline claiming that a USIP contract for $1.3 million went to "Taliban and Iraqi leaders" for Iraqi League for Youth.
This implied that the USIP was funding America's enemies, though there was no evidence given to back it up. However, Elon Musk, the outgoing head of DOGE, further insinuated that the agency covered its tracks.
"They deleted a terabyte of financial data to cover their crimes, but they don’t understand technology, so we recovered it," Musk posted. It remains to be seen if any of this is verified to date.
They deleted a terabyte of financial data to cover their crimes, but they don’t understand technology, so we recovered it 🙄
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 1, 2025
The pushback against DOGE is at a fever pitch as Musk seeks to streamline the government. These employees at USIP and other taxpayer-funded government agencies are used to their cushy jobs and bloated salaries, and they won't give up without a fight.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The justices on the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case that would allow states to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion corporation.
It now gets an estimated $700 million in taxpayer money each year, which has prompted a variety of protests over the possibility that taxes are being used for abortion, or to support the company's structure that promotes abortion.
Oral arguments were heard in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and concerns a decision by Gov. Henry McMaster, of South Carolina, to disqualify abortion providers from state Medicaid reimbursement programs.
It's significant because a ruling on behalf of the state could open the door for other states to make the same move.
The Washington Examiner reported that the issue wasn't clearly decided from comments made by the justices, as the leftists on the court clearly were advocating for Planned Parenthood, while others were harder to read.
"The future of state Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood remains uncertain following an intense oral argument session before the Supreme Court on Wednesday," the report said.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and one woman, Julie Edwards, sued over the governor's order, claiming the federal Medicaid statute guarantees access to "any qualified and willing provider."
But the state has explained it retains the authority to determine what counts as "qualified."
Much of the argument was over whether patients have a legal standing to sue because they are not allowed to pick one "provider" when a multitude of others are available.
Lawyer John Bursch, arguing for the state, explained the Medicaid Act does not create a private right of action, and the responsibility for enforcement rests with the Department of Health and Human Serivces.
Abortion lawyer Nicole Saharsky claimed Medicaid provides "a very individual choice."
Bursch told reporters outside the court that he was confident in the case.
"The Justices seemed to get the point that we were making, which is that Congress creates rights enforceable in federal court only when it uses clear, explicit language in the statute, and that provision that we're talking about today simply doesn't have that," said Bursch.
He suggested there were several justices open to the state's arguments.
Elena Kagan, one of the leftist justices, claimed that the state is required to ensure people "have a right to choose their doctor."
A decision could come as early as June.
The federal Hyde Amendment already bars direct federal funding of abortions, but critics note any government cash frees up the other cash abortionists have for abortion.
The legal team at Liberty Counsel, which has worked on a multitude of cases involving tax funding for abortion, said states are charged with protecting consumers from harm, and "also have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not funneled to repeat offenders and bad actors."
The organization pointed out that the Center for Medical Progress, which involved client Sandra Merritt, made undercover videos that "exposed shocking abuses against women and children and clear violations of multiple state and federal laws." One of those videos showed an abortionist insisting on more money for the body parts of unborn children, because, "I want a Lamborghini."
It noted South Carolina also approved a Heartbeat Law, which protects unborn children from abortion after six weeks.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'To engage in conduct that advises anyone to defy court orders and kidnap their child would be contrary to our biblical, Christian, and professional ethics'
A legal fight has involved nine years in the courts. And 25 depositions. And 186,000 documents. And 6,800 pages of transcripts.
And the conclusion from a federal judge is that Liberty Counsel, a prominent legal team that routinely works on a multitude of civil and religious rights issues, had no involvement in a lesbian's fight over custody of a child.
Judge William K. Sessions III ruled that Liberty Counsel did not "engage in, aid, or abet any conspiracy" over a situation that developed when one woman, Lisa Miller, left the lesbian lifestyle choice, and took with her her child.
The other half of the duo, Janet Jenkins, sued over custody of the child and Miller was represented for a time by Liberty Counsel.
Then, however, things took a strange turn, resulting in Jenkins' lawsuit, to which she, years later, added Liberty Counsel, demanding the stunning sum of $200 billion in damages.
Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver explained, "Liberty Counsel never did anything wrong and this ruling is a complete and total exoneration. To engage in conduct that advises anyone to defy court orders and kidnap their child would be contrary to our biblical, Christian, and professional ethics. This frivolous lawsuit by the Southern Poverty Law Center was pure lawfare designed to destroy Liberty Counsel. The truth has prevailed."
The unusual circumstances developed during a time when leftists still were assembling their program for same-sex marriage, a status later granted in a questionable ruling, by the U.S. Supreme Court.
At the time, before the Supreme Court ruled, Miller and Jenkins entered into a "civil union" in Vermont. Then Miller dissolved that civil union, but the courts awarded Jenkins rights to a then 2-year-old girl as a "legal parent" and gave her visitation.
Miller complied for a time, but then the child reported abuse.
The Liberty Counsel involvement happened when Miller dissolved her union to Jenkins and moved to Virginia, where the fight put the laws of Virginia, which did not recognize civil unions, against the laws of Vermont, which did.
"The Vermont court eventually ordered visitation rights to Jenkins. Miller complied until Isabella complained of abuse," Liberty Counsel explained.
However, while legal cases were under way in two states, Miller "suddenly fled with Isabella to Nicaragua. When Liberty Counsel became aware, it informed the court and sought to withdraw from the case," the report said.
The legal team explained it was a "complete and total victory" in the civil case that "falsely alleged Liberty Counsel advised a former client to flee … ."
Lawyer Rena Lindevaldsen had been added to the lawsuit by Jenkins at the same time Liberty Counsel was added, and the ruling from the judge exonerated her, too.
Further, Sessions noted the lawsuit also was barred by the statute of limitations.
Other people eventually were identified as having helped Miller flee with her daughter, and they were indicted.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – The father of high-profile Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre is speaking out upon learning his daughter claims she has "four days to live" after being hit by a school bus, leaving her with kidney renal failure.
"I'm sick to my stomach. I feel like crying because I love my daughter more than life," Sky Roberts told the Daily Mail from his Florida home.
"If there's anything I could do, I'd do it."
Roberts was reacting to a disturbing Sunday night Instagram post from Giuffre, who wrote:
"This year has been the worst start to a new year, but I won't bore anyone with the details but I think it important to note that when a school bus driver comes at you driving 110km as we were slowing for a turn that no matter what your car is made of it might as well be a tin can.
"I've gone into kidney renal failure, they've given me four days to live, transferring me to a specialist hospital in urology. I'm ready to go, just not until I see my babies one last time, but you know what they say about wishes.
"S**T in one hand and wish in the other & I guarantee it's still going to be s**t at the end of the day. Thank you all for being the wonderful people of the world and for being a great part of my life. Godbless you all."
Her post was somewhat mysterious, as it included no date or location of the incident.
Roberts also told the Daily Mail: "She's in really bad shape. She's very depressed … there's everything else she's been going through with the divorce and not being able to see her kids."
He said his son is "trying to get her spirits up so she doesn't just give up."
"I'm hoping she can hang on," he said.
"She's only 41. She's got a lot of life to live. She's got a lot of things left to do – she's helping people and helping other girls."
Roberts indicated he feels helpless being stuck at his home in Florida, without the funds needed to go to Australia to be with Virginia at this crucial time.
"There's nothing I can do from here," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A radiologist who voiced, to state lawmakers, his personal objections to the damage inflicted on children, including bodily mutilations, by transgender "treatments," and was dismissed from a state board over his beliefs, is taking his fight over free speech to an appeals court.
"The record in this case is clear: [Wyoming] Governor Gordon fired Dr. [Eric] Cubin from the Wyoming Board of Medicine because he spoke out on legislation," explained Jacob Huebert, of the Liberty Justice Center. "There was no valid justification for the governor's retaliation. It violated Dr. Cubin's First Amendment rights, so we're asking the court to order the Governor to restore Dr. Cubin to his position."
The fight now is pending before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in the leftist enclave of Denver.
The legal team explained the case is about Cubin's 2024 email to members of the Wyoming House of Representatives, written in his personal capacity.
He endorsed Senate File 99, "Chloe's Law," which prohibits gender reassignment surgeries and hormone therapy for minors. It was easily adopted by the legislature and even signed by Gordon.
"However, just one month later after signing the bill, Gov. Gordon terminated Dr. Cubin from the Wyoming Board of Medicine, explicitly citing his email to the legislature as the reason," the lawyers explained.
He had been appointed in 2023 to the board that oversees medical regulation, compliance, and discipline in the state.
Cubin's letter had expressed his personal endorsement of the law and he criticized the Wyoming Medical Society for opposing the bill "without adequately representing the views of its members," the report said.
Even so, Gordon forced Cubin's resignation from the board, insisting that it "created the 'appearance of bias'" and could give the impression that he was speaking on the board's behalf.
Liberty Justice Center sued on Cubin's behalf and now has moved the case to the 10th Circuit, following a rejection of the case by a federal court in Wyoming.
Many medical organizations, up to and including the American Medical Association, have supported the ideology that involves giving chemicals to patients who have gender dysphoria, even doing mutilating surgeries on healthy body parts, because of their mental condition.
President Donald Trump's administration is petitioning the Supreme Court to allow dangerous illegal alien gang members to be deported under the Alien Enemies Act, Breitbart reported. This would allow the administration to rid American cities of hundreds of MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gang members.
Trump already designated the gangs, which originated in South America, as terrorist organizations. Now his administration wants to take it a step further to get these savage criminals out of the U.S.
The president has been forced to ask the high court to intervene after a lower court issued an injunction against deporting these deranged criminals. Judge James Boasberg imposed a temporary restraining order on the administration.
NEW: Trump adm asks SCOTUS to vacate Boasberg’s orders related to Alien Enemies Act. DC appellate court on Wednesday denied Trump’s request to lift the orders. pic.twitter.com/G9J2l7KEaB
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 28, 2025
Deporting people who are in the country illegally and part of a dangerous street gang is a service to American citizens. However, leftists simply couldn't bear it when the administration organized two deportation flights headed for a prison in El Salvador, and the judge agreed to stop it.
The Trump administration asked for an immediate stay on this decision in its filing Friday. "At a minimum, the Acting Solicitor General respectfully requests that this Court grant an administrative stay while it considers the government’s submission," the filing noted.
"The district court’s flawed orders threaten the government’s sensitive negotiations with foreign powers. And as long as the orders remain in force, the United States is unable to rely on the Proclamation to remove dangerous affiliates with a foreign terrorist organization—even if the United States receives indications that particular TdA members are about to take destabilizing or infiltrating actions," it went on.
"And the court’s orders are likely to be extended by another two weeks, based on respondents’ recent submissions to the district court. In these circumstances, an administrative stay is warranted while this Court assesses the government’s entitlement to vacatur," the court document added.
"This Court should vacate the district court’s orders. In addition, the Acting Solicitor General respectfully requests an immediate administrative stay of the district court’s orders pending the Court’s consideration of this application," it said.
It's difficult to argue against deporting people who are actively harmful to American citizens. Yet leftists have done just that, including Appeals Court Judge Patricia Millett.
When the Trump administration attempted to overturn Boasberg's injunction, Millet chastised Trump for the way he treated gang members, the New York Post reported. "There were planeloads of people," Millet said.
There were no procedures in place to notify people," Millet told Trump's attorneys. Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened here," Millet claimed.
Meanwhile, Trump is facing similar opposition for just about every facet of his agenda, and often, it is judges appointed by Democrats who are doing the bidding of his opponents. It doesn't matter how this impacts everyday Americans as long as they can thwart the Trump agenda.
Illegal immigrants need to be deported, but those who are part of dangerous gangs need to be removed from the U.S. at once. Trump is trying to do this to protect Americans, but the left is too concerned with stopping him from doing the right thing.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In another example of how extremists are demanding that all of society submit to a minority's transgender ideologies, a nurse in the United Kingdom has been punished for calling a convicted pedophile who preyed on boys "Mister."
It was claimed to be offensive, of course, because the offender was "transgender."
A report from LifeSiteNews explains that nurse Jennifer Melle, of the National Health Service, was disciplined and now is responding with legal action against the Epsom and St. Helier University hospitals.
"She was investigated and disciplined last year for referring to a male patient – a large, six-foot, homosexual and gender-confused pedophile – as such," the report said.
Christian Concern reported that the patient, whose name was not released, is held "in a high-security male prison after multiple convictions for luring boys into sex acts while pretending to be a teenage girl on social media."
Melle explained, "Ever since I have expressed my Christian beliefs under extreme pressure, I have been a marked woman."
The male pedophile was being treated for a urinary problem, and while discussing the case with a doctor and not knowing he claimed to be female, Melle used the words "Mister" and "he."
The fact the patient is a man was significant because of the options for medical treatment.
She confirmed, "This was a real-life medical scenario that required accurate terminology to avoid any doubt between medical professionals."
The patient, overhearing, erupted in rage, demanding he be addressed by pronouns used for women.
Melle said that violated her faith, but she offered to call him by his name.
According to the report, the patient responded by physically lunging at her and using racial epithets.
Officials overlooked the patient's rage, and instead disciplined Melle, the report said.
And she's still be assessed for her ability to work as a nurse, the report said.
"I have been put at risk, but I am being treated like a criminal," she said. "Sadly, if you put your head above the parapet and speak truthfully on these issues in the NHS, the risk is that you will be knocked down, punished severely and demoted."
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent after the court's 7-2 ruling allowing so-called "ghost guns" to be regulated, the Daily Caller reported. The law, which Thomas called an "overreach," was enacted during President Joe Biden's term.
Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinion, which struck down a lower court's decision to block the statute the high court determined was in line with the Gun Control Act. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who President Donald Trump appointed.
"The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed. Because the court of appeals held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," Gorsuch wrote.
FPC LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court has upheld the ATF's "frame or receiver" rule. You can read the opinion here: https://t.co/qcBmmWGcBX pic.twitter.com/uMCAxV9gUq
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) March 26, 2025
Ghost guns, which are sold as separate parts that can be assembled into a firearm, could potentially fall into a regulatory gray area. The case before the Supreme Court was supposed to answer that category question.
While the majority of the court believed that parts could be regulated, Thomas didn't see it that way. “The statutory terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of ‘firearm,'” Thomas wrote in his dissent.
"That should end the case. The majority instead blesses the Government’s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute," Thomas charged.
The 76-year-old justice worries that such a broad application of the law goes beyond this case. "Employing its novel ‘artifact noun’ methodology, the majority charts a different course that invites unforeseeable consequences and offers no limiting principle," Thomas wrote.
Alito's dissent noted that the court could have struck down specific applications of law without threatening the entirety of the legislation. "A law passed by Congress or a State Legislature should not be held to be entirely unenforceable just because it would be unconstitutional to apply it in just a few situations," Alito wrote.
Proponents of rules requiring registration for these do-it-yourself gun kits believe it's necessary and not at all an infringement on Second Amendment rights. According to CNN, the law in question requires that ghost guns be traceable and registered without banning them.
In fact, some believe that the draw of these kits is precisely due to a lack of regulation. "Ghost guns are the gun industry’s way of skirting commonsense gun laws and arming dangerous people without background checks," David Pucino, Giffords Law Center deputy chief counsel and legal director, said.
"We are thrilled that the Supreme Court has upheld the ATF rule that treats ghost guns as what they are: gun," Pucino added. The 2022 legislation came after these weapons were increasingly showing up in crimes.
According to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives statistics, the number of kit guns recovered at crime scenes went from 1,600 in 2017 to more than 19,000 four years later. This led to the necessity of addressing the problem and what to do about it.
Ghost guns are difficult to trace and regulate because of how they are sold. However, if the government has any ability to regulate firearms, then it's necessary to make sure there are no workarounds for people who would otherwise not be able to own or use firearms.
Republicans on Capitol Hill are looking at ways to put an end to the judicial overreach that has stymied President Trump's agenda, but impeachment isn't topping the list.
While top Republican leaders are reluctant to target individual judges, they are considering legislation to stop district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. Critics of the controversial practice - which allows judges to apply their rulings universally and not just to the parties in a case - say it allows district courts to usurp the powers of the president.
In the most significant example to date, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. ordered Trump to stop the deportation of alleged gang members and return them to the United States. Trump called for the judge, James Boasberg, to be impeached, prompting pushback from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts.
The rate at which courts are blocking Trump is unprecedented: the administration has already been slammed with 15 injunctions. For comparison, courts issued just 14 during Joe Biden's term and 12 during the whole eight years of the Obama administration.
Democrats argue that Trump is facing more obstruction because he's pushing legal limits, but the president and his supporters see a clear pattern of bias from activist judges.
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Trump ally Jim Jordan (R-OH), is holding a hearing next week on nationwide injunctions and Darrell Issa (R-CA) has proposed a bill that would limit their use. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate by Josh Hawley of Missouri (R).
Republicans like Hawley argue that targeting individual judges is an ineffective way of combating "systemic" activism from the bench.
“I would just say to my Republican colleagues: I’m really concerned about what’s going on,” Hawley told reporters. “I don’t know that switching out the judges is going to ultimately do a whole lot, unless we address the systemic issue here, which is the use of this so-called power."
"So, I think we ought to just make it clear. If you’re a district court, you can bind the parties who are in front of you or the parties who are in your district, but you can not bind people outside your purview.”
While rank-and-file Republicans such as Texas's Brandon Gill have pushed for impeaching judges like Boasberg, the efforts have met with a tepid response from GOP leadership.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has said all options are on the table, but he has pointed to other mechanisms for holding judges accountable when they step out of line.
“We do have authority over the federal courts, as you know,” Johnson said. “We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts, and all these other things.”
Trump has called on the Supreme Court to weigh in on the use of nationwide injunctions "BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE."
"STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE," Trump wrote in a social media post. "If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
During President Donald Trump's first term, Democrats and other opponents counted on the made-up claims of "Russia collusion" to delay and deter his agenda.
That's debunked and no longer available, so they're turning to lawfare to obstruct him in his second term.
Dozens and dozens of lawsuits have been filed and have been given to leftist judges who liberally have issued an unprecedented number of injunctions preventing the president from deporting illegal alien criminals, as James Boasberg did, cutting spending, eliminating waste, and fraud, securing the nation's border, eliminating the politicized DEI agenda from government and more.
And Trump now has singled out Boasberg, who also recently was given another case against Trump to handle, for a recommendation for an "immediate investigation … before it is too late!"
Democrats, in fact, have been using courts and leftist judges as just about their only opposition to Trump's plans, as the American public largely is lining up in support of the president.
Trump wrote, "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. He is Highly Conflicted, not only in his hatred of me — Massive Trump Derangement Syndrome! — but also, because of disqualifying family conflicts. Boasberg, who is the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court, seems to be grabbing the 'Trump Cases' all to himself, even though it is not supposed to happen that way. Is there still such a thing as the 'wheel,' where the Judges are chosen fairly, and at random? The good news is that it probably doesn't matter because it is virtually impossible for me to get an Honest Ruling in D.C. Our Nation's Courts are broken, with New York and D.C. being the most preeminent of all in their Corruption and Radicalism. There must be an immediate investigation of this Rigged System before it is too late!"
Congress already has discussed solutions to out-of-control judges including impeachment, an unlikely goal, and defunding them, not likely but still possible.
The Washington Examiner said the "rigged" accusation arose when Boasberg, who already has tried to order Trump to keep criminal illegal aliens inside the U.S. instead of deporting them, also was given a case involving the administration's involvement with Signal, a group chat involving government officials that a reporter accessed.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee, earlier earned a reputation as a leftist for advocating for new laws with which he could attack the J6 protesters who supported Trump in the 2020 election.
The report noted that there are 20 judges on the federal district court bench in Washington, D.C.
Boasberg is also handling the Trump administration's high-profile antitrust case against Meta, in which Meta is accused of a monopoly.
And Boasboerg in 2023 ordered former Vice President Mike Pence to testify in front of a grand jury about his contact with the president in the days leading up to Jan. 6, 2021.