A Georgia judge has rejected Kenneth Chesebro's request to withdraw his guilty plea in his case involving President-elect Donald Trump's alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, The Hill reported. Chesbro was formerly a lawyer for Trump and was part of a sweeping case against Trump and 17 others in his orbit.
Last year, Chesebro and his legal representative reached a plea deal just before becoming the first of the group to go on trial. He pleaded guilty to a single charge he was facing as Trump was shocked by the brazenness of the Georgia prosecution.
However, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee retooled the indictment and removed several charges. One of those was the single charge the former Trump attorney had already accepted the deal for.
Despite this fact, McAfee denied Chesebro's request on the basis that it was unworkable "in more ways than one," the judge claimed. "The Defendant has already submitted a plea in response to this indictment — one of guilt," he wrote.
The Argument
McAfee took exception to many problems with Chesebro's request. For starters, Chesebro never successfully argued against the charge, and now the request to dismiss it is too late in the process.
His attorney countered by claiming it could be considered a "motion in arrest of judgment," which is a challenge to the validity of the charge. McAfee struck that down as well, citing Chesebro's sentencing under the First Offender Act.
The Georgia statute "defers further proceedings while the charge remains pending for the duration of the sentence," but there never was a judgment in the case. McAfee noted that this nullified Chesebro's request.
"No final judgment occurs. Therefore, there can be no motion in arrest of judgment here," McAfee said.
Chesebro's attorney, Manny Arora, acknowledged the judge's decision was reasonable in light of the facts of the situation.The only other route right now will be to file a habeas corpus petition to further examine the legality of the overall case.
Problematic Case
While Chesebro might not get a reprieve from his guilty plea, the entire case has been coming apart at the seams. According to NBC News, Trump's attorneys now argue that the case against him should be thrown out following the election.
Trump is the incoming president and will be immune from all prosecution once he takes the White House, the defense argues. However, that case had problems even before Trump's electoral victory.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who was prosecuting the case, had a considerable conflict of interest. According to Fox News, she has also been stonewalling Judicial Watch's subpoena for communications between her office and special counsel Jack Smith, who was in charge of Trump's federal investigation.
"Fani Willis is something else. We’ve been doing this work for 30 years, and this is the first time in our experience a government official has been found in default for not showing up in court to answer an open records lawsuit," Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch President, said.
As Trump heads to the White House, it becomes increasingly clear that these efforts to stop him were all for nothing. Unfortunately, Chesebro got caught up in Georgia's version and can't seem to find a way out just yet.
The Montana Supreme Court temporarily blocked a law banning so-called gender-affirming care for minors, the Associated Press reported. Proponents of the original bill slammed the decision that will allow harm to come to children.
On Wednesday, the state's high court unanimously agreed with a lower court's decision to nix the bill that would make it illegal to chemically castrate and surgically mutilate children. Phoebe Cross, a 17-year-old gender-confused girl who claims to be a boy, was the lead plaintiff in the case.
"I will never understand why my representatives are working to strip me of my rights and the rights of other transgender kids. Just living as a trans teenager is difficult enough, the last thing me and my peers need is to have our rights taken away," Cross said.
The case will now go before District Court Judge Jason Marks in Missoula for further consideration. The state's attorney general eagerly awaits the opportunity to defend the law, especially since Britain just banned puberty blockers indefinitely because of the risks.
Harm to Children
Proponents of the bill are outraged that the state's Supreme Court cares so little about protecting children. Sen. John Fuller, the bill's GOP sponsor, called the decision "an egregious example of the hyperpartisanship of the Montana Supreme Court."
Fuller slammed the high court for allowing Montana doctors to "sterilize and mutilate children" while failing to protect them "from unscientific and experimental drugs and operations that have grown increasingly evident as a danger to children." Montana's attorney general has vowed to keep up the fight.
Spokesperson Chase Scheuer said the "Supreme Court put the wellbeing of children -- who have yet to reach puberty -- at risk by allowing experimental treatments that could leave them to deal with serious and irreversible consequences for the rest of their lives to continue." It's clear that the safety concerns can no longer be ignored.
In a decision Wednesday across the pond, the U.K. announced that "existing emergency measures banning the sale and supply of puberty-suppressing hormones will be made indefinite, following official advice from medical experts," Fox News reported. This decision was about the well-being of children.
"Children’s healthcare must always be evidence-led. The independent expert Commission on Human Medicines found that the current prescribing and care pathway for gender dysphoria and incongruence presents an unacceptable safety risk for children and young people," Wes Streeting, the U.K.'s Health and Social Care Secretary, noted in a statement.
The Fight Continues
Despite the evidence that these medications and procedures are harmful, the people opposing the laws against them have vowed to continue to fight. At least 25 other states have attempted to pass s similar legislation and have similarly been subject to lawsuits.
Predictably, ACLU Montana Executive Director Akilah Deernose celebrated the high court's decision. "Today’s ruling permits our clients to breathe a sigh of relief," Deernose said in a statement.
"But the fight for trans rights is far from over. We will continue to push for the right of all Montanans, including those who are transgender, to be themselves and live their lives free of intrusive government interference," the spokesperson added.
Justice Beth Baker, who wrote the majority opinion, claimed that Senate Bill 99 "affords no room for decision-making by a patient in consultation with their doctors and parents" to frame it as a liberty issue. "The statute is a complete ban, prohibiting individualized care tailored to the needs of each patient based on the exercise of professional medical judgment and informed consent."
It's unbelievable that anyone would support such barbaric and radical treatments for children who are confused about their gender. The Montana Supreme Court has issued a ruling that will allow those who want to harm children this way to continue unimpeded, and that's just disgraceful.
While appealing to the Supreme Court, TikTok is attempting to have a bill that would prohibit the app delayed. On Wednesday, the DOJ requested a federal appeals court to deny this move.
Last Thursday, the rule was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This means that TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, must divest from the app or face a ban on January 19, as Fox Business reported.
The Department of Justice contended that TikTok had failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent the statute from being implemented as intended by Congress and had instead simply restated arguments that had previously been rejected by the appeals court, and is in defiance of what the former, and soon to be again, president has said he'll support.
Furthermore, it highlighted that the parties had reached a mutually agreeable timeline, which would provide TikTok the opportunity to submit a comparable petition to the Supreme Court.
From the Gov Request
“Petitioners are entitled to ask the Supreme Court to enjoin the law’s application pending that Court’s review, and they expressly reserved their right to do so and set a schedule that would allow time for it,” the government wrote.
“They are not entitled, however, to an injunction against an Act of Congress when the only court to consider their constitutional challenge has rejected it,” it continued.
“The Supreme Court can decide for itself whether the statute must be enjoined.”
Last Friday, a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit found in favor of the government and against TikTok, asserting that the law does not infringe upon the First Amendment.
From TikTok
On Monday, TikTok requested a stay of execution of the statute until its appeal is heard by the Supreme Court. The company claims that the app's 170 million American users will be impacted by the shutdown of the platform on the "eve of a presidential inauguration."
“Before that happens, the Supreme Court should have an opportunity, as the only court with appellate jurisdiction over this action, to decide whether to review this exceptionally important case,” TikTok wrote.
Earlier this year, the divest-or-ban bill swiftly made its way through Congress, passing with huge bipartisan majorities in both houses. President Biden signed it into law in April.
What President-elect Trump does with his new authority next month is, however, anyone's guess. Trump campaigned against the bill, saying it would be good for Facebook and other big platforms, and he promised to "save TikTok."
Trump's Take
However, during a weekend interview, the president-elect seemed hesitant to commit to any measures to secure the app.
“I’m going to try and make it so that other companies don’t become an even bigger monopoly,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Colorado officials chose the route of exhibiting hostility to Christianity when they attacked baker Jack Phillips and tried to demand he produce messages on his products that violated his Christian faith.
The Supreme Court delivered a victory to Phillips in that fight, scolding the state.
Officials in that extreme leftist state then decided the Supreme Court wasn't really serious, and attacked a website designer over the same dispute. They tried to order her to promote projects and ideologies that violated her faith.
The state got scolded by the Supreme Court again. This time the scolding came with a $1.5 million bill that the state's taxpayers must pay because of the leftist agendas of the state's election and appointed officials.
But really, the Supreme Court didn't mean that, either.
At least that's the apparent perspective of officials in the state of California, who have tried to demand that a baker there make products with messages that violate her Christian faith.
According to a report from Becket, LiMandri & Jonna and the Thomas More Society, Cathy Miller's case will be heard by the state's 5th District Court of Appeal in a few days.
The legal teams explained, "A Christian baker will be in California state court next week to protect her ability to operate her bakery in accordance with her faith. In California Department of Civil Rights v. Tastries, Cathy Miller wants to continue serving her local Bakersfield community at her bakery, Tastries, a vision she brought to life over a decade ago."
Leftist state officials there investigated her after she told a same-sex duo that her faith did not allow her to promote their ideology and personally design their wedding cake.
"For over six years, California has repeatedly compared Miller's religious beliefs about marriage to racism and argued that Miller's beliefs harm 'the dignity of all Californians,'" the lawyers said.
A lower court, in line with the Supreme Court, said Miller cannot be required to express messages on her products that violate her faith.
But the state has insisted on taking its agenda to the appeals court.
"As a faithful Christian and owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California, Cathy Miller has custom-designed baked goods for over a decade. Miller believes that her bakery is 'God's business,' her bakery's mission statement is to 'honor God in all that we do,' and her Christian faith influences everything from the Bible verses she puts on her business cards to the music she plays in the shop," her legal counsel confirmed.
"Since 2017, however, the California Civil Rights Department has forced Miller into court because she will not personally design wedding cakes that go against her religious beliefs, including those that violate the Christian sacrament of marriage."
Earlier, a California Superior Court judge said Miller cannot be forced to personally design a wedding cake that violates her faith.
WND reported last year on the Supreme Court precedent, when a ruling blasted Colorado for its attack on 303 Creative and its owner.
The justices banned the state of Colorado from picking and choosing its own leftist ideology and requiring business owners from state that as their own.
The result, the second time in a row that the state of Colorado has been caught, and scolded, for its "hostility" to Christianity, now should be applied to other similar cases, according to ADF.
In 303 Creative, the justices said the right to free speech means Colorado's leftist governor, Jared Polis, and the state Democrat machine there, could not require Lorie Smith, a web designer, to promote same-sex weddings with her website business.
Earlier, the justice blasted Colorado for its actual "hostility" to Christian baker Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. That followed one state official actually likening Christians to Nazis.
Becket reports Miller also bans from her products "gory or pornographic images," celebrations of drug use or messages that demean others.
"My faith calls me to serve others with joy and compassion, and Tastries has been my way of answering that call since I opened its doors over a decade ago," she said in a statement released by her lawyers.
The lower court ruling was from Judge Eric Bradshaw who said creating a cake is protected as "pure speech" and considered artistic expression.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden, who just days earlier had delivered a special get-out-of-jail-free card to his son Hunter Biden, who was convicted on multiple gun charges and pleaded guilty to a list of tax felonies that could have put him in jail for years, has announced another 39 pardons and the commutation of sentences for almost 1,500 people.
Joe Biden's earlier pardon of Hunter was the result of his own stunning flip-flop on the issue. He repeatedly had promised the American people he would abide by the decisions of the judges and juries in Hunter Biden's criminal cases.
He apparently lied, however, delivering an unprecedent grant of pardon for any and all crimes committed by Hunter Biden over the course of more than a decade.
The move prompted immediately speculation that Joe Biden now will issue pre-emptive pardons to other personalities in Washington who have launched vicious attacks on President-elect Donald Trump, sometimes edging over into what could be described as illegal behavior, such as members of ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan January 6 committee who destroyed evidence following their campaign against Trump.
Specific names brought up in the pardon speculation game include Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney, former members of the U.S. House who repeatedly used their offices and power to launch unsupported attacks on Trump, and Anthony Fauci, who manipulated the American public with his demands during the COVID pandemic.
The White House Biden also promised more announcements.
The latest move issues pardons for 39 people "convicted of non-violent crimes."
The clemency for 1,500 was the "most ever in a single day."
Those people, the White House charged, have "shown successful rehabilitation and a strong commitment to making their communities safer."
Those individuals had been placed on home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
"Together, these actions build on the president's record of criminal justice reform to help reunite families, strengthen communities, and reintegrate individuals back into society," the White House statement claimed.
The White House comments continued: "He is also the first president ever to issue categorical pardons to individuals convicted of simple use and possession of marijuana, and to former LGBTQI+ service members convicted of private conduct because of their sexual orientation. In the coming weeks, the president will take additional steps to provide meaningful second chances and continue to review additional pardons and commutations."
The statement boasted that those receiving relief include: "A decorated military veteran and pilot who spends much of his time helping his fellow church members who are in poor health or unable to perform strenuous tasks."
But there was no mention of the offense committed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The inspector general for the Department of Justice has confirmed that there were at least 26 undercover federal agents on duty at the Jan. 6, 2021, protest-turned-riot at the U.S. Capitol.
There long has been speculation about such agents, and accusations back and forth about who they were and what they did.
Such "confidential human sources" are used by the DOJ to obtain information that can be used in criminal charges against others, and those CHS individuals sometimes are given permission by the government to violate certain laws in order to maintain their undercover identity, and more. IG Michael Horowitz suggested that was not the case in this situation.
The Washington Examiner said it was Horowitz who confirmed the undercover agents were in use during the riot, and explained it was a "revelation that lends clarity to an aspect of the event that has long been a source of speculation."
The report said Horowitz said in an 84-page report that the sources, mostly unpaid, were in the riot.
"Some of them were embedded among rioters in restricted areas, and four FBI sources also entered the Capitol with them," the report confirmed.
Horowitz did claim the FBI did not authorize any of those undercover agents to enter the Capitol or otherwise break the law.
But he said those who did enter restricted areas have not faced any charges.
The report pointed out that the DOJ, through the activist agenda of Matthew Graves in Washington, has charged some 1,500 people with violations in connection to the riot.
Most faced offenses like trespassing, for which prosecutors sought jail time. There were some other more serious cases that included vandalism or assaulting police officers.
The only person killed that day was an unarmed protester, Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed without warning by a Capitol Police officer who then was protected by the government.
Because of the years it took for that confirmation to be revealed, speculation suggested that law enforcement agents were part of the riot, or even organized and abetted it.
"While the FBI undertook significant efforts to identify domestic terrorism subjects who planned to travel to the Capital region on January 6 and to prepare to support its law enforcement partners on January 6 if needed, we also determined that the FBI did not take a step that could have helped the FBI and its law enforcement partners with their preparations in advance of January 6," he found.
In fact, President Donald Trump repeatedly had offered to authorize National Guard troops to be at the Capitol that day to make sure there wasn't any significant violence, but his offer was rejected by Democrats in Washington, including both at the city and federal levels.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal appeals court has trashed the rules imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission that required companies to have quotas from various population groups.
The decision found the SEC had no authority to impose its demands.
"We are grateful the court reached the right conclusion in this case," Stefan Padfield, of the Free Enterprise Project, told USA Today. "The SEC was reaching beyond its statutory authority to try and engage in progressive social engineering. The court's decision here is not only correct on the law, but also consistent with the will of the American people, who are sick and tired of seeing their government engage in divisive identity politics."
The New Civil Liberties Alliance had fought the case on behalf of the National Center for Public Policy Research's FEP and the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment.
The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the SEC's adoption of quotas for boards.
That agenda was to impose race, sex and orientation quotas on corporate boards across the U.S.
But the SEC Act of 1934, "required companies listed on a registered stock exchange to comply with SEC disclosure regulations. … SEC may not approve even a disclosure rule unless it can establish the rule has some connection to an actual, enumerated purpose of the Act.'
The decision was written by Judge Andrew S. Oldham in National Center for Public Policy Research v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The ruling determined the race, sex and orientation of board members had "no connection" to the purposes of the law.
"SEC has intruded into territory far outside its ordinary domain," the judge said. And he said Nasdaq "offered little support for its claim that there is an empirically established – even logical – link between the racial, gender, and sexual composition of a company's board and the quality of its governance."
In fact, the law "explicitly forbids SEC from approving Nasdaq rules that regulate matters unrelated to the Act's purposes. Gender, race, and sexual orientation fall outside the Act's purposes. Even SEC itself determined these demographic characteristics have no rational relationship to corporate performance and investor returns," the legal team said.
Peggy Little, NCLA counsel, said, "The en banc majority hewed closely to the plain text of the Exchange Act and its 1975 Amendments. It adopted NCLA's statutory construction analysis that not only did Congress fail to confer such extraordinary power on this financial regulator, but SEC is statutorily forbidden to approve rules unless they further the 'purposes' of the Act to ensure fair and open markets."
And NCLA chief Mark Chenoweth explained, "The en banc Fifth Circuit has now agreed with NCLA for the third time in the last three years. This time, the Court held that Congress did not authorize SEC to adopt disclosure rules willy-nilly. Today's decision should chasten SEC to stick to its knitting and stop trying to abuse its market-regulating power."
The ruling noted, "Nasdaq proposed rules that compel the companies listed on its exchange to disclose information about the racial, gender, and sexual characteristics of their directors, and to have (or explain why they do not have) at least two directors who meet Nasdaq's definition of 'diverse,' SEC approved those rules. We hold, however, that the diversity rules cannot be squared with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934."
It continued, "It is obviously unethical to violate the law or to disregard a contractual promise. It is not unethical for a company to decline to disclose information about the racial, gender, and LGTBQ+ characteristics of its directors. We are not aware of any established rule or custom of the securities trade that saddles companies with an obligation to explain why their boards of directors do not have as much racial, gender, or sexual orientation diversity as Nasdaq would prefer."
As part of President-elect Donald Trump's pledge to uproot "woke" ideology in the U.S. government, he's already nominated former SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins to be the next SEC chairman. Current SEC Chair Gary Gensler said last month he'll quit when Trump takes office in a few weeks.
Sens. Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Peter Welch (D-VT) have proposed adding term limits for Supreme Court justices, Fox News reported. The change would require a constitutional amendment as justices are currently appointed for life.
Like everything else in politics, the Supreme Court has become more partisan in recent years. Several wins by the conservative majority have prompted Democrats to call for changes.
Manchin was a longtime Democrat who recently became an independent after becoming fed up with his party. The West Virginia lawmaker is also in the final days of his term, as he did not seek reelection.
Perhaps this finality compelled him to propose an amendment that would shake up the Supreme Court. In a news release, Manchin and Welch explained how their term limits would work.
The Proposal
The court currently consists of nine justices appointed for life based on the language stating they "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" in the Constitution. The lawmakers propose a change that would come over time.
"The proposed amendment would not adjust the tenure of sitting Justices, but rather institute a transition period to maintain regular vacancies as current Justices retire. During that period, 18-year terms will begin every two years, regardless of when a current Justice leaves the bench," the news release explained.
"Once a current Justice retires, the newly appointed Justice will serve out the remainder of the next open 18-year term. The amendment would not change the overall number of Justices on the Court," the news release added.
The Judiciary Act of 1869 implemented the current nine-justice panel, but the Constitution does not stipulate any number. Manchin and Welch seek to change that, effectively stopping any efforts to pack the court with additional justices to tip the balance of power.
"Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine Justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the Court, allowing the President to appoint a new Justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our legislation to help restore faith in our judicial system," the release notes.
The Argument
Manchin believes the current system "has eroded public confidence" in the judicial branch. "I’m proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Welch that would establish 18-year term limits for Justices of the United States Supreme Court," the news release quoted Manchin.
"The current lifetime appointment structure is broken and fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land." Manchin said it would mean a new appointment every two years "with the advice and consent of the United States Senate" to confirm.
"I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our legislation to help restore faith in our judicial system," Manchin added. Welch similarly cited the need to "restore Americans' faith in our judicial system" in his reasoning.
"Taking action to restore public trust in our nation's most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary. Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans," Welch claimed.
The left only seems eager to tinker with the Supreme Court now that conservatives have a six to three majority on the court. America's founders believed term limits would lead to more political jockeying, not less, and their wisdom in lifetime appointments seems more prescient than ever.
Senator John Fetterman stirred controversy on ABC's "The View" by suggesting both Donald Trump and Hunter Biden should receive presidential pardons due to the political nature of their legal challenges, the Daily Mail reported.
In a bold statement on national television, Fetterman argued that the legal actions against both Trump and Hunter Biden were driven by political motives.During his appearance on "The View," Pennsylvania Democrat Sen. John Fetterman discussed the legal cases involving former President Donald Trump and Hunter Biden. He expressed his viewpoint that both cases were tainted by political motivations.
Understanding the Legal Background of Trump and Biden
Fetterman highlighted the recent pardon of Hunter Biden by President Joe Biden, which occurred after Thanksgiving. Hunter had faced charges for falsifying a firearm purchase form in 2018. The move has sparked a broad spectrum of criticism, with many arguing it was influenced by his father's position.
On the other hand, Trump's legal troubles stem from a New York trial where he was convicted for a hush money payment intended to prevent Stormy Daniels from disclosing their affair during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has maintained that his trial was politically motivated.
Sen. Fetterman Advocates for Equity in Legal Challenges
"I think it's undeniable that the case against Hunter Biden was really politically motivated, but I also think it's true that the trial in New York for Trump, that was political as well, too," Fetterman stated in the interview with Joy Behar.
Fetterman proposed that pardoning both Hunter Biden and Donald Trump could restore public confidence in U.S. judicial institutions, suggesting that these institutions should not be used as tools against political opponents.
"And we cannot allow these kinds of institutions to be weaponized against our political opponents. And it's very clear both trials were politically motivated and weaponized on the other side," he argued.
Public Reaction and Political Implications
Behar challenged Fetterman's comparison by bringing up the political weaponization claims surrounding the January 6 defendants, to which Fetterman clarified his focus was solely on the New York trial.
"I'm not referring to that," Fetterman insisted. "I'm talking about the New York trial. And now, the Democrats on our side were now – there were some of them were gleeful saying, 'Well now, he's a convicted felon.'" He added that such charges are often brought forth to leverage political gain.
Following the presidential pardon of his son, Trump hinted at the possibility of issuing pardons for those involved in the January 6 Capitol riots, further complicating the discourse around political pardons.
Future of Political Trials and Pardons in the U.S.
The discussion on "The View" mirrors a larger national debate about the role of justice in politics and whether legal actions are often influenced by political agendas. Fetterman’s comments have ignited conversations about the impartiality and potential weaponization of legal systems against political figures.
Both cases, according to Fetterman, illustrate a disturbing trend where legal processes are perceived as extensions of political battles, thus undermining public trust in these institutions.
"I really think, collectively, you know, America's confidence in these kinds of institutions has been damaged by these kinds of cases," Fetterman noted, emphasizing the need for a non-partisan approach to legal challenges involving political figures.
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the authority of the government to revoke visas for fraudulent marriages, finding such decisions fall within the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security and cannot be reviewed by courts.
The case was brought by Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen married to a Palestinian non-citizen.
Bouarfa's petition for a spousal visa was initially approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, but the agency later revoked the approval when it found her husband had engaged in a sham marriage in the past.
Court rules on visa fraud
Writing for the court, Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that federal law grants the Secretary of Homeland Security power to revoke an approved visa petition "at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause."
“Congress granted the Secretary [of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security] broad authority to revoke an approved visa petition ‘at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause,’” Jackson wrote in the court’s opinion.
“Such a revocation is thus ‘in the discretion’ of the agency."
The DHS initially accepted Bouarfa's application but later found that her husband, Ala’a Hamayel, had paid his ex-wife $5,000 in exchange for a green card.
Bouarfa appealed at the agency level, to no avail, before taking the matter to the federal court system. A federal court in Florida ruled that revocation was a discretionary action that the courts have no power to review, and the 11th Circuit affirmed.
Broad discretion
Bouarfa had argued that her case can be reviewed in court because the DHS was forced to revoke her initial approval. She argued that the agency consistently revokes applications it later finds to be fraudulent, so the issue is not really up to the Secretary's discretion.
But federal law places no such constraints on the Secretary's discretion, Jackson noted. Neither does the agency's general practice of revoking fraudulent applications tie its hands.
Discretion is a "two-way street," Jackson noted: just as the government can revoke a sham petition, it can choose to "let the error stand."
"As a general matter, then, this discretion may work to the benefit of visa petition beneficiaries, since rather than tying the agency’s hands by forcing revocation, Congress created 'room for mercy,'" Jackson wrote.
While revocations cannot be challenged in court, nothing is stopping Bouarfa from starting the process over again, and she has already done so. If the government rejects her new petition, she may seek judicial review, Jackson said.
