Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan criticized the court's growing "shadow docket" of often controversial case that the court takes up on an emergency basis.
The emergency docket has expanded in recent years, a trend that Kagan lamented in an interview about the court's work Monday.
According to Kagan, the trend started during the Trump administration and has only continued under Biden.
"It's a symmetric problem: it doesn't really matter who's president," Kagan told a professor at New York University's law school. "Government and non-government parties started coming to the court in ever-increasing numbers."
Kagan sounds off
The growth of the emergency docket has impacted the court's summer recess, which is becoming busier than ever.
Since its term ended in July, the court has continued to rule on controversial matters like Biden's student loan plan and his expansion of Title IX guidelines to protect transgender students.
Cases on the emergency docket typically do not include complete written opinions from the justices, who now issue about 60 full opinions per year. Kagan regretted that the court is spending a "ton more time" on the emergency docket these days.
"It's a very hard problem," Kagan said. "I don't think we do our best work in this way."
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that it was mistaken to accept an Idaho abortion case. Kagan cited the reversal as an example of "the things that can go wrong" when the court takes cases "without a good understanding of what a case is about."
"I thought it was a mistake from the get-go," she said.
Ethics code
Kagan also addressed the mounting calls from Democrat for Supreme Court reform, including an enforceable ethics code.
“It seems like a good idea in terms of ensuring that we comply with our own code of conduct going forward in the future,” Kagan said. “It seems like a good idea in terms of ensuring that people have confidence that we’re doing exactly that. So it seems like a salutary thing for the court."
Kagan, who usually votes with the liberal wing, also discussed the importance of cultivating relationships with her colleagues across the aisle.
She discussed her new interest in golf, something she shares with Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts.
“Why should you care?" Kagan said. "If it leads to better decision making, if it leads to better conversations ... about the court's business, then it's a fantastic thing," she said.
Still, Kagan acknowledged many Americans are looking for more substantive reform: "But the proof is in the pudding ... It should not be sufficient for us to say, 'we go to the opera together.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Internal Revenue Service is being sued for violating the freedom of speech, free exercise and equal treatment requirements of the U.S. Constitution against two churches and a couple of conservative nonprofit organizations with tax-exempt status – while ignoring rules violations from leftist organizations.
It was, of course, during Barack Obama's administration that the IRS was caught scheming, and acting, against conservative organizations as Obama was seeking re-election, by delaying and rejecting their applications for tax status so that they would not be able to speak about Obama's extremist agenda during the campaign.
The result was a series of lawsuits, settlements, public admissions of misbehavior by the IRS and more scandals.
And WND reported more than a year ago that that was Lois Lerner, Part 1, when she pled the Fifth before Congress, was found in contempt and given a free pass by Obama.
That report said conservatives at that time were warning that Lois Lerner, Part 2, was coming.
It was because the IRS under Joe Biden, like the IRS under Obama, "subjected an elections nonprofit to a battery of prying questions about its policy positions, language choices and methodology for arriving at correct opinions and conclusions prior to peremptorily rejecting its application for tax-exempt status without appeal."
The first round found the feds attacking Christians and Tea Party organizations under Obama. Eventually the federal government had to pay out millions to the groups it damaged.
The second round was triggered by Washington's attack on a group called Adams, Baldwin, and Covey Foundation.
"Founder Phill Kline charged the IRS has demanded answers to questions like, 'Have you held [a] particular position or view on certain issues or topics? If you do, please detail the position or views of your organization,' and 'Do you have any policy/policies or guidance in place to avoid unsupported opinions or conclusions and inflammatory language in the activities?'"
Kline told the feds to provide the justification for such questions, and explain whether those were being directed at other organizations, too.
Kline warned at the time it was evidence of Biden's belief he can "license thought and speech."
Now a report by the Epoch Times says the new lawsuit is over the IRS actions against conservatives, even while it imposes "no repercussions" on "left-leaning" publications that support Democratic political candidates "in violation of the IRS Code."
The complaint "cites examples of nonprofit media organizations appearing to endorse President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and other political figures, as well as church leaders praising Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former President Barack Obama during services while they were candidates for president."
"Plaintiffs believe that the activity described … demonstrates ongoing, open, and obvious violations of the [law] by churches friendly to Democrat candidates," the complaint states, according to the report. "However, plaintiffs contend that all such activity is constitutionally protected. Plaintiffs only seek the freedom to engage in similar activity."
In 2020 Cornerstone Chapel in Leesburg, Virginia, was punished when its pastor told members to vote in line with the values in the Bible, and confirmed the Republican platform was closer than the Democrats.
Then a group called "Christians Engaged" was refused tax-exempt status because its teachings were "typically affiliated with the [Republican] party and candidates," although that decision later was overruled.
But the lawsuit said there's no evidence of any investigation, much less adverse action, against any "Democrat-affiliated nonprofit."
The case also points out since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling all corporations organized under any section but the nonprofits' 501(c)(3) may support or oppose candidates.
The action is pending the federal court in Texas.
"The plaintiffs in the case are the National Religious Broadcasters, Sand Springs Church, the First Baptist Church Waskom, and the Intercessors for America, a national prayer group," the report said.
David Kallman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said, "We are not asking the court to restrict the rights of … churches and other liberal organizations, even though they continuously violate the Johnson Amendment without repercussions from the IRS. We just want the same standard to be applied to all churches and 501(c)(3)s."
The Michigan Supreme Court on Monday reversed a lower court ruling requiring the state election board to remove Robert F. Kennedy's name from the ballot, meaning that voters will see his name as an option when they vote absentee or in person between September 21 and November 5.
The Democrat-majority court ruled 3-2 against Kennedy's request on the grounds that no specific law requires a name to be removed.
The proceeding only became necessary after Kennedy sued Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) when she refused his request to be removed from the ballot. Kennedy suspended his campaign and endorsed former President Donald Trump, and he
Benson and the Supreme Court Democrats, of course, acted consistent with their partisan interests, whether or not it's what they really believe the law intends.
Strong dissent
The Republican justices wrote a strong dissent to the majority ruling, however.
“The ballots printed as a result of the Court’s decision will have the potential to confuse the voters, distort their choices, and pervert the true popular will and affect the outcome of the election,” they wrote. “In short, the Court’s ruling will do nothing to rebuild the public’s trust in the fairness and accuracy of our elections.”
As Kennedy had argued, voters shouldn't be given a chance to vote for someone who isn't willing to serve, if he wins.
But Democrats believe that Kennedy's name being on the ballot will benefit their candidate and hurt Trump, so they want to keep his name on the ballot anyway.
Swing states
Michigan is a swing state, which means the vote count could be very, very close. If even a small number of voters mark their ballots for Kennedy instead of Trump or Harris, it could change the outcome of a close election.
The state is now on a rushed schedule to print and mail absentee ballots to overseas military by the September 21 deadline.
Michigan is not the only state dealing with a decision about whether to remove Kenned's name from ballots.
The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled the opposite way from Michigan on Monday, ordering Kennedy's name removed from the ballot there.
Kennedy has focused his efforts on swing states where he can have the most effect in removing his name.
The battle is still going on in Wisconsin, where Kennedy has asked an appeals court to rule in his favor after the lower court ruled to keep his name on the ballot.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new task force assembled by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2021 to consider "threats" against election workers and officials across the nation has reviewed 2,000 cases since it was created in 2021, a new report explains.
And 1,140 of those came from one source, the leftist secretary of state in the leftist administration in Colorado, Jena Griswold.
It is in a report from Colorado Peak Politics that explains further of all of those 1,140 complaints formally submitted by Griswold, only one has resulted in a conviction.
The report explained, "This isn't the Wild Wild West anymore or even the 1980s. It's not okay to spout off and threaten to kick everyone's a** who pisses you off. But just so we're clear, thin-skinned elected officials like Griswold shouldn't burden law enforcement to investigate the thousands of crank calls or nasty online comments about their person.
"Elected officials should expect their constituents aren't always going to agree with them, and as Americans are, can sometimes be quite annoying about it. It's critical that officials learn to tell the difference, for everyone's safety," the report said.
It explained even the single conviction that followed a Griswold complaint, "looks questionable."
It was, in fact, Griswold who demanded lawmakers pay for a special security team for her, a demand that was denied.
The one case that resulted in a conviction, the report said, involved Kirk Wertz, 52, of Littleton, who in 2022 served 286 days in jail before being convicted of retaliation, a low-level felony. He then was given probation.
The report explained his "threat" wasn't recorded, but went something like, "I've got a message for the secretary and want you to pass it along: The angel of death is coming for her in the name of Jesus Christ."
The scandalous story of White House-directed censorship during the COVID-19 pandemic continues to unfold, and new revelations from an ongoing lawsuit has brought even more damning details to light.
As Just the News reports, Alex Berenson, a former journalist with the New York Times, submitted an amended complaint in federal court that includes new details secured from X as well as from Congress, evidence he says supports his claims of First Amendment violations by the Biden administration.
Berenson amends complaint
It was last week that Berenson updated his filings in a lawsuit targeting President Joe Biden, several current and former administration officials, and two Pfizer executives over their involvement in social media content moderation during the pandemic.
Berenson asserts that based on new email evidence, it is clear that Facebook considered former White House COVID response coordinator Andy Slavitt as something of an “intermediary” with the administration, despite his purported resignation from his prior role.
This stands in contrast to claims made by Slavitt's attorneys suggesting that his engagement with Facebook about alleged misinformation promulgated by Berenson was done as a private citizen.
The new details included in his amended complaint, Berenson says, are strong enough to meet the Supreme Court's high standards in this realm, recently articulated in its denial of a preliminary injunction in the related Murthy v. Missouri case.
Berenson's updated complaint says, “Slavitt was at the center of the conspiracy,” to have the journalist removed from social media platforms, and he “remained close” to then-Biden chief of staff Ron Klain, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and then-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb.
Damning emails revealed
Email messages detail Slavitt's discussions with Metal President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg, both before and after the former departed the White House.
Clegg wrote, “Just got off hour long call with Andy Slavitt,” who was apparently “outraged” by Facebook's decision not to remove a post likening COVID-19 vaccines to asbestos.
According to Berenson's complaint, Slavitt endeavored to convey the impression that he was speaking on behalf of the White House despite having left his official role there.
Berenson now says, “Twitter's closest competitor viewed Slavitt as speaking for the government at the same time he was pressuring Twitter over me,” adding that “Timing is not a problem” as it was in the Murthy case, in that “Twitter took no public action against me before the federal government began pressuring it.”
Mr. Zuckerberg regrets
Berenson's revelations come just days after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that the Biden White House exerted pressure on Facebook to censor COVID-19 posts, as the New York Post explained.
Zuckerberg noted that the Biden team even coerced the removal of material that included “humor and satire,” and Facebook's compliance with those directives is something for which the tech mogul is now sorry.
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it. I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn't make today,” but whether this spate of mea culpa will coincide with a win for Berenson, only time will tell.
Former President Donald Trump and his lawyers have scored a mountain of legal victories in recent months.
The latest victory came after Trump's sentencing in the New York "hush money" case was once again rescheduled -- this time until after the November election.
Legal scholars, such as lawyer Jonathan Turley, analyzed the situation and according to Newsweek, suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court will view some of the evidence allowed in the case overseen by Judge Juan Merchan as "privileged."
Merchan was overseeing the case brought against Trump by DA Alvin Bragg. While the prosecutor initially scored a victory in Trump being convicted on 34 charges, many believe the former president could emerge victorious in the appeals process.
What's going on?
Late last week, Merchan explained why he decided to postpone Trump's sentencing hearing until after the November election, which was a major bummer for Trump's critics who were essentially drooling over the possibility that he would be sentenced to jail ahead of the election.
"This matter is one that stands alone, in a unique place in this Nation's history, and this Court has presided over it since its inception," Merchan wrote.
He added that the court would be "faced with one of the most critical and difficult decisions a trial court judge faces—the sentencing of a defendant found guilty of crimes by a unanimous jury of his peers."
Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, said in a recent Fox News interview that he believes Judge Merchan "has committed layers of reversible error."
"The election has grown in considerable importance in terms of this sentencing, but keep in mind whatever Merchan does it doesn't change what he previously did in this case. I think he has committed layers of reversible error. I think there was evidence at his trial that the Supreme Court would view as privileged and should not have been before the jury," Turley said.
He added, "So there is a long runway between here and there when it comes to any jail sentence."
Moving the sentencing
In late August, Trump's lawyers attempted to move the sentencing hearing to federal court, but failed on two attempts.
They argued that the recent Supreme Court immunity ruling that favored Trump affected Bragg's case as well.
"Nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion affects my previous conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority," federal judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote after the second attempt to have the sentencing moved.
Only time will tell if Trump is ever sentenced to actual prison time, but it looks like leading legal scholars do not believe that will be a likely outcome.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Education bureaucrats in the leftist enclave of Colorado have decided that students in the Jefferson County school district will be subjected to housing rules, on school trips, based on "gender identity."
And their action has gotten them named in a federal lawsuit.
It is the Alliance Defending Freedom that says it has filed a case against the school district for "violating parents' fundamental right to make decisions about the upbringing and education of their children."
The district's policy demands that students are assigned to share overnight accommodations based on "gender identity."
That means girls could be forced to share intimate areas, even beds, with a boy who simply says he's a girl.
Problematic is the decision by school officials to refuse to tell parents that while "girls" will be housed on one floor and "boys" on another, they have "redefined the words 'girl' and 'boy' to mean a student's self-asserted 'gender identity' rather than sex."
Further, the district "refuses to give parents truthful, pertinent information about their children's overnight accommodations, thus hampering parents' ability to make informed decisions about their children's education and privacy," the legal team said.
"Parents, not the government, have the right and duty to direct the upbringing and education of their children, and that includes making informed decisions to protect their child's privacy," ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson said in a prepared statement.
"This fundamental right is especially vital for parents to protect their children from violations of bodily privacy by exposure to the opposite sex in intimate settings, like sleeping arrangements or shower facilities. If Jefferson County Public Schools is going to continue placing students of the opposite sex in the same room on overnight trips—as it confirmed it would—the district must let parents be the ones to make decisions about their children's privacy. And they must provide the information necessary and inform parents about the policy so parents can make the best decisions for their children. The district must grant our clients' reasonable request for accommodations that can be accomplished in a number of confidential ways that protect the privacy of all students."
The lawsuit is on behalf of multiple parents including Bret and Susanne Wailes.
They "allowed their 11-year-old daughter to attend a district-sponsored trip to Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.," and "were told their daughter would be rooming with three other fifth-grade girls. It wasn't until their daughter was in her room getting ready for bed on the first night of the trip that she discovered she was to share a bed with a boy who identified as a girl."
When they asked for "reasonable accommodations—asking the school district to allow parents to opt their children out of any policy, prior to an overnight trip, that rooms children by gender identity rather than sex," school officials refused.
And, ADF said, Bret and Susanne Roller sent their 11-year-old son on JeffCo's annual sixth grade camping trip and were told their son would be in a cabin with other boys, as well as a male high school counselor.
The truth, which was concealed by the district, is that the "counselor" was a "non-binary" female. That person's responsibilities included supervising boys' showers.
An updated lawsuit alleges a covert influence by the Biden administration on social media censorship concerning COVID-19 discourse, JustTheNews reported.
A former journalist has initiated a legal action accusing President Biden and other top officials of coercing social platforms to censor his COVID-19 content, backed by fresh evidence involving ex-White House advisor Andy Slavitt.The plaintiff, Alex Berenson, a former New York Times journalist, has redirected claims against the Biden administration. He alleges that higher echelons including President Biden have exercised undue influence over social media entities to suppress his dissenting views on COVID-19 management. The controversy shines a light on the intricate relations between government advisories and platform regulations.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's statements from 2021 have resurfaced, indicating persistent pressures from senior White House officials to moderate pandemic-related content unfavorably viewed by the administration. This has triggered significant scrutiny of the administration's interaction with large tech companies and the extent of their influence.
The thrust of Berenson's complaints centers around the role of Andy Slavitt, who previously advised the White House on its COVID-19 response. Allegations suggest that he continued to liaise with Facebook to shape the narrative around the pandemic even after resigning in June 2021. Slavitt's purported actions form the cornerstone of the legal challenges raised by Berenson.
Legal Grounds: Supreme Court's Stance on Social Media
Berenson's lawsuit taps into recent Supreme Court deliberations, which address the unconstitutional nature of governmental pressure on social media platforms. This judicial backdrop provides a legal framework for examining the claims against the administration's alleged encroachment on editorial freedoms.
Documents highlighted within the lawsuit reveal that Slavitt maintained post-tenure communications with key administration figures such as White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. This purported continuation of influence raises questions about the ethical boundaries of former public officials engaging with powerful social media platforms.
Further complicating the public outlook on these interactions, Slavitt's podcast, which often features influential figures, received sponsorship from Pfizer, adding layers of potential conflicts of interest to his continued involvement with public health communications.
The Reach of Posts and Platform Manipulation
Nick Clegg, a senior figure at Meta, recounted dealings with Slavitt during 2021, painting a picture of a backchannel where governmental expectations were clearly communicated to the platform. In one such interaction, Slavitt pushed for transparency from Facebook regarding the spread of certain COVID-19 narratives, a move seen by critics as an attempt to manipulate informational flow.
Despite his resignation, Slavitt portrayed himself as still actively consulting with health and government bodies about pandemic strategies, affirming his ongoing role in a podcast statement. This ongoing engagement underscores the intricate networks bridging governmental policy and platform governance.
Facebook, meanwhile, continued to mitigate the visibility of content it deems controversial, including reducing restrictions on former President Trump's accounts amidst political recalibrations. This highlights the dynamic nature of content governance on social media platforms, reflecting broader geopolitical and public health contexts.
Debate Over Governmental Influence on Free Speech
Observers like Gerald Morgan have criticized these ongoing dialogues as indicative of a deeper inclination to control narratives, suggesting a systematic bias in how information is presented to the public. These actions raise pertinent questions about the balance between public welfare and freedom of speech.
The lawsuit has ignited a broader conversation about the roles and responsibilities of tech giants in moderating content while ensuring transparency and fairness. As platforms adjust their policies in response to legal and social pressures, the outcome of this lawsuit may well set precedents for future interactions between government entities and social media networks.
As the case progresses, the eyes of both the public and legal experts remain keenly fixed on how deep governmental lines are drawn in the digital sand of social media platforms.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lawyers with the Institute for Justice have announced that they have worked with the city of Wilmington, Delaware, to install new protections for automobile owners who have parking tickets or other infractions to resolve those issues short of having their car confiscated and destroyed.
The IJ said the city has agreed to reform "predatory impound practices."
The issue was the subject of a 2021 lawsuit on behalf of Ameera Shaheed and Earl Dickerson, who lost their vehicles to private companies working at the behest of the city.
"These companies operated 'cost-free' for the city by keeping the profits off scrapping cars," the IJ said.
"I'm really proud of the work everyone put in and the system we helped create," said IJ Attorney Will Aronin. "Our goal is to make it so nobody loses their car and we were able to craft a new system that has strong protections to keep that from happening."
The settlement agreement involves Wilmington installing a new system to provide multiple notices to those with tickets, "very liberal and easy payment plans," and convenient hearings to resolve disputes.
"Most importantly, even if someone does have their car towed, they will be able to go get it back without being forced to pay, so long as they either go to the hearing or enter into the easy payment plan. Under this system, Ameera Shaheed and Earl Dickerson would not have lost their cars," the IJ said.
Under the old rules, the IJ explained, "the city repeatedly ticketed Ameera's legally parked car and then towed it because they issued so many tickets. When Ameera couldn't pay the full sum, the city let the towing contractor just keep the full value of the car."
Part of the agreement also has the city compensating the plaintiffs in the lawsuit for "well above what their cars were worth."
"I'm glad that my lawsuit is ending with meaningful change for the people of Wilmington," Ameera said in a statement released by the IJ. "It was hard when Wilmington took my vehicle even though I was parked legally. I wasn't the only one mistreated but hopefully this will never happen again in our city."
WND had reported when a federal judge declined to dismiss the case against the city.
U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly had issued a decision allowing the lawsuit to continue.
The judge said, "Wilmington can't have it both ways."
He said either the victims have an argument that taking the whole value of their car for simple parking tickets is an excessive fine, or the owners have a claim that the city is taking property from them without compensation since their tickets don't rise to the value of the cars.
The old system put Wilmington people at risk of losing their vehicles to an impound system that profits from scrapping the cars that are taken, the IJ explained.
But that violated the Fourth Amendment, it said.
House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik filed an ethics complaint Friday against the judge in Trump's hush money case, the Washington Examiner reported. The New York Republican claims that Judge Juan Merchan's daughter reaped financial gains from the case.
This is the second time Stefanik has filed the complaint because Merchan's daughter benefitted from the case against Trump. The first was rejected, but the lawmaker believes that "new information has come to light that merits a fresh look."
Merchan's daughter, Loren Merchan, runs the digital marketing company Authentic Campaigns Inc. It has been exploiting Trump's Manhattan trial to raise money for its clients, which Stefanik believes is a clear ethics violation.
Now it's come to light that Vice President Kamala Harris used the company for her campaign which warrants another examination. "Neither the Appellate Division nor the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics could have known about this material when they issued opinions as to Justice Merchan’s continuing to preside over President Trump’s case," Stefanik wrote in the filing.
Too Close for Comfort
Many Democratic candidates hire Authentic Campaigns for their marketing needs. However, Stefanik shared incriminating information in a report to the Federal Election Commission that proved Harris also used the firm despite the obvious conflict.
The Harris campaign paid Authentic Campaigns $468 for web hosting, which Stefanik believes is just the tip of the iceberg. "This indicates that one of the very first things that Harris did upon taking over the Biden campaign infrastructure is to hire this firm, Authentic," Stefanik explained, according to Fox News.
"Loren Merchan, Justice Merchan’s daughter, is its president. Vice President Harris changed web hosting companies from AWS to Authentic immediately after becoming the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee," Stefanik wrote, confirming the recent timing.
"This is merely the beginning of a new contract with a new campaign, regardless of the amount reimbursed. Sure, there’s an immediate benefit, but this is a play at a potential larger benefit for Authentic and Merchan down the road," Stefanik charged in the complaint.
Stefanik believes that this fact "dictates that a judge must recuse from a case where a relative up to and including the sixth degree has a financial interest in the outcome of the case," and this standard applies to the Merchans. "Ms. Merchan is related to Justice Merchan in the first degree. Authentic has a newly active financial relationship with Vice President Harris’s campaign," Stefanik said.
Notching a Win
Not long after Stefanik's filing, Merchan ruled to postpone Trump's sentencing until after the election. Stefanik released a statement to X, formerly Twitter, to celebrate the development.
She called it an "incredible win" in the fight against the "illegal lawfare against" Trump. "While the Democrat nominee didn’t earn a single primary vote, Americans have stood by President Trump through unfounded leftist attacks, unfair treatment from liberal stenographers in the mainstream media, and a nearly fatal assassination attempt," Stefanic wrote.
"American voters are smart and know President Trump is the only candidate who can and will save America," she added. Although Merchan has yet to recuse himself, at least he has taken off the table any threat of Trump's imprisonment before the election.
In their zeal to get Trump, the left has forgotten that the law works both ways. Trump's enemies have tried and failed to take him down, and they've ruined their own credibility in the process.
