This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit that focuses on the Mountain West Conference's inclusion of a man on a women's volleyball team say they want the judge hearing the dispute removed from the case for his bias.
The judge preliminarily had ordered the women plaintiffs, three University of Wyoming volleyball players and a handful of other women, to "call a female-identifying transgender person 'she.'"
That ruling from U.S. District Judge Kato Crews shows his bias, and that he's already decided the case, the plaintiffs charge.
A report in the Cowboy State Daily explains the plaintiffs are challenging a decision by the Mountain West Conference and San Jose State to have a man on the SJSU women's volleyball team.
"Blaire Fleming's inclusion on the SJSU team prompted teams to boycott and forfeit games with the Spartans and ended with SJSU taking second place at the conference tournament," the report explained.
The lawsuit charges that the transgender agenda activists in the school and conference violated Title IX which forbids sex discrimination and also the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, William Bock III, told the judge regarding the order to refer to the man as "she," that, "This case concerns whether Blaire Fleming is a man or a woman."
The lawyer charged, "An impartial forum cannot exist where the court has so forcefully signaled the court's personal views on sex and gender identity that the court is willing to use its contempt power to enforce those views."
It was a rule the judge created for his own courtroom that commanded people "to use others' preferred pronouns or risk being charged with contempt," the court filing says.
Crews previously has used the incorrect "she" and "her" references to cite Fleming, and the plaintiffs motion points out that that decision, especially requiring others to follow that arbitrarily ideology, indicates "Crews must have made up his mind about the key issue in the case."
The rule, Bock charges, violates free speech rights and is a prior restraint on speech, and Bock noted while the judge may want a courtroom where all feel "welcome and respected," that's not enough to correct its violation of the First Amendment.
Support from leftists for Crews is well-established. He was recommended by Democrats Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper and nominated by Joe Biden.
He undermined his own qualifications during his nominating hearing when Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., asked him to define a Brady motion, a common tenet in criminal law, and he was unable to do so. He was confirmed over almost unanimous Republican opposition.
That precedent from the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to turn over evidence favorable to a defendant.
He earlier refused to provide relief to female volleyball players who had protested the presence of a male on the San Jose team.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg handled one of the Democrats' many lawfare cases against President Donald Trump before he took office the second time.
He took some questions about business reporting activities that would have been misdemeanors had not the statute of limitations expired already. But he claimed they were felonies because they were in pursuit of some other, unidentified crime.
Hearing the case was Juan Merchan, who had donated to leftist causes, and whose daughter was a Democrat activist making money off her father's courtroom decisions against Trump, including his decision to allow salacious testimony from an ex-porn star and a convicted perjurer. Merchan also ruled the jury's decision didn't have to be unanimous, unheard of in American justice.
Bragg and Merchan, with the help of a leftist Manhattan jury, convicted Trump on 34 counts.
And while that verdict now is on appeal, the lower court isn't entirely out of the picture, as FBI Director Kash Patel wants to know the details of that money flow, and much more.
He has announced he is working with members of Congress for subpoenas to be issued to Merchan's daughter's company, "who made $15 million plus from the illicit information pouring out of her father's courtroom."
He said, "I want to know the bank records, because money doesn't lie. I want to know how deep it is and how much of it went to the family," for the "false conviction" of Trump.
Earlier, the Daily Caller News Foundation pointed out how Merchan "spent seven minutes" "bemoaning that then President-elect Donald Trump's election victory prevented him from imposing a sentence normally given to an 'ordinary citizen.'"
Merchan ultimately handed down a sentence of "unconditional discharge." That includes no fines, jail or probation.
He claimed that the trial, in which Trump essentially was convicted of describing legal expenses as legal expenses, with its salacious testimony, was ordinary, but the sentencing was different.
Merchan said, "It is clear from legal precedent … that Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen [and] Donald Trump, the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections. I'm referring to protections that extended well beyond those afforded the average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice system each day. No, ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections. It is the office of the president that bestows those far-reaching protections to the office holder."
Merchan's jury had claimed Trump falsified business records to cover a $130,000 payment for a non-disclosure agreement with porn actress Stormy Daniels.
Trump explained he is "totally innocent" and said he was treated "very unfairly" throughout Merchan's court proceedings.
Bragg claimed the payment to Daniels was labeled legal expenses by accountants, and experts have confirmed the case never should have been opened. Some of those called for Merchan to be disbarred for his activities.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has given President Donald Trump permission to proceed with a plan to remove thousands of workers in what used to be known as the U.S. Agency for International Development from their posts.
USAID was one of Trump's first targets in his fulfillment of his campaign promise to attack waste, fraud and corruption in federal spending.
The agency had thousands of employees who essentially handed out U.S. tax money for foreign projects, including some that have been revealed to be egregious wastes, such as DEI theatrical productions and LGBT comic books.
Lawsuits followed Trump's order that a few select responsibilities and a few selected employees be transferred to the State Department, with the rest of the duties and workers to be dismissed.
Now, a report in Newsweek reveals, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols has lifted a temporary block and is permitting the administration to "significantly downsize" the agency staff.
"The decision includes ordering those stationed abroad to return to the U.S. within 30 days at government expense, leaving only a small fraction of staff in place," the report said.
Unions, facing the loss of hundreds or thousands of members and the dues they would have been paying sued, claiming the quick dismantling over the agency left workers without emergency communications.
Nichols said, however, the unions' legal challenge must be addressed under federal employment laws rather than through district court litigation.
A report at CBS explained the decision clears the way "for the president to resume his efforts to overhaul the agency as part of his plans to slash the size of the federal government."
The judge rejected a request by unions for an injunction that would keep workers in their jobs.
The judge's decision said the Justice Department had persuaded him the risk to USAID employees placed on administrative leave is "far more minimal than it initially appeared."
The judge wrote, "Plaintiffs have presented no irreparable harm they or their members are imminently likely to suffer from the hypothetical future dissolution of USAID."
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi removed Pamela Hicks Thursday as general counsel for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Daily Wire reported. Hicks is just one of several holdovers from the Biden administration who have been fired in recent weeks.
President Donald Trump ordered that United States Attorneys who President Joe Biden had appointed must be terminated. This is standard procedure when a new president takes office.
"ATF’s Chief Counsel Pamela Hicks has been fired and escorted out of the Washington, D.C. headquarters. Hicks oversaw the enforcement of every Biden infringement of the Second Amendment since taking the position in 2021 " Gun Owners of America said in a post to X, formerly Twitter.
🚨BREAKING🚨
ATF’s Chief Counsel Pamela Hicks has been fired and escorted out of the Washington, D.C. headquarters.
Hicks oversaw the enforcement of every Biden infringement of the Second Amendment since taking the position in 2021. pic.twitter.com/Cvg8HN2gvP
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) February 20, 2025
Although it is standard procedure for the incoming administration to clean house, Trump had a particular mission informed by what he's been through. "Over the past four years, the Department of Justice has been politicized like never before," Trump wrote to his Truth Social.
"Therefore, I have instructed the termination of ALL remaining ‘Biden Era’ U.S. Attorneys. We must ‘clean house’ IMMEDIATELY, and restore confidence. America’s Golden Age must have a fair Justice System — THAT BEGINS TODAY!" Trump added.
Bondi agrees with Trump's assessment of the problems with the justice system and has taken up the task. While speaking on the podcast "Verdict" with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Bondi said that she was "concerned" about the extent of the rot but that they were "working on" replacing holdovers, according to Fox News.
"We're working on it. It's day by day by day, but we've got a team of great people. And on day one, I issued 14 executive orders. And number one is the weaponization ends. And it ends now. And that's what we did."
She also said that the Department of Justice has "lost its mission of fighting violent crime" while actively working against Trump. "Look what they did to President Trump. Look at the weaponization," Bondi said.
Meanwhile, although Hicks served as deputy chief counsel of the agency during Trump's first administration, she loyally carried out the Second Amendment crackdowns during her tenure with the Biden ATF. In her post to Linked In, Hicks had only positive things to say about her tenure.
"Earlier today, I was served official notice from the Attorney General of the United States that I was being removed from my position as the Chief Counsel of ATF and my employment with the Department of Justice terminated. I have had the privilege of serving in the federal civil service for almost 28 years, including 23 as an attorney for the Department of Justice," she wrote.
"Serving as ATF Chief Counsel has been the highest honor of my career and working with the people at ATF and throughout the Department has been a pleasure. I thank my colleagues for their friendship and partnership over the years," Hicks said in her post.
While Bondi chips away at the top leadership, The Hill reported that Trump has been greenlighted for mass firings in the federal government. Several government employee unions sued the president, but the court ruled this week that he could proceed with the firings.
Trump learned his lesson the hard way regarding trusting holdovers from the previous administration. Now, he's doing his best to clear out all of the dead wood and those actively trying to harm him and his agenda, and it's about time.
Four federal courts have now declined to reinstitute President Donald Trump's ban on automatic birthright citizenship after an injunction temporarily blocked it, setting up a Supreme Court fight over the issue.
The latest rejection was from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with Judge Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee, ruling that the Trump administration did not qualify for emergency relief from the injunction.
The ruling says “nothing about the merits of the executive order or how to properly interpret the Fourteenth Amendment,” she made clear.
She said it was too early to consider the merits of the case.
“Judges are charged to reach their decisions apart from ideology or political preference,” Forrest wrote in a concurring opinion. “When we decide issues of significant public importance and political controversy hours after we finish reading the final brief, we should not be surprised if the public questions whether we are politicians in disguise.”
If the court rules too easily on emergency requests, she argued, it diminishes trust in the judicial system.
“There must be a showing that emergency relief is truly necessary to prevent immediate irreparable harm,” he wrote. “The Government did not make that showing here, and, therefore, there is no reason for us to say anything about whether the factors governing the grant of a stay pending appeal are satisfied.”
John C. Coughenour, an 83-year-old federal judge in Seattle, blocked Trump's original order to ban birthright citizenship last month pending legal challenges to it.
Critics say the order clearly violates the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which says that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
Others point to wording in the amendment that limits citizenship to those willing to be "subject" to the laws of the United States.
The issue is one that will be fought over when the case is finally heard, but Trump knows his order will have a better chance of standing if it is already implemented than if it isn't.
Democrats seem to have a strategy to challenge all of Trump's policies in court, hoping they will be rejected there.
The executive and legislative branches are beyond their grasp right now, but the courts are not all dominated by Republicans yet.
If the case goes to the Supreme Court, though, Democrats are probably out of luck.
The Republican Chief Justice of Michigan's Supreme Court is stepping down.
Elizabeth Clement, 47, did not provide a reason for her retirement, which comes before the expiration of her eight-year term in 2026.
Clement is one of only two justices on the Supreme Court who was appointed by a Republican.
Her resignation will give Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, an opportunity to expand the current 5-1 liberal majority.
“Today, I notified Governor Whitmer I will be stepping down from the Michigan Supreme Court no later than April 30, 2025. Leading our state’s highest court has been an opportunity to continue a proud record of independence, fairness, and commitment to the rule of law. I am thankful to my colleagues for their support and friendship, as well as for their willingness to seek common ground in serving the people of Michigan,” Clement said in a statement.
Whoever Whitmer appoints will need to win a full term in 2026.
Clement began serving as an associate justice in 2017, when she was appointed by Governor Rick Snyder. In 2022, she was unanimously elected Chief Justice by her colleagues.
Despite her Republican affiliation, Clement sometimes sided with the liberal justices. Whitmer praised her for authoring the opinion in a case that expanded LGBT rights, Rouch World v Department of Civil Rights.
“Throughout her distinguished tenure on the Michigan Supreme Court, Chief Justice Clement was an independent minded jurist who upheld the rule of law, protected our constitutional values, and stood strong for the principles of justice," Whitmer said.
"Notably, she cemented equal protections for all Michiganders in state law regardless of who they love when she authored Rouch World v Department of Civil Rights, which held that the state’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
The Supreme Court has had a liberal majority since 2020. With Clement stepping down, Whitmer will now appoint her second justice to the bench.
Michigan's Republicans won back control of the state House in November's elections, fracturing Whitmer's Democratic "trifecta."
Clement is joining the nonprofit National Center for State Courts, where she will serve as the group's president.
"Beth is an outstanding generational leader and an ideal President for NCSC to drive innovation and progress in our state courts and justice systems,” said Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush, who chaired the search committee for the group's next president.
A recent court decision in Washington, D.C., has kept Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency in the spotlight following a ruling that denied a request by several states.
According to the Gazette, the ruling, delivered by Judge Tanya Chutkan, allows the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Elon Musk to continue their activities, as the states did not prove imminent harm would occur without the restraining order.
The legal battle unfolded as 14 states sought to prevent actions they considered excessive by DOGE and Musk, worrying about potential impacts on governmental processes and data management.
The states hoped a restraining order would limit Musk's involvement as a senior adviser.
Tanya Chutkan, a federal judge appointed by former President Obama, dismissed the state's request for a temporary restraining order.
The judge noted the absence of demonstrated "imminent, irreparable harm" as a significant factor in her decision not to block Musk and DOGE's continued activities.
According to the states, the presence of DOGE and Musk introduced unpredictability that created confusion in administrative operations.
However, Judge Chutkan's analysis deemed these claims insufficient to justify immediate legal restraint.
The court's finding marks a minor yet noteworthy victory for the Trump administration, as Musk continues his role as a significant yet unofficial influence within governmental circles.
Despite this ruling, the states retain the option to pursue further legal action through an injunction, which would require demonstrating tangible harm or overreach by Musk and DOGE.
The initial push from the states revolved around claims that Musk’s advisory role, as a special government employee, constituted a breach of the appointments clause of the Constitution.
Judge Chutkan, however, determined these constitutional allegations to be hypothetical at this stage.
Concerns also surfaced regarding Musk's position as he holds no formal decision-making power, yet continues to wield significant influence as a senior adviser.
As part of a broader examination of government transparency and operations, this case dovetails with other ongoing legal actions, such as one overseen by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.
In a separate instance, Engelmayer issued a temporary restriction on the Treasury Department’s access to specific sensitive information.
The states' attorney generals have been closely following these cases, suggesting broader implications in how government entities manage and disclose information.
While the decision delivered by Judge Chutkan is favorable to DOGE and Musk, it highlights ongoing tensions between state authorities and federal oversight structures under the current administration.
These developments come amid increasing scrutiny of Musk’s advisory role and the actions of the DOGE, as stakeholders continue to debate the balance of power between state and federal jurisdictions.
The intersection of technology entrepreneurship and government policy, embodied by Musk’s unique position, reflects wider societal questions about external influence on official operations. Ultimately, the resolution of these ongoing legal contests could reshape understanding of constitutional interpretations and administrative boundaries in the public sector.
In an uncommon move, a U.S. judge has opted to schedule a court hearing on Presidents Day, typically observed as a federal holiday, catching the attention of legal observers and political watchers alike, Newsmax reported.
This decision is part of a legal battle centered around the efforts of several Democratic state attorneys general to limit the powers of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, a body accused of having overreaching authority in federal restructuring.
Presiding over this case is District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who operates out of Washington, D.C. She has set a high-stakes hearing during a time when the courts usually remain closed, underscoring the urgency of the matters involved.
The case stems from a collective legal motion initiated by 13 Democratic state attorneys general. They are in pursuit of a temporary restraining order that would obstruct Musk's team at DOGE from accessing crucial information systems at several federal agencies.
The agencies under potential scrutiny include significant bodies like the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Commerce, and the Office of Personnel Management. The expansive list illustrates the broad reach of DOGE's operations.
DOGE was established as part of a sweeping restructuring effort by President Donald Trump aimed at streamlining federal structures and reducing costs. Since its inception, this restructuring initiative has resulted in widespread job reductions.
Beyond data access, the attorneys general are also seeking to bar Musk and his team from dismissing government employees or placing them on administrative leave. They aim to secure a 14-day restraining order to pause these actions.
Despite the gravity of these requests, Judge Chutkan did not reach a conclusion during a preceding court session on Friday, leaving the outcome of the restraining order up in the air for the time being.
The legal argument posed by the attorneys general focuses on Musk's role, which they assert demands Senate confirmation under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution, a key piece of legal infrastructure designed to maintain checks and balances.
Adding fuel to the legal fire, they further claim that Congress has not given formal approval for DOGE, raising questions about the legitimacy of its operations. This forms part of a broader narrative, with approximately 20 lawsuits launched challenging Musk's authoritative reach in federal management.
On a related note, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas in New York previously handed down a decision on this matter, extending a temporary block on DOGE, specifically hindering the department's access to Treasury systems.
Conversely, in another pivotal decision, U.S. District Judge John Bates, also in Washington, decided against implementing a temporary ban that would prevent Musk's team from obtaining records from other governmental sectors.
These judicial responses reflect the generally cautious approach judges have taken in the context of the fledgling department's authority, a theme echoed in the various cases lined up against it, signaling possible ripple effects across federal oversight.
Most judges charged with evaluating cases tied to the Department of Government Efficiency have yet to render definitive judgments. This adds another layer of uncertainty for federal employees and agencies potentially affected by the restructuring measures.
The Trump administration has made its first appeal to the Supreme Court, as a standoff escalates between the president and activist judges trying to thwart his agenda.
The emergency motion, filed Monday, asks the highest court in the land to allow Trump to fire a Biden-appointed executive branch official.
“Until now, as far as we are aware,” the administration wrote, “no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the President to retain an agency head whom the President believes should not be entrusted with executive power and to prevent the President from relying on his preferred replacement.”
The case is an important test of where the Supreme Court may fall in Trump's battle with the federal courts, which have blocked several of his executive orders in sweeping fashion.
Last week, a district court judge appointed by Barack Obama issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) commanding Trump to reinstate Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel, for at least two weeks.
In an emergency application to the Supreme Court, the administration argued Trump engaged in an "uncontroversial exercise of his Article II powers" by firing Dellinger, a Biden appointee. The administration called the court's injunction an "unprecedented assault" on the Constitution's separation of powers.
"This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will," Sarah M Harris, acting solicitor general, wrote.
A divided panel of the D.C. appeals court denied Trump's appeal on Saturday in a 2-1 vote, with two Biden judges, Florence Pan and Michelle Childs, rejecting the claim on procedural grounds.
They said the president could afford to wait two weeks for a preliminary hearing, but Trump appointee Gregory Katsas called the injunction "virtually unheard of" and said an exception to ordinary procedure is warranted by the circumstances.
“The extraordinary character of the order at issue here — which directs the President to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed — warrants immediate appellate review,” Katsas wrote.
The Trump administration says the president has "unrestricted" power to fire principal officers such as Dellinger, who was nominated by Biden and confirmed by the Senate. While there are narrow exceptions to the president's power to remove executive officials, they do not apply in this case, the Trump administration said.
Despite being part of the judicial branch themselves, the Supreme Court's conservatives may frown upon lower courts gumming up the Trump administration with universal injunctions. The Supreme Court upheld broad presidential immunity last year, and some of the conservative justices have criticized the 1935 precedent Humphrey's Executor, which places limits on who the president can fire.
Since TROs are not typically appealable, Trump has had myriad of his presidential powers taken from him with no chance of immediate relief, the administration said.
"The United States thus respectfully requests that this Court vacate the district court’s order and end the practice whereby courts seize Article II powers for two weeks, yet disclaim the availability of any appellate review in the meantime," the administration wrote.
President Trump's showdown with the administrative state has reached the Supreme Court, with the president's lawyers asking the top court to uphold his power to fire executive branch officials.
The case is a test of Trump's power, and the willingness of the Supreme Court to let him exercise the full scope of executive authority granted by the Constitution.
Trump's firing of Hampton Dellinger, a Biden appointee in charge of the Office of Special Counsel, is at the center of the dispute. The Office is responsible for guarding federal employees such as whistleblowers from retaliation.
Dellinger has said the Office of Special Counsel is needed "now more than ever" to stop Trump's purge of the federal bureaucracy.
Despite Dellinger's clear opposition to the administration's priorities, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, ordered Trump to reinstate Dellinger for at least two weeks. The judge ruled that Trump cannot, under federal law, fire Dellinger without cause.
"Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the President to retain an agency head whom the President believes should not be entrusted with executive power and to prevent the President from relying on his preferred replacement," the DOJ's motion says.
On Saturday night, a divided panel of the appeals court in D.C. denied Trump's appeal, finding the president did not face any harm that warranted immediate relief. But Trump appointee Greg Katsas dissented, calling Jackson's order "virtually unheard of."
“The extraordinary character of the order at issue here — which directs the President to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed — warrants immediate appellate review,” Katsas wrote.
While it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will respond, it is likely that at least some of the conservative jurists will sympathize with Trump's broad view of executive power.
The Justice Department has called on the court to overturn the 1935 precedent Humphrey's Executor, which constrains the president's power to fire officials at independent agencies with a "quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial" function. Some conservatives - including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas - have said Humphrey's Executor threatens the constitutional power of the president.
In her emergency motion to the Supreme Court, Trump's Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris called Jackson's temporary restraining order (TRO) an "unprecedented assault" on the separation of powers. Since the Special Counsel is an "investigative and prosecutorial" agency, it falls squarely under the president's authority, and well outside Humphrey's narrow exception to his "unrestricted" power of removal, Harris said.
The implications of the case extend far beyond the president's power to fire officials, Harris noted, pointing to a series of sweeping court injunctions against the Trump administration that appear to "intrude upon a host of the President’s Article II powers."
"This Court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the President how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will," Harris wrote.