This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Under the administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, girls' and women's sports in America have taken a huge hit: They essentially are being ordered to open up their competitions to men.
These are men who say they are women, and they may have even had chemical and surgical alterations to make them look like women, but since being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level, they remain male.
Now the ADF, a legal organization that fights for civil, personal and constitutional rights, says a coalition – of "multiple states, women's sports advocacy groups, businesses, and other organizations" – wants the U.S. Supreme Court to hear two cases over state laws that protect women's sports.
Those states are West Virginia and Idaho.
The ADF explained, "In B.P.J. v West Virginia State Board of Education, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and ADF attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to hear their case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled to undermine West Virginia's ability to protect fairness in women's sports."
ADF is representing former college soccer player Lainey Armistead.
Then in the other case, Hecox v. Little, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and ADF attorneys are asking for affirmation of the state's Fairness in Women's Sports Act after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stopped the law from going into effect.
There, ADF represents former college track and field athletes Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall.
"Back in April, the Fourth Circuit handed down a 2-1 ruling that reversed an earlier decision upholding the West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act. I promised back then that I would keep fighting for the safety, wellbeing and fairness in women's sports, and I'm keeping that promise. I am thankful for the support coming from Alliance Defending Freedom and my many colleagues in other states," Morrisey explained in a prepared statement released by the ADF.
And Labrador added, "While we've been fighting for fair and equal athletic competition, activists have been pushing a radical agenda that will ultimately sideline women and girls from sports. Many athletic associations around the world have seen the obvious truth that men and women are biologically different and allowing men in women's sports would create a dangerous, unfair environment for women to showcase their incredible talent in sports. These voices from different backgrounds have joined us as we ask the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold our law and ensure that women and girls get the opportunities they deserve."
ADF lawyer John Bursch explained, "Women and girls deserve to compete on a level playing field, but activists continue their quest to erase differences between men and women by forcing women's sports leagues to allow men to compete. This contradicts biological reality and common sense. We should be seeking to protect women's sports and equal opportunities, and West Virginia's and Idaho's women's sports laws accomplish just that. Lainey, Madison, Mary Kate, and millions of girls across the country deserve to compete on a level playing field with other women. The wide range of backgrounds from these groups petitioning the court proves that this isn't political or partisan—it's basic fairness."
The West Virginia case was triggered by a male athlete competing on a girls track team who finished ahead of almost 300 girls in three years of various events.
The court filing said, "Neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause compels West Virginia to classify biological males as girls."
Yet, it states, that's what the Fourth Circuit is demanding.
In the Idaho case, Kenyon and Marshall participated in track at Idaho State University and, when forced to compete against males, moved down in the rankings.
There are testimonies in the case from more than 100 female athletes, coaches, sports officials and parents, including those women who were forced to compete against Lia Thomas, a male who was an also-ran among male swingers in college, but suddenly rose in the rankings when he started competing with women.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal appeals court has unleashed a stunning ruling that could end up impacting the Jan. 6, 2021, convictions of protesters at the U.S. Capitol.
It is the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that determined that geofence searches are not allowed under the U.S. Constitution. Those are identifications of individuals using GPS or other technology that provides authorities with names and locations of individuals at a particular time.
The case at hand involved robbery, and Judge James C. Ho, a possible candidate under a Trump presidency for the Supreme Court, explained with clarity how the geofence technology isn't allowed in a ruling that now conflicts with a ruling from another circuit, making a Supreme Court decision more likely.
He said, "Geofence warrants are powerful tools for investigating and deterring crime. The defendants here engaged in a violent robbery – and likely would have gotten away with it, but for this technology. So I fully recognize that our panel decision today will inevitably hamper legitimate law enforcement interests."
But, he continued, "Hamstringing the government is the whole point of our Constitution. Our Founders recognized that the government will not always be comprised of publicly spirited officers – and that even good faith actors can be overcome by the zealous pursuit of legitimate public interests. 'If men were angels, no government would be necessary.' The Federalist No. 51 … 'If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.' But 'experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.' It's because of 'human nature' that it's 'necessary to control the abuses of government.'"
ArsTechnica reported the fact that geofence warrants, in identifying all users or devices in a geographic area, now are banned by the circuit court's ruling as a violation against unreasonable searches.
The report said the ruling found, "This court 'cannot forgive the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in the name of law enforcement.' Accordingly, we hold that geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment."
The case involved three Mississippi men convicted of a 2018 armed robbery. And the ruling said, even though geofence warrants are unconstitutional, the convicts were not allowed to suppress evidence because "law enforcement acted in good faith in relying on this type of warrant."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation called it a "'major" change.
"Closely following arguments EFF has made in a number of cases, the court found that geofence warrants constitute the sort of 'general, exploratory rummaging' that the drafters of the Fourth Amendment intended to outlaw. EFF applauds this decision because it is essential that every person feels like they can simply take their cell phone out into the world without the fear that they might end up a criminal suspect because their location data was swept up in an open-ended digital dragnet," the group said.
Such searches almost always involve searching the Google database for details about people, time and locations.
In the process, Google determines which accounts were within the defined boundaries and gives law enforcement an "anonymized list" of suspects. Law enforcement then can seek additional information, including, eventually, the ID of account holders.
Previously, the Supreme Court has said the government invades a person's reasonable expectation of privacy when it tracks people by cellphone data.
It was investigative reporter Julie Kelly who reminded that the federal government used geofence warrant information to identify January 6 protesters.
A Supreme Court decision in favor of presidential immunity has sent special counsel Jack Smith back to the drawing board, The Hill reported. Smith will now decide whether to change how he proceeds or abandon his case against former President Donald Trump.
Smith is pursuing Trump for his supposed involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. However, Trump has been vindicated, and the game has changed now that the high court has ruled that a president cannot be prosecuted for certain conduct.
With the Supreme Court's decision, Smith is left weighing his options on how to proceed with his case. Each charge must be tested against the standard of the decision, and that requires more time and perhaps even a new strategy.
Trump was supposed to be in court while in the thick of the 2024 presidential campaign season. Now, Smith lost that chance as it's unclear whether Trump will be back in a courtroom before the election at all.
Prior to the Supreme Court's intervention, Smith was intent on getting a jump on the trial start date. Now, he's asked the court for more time as he updates his strategy, as Election Day is less than three months away.
Smith has two clear paths to choose from now if he wishes to proceed quickly. One is for him to eliminate all charges except the ones he's sure won't get tossed because of immunity, while the other is to branch outward and begin charging others involved in the upset as his co-conspirators.
Trump's defense has done such a good job pushing back against Smith that it may be beneficial to pivot to going after others involved. Meanwhile, former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuade said it's likely Smith will "choose the path of least resistance" to get his case to trial.
For McQuade, that means pursuing some of the people on Trump's legal team at the time of the riot, such as Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Kenneth Chesebro, and Jeff Clark. So far, Smith has focused only on Trump.
"Initially, Jack Smith did not name them, I am guessing, because he was hoping to streamline the case against Trump and get it done quickly, because it was Trump who’s the threat to democracy. But in light of the fact that there will be no trial [before the election], maybe he’s decided, 'You know what, the time’s come, I’m just going to charge the other defendants.'"
Whichever way Smith decides to proceed, he's likely to encounter the immunity issue at every turn. Even if Smith gets Trump convicted, it is likely to be overturned on appeal if any piece of evidence is deemed part of that immunity.
The Supreme Court's ruling said that actions taken by a president in an executive capacity are covered as are any official acts. That means the conversations Trump had with then-Vice President Mike Pence, which were central to Smith's case, are no longer admissible.
Other evidence will similarly be subject to the same scrutiny. "They need to make a number of decisions," University of Baltimore constitutional law professor and former federal prosecutor Kimberly Wehle said.
"They have to decide what evidence do they have left potentially within the scope of the immunity ruling. Each of the four counts [brought against Trump] is going to have its own elements that they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and they’ll have to assess whether the evidence that’s now off the table somehow collapses any of those counts so they can’t go forward," Wehle explained.
Smith was supposed to be the person to finally stop Trump as the Democrats had hoped. Unfortunately for Smith and the rest of the left, the Constitution doesn't allow for that kind of action against a former president, no matter how much they'd like it to.
While the Biden administration might be staring down the barrel of the end of it's term, students with loans on their degrees can take hope that President Joe Biden is still pushing for at least one of his campaign promises to be solidified.
To have the president's most recent plan to alleviate student loan debt reinstated, the Biden administration rushed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, attempting to keep the campaign promise made four years ago, as The Hill reported.
President Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan would reduce student loan payments for millions of students, but it is now blocked by a lower court judgment because of concerns about the legality of the program.
“The rule is a straightforward exercise of the Department’s express statutory authority to set the parameters of income-contingent repayment plans — just as it has done for three decades,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote to the justices.
In the event that the Supreme Court is hesitant to step in on their emergency docket, Prelogar has asked the justices to instead assess the plan's legality on its own merits and move quickly to schedule oral arguments for this coming fall.
Those who are challenging the SAVE Plan were given a Monday afternoon deadline by the court to react.
This stance is reminiscent of the way the Biden administration dealt with opposition to its previous promise to reduce student loans by $10,000 for each borrower.
After agreeing to consider the case fully upon receiving a request for urgent action from the Justice Department, the Supreme Court last year rejected that plan in a 6-3 ideologically-based vote.
Following the ruling by the Supreme Court, the SAVE plan was initially proposed, pushing forward the president's plan to do away with repayment of many loans.
Phase one, which began last fall, increased the income threshold for income protection from 150 percent to 225 percent over the federal poverty criteria and waived interest that had accrued but was not factored into the calculated payments.
Reducing undergraduate loan payments from 10% of discretionary income to 5% and expanding loan forgiveness possibilities for specific groups were to be implemented in the second phase beginning in July.
Over a decade, the SAVE plan is projected to cost $475 billion, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
Two groups of Republican state attorneys general have challenged it in court, arguing that Congress has to provide clearer permission due to the high cost.
In the first action, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary injunction against the SAVE Plan until it settles the matter. The seven states involved are Oklahoma, North Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, and Georgia.
As the case continues, an emergency appeal was filed with the Supreme Court on Tuesday, requesting that they vacate that order. Midway through the second case, the challengers filed an emergency appeal, which the Biden administration encouraged the justices to reject.
In an unusual move, US District Judge William G. Young, appointed by Ronald Reagan, has publicly criticized a recent Supreme Court decision involving former President Donald Trump, CNN reports.
In a ruling on a separate legal matter, Judge Young used a footnote to express his concerns about the expansion of presidential immunity as decided by the Supreme Court.
Judge Young's critique came within a footnote of a decision issued on Friday, where he voiced his disapproval of the Supreme Court's ruling on July 1, which granted Trump sweeping immunity in efforts related to overturning the 2020 election results.
The decision by the Supreme Court was sharply divided along ideological lines, with a 6-3 conservative majority favoring the immunity.
Judge Young, appointed in 1985, highlighted concerns over the court's disregard for historical precedents, suggesting a significant shift in the balance of power towards the presidency.
Amidst his judicial duties, Judge Young has taken senior status since 2021 and continues to serve, including handling cases outside his usual jurisdiction in Massachusetts, such as in North Carolina.
In North Carolina, he was involved in a case addressing claims of sexual harassment within the judiciary, underscoring the broader responsibilities and the scope of issues federal judges tackle.
In his written opinion, Judge Young also took the opportunity to commend the legal teams involved, emphasizing the crucial role of trial attorneys during these pivotal times for the judiciary.
The critique by Judge Young sheds light on the ongoing debates about presidential powers and their limits. He specifically criticized the Supreme Court's majority for what he described as a "redesign of the relationship between the sovereign people and the first citizen of the Republic."
This comment reflects a broader concern among various stakeholders about the potential implications of the Supreme Court's decisions on the structure of American governance.
Such concerns are not isolated, as President Joe Biden and numerous Democratic lawmakers have also voiced their disapproval of the Supreme Court's recent direction under its conservative majority.
Special Counsel Jack Smith's case against former President Trump is set to continue with a hearing scheduled for September in a US District Court in Washington, DC.
This case, among others, could be significantly affected by the Supreme Court's stance on presidential immunity, potentially shaping the landscape of political accountability in the United States.
Judge Young, through his remarks, calls for sustained attention to the principles that underpin the judiciary and its interactions with the highest echelons of political power.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Now it is Joe Biden's apparently free luxury vacations at exotic locales and resorts most Americans can only see in pictures that are the subject of a complaint, and request for investigation.
For months, even years, Democrats and other leftists have been scorching individual justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, mostly conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, for their vacations in the company of friends they have.
Democrats are demanding a new Congress-run code of ethics for the justices. Biden has joined in that agenda.
But a report from Just the News explains that even as Biden and Democrats have been pushing for Supreme Court "reform" that would give members of Congress control over the way the justices make decisions, Biden apparently has been taking freebies – and not reporting them.
"Rules for thee, but not for me?" the report taunted, explaining, "Biden and his family have repeatedly vacationed at wealthy friends' homes over the years without disclosing them on financial forms, yet encouraged media scrutiny of SCOTUS' similar actions."
Leftists in the media have been joining the progressives in the Democrat party to call for new congressional controls over the high court – one idea would be to let Congress decide when a justice can rule on a case.
But Biden's own decision to take apparently free vacations at resort locations is the subject of a recent complaint filed by the Center for Renewing America, which asked the Department of Justice to investigate.
"Whenever Biden wishes to celebrate a holiday or go on vacation, there seems to be a billionaire whose interests can be benefited by the president waiting to offer a vacation home. The potential for conflicts of interest is vast. Indeed, former ethics officials of both parties have roundly condemned these activities and pointed out their illegality," CRA President Russ Vought explained.
He was director of the White House Office of Management and Budget under President Trump.
Just weeks ago, Biden proposed to "reform" the Supreme Court by casting justices aside after 18 years of tenure, imposing a code of conduct and reversing the court's decision that presidents have immunity for many of their actions while in office.
Democrats specifically are demanding that because they insist on putting President Donald Trump on trial, in both criminal and civil courts, for his actions in office.
Democrats are on a rampage to change the court because of the three, relatively conservative, justices appointed to the bench by Trump during his first term in office.
That gave the court a 6-3 often conservative majority, meaning that Democrats are unable now to have the high court rubber-stamp their agenda points as happened when there was a leftist court which, for example, created out of nothing related to the Constitution same-sex "marriage" and imposed it on the entire nation.
The report noted Thomas and Alito both have been criticized for accept gifts from, and traveling with, their own wealthy friends.
They later released financial documents showing the gifts and travel, something that Biden has not yet done.
The report noted that "Biden has taken multiple free vacations over the years, allegedly not reporting them on financial disclosure forms."
Just last year, Just the News said, "Biden took four vacations at wealthy supporters' homes that he did not disclose on his Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, the New York Post reported."
Those included a stay the beachfront St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, home of rich business owners Bill and Connie Neville.
"For a six-day Thanksgiving vacation, Biden stayed at billionaire hedge fund founder David Rubenstein's compound in Nantucket. He also vacationed at billionaire climate activist and investor Tom Steyer's place in Lake Tahoe, Nev., for nine days last August," the report revealed.
The New York post initially said the White House claimed Biden was going to pay for the stay at Steyer's home, "but a subsequent local investigation into Steyer's lacking a rental permit was abruptly dropped and there has been no disclosure of the rental term agreement."
Further, it appears the homeowners were absent during Biden's vacations, meaning the stays could be considered other than "personal hospitality."
The White House has denied the Bidens had any "required disclosures of gifts or travel reimbursements during the reporting period (January to December 2023)."
But the Bidens also made a similar round of vacation stays at exotic locations in 2022, as well.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan prosecutor who took years-old misdemeanor business records charges for which the statute of limitations had expired, and made them felonies against President Donald Trump because he claimed they were done in furtherance of some other unspecified crime, now is facing a lawsuit for his actions.
It is America First Legal that has sued Bragg for refusing to turn over records of how he developed his case, whether he consulted with the Joe Biden administration in the case, and whether it was a "partisan prosecution" against the GOP presidential nominee.
At the time Trump was opposing Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential race. Since then, the elites of the Democrat party essentially tossed Biden under the bus and named Kamala Harris as his replacement.
The Washington Examiner notes the lawsuit came about because Bragg repeatedly refused to provide documentation about the case.
Bragg's office now is accused of withholding, illegally, records in his case.
Daniel Epstein, an AFL vice president, said there shouldn't be anything hidden.
"If improper ex parte communications influenced what is supposed to be nonpartisan prosecutorial conduct, all Americans are at risk," he said.
AFL has been investigating Bragg's case for months, and has focused on the communications inside and outside the D.A.'s office.
"The group's requests also sought records of interactions with high-profile figures such as Lanny Davis, a Democratic consultant and attorney for ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, who claimed credit for sparking the district attorney's investigation into Trump during an interview with Politico in March of last year," the report said.
The circumstances that Bragg used to develop the case had been rejected by other prosecutors as sufficient for charges. In fact, Bragg had made the same decision earlier, then under pressure to get Trump changed his mind.
Based on the testimony of a convicted perjurer, a jury in leftist Manhattan convicted Trump on 34 counts involving business records.
The case also has been left unsettled because of the Supreme Court's ruling that presidents have immunity from charges for many of the acts they take in office. It hasn't been determined how that ruling affects Bragg's claims.
AFI asserts that Bragg improperly is concealing information that the public deserves to know.
Special counsel Jack Smith will have to rework his prosecution strategy following the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, the Washington Examiner reported. This will likely delay the case Smith is prosecuting against former President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has granted Smith's request to move a filing deadline from Aug. 9 to Aug. 30 in light of the high court's ruling. Another hearing that will take place in person has been moved from Aug. 16 to Sept. 5.
This comes after months of delays, thanks to the Supreme Court's willingness to consider the question. Attorneys for the 2024 GOP presidential contender previously lobbied for delays, but now it's Smith who is pushing back on the timeline.
It's clear that Trump's adversaries were hoping to wrap up these cases before Election Day in November. Now, Smith is panicking as Trump is vindicated while proceedings will begin just 60 days before the candidate's most important date.
The left had hoped to put Trump on trial again during the campaign, but now it seems unlikely that it would be started before then. The decision to hold off on the prosecution frustrates some, who wonder why Smith is reluctant to proceed.
"The downside of delay is that [to] the extent that people think there could be a hearing, a factual hearing where we hear from witnesses, the more there’s a delay, the less likely that is going to happen before the election," Andrew Weissman, a former federal prosecutor, said. Moreover, Smith and the Justice Department will have to weigh the decision against all of its proceedings.
This takes time away from prosecuting the case against when it would be most beneficial to do so in this election cycle. Trump also benefits from a new defense that could threaten any charges against him.
Before the immunity ruling, Trump was facing conspiracy charges and witness tampering in connection with his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. Smith could choose to toss out the charges completely or revise the indictment.
However, since Trump could be immune from most of the crimes outlined by the prosecution, perhaps Smith will decide instead to go after his surrogates to save face. The conspiracy aspect of the charges gives him cover to do so, and it may be the only avenue he has left if he's still interested in getting someone on the hook.
Although it's true that Trump's immunity has complicated Smith's prosecution strategy, the decision to back off could be blatantly political. Leftists are already afraid that if Trump retakes the White House, he'll have the federal indictments dismissed.
This may be a deciding factor for Smith's decision to hold off for now. He likely sees a new avenue for legal victory if Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump's Democratic opponent, wins in November.
"Even if there’s nothing that happens between now and the election, if she is elected, this case is going to go forward," Weissmann predicted. After all, a defeated Trump will be subject to Harris' Justice Department, and Smith will have the mandate to proceed as he wishes.
If that's the case, Trump could easily see himself dragged into court over Smith's cases and more. Smith may be biding his time right now as the battle between the two candidates plays out.
It's disgraceful that Trump has been dragged into court so many times over ridiculous charges. Whether that will continue is partially up to Smith but also in the hands of voters who can stop this madness by voting Trump in as the president.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a situation that is becoming more and more common as the failures of the transgender ideology and industry become evident, a family in Colorado is suing a local school district for its decision to "socially transition" a young girl in violation of the family's instructions, and then conceal the campaign.
CPR reports the family, living in Adams County to the north of Denver, is suing, in federal court, and state and local education authorities.
They charge a high school pushed a young girl into a "social transition" to male identity and concealed their actions from her parents, who did not know of it and provided no consent.
The case charges the school officials knowingly and willfully violated the parents' constitutional rights.
The case, on behalf of "John and Jane Doe," charges their 14-year-old high school freshman sought help from a counselor "to help her socially transition to a male identity."
The counselor agreed to help but refused to contact the parents.
The report continues, "The lawsuit claims that a counselor at School District 27J then allowed for A.D. to take online therapy sessions on the counselor's computer so A.D.'s parents would not be aware of the social transition."
A district official said there would be no comment on pending litigation, and officials still were reviewing the case.
The report explained, "The lawsuit alleges that the school's actions helped ruin their relationship with their child and eroded trust."
The situation developed even as the family "informed the counselor they did not want A.D. to be socially transitioned."
Their lawyer, former state Secretary of State Scott Gessler, charges that's a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which, "protects the fundamental rights of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children."
The family's First Amendment also was violated by the undue influence of the state.
The girl now has realized that she doesn't have a transgender identity, is "de-transitioning," and is now "on the path to a happier and healthier life," the legal filing states.
The far-left lawmakers in Colorado, where the statehouse and governor's office all are controlled by Democrats adopted a law that requires schools to refer to students by their "chosen" pronouns but fails to provide any process for parental consent.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The FBI's stunning armed SWAT-style raid on President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home is coming back into the news, with plans by his lawyers for a $100 million lawsuit that charges that agency, under the administration of Joe Biden, attacked him with "clear intent to engage in political persecution."
The fact that it was a political move is almost without doubt, as the same bureaucracy had let Joe Biden off the hook for the same violation – reportedly keeping government papers, although there were differences.
Trump, as president, had the authority to declassify papers as he wished; Biden's offenses were from his time as senator and vice president, and he did not have the same authority.
Further, the special counsel investigating Biden for having government secrets in his personal offices, his home, even a relatively unsecured garage in a stash next to a classic car, recommended against formal criminal charges because of Biden's declining mental capacities.
But the bureaucrats also let former Vice President Mike Pence off the hook for similar circumstances, making it even more clear that Trump was a political target.
A report at RedState explains Trump's legal team is preparing the $100 million lawsuit against the Department of Justice for the actions on Aug. 8, 2022.
Trump attorney Daniel Epstein has filed a notice to sue the Justice Department. The Justice Department has 180 days from the date of receipt to respond to Epstein's notice and come to a resolution. If no resolution is made, Trump's case will move to federal court in the Southern District of Florida, the report explained.
"What President Trump is doing here is not just standing up for himself – he is standing up for all Americans who believe in the rule of law and believe that you should hold the government accountable when it wrongs you," Epstein told Fox.
The case charges the DOJ violated its own policies in attacking Trump and rifling through not only his personal belongings but those of his family.
That, the claim states, is "inconsistent with protocols requiring the consent of an investigative target, disclosure to that individual's attorneys, and the use of the local U.S. attorney's office.'
Further, the DOJ's practice in previous disputes over government papers was to use "non-enforcement means."
The report also said, "The FBI's conduct 'was inconsistent with protocols used in routine searches of an investigative target's premises.' Ordinarily, they shouldn't give shoot-to-kill instructions for premises already protected by the Secret Service and search Melania's underwear drawer for documents."
The New York Post said a memo from the Trump team charges "tortious conduct by the United States against President Trump."
Following the raid, the Biden administration appointed Jack Smith, a private lawyer, as special counsel and he charged Trump with 37 counts, to which Trump has pleaded not guilty.
The case, however, was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon because Smith was appointed and funded illegally, making his position without authority to investigate or bring charges.
Smith has demanded that an appeals court overlook the questions about his own status and restore the case against Trump.
Epstein's filing states that the "tortious acts against the president are rooted in intrusion upon seclusion, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process resulting from the August 8, 2022 raid of his and his family's home at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach Florida."
The report said, "Epstein argues the decisions made by Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray were not grounded in 'social, economic, and political policy' but instead, in 'clear dereliction of constitutional principles, inconsistent standards as applied to' Trump and a 'clear intent to engage in political persecution — not to advance good law enforcement practices.'"
Epstein explained that Garland and Wray decided to abandon "established protocol" "to injure President Trump."
Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that a president largely has immunity for his official acts while president, and the Biden-Harris administration action was aimed at an "unconstitutional" process "aimed at politically persecuting the former president."
"For these harms to President Trump, the respondents must pay punitive damages of $100 million," Epstein wrote.
"You have clear evidence that the FBI failed to follow protocols, and the failure to follow protocols shows that there was an improper purpose," Epstein told Fox Business. "If the government is able to say, well, we don't like someone, we can raid their home, we can violate their privacy, we can breach protocols when we decide to prosecute them, we can use the process to advance our personal motive — not a motive of justice — if someone doesn't stand against that in a very public way and seek to obtain and protect their rights, then the government will have a mandate to roughshod over every American."