This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two years ago, lawmakers in Tennessee adopted a legislative plan that prevents physicians from facilitating a minor's gender transition.
It does that by stopping them from "prescribing, administering, or dispensing any puberty blocker or hormone" or carrying out gender transition surgery.
At the time, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall simply said the processes are "child abuse."
"This was simply a way to impose a radical gender ideology across the country under the guise of treatment for kids," he said.
The fight was in the courts almost immediately and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved the law, and the Joe Biden administration jumped into the fight, through the U.S. Department of Justice, to condemn the state and promote his transgender ideologies, which he pushed throughout his administration.
When President Donald Trump moved into the White House, he could have dropped the government's participation. He didn't. In fact, he reversed the government's position, and it now is arguing that the law is fine.
The Washington Stand explains the DOJ, now in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case, states, "The department has now determined that SB1 does not deny equal protection on account of sex or any other characteristic."
Curtis Ganon, a deputy solicitor general, told the Supreme Court the previously stated opinions were wrong.
The reversal came just two days after Pam Bondi, Trump's nominee for U.S. attorney general, was sworn in.
The report noted, "Also under normal circumstances, the DOJ reversing its position on the case would render it moot, removing it from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, which extends only to live 'cases' and 'controversies' under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. However, the DOJ's letter argued that this was a special case. Since the U.S. government is not the only challenger, the case before the court is not moot. The court's decision will affect many cases in lower courts (at least four appellate courts have ruled on the merits of the question, coming to conflicting conclusions). And, since the court has already been fully briefed on this case, it would be a waste of the court's time to dismiss this case, only for it to hear a similar case later. In the DOJ's words," the report noted.
Sarah Parshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation said it was the best position the DOJ could have adopted.
"The court has heard all it needs to hear on the constitutionality of state bans on gender affirming care for minors. … Though the official position of the U.S. is now different than it was under Biden, the issue remains salient, and the Court should still resolve it. Failing to do so means trans-identified children will continue to suffer gender butchery in the states while litigation proceeds."
President Donald Trump has been keeping his foot on the gas of governmental reform since taking office last month, but that is not to say that he has not encountered some noteworthy obstacles along the way.
Amid the administration's efforts to slash thousands of jobs at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a federal judge has put a temporary halt on the measure, siding with two employee unions who sued to stop Trump's momentum, as the New York Post reports.
One of the agencies targeted for massive cost-cutting by the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is USAID, and after an initial review of its operations, plans were announced to cut its workforce down from over 10,000 to just a few hundred.
In response to the administration's stated direction, the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees sued, contending that the planned layoffs would jeopardize the safety of workers placed abroad as well as the continuity of nongovernmental organizations that rely on USAID funding to operate.
Countering that position was Trump Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate, who argued that Trump had the authority to place USAID workers on leave due to findings of “corruption and fraud” said to be rampant at the agency.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols concurred with the unions -- at least for now -- and ordered the administration to reinstate all agency employees placed on leave, also barring anyone else from being placed on leave or being ordered to return from overseas posts on any “expedited timeline.”
The stay on any such significant personnel moves will remain in place until at least Feb. 15, according to Nichols, and the parties will reconvene for a preliminary injunction hearing that is now set for Feb. 12.
The Trump administration, despite the setback from Nichols, appears undeterred in its plans to dismantle or dramatically reshape USAID, with the president himself stating, as the Daily Mail noted, that it has “been run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we're getting them out.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has been named acting administrator for USAID, lamented the tumultuous nature of the attempted changes, saying, “I'd have preferred not to do it this way.”
However, he added, “When we tried to do it from the top down by getting cooperation from the central office and USAID, what we found instead are people trying to use the system to sneak through payments and push through payments despite the stop order. We found people that were uncooperative in terms of giving us information and access.”
Rubio assured concerned parties that the administration is not abandoning the concept of foreign aid, but rather initiating reforms to ensure that it is delivered in an appropriate way.
“The United States will be providing foreign aid. But it is going to be foreign aid that makes sense and is aligned with our national interest,” priorities that DOGE and the president believe have been missing in the agency's operations.
Both sides in the dispute over USAID appear to be fully entrenched in their positions, with the federal unions contending that the administration's efforts to dismantle the agency are invalid due to the lack of any congressional authorization for them.
Trump, however, has insisted that he has executive authority to combat what he says is corruption “at levels rarely seen before,” but whether his -- and Musk's -- position will ultimately win the day, only time will tell.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The American Center for Law and Justice is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hold accountable those who pay the bills for terror against Israel.
"This case represents more than a legal dispute – it's about protecting American lives and sending a clear message that those who support terrorism will be held accountable. The ACLJ remains committed to defending liberty, pursuing justice, and protecting the fundamental rights of Americans both at home and abroad," the legal team explained in an online report.
The group, which defends Israel in courts all over the world, has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in America's highest court urging the justices to keep American courts open to the victims of terror.
"By filing this brief, we stand firmly with victims of terrorism, urging the court to hold the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) accountable for their ongoing support of terrorist activities that harm American citizens" the report said.
It explained America has the Taylor Force Act, which is a key piece of legislation to fight terrorist financing.
It was named in honor of Taylor Force, a brave U.S. Army veteran who was brutally murdered by a Palestinian terrorist in Israel.
It targets "the Palestinian Authority's deeply disturbing practice of providing financial rewards to terrorists and their families – a reprehensible policy that incentivizes violence against Americans and Israelis," the ACLJ report said. "By imposing strict conditions on U.S. economic assistance to the PA, the act ensures that American taxpayer dollars are not indirectly supporting terrorism, cutting off funding when the PA continues its 'pay-to-slay' program that provides salaries to individuals imprisoned for terrorist acts."
In fact, the ACLJ sued the Joe Biden administration for violating the law.
"To further implement and enforce the Taylor Force Act, Congress passed, and President Trump signed during his first term, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA)," the report said. That is a tool crafted to provide American victims a way to justice.
"It creates a robust legal mechanism that enables victims of terrorist attacks to hold organizations accountable for their direct and indirect support of terrorism, specifically targeting entities like the PLO and PA. Congress said specifically that if the PLO and PA choose to continue to violate the Taylor Force Act and fund terrorism, as well as operate and fundraise in the United States, that conduct would be deemed implicit consent to participate in legal proceedings," the legal team noted.
However, now the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has claimed that violates the due process rights of the terror-supporting organizations, and the ruling means they are shielded from accountability.
That lower court claimed there must be a "benefit" to the PLO and PA for them to be required to participate in court proceedings, a "requirement found nowhere in existing Supreme Court precedent."
The ACLJ said its brief came in Fuld v. PLO and United States v. PLO and explains, "When organizations knowingly support terrorism against Americans, they should face legal consequences in U.S. courts."
The report said, "Congress passed a law providing that if the PLO and PA continued to engage in this conduct, they would face consequences. They never stopped. The organizations admittedly continue making these payments despite clear congressional notice that doing so would subject them to American courts."
Even as the organizations continue the "pay-for-slay" payments, the ACLJ noted, "The idea that Congress must bargain with terrorists by giving them 'governmental benefit[s]' to obtain their willingness to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of federal courts is incongruous and absurd. It has no place in the law. If the PLO and PA choose[] to continue making these odious payments, thus encouraging more terrorist attacks and putting more Americans at risk, then under the PSJVTA it may be sued in U.S. courts."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge in Maine stunningly has ruled that a mother is forbidden from taking her daughter to church.
Any church that her ex-boyfriend does not approve.
And the legal team at Liberty Counsel has confirmed it launched an immediate effort to overturn the decision that actually violates multiple court precedents.
The report from Liberty Counsel uses pseudonyms to keep the identities of the mom and child private.
What happened is common: Mom and dad had a daughter 12 years ago, they broke up, even before the daughter was born, and "everything was fine" until the mom and daughter started attending church.
"When [the daughter] began wearing T-shirts emblazoned with Bible verses to her father's house, Mark rushed to the local family court, declaring those shirts to be 'religious paraphernalia,'" the team reported.
He claimed being baptized was "indoctrination."
And a large part of his complaint was that the church, Calvary Chapel of Bangor, "teaches the [B]ible chapter by chapter, verse by verse."
To push his own religious ideology, he "hired a former California State University sociology professor to testify that Calvary Chapel is a 'cult,'" Liberty Counsel confirmed, with a demand the court ban the mom from taking the daughter to church.
Then the judge stepped up to the campaign.
"Outrageously, the anti-God judge in this case was more than happy to oblige. The judge spent 11 pages excoriating Calvary Chapel of Bangor, and quoting a former Marxist sociology professor's assertions that Bible-teaching churches like Calvary Chapel are 'Moses Cults' that 'harm' children. The judge ruled that [the mom's] religious beliefs 'eclipsed her ability to make decisions that are in [her daughter's] best interests,' Because [the mom] had testified that her daughter's belief in God was 'more important than anything.'"
He demanded the mom never take the daughter to Calvary Chapel – "or ANY church that does not meet [the dad's] approval – ever again."
Liberty Counsel explained Calvary Church of Bangor was founded by Pastor Ken Graves, a "God-honoring man" and does teach the Bible.
In fact, Liberty Counsel defended the church when "Gov. Janet Mills threatened to arrest and imprison anyone who attended church during the COVID panic."
The legal team cited the U.S. Constitution, "hundreds of years of legal precedents, and even the Maine Supreme Court" which all say the government may not prevent a parent from raising a child in his or her own faith.
A federal judge has issued an order to temporarily block the Trump administration’s plan to place thousands of U.S. Agency for International Development employees on leave at midnight.
The decision came after a union of government employees sued the Trump administration to restart operations at USAID and resume the flow of foreign aid frozen by President Trump.
Trump froze USAID's operations after massive fraud and corruption were discovered with the agency distributing billions of taxpayer dollars to obviously fraudulent programs.
Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, put a hold on the government from placing over 2,000 USAID employees on administrative leave before February 14th.
This sets up a contentious battle between the Trump administration and government unions over purging thousands of workers who have overseen the robbery of the American people for decades.
The lawsuit was brought by the American Foreign Service Association and American Federation of Government Employees who argued that the Trump administration was engaged in an “ongoing, illegal scheme to gut" USAID.
The lawsuit is correct in claiming that Trump's intention is to "gut" USAID but where the lawsuit is incorrect is its assertion that Trump's actions are illegal.
As Trump is the head of the executive branch, he has sweeping powers to make changes to federal agencies and how they are run.
The effort to destroy USAID is being led by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which struck without warning by shutting employees out of internal systems and email and recalling thousands of workers to the United States.
Trump himself stated, "When you look at USAID, the whole thing is a fraud. Very little put to good use. Every single line that I look at is either corrupt or ridiculous.
USAID was established in 1961 via executive order by President John F. Kennedy which is part of Trump's defense of shuttering the agency unilaterally. Elon Musk pointed this out in a post to X saying, "Live by executive order, die by executive order."
Countering Musk's point on executive orders is the fact that USAID was codified by Congress in 1998 which sets up a potential battle between Congress and the White House.
However, both the Senate and the House are controlled by the GOP which means that Trump will have their backing in dismantling USAID. Many congressional Republicans have already indicated that they support what Trump is doing to clean up corruption.
Congressional Democrats have vowed to fight for USAID with everything they have. Democrats are so hysterical about the dismantling of USAID that it's worth wondering how many prominent Democrats have been enriched by taxpayer dollars funneled through USAID.
A judge in Washington, D.C., has stated that Prince Harry's visa records will be subject to "maximum disclosure as long as it doesn't violate privacy."
The Daily Mirror reported that Judge Carl Nichols requested that the Department of Homeland Security request redactions to Harry's documents or "continued withholdings" in anticipation of the potential release of certain documentation, as The New York Post reported.
This decision is just one component of a high-stakes litigation with the Heritage Foundation.
The conservative-leaning foundation has contended that Harry should not have been permitted to relocate to the United States as a result of his prior drug use.
Heritage is interested in determining whether the Duke of Sussex, as he described in his book Spare, lied on his visa documents about his use of cannabis, cocaine, magic mushrooms, and ayahuasca.
According to the think tank, he should not have been admitted to the United States if he had been truthful, and they maintain that the public has a right to know whether he was treated favorably by immigration officials.
The judge maintained the confidentiality of his rationale for dismissing the think tank's argument, despite the fact that the case was dismissed in September.
Nevertheless, Heritage has been attempting to overturn or vacate the ruling, and Nichols suggested that it might have at least some success while speaking during a hearing on Wednesday.
The Sun quoted him as advocating for the greatest amount of publication that could be achieved without infringing upon Harry's privacy, and he added, "In my view that has to happen."
Harry's files have been perused by Nichols in secret, and he will have a general understanding of their contents.
His suggestion that certain documents could be redacted and subsequently released suggests that Heritage may obtain at least a portion of the information it is pursuing. Specifically, was Harry questioned about his past drug use, and what was he admitted to.
The case was abruptly terminated in September, with the court's rationale for siding with the Department of Homeland Security being kept confidential in order to protect Harry's privacy.
Heritage counsel stated that this denied them the opportunity to contest the interpretation of critical documents in court.
Wednesday's hearing at federal court in Washington, D.C. was the first since President Donald Trump's re-election.
Heritage had argued that Joe Biden's previous administration had been safeguarding Harry, and Trump himself stated in March 2024:
"We'll have to see if they know something about the drugs, and if he lied they'll have to take appropriate action."
Although there is no indication that the Department of Homeland Security will alter its stance under Trump and cease to pursue the case, Heritage appears to have emerged with a more positive outlook than it did in September.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the front man for Joe Biden's handling of the COVID-19 crisis, in which the China virus likely escaped from a lab working on dangerous diseases and killed millions worldwide, was handed a pardon from federal charges for his actions by Joe Biden.
But he still theoretically could face state charges, and now a coalition of attorneys general is asking Congress whether members can share evidence of those violations.
Fauci used to lead the National institute of for Allergy and Infectious Disease, and was paid an extraordinarily high salary for a government worker. He's now retired and his pension is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
He recently was involved in a scandal for the tens of millions of dollars taxpayers paid for his "security" even after he was a private citizen and not on the government payroll.
A report from the Washington Examiner said 17 state attorneys general now have asked Republican congressional leaders for information on the COVID-19 origins, and more.
"As state attorneys general, we possess the authority to address violations of state law or breaches of public trust," they told Congress. "We are fully committed to investigating any malfeasance that may have occurred to the fullest extent of our authority and are prepared to collaborate with you in further efforts."
Alan Wilson, South Carolina's attorney general, organized the letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune.
They want "information that could outline potential courses of action under state law, should they exist."
What's known, from a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic report from Congress, is Fauci "prompted leading scientists to discredit the possibility that the virus originated as a result of an accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China," the report said. That's commonly considered the explanation for the virus now.
There also were allegations that Fauci "misled Congress regarding federal funding of potentially hazardous virtual research at the WIV."
Biden's protective order for Fauci applied a pardon to "any offenses which he may have committed or taken part in" beginning in January 2014.
"To say we are troubled by the scope and timing of the pardon – on the heels of the Subcommittee's Final Report–would be a gross understatement," the letter from the states explained. "To ensure that former President Biden's shameful pardon does not frustrate accountability, we urge Congress to consider using all available tools at its disposal."
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., already has committed to using his work in the Seante to hold Fauci account for any involvement in offenses. Fauci, at one point in the COVID pandemic when he insisted that others accept his version of events, called himself the "science" on the topics at hand.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Pam Bondi was sworn in as U.S. attorney general on Wednesday and immediately took action on President Donald Trump's agenda.
She boosted his border security plan by ordering a suspension of federal funding for sanctuary cities. She indicated that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's client list soon may no longer be a secret. She ordered a halt to the weaponization of the DOJ, which has singled out Republicans and conservatives in recent years. She ordered the drug cartels to face the wrath of federal prosecutors. She opened up a review of recent "investigations" into school parents. And she called for a review of the failed lawfare cases brought by Democrat partisans against Trump.
She first thanked Trump for her appointment and promised she would not let down his Make America Great Again agenda.
Immediately followed her orders to restore integrity and credibility to the DOJ, which was used by the Joe Biden administration as a weapon against parents, conservatives, Catholics, pro-lifers, J6ers and Trump.
Included was a freeze on funding for sanctuary cities, where officials are defying federal law by not only ignoring, but actually protecting illegal aliens.
Those officials who prevent ICE from doing its work face prosecution, she said.
And she was the list of clients for Epstein, who died in a New York jail facing additional charges, revealed. His private jet, the "Lolita Express," featured a passenger list that included a number of high-profile individuals, including Bill Clinton.
And she wants a review of those Democrat lawfare cases, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's "hush money" case.
He used the courtroom of a judge with multiple conflicts of interest in the case, including a daughter making money off his courtroom rulings, to persuade a leftist jury in Manhattan to deliver 34 guilty verdicts against Trump.
The judge had allowed salacious testimony against Trump who essentially was convicted of felonies, even though the events involved were classified as misdemeanors, for describing legal expenses as legal expenses.
Fox News reported Bondi's first hours were crammed with action, as the situation has been for Trump and many of his other appointments, as they try to repair damage left behind by the Joe Biden administration.
Her goals include calling for the death penalty when appropriate, after Biden commuted the death sentences of dozens of murderers and rapists, and a call to eliminate the drug cartels.
A memo about her plans that Fox obtained explained lawyers who decide to use their own opinions on cases, rather than the policy of the law and the administration, will be given "discipline," or fired.
Also planned is a "Weaponization Working Group" to review the activities of all law enforcement agencies over the past four years to identify instances of "politicized justice."
Those topics include lawfare prosecutions against Trump led by former special counsel Jack Smith; Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg; and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the civil fraud case against Trump and his family.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jack Smith was a private lawyer hand-picked by Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, to run a couple of the Democrats' lawfare cases against President Trump, one over Trump's thoughts on the 2020 election and another on papers he held from his presidency.
Both cases were killed by the Department of Justice when Trump was elected, but they're not over.
It's because of suspicions that Smith colluded with prosecutors including Atlanta's Fani Willis, who ran another lawfare campaign against Trump, a claim he was involved in organized crime around the 2020 election.
She's already been ordered to produce for government watchdog Judicial Watch her communications with Smith – and to pay Judicial Watch some $20,000 for refusing to comply with the legal requirements, and now a judge has ordered that Smith's communications also will be available for review.
The Washington Examiner said U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich has ordered the DOJ to turn over communications between Smith and Willis, "in what a legal watchdog group has called a case of collusion."
Smith resigned from his special counsel position before Trump, who had promised to fire him immediately, took office. And many of those career lawyers who worked on cases against Trump have been dismissed.
Judicial Watch sought the communications in a Freedom of Information Act action, but Smith and the DOJ claimed that releasing the information would hurt the prosecution of the case.
Now, the judge said, there's no prosecution and no case so the information can be turned over.
"Since DOJ filed its motion for summary judgment and supporting Declaration in March 2024, the Special Counsel's criminal enforcement actions have been terminated…. The cases are 'closed — not pending or contemplated — and therefore are not proceedings with which disclosure may interfere.' … Thus, the agency's sole justification for invoking the Glomar doctrine under Exemption 7(A) is no longer applicable," the judge said.
"Accordingly, the court will deny DOJ's motion for summary judgment and grant the plaintiff's cross motion. DOJ is directed to process the plaintiff's FOIA request and either 'disclose any [responsive] records or establish both that their contents are exempt from disclosure and that such exemption has not also been waived.'"
The Glomar doctrine concerns when prosecutors claim that just revealing the existence of records, or their absence, could impact a pending case.
Judicial Watch is questioning whether Willis asked for or got "federal funds or other federal assistance in any form relating to the investigation" of Trump.
Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch chief, said, "President Trump truly needs to overhaul the Justice Department from top to bottom. It is a scandal that a federal court had to order the Justice Department to admit the truth that their objections to producing records about collusion with Fani Willis had no basis in reality."
A Philadelphia medical examiner has changed his ruling for a third time, saying that the death of a teacher who was stabbed 20 times is "something other than suicide," Breitbart reported. Dr. Marlon Osbourne initially ruled her death a homicide, then inexplicably switched it to suicide, which Pennsylvania's then-Attorney General Josh Shapiro upheld.
The convoluted case involves the death of 27-year-old Ellen Greenberg, who was found dead in her Philadelphia apartment in January 2011. Police found her dead body riddled with stab wounds.
Osbourne initially ruled her death a homicide but inexplicably changed it to suicide a month later. Shapiro, who is now the governor of the Keystone State, upheld that ruling in February 2022 after the family of the deceased woman sued the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s Office.
Now, Osbourne is again reversing his decision amid issues including Shapiro's conflict of interest in the case. "It is my professional opinion Ellen’s manner of death should be designated as something other than suicide," Osbourne said in a court filing Saturday.
This change is just the latest in a string of strange circumstances surrounding this case, which has been ongoing for over a decade. The most significant came after Osbourne's first change of heart, for which no explanation was given.
Then, there was the matter of Shapiro's personal relationship with a possible witness. The person was an attorney and cousin to Samuel Goldberg, Greenberg's fiance, who discovered her body and with whom she spoke to on the phone the night she died.
After a citizen journalist pointed to this connection, Shapiro recused himself from the case. He acknowledged the ties "created the appearance of a conflict of interest" but called the misconduct allegations "unfounded."
The filing Saturday noted factors that caused Osbourne to return to his original determination. "I am now aware that information exists which draws into question, for example, whether Ellen’s fiancé was witnessed entering the apartment before placing the 9-1-1 call on January 26, 2011; whether the door was forced open as reported; whether Ellen’s body was moved by someone else inside the apartment with her at or near the time of her death," Osbourne noted.
Most notably, Osbourne pointed to Dr. Lyndsey Emery's findings about one of Greenberg's wounds. While evaluating a segment of Greenberg's spine, Emery noted a stab wound that was received after death, which would be impossible in a suicide scenario.
Greenberg's parents have fought for the cause of death to be changed from suicide and currently have two pending civil cases. According to CNN, the Greenbergs are seeking damages for a "conspiracy to cover up Ellen’s murder."
Their case hinged on the fact that Goldberg failed to mention for a full two minutes of the 911 call that his fiance had a knife protruding from her chest. When he finally shared that information, Goldberg offered that Greenberg "fell on a knife."
Somehow, police responding to the call felt confident that Greenberg committed suicide and never bothered to call in the crime unit. However, Osbourne's autopsy the day after Greenberg's death showed multiple wounds indicating that she was "stabbed by another person" as well as a mix of bruises that ranged from fresh to healing.
Although Osbourne ruled her death a homicide the next day, which would have warranted an investigation of the crime scene, it was too late. By the time police returned to process the apartment as a crime scene, it had already been professionally cleaned.
There are too many irregularities in this case, but it appears officials are curious about precisely what happened to Greenberg. Unfortunately, they've waited so long that there's a risk that the truth will never be fully revealed.