This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A movement to declare elephants "persons" and give them rights to habeas corpus legal actions has proven to be a step too far even for the leftists on the Colorado Supreme Court, who just months ago had attempted to remove President Donald Trump from the state's 2024 primary election ballot.
That move was overturned promptly by the U.S. Supreme Court and now it remains to be seen whether the justices' new position, regarding an organization claiming to represent the best interests of Kimba, Lucky, Missy, LouLou and Jambo, African elephants at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs, is upheld.
Courthouse News has reported on the case brought by the Nonhuman Rights Project, which demanded that the courts expand the definition of "persons" to include the elephants.
The state's high court rejected the attempt, concluding that the Colorado habeas statute applies to people and not animals, "no matter how cognitively, psychologically, or socially sophisticated they may be."
Justice Maria Berkenkotter wrote for the court that "because an elephant is not a person, the elephants here do not have standing to bring a habeas corpus claim," the report explained.
The NRP had demanded in a habeas petition in 2023 that the elephants be freed from the confines of the zoo and be moved to a "sanctuary."
After all, the petition argued, they are highly intelligent and autonomous.
The case earlier was dismissed by the El Paso County district court.
The NRP then appealed the state Supreme Court, which now has said the historical importance of habeas is that it's been important to challenge "various forms of unjust detention," the report noted.
However, that same history doesn't apply to animals.
Berkentrotter confirmed Colorado's habeas law doesn't define "person," but it is defined elsewhere in state law to include an individual, corporation, estate, government or other legal entity.
Berkentrotter said if animals are to be included among "persons," that would be a redefinition for the state's General Assembly to make explicit.
The opinion noted that no Colorado court, or court anywhere else in the U.S., has determined a "nonhuman species" to qualify for "personhood."
The NRP said the decision was an injustice, and it will continue fighting the "notion" that it finds in an "entrenched status quo."
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from fossil fuel companies seeking to block lawsuits blaming them for climate change, The Energy Mix reported. This means municipalities may demand billions of dollars in damages from oil and gas producers.
Honolulu, Hawaii, is one of several municipalities trying to bilk these companies out of large sums of money as restitution for causing climate change. It named BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell, and Sunoco as plaintiffs.
Ben Sullivan, the chief resilience officer for the city, claimed it would shield "taxpayers and communities from the immense costs and consequences of the climate crisis caused by the defendants’ misconduct." The state allowed the lawsuit to proceed while the companies being sued insisted that it should be adjudicated in federal court.
Similar lawsuits have been brought in places like New Jersey, California, and Colorado to indemnify them for natural disasters. The legal filings claim that severe storms, wildfires, and rising sea levels can be traced back to fossil fuel usage.
The movement to punish gas and oil companies for the fallout from storms and natural disasters is gaining momentum. Honolulu argued that it had standing at the state level, likely aware that cases at the federal level had already been dismissed.
"Deceptive commercial practices fall squarely within the core interests and historic powers of the states," attorneys for the city wrote. This is a dangerous game they're playing with the fossil fuel industry, which is a vital part of America's economy.
"The stakes in this case could not be higher," attorneys for the gas and oil companies wrote in court documents. They contend that such lawsuits "present a serious threat to one of the nation’s most vital industries."
The center-right think tank American Enterprise Institute warned that Honolulu will "make themselves the nation’s energy regulators" if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed. "I hope that the Court will hear the issue someday, for the sake of constitutional accountability and the public interest," Adam White, a senior fellow at AEI, contends.
Meanwhile, some positive movement for the fossil fuel industry came after the New York State Supreme Court rejected a similar New York City case. Justice Anar Patel found that the city "failed to prove that Exxon Mobil, Shell and BP misled New Yorkers about the climate impacts of fossil fuels."
Republicans were outraged that former President Joe Biden's administration was committed to the radical environmental agenda that encourages action like lawsuits. Although the legal climate will be slow to change, it's clear that the political tide is turning for the GOP.
President Donald Trump is far friendlier to oil and natural gas, including repeating his "drill, baby, drill" pledge. On Monday, Trump followed through with that promise on his first day in office, Fox News reported.
Trump signed several executive orders meant to combat inflation, including for increased drilling. "I will direct all members of my cabinet to marshal the vast powers at their disposal to defeat what was record inflation and rapidly bring down costs and prices," Trump said.
"The inflation crisis was caused by massive overspending and escalating energy prices. That is why today I will also declare a national energy emergency. We will drill, baby, drill. America will be a manufacturing nation once again, and we have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have. The largest amount of oil and gas of any country on earth," Trump said.
These lawsuits are based on the premise that climate change is happening and that it is directly tied to the fossil fuel industry. They must be rejected for lack of evidence, but in the meantime, Trump's commitment to energy independence and support for fossil fuel production will go a long way to keeping the industry afloat.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has rejected a lawsuit demanding information about people deemed incompetent to vote.
The Wisconsin Voter Alliance wants access to data on those voters to ensure the state's registration list is accurate. The group is suing Walworth County and a dozen other counties throughout the state.
The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the case, which was rejected on procedural grounds, raising the chance it could return.
Wisconsin's top court rejected WVA's case on technical grounds, finding a lower appeals court wrongly leapfrogged the case. One appeals court based in the state's liberal capital, Madison, rejected the lawsuit, while another, in Waukesha, overturned the Madison court and ruled in favor.
When an appeals court disagrees with a previous appeals court ruling, it has "two options," neither of which were taken here, the Supreme Court said.
"It may certify the appeal to this court and explain why it believes the prior opinion is wrong. Or it may decide the appeal, adhering to the prior
opinion, and explain why it believes the prior opinion is wrong," liberal justice Janet Protasiewicz wrote.
The Supreme Court must reject the Waukesha court's ruling, otherwise "litigants would feel encouraged to litigate issues ‘multiple times in the four districts.’”
“Why not?” Protasiewicz wrote. “Like the Alliance, if they lose in one district they might win in another.”
The court's opinion was joined by conservative Brian Hagedorn. The court's other two conservatives, Rebecca Bradley and Annette Ziegler, dissented. They said the court should intervene and "resolve weighty matters of privacy, open access to public information and election integrity.”
"Although both parties urged the court to resolve the substantive issue, the majority dodges it and chooses to scold the court of appeals instead," they said.
The Wisconsin Voter Alliance is fighting for guardianship records in order to cross reference the information with the database maintained by state election officials.
"In the 2022 election our data revealed approximately 16,000 adjudicated incompetent people who had lost voting privileges actually voted," the organization's website says.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped to the left in 2023 after an expensive and contentious election. The court has continued to draw headlines over heated internal disputes between the new liberal majority and the conservatives.
The court overturned a ban on ballot drop boxes ahead of the 2024 election. President Trump won Wisconsin, a swing state, in November by about 29,000 votes.
Iran's regime was rocked by a successful assassination attempt that took out two judges on the Supreme Court.
The assailant entered the court in Tehran Saturday morning and killed Ali Razini and Mohammad Moghiseh. The motive of the shooting is unclear, but the victims were both high-ranking clerics in the country's repressive, theocratic regime.
The assailant was said to have shot himself dead as police were in pursuit. He did not have a case before the court, according to the judiciary's media center.
Reports on the attack are murky. One account said the assailant was a court staffer, while the court's own Judiciary Media Center described him as an outside infiltrator.
"This morning, an armed infiltrator at the Supreme Court carried out a premeditated assassination targeting two brave and experienced judges renowned for their fight against crimes against national security, espionage, and terrorism," the Judiciary Media Center said.
"As a result of this terrorist act, two dedicated and revolutionary judges—steadfast in their defense of public security—were killed."
Additional suspects "were identified, summoned or arrested and investigations of them have begun," Asghar Jahangir, a spokesman for Iran’s judiciary, told state media.
The assassinations are a rare example of targeted violence against Iran's clerical elite, who have governed the country with an iron fist for decades.
Both of the victims in the attack are high-profile judges known for cracking down on the Iranian opposition. In particular, both men are said to have played a role in the 1988 mass execution of political dissidents in the group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK.
In a 2017 interview, Rezini justified the "death commissions" as necessary to secure Iran after the conclusion of the brutal Iran-Iraq war, in which MEK sided with Iran's western neighbor.
“Our friends and I who are among the 20 judges in the country, we did our best to ensure the security of that time and the years after and from then, we guaranteed that the hypocrites (the MEK) could never become powerful in this country,” he reportedly said.
Razini survived a previous assassination attempt in 1999 and Mogheiseh was sanctioned in 2019 by the first Trump administration for his role in cracking down on dissent.
“He is notorious for sentencing scores of journalists and internet users to lengthy prison terms,” the U.S. Treasury said at the time.
Iran is expected to face more pressure with the return of President Trump, who pursued a hardline policy against Tehran during his first term.
The Iranian regime has been rocked by occasional large protests from citizens dissatisfied with the status quo.
The most recent wave of demonstrations, in 2022-2023, led to a government crackdown in which hundreds were killed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden, just hours before his presidency ends, announced presidential pardons for a long list of those whose antics contributed to the Democrats' lawfare against President Trump.
Included in the bunch was Anthony Fauci, the former federal health official who declared, during the COVID-19 China virus pandemic, that he WAS the "science."
And he promptly expressed his appreciation for the pardon but proclaimed his innocence.
"I really truly appreciate the action President Biden has taken today on my behalf. Let me be perfectly clear, Jon, I have committed no crime, you know that, and there are no possible grounds for any allegation or threat of criminal investigation or prosecution of me," he claimed.
Fauci said he is grateful because the threats and possibility of a politically motivated prosecution "creates immeasurable and intolerable distress on me and my family."
And while the technicalities all undoubtedly were followed in the pardons, the public perception is going to end up being that there probably was something there.
In fact, the fact-check system for online comments, which is the response from the community, noted that a historic federal court ruling, from the Supreme Court, found that accepting a pardon carries "the imputation of guilt and acceptances of a confession of it."
That was why several of the prison inmates named among the earlier thousands of Biden pardons to criminals, murderers and drug dealers said they did not want the pardons: Because they would influence their pending appeals.
The community response explained that the Supreme Court technically ruled that accepting a pardon does not have a legal impact on guilt or no guilt, and does not bind the recipient to admitting guilt in other circumstances.
"While legally it does not require an admission of guilt, public perception might differ," those community responses explained. "Some might interpret the acceptance of a pardon as an acknowledgment of wrongdoing, but this is more a matter of public opinion than legal fact."
Biden signed pardons for Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley and the entire J6 Select Committee.
The Gateway Pundit explained, "Fauci's policies destroyed millions of lives, bankrupted thousands of businesses, and unnecessarily killed millions around the world. Liz Cheney, who is currently under investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives, knowingly lied about January 6 and President Trump's actions that day."
And, it explained, "General Milley was one of the architects of the worst American foreign policy blunder in history. His response to his own ineptness was to focus on the woke military agenda. Milley also was making promises with China to warn them about any possible U.S. attack."
The report called Biden's latest pardons, "a final act of defiance against the American people."
Biden, whose party launched multiple lawfare attacks against Trump, including wild claims in Georgia that he participated in an organized crime campaign and defrauded companies whose officials said they liked doing business with Trump and wanted to do more, in his proclamation admitted that those he was pardoning could have been "investigated or prosecuted" and they could ultimately have been "exonerated."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden, when he took office on President Donald Trump's departure in 2021, said he wouldn't use pardons like Trump.
Trump did, in fact, pardon a couple of dozen people, mostly during his last few days in office.
They included Stephen Bannon, Dinesh D'Souza and Joseph Arpaio, all longtime supporters.
The rest ranged from fraud cases to conspiracy to obstruction to bank robbery to illegal voting.
At the time, Biden was asked in an interview whether Trump's use of "preemptive pardons" concerned him.
"It concerns me in terms of it uh, what kind of precedent it sets and how the rest of the world looks as us as a nation of laws and, uh, injustice," he said. "Um. You're not going to see in our administration that kind of approach to pardons."
However, his intentions fell by the wayside in the real world, much like his repeated promises to Americans that he would not pardon his son, Hunter, of the gun charges on which he was convicted, or the tax charges to which he pleaded guilty.
He did.
And he pardoned a long list of other supporters, such as Anthony Fauci, the members of the J6 investigation commission, virtually all of his family members – James Biden, Frank Biden, Valerie Biden Owns, John Owens and Sara Biden – who may have been caught up the long list of Biden family schemes, Gen. Mark Milley.
He also commuted the life sentence of Leonard Peltier, in jail for nearly five decades for the 1970s killings of two FBI agents.
Earlier, in multiple orders, he also had pardoned or commuted the sentences of thousands of federal inmates, including several dozen convicted killers who were awaiting the death penalty.
Biden, justifying his actions, said, "I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing."
A federal appeals court has struck down a new version of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, introduced by President Biden, marking a significant moment in the ongoing legal debate.
The court's decision contributes to prolonged legal challenges affecting over 500,000 individuals, leaving their future unclear, though existing protections remain in place for beneficiaries, Fox News reported.
The hotly contested issue of DACA took another turn last Friday when a federal appeals court invalidated a revised version of the policy dated 2022. This development has roots dating back over a decade to when DACA was first introduced by President Barack Obama in 2012. Originally instated to protect young immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, the policy aimed to grant them a temporary reprieve from deportation, allowing them a reprieve while Congress deliberated on broader immigration reforms.
The appeals court comprised a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Interestingly, the panel included judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidencies, highlighting a balanced judicial perspective. Despite this, the decision was unanimous against the Biden administration's updated version, emphasizing ongoing concerns that the policy oversteps executive authority.
The decision further adds to a series of legal challenges and debates surrounding DACA. This is not the first time DACA has been tested in court; the Supreme Court has previously examined the legality of the policy twice, reflecting its contentious nature. Over the course of these legal battles, a fluctuating legal landscape has emerged, affecting many lives in its process.
While the ruling impacts future applications, those currently protected under DACA can continue to live and work in the United States. This interim relief allows them to renew their status, providing a temporary respite amid uncertainty. However, the federal government remains prohibited from processing any new applications, effectively halting any expansion of the program.
The decision comes at a critical juncture when conversations around immigration policies are particularly contentious. Given the ruling's implications, an appeal to the Supreme Court is anticipated, marking what would be the third such challenge before the highest court of the land. Previous Supreme Court assessments of DACA have been pivotal in shaping the program's continuity, including a split decision in 2016 and a 5-4 ruling in 2020.
The latest court decision stems from a challenge spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, representing several Republican-led states. These states contested Biden's DACA update, arguing that it exceeds presidential power. Paxton expressed satisfaction with the ruling, indicating a "major victory" for his side. He also expressed hope for collaboration with the incoming administration in restoring what he considers the rightful legal order.
Examining past attempts to discontinue DACA is crucial to understanding the current scenario. The policy's initial introduction in 2012 came as a stopgap measure amidst stalled legislative efforts in Congress to overhaul immigration laws. The policy sought to focus on the compassionate side of immigration by protecting young individuals who had spent most of their lives in the United States.
The legal challenges gained momentum during the Trump administration, with efforts to terminate the policy altogether. Though President Trump attempted numerous times to end DACA, he has also taken positions supportive of the individuals benefiting from its protections. This complexity illustrates the multifaceted nature of the policy debate.
The crux of the legal arguments centers on whether such immigration programs should be the purview of Congress rather than executive actions from the White House. In an already polarized political environment, the influence of this decision is bound to be felt across the political spectrum, impacting the ongoing discourse on immigration reforms and executive powers.
Looking ahead, the appeals process promises to keep the spotlight on DACA. With the possibility of a third Supreme Court appeal, the judicial system's interpretation of executive limits regarding immigration remains a crucial aspect of the broader debate.
For the hundreds of thousands known as Dreamers, the recent ruling places their futures in an uncertain light.
While some are currently shielded, anxieties persist about the sustainability of these protections amid the shifting legal and political landscapes. This uncertainty highlights the broader issue of immigration policy reform in the United States, as the nation grapples with balancing security, compassion, and legislative capabilities.
The Supreme Court in Iran experienced high drama last week after an assassination resulted in the death of two of the country's Supreme Court judges.
According to the BBC, Supreme Court judges Ali Razini and Mohammad Moghiseh were both murdered after a gunman entered the courtroom, which is located in the country's capital city of Tehran.
The deadly attack happened on Saturday morning, according to local media reports.
The assassin reportedly killed himself as he fled the scene after murdering the judges. A bodyguard was reported to have been injured in the attack.
A motive for the attack was still unclear as authorities continue to investigate what caused the gunman to act, but it was reported that the two judges who were murdered have been instrumental in cracking down on opponents of the Islamic government for decades.
The judiciary's media office released a statement describing the brazen assassination as a "premeditated assassination."
Iranian judges Ali Razini and Mohammad Moghiseh were assassinated in Tehran’s supreme court today.
The gunman, who reportedly killed himself after the attack, also injured a bodyguard. Authorities described the attack as a "premeditated assassination".#Iran #Tehran pic.twitter.com/JpziT4iz3D
— British Pakistani Index (@PakistaniIndex) January 18, 2025
BBC noted:
It also said that, according to initial findings, the attacker had not been involved in any case considered by the supreme court. Officials are investigating whether anyone else is involved in the attack.
It was also reported by local media that both Supreme Court judges had been in power for decades, with one of their main duties being the confirmation of death sentences.
Razini had already survived an assassination attempt in 1998, and was the Iranian Supreme Court's most senior judges, local reports added.
Many on social media added context to how the murdered judges operated in the courtroom. They were reportedly extreme hardliners regarding any opposition to the Iranian government.
"One of the assassinated judges once told an Iranian political prisoner: 'You people have no right to breathe. Your hands should be crushed; you should be blown up with gunpowder poured into your mouth; your pens should be broken'. Today he is finally no longer among us," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Karma works just often enough to make us hopeful."
An investigation into their death is ongoing.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A home builder in Seattle has won a fight against the city's "extortion," demands for $350,000 payment for a water line the project didn't need and wouldn't use.
In fact, the water line the city demanded Oom Living fund wasn't even in his neighborhood.
The results of the fight were announced by the Pacific Legal Foundation.
"The ruling is a great win for a small company that is trying to build new houses in a city where there is an obvious, and desperate, need for them," explained PLF lawyer Brian Hodges.
"The city's demands were nothing more than an exorbitant ransom to receive permission to connect to a public water line, which is necessary to live in a home. Such demands violate the owner's civil rights."
He said with the ruling, "Seattle cannot abuse its power to withhold water connection approvals to force individual property owners to pay for infrastructure that's unrelated to their building project. This victory for home builders and homebuyers will stop the city from shifting unnecessary costs onto the purchase price of new homes."
The ruling in the court fight said the Seattle Public Utilities "arbitrarily and unconstitutionally attempted to force the company to pay for an unnecessary water main in order to build the new house."
The city utility said the building could hook up the new home to the water utility, but only after paying for the new line.
The new line was to address a historic problem with the city's infrastructure, to which the new home had no connection.
"Under SPU's policy, it didn't matter that Oom Living's home fronted an existing water main with ample supply, nor did it matter that the new water main would dead-end in a fully built-out neighborhood that has no need for new pipes. Nor did it even matter that the city's demands would have cost the company over $350,000—a cost that would massively increase the home's ultimate purchase price."
The ruling came from Superior Court of Washington for King County, which told the city it was not allowed to hold the development of a new home hostage to demands for payment for unrelated infrastructure.
With Inauguration Day set for Monday, the nation is poised to turn the page on four years under President Joe Biden, a fact that has prompted a host of reflections on what was accomplished – or not – during his term in office.
As Reuters reports, one of the least impressive aspects of Biden's presidency is the manner in which his agenda -- and many liberal policy shibboleths -- faced repeated and strong rebuke at the U.S. Supreme Court, on issues ranging from abortion to student loan forgiveness.
To be sure, the conservative court majority solidified during Donald Trump's first term in office put Biden at a disadvantage when it came to matters coming before the justices in recent years, but the sheer number of defeats suffered by the president garnered significant attention.
Perhaps most staggering to Biden's supporters on the left was the high court's 2022 decision to overturn the precedent set in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, an outcome that sent the issue of abortion back to the respective states.
2022 also saw the court ruling in a manner that substantially expanded gun rights in the United States, a decision that has prompted the reversal of a series of state-level limitations on the Second Amendment, much to the chagrin of liberals everywhere.
The administration went down to defeat in 2023, when race-conscious college admissions were invalidated by the justices, an undeniable blow to the culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion championed by Biden and his allies.
Biden also suffered an embarrassing rejection when his campaign promise-driven plan to forgive billions of dollars in student loan debt went down to defeat at the high court, adding to the list of policy positions thwarted during the course of the president's Oval Office tenure, a time also characterized by the Supreme Court's reversal of the Chevron doctrine of deference to administrative agencies, a concept long revered by liberals.
The staggering number of losses sustained by the Biden administration at the Supreme Court did not escape the notice of numerous legal scholars who spoke to Reuters about the outgoing president's legacy in this regard.
University of California Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky opined, “I think it is the toughest series of defeats since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s had many New Deal programs declared unconstitutional.”
Having served as a Department of Justice lawyer during George W. Bush's time in office, John Yoo offered his own, unique take on the losses suffered by Biden in recent years.
“It's hard to think of another president in our lifetimes who lost so many high-profile cases on issues so near and dear to his constitutional agenda,” Yoo said.
Yoo suggested that the administration stubbornly refused to change its approach when the majority justices evinced their preference for an originalist approach to cases, and it therefore “rendered itself irrelevant on the most important constitutional questions of the day.”
Biden himself took aim at the trends seen among the justices, declaring the institution “not a normal court” and a body he said was responsible for “extreme opinions that...have undermined long-established civil rights principles and protections.”
However, as he leaves office, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll suggests that the lion's share of Americans may either agree with the high court's frequent rebukes of Biden or at least realize his administration's inability to prevail before the justices, with 44% of respondents labeling him a “failed president,” and just 26% calling him either good or great -- a damning verdict no matter how you slice it.