Hold onto your hats, folks—the Supreme Court just sidestepped a contentious fight over a mandated prison project in New Orleans, leaving conservative justices at odds and taxpayers on the hook.
The crux of this saga is simple: the Supreme Court opted not to take up a challenge against a lower court ruling that forces New Orleans to build a new jail, despite a split among its conservative members, Newsweek reported.
This story starts with Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson, who inherited a mess of judicial orders pushing for a new prison before she even took office.
Her legal team argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) bars courts from mandating prison construction as a fix, claiming these orders were questionable from the start.
They petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, hoping to halt what they saw as overreach, but the majority of justices said, “No thanks.”
Enter the conservative wing’s divide: Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch wanted to hear the case, with Alito and Thomas penning a sharp dissent.
Alito didn’t hold back, writing, “This case cried out for our review,” and lamenting that the city is left “to pay for the Fifth Circuit’s serious errors” (Justice Samuel Alito, dissent).
That’s a polite way of saying the appeals court botched it, and now New Orleans foots the bill for a project many question.
Before reaching the Supreme Court, a district court rejected the city’s plea to halt the jail’s planning and construction indefinitely, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals backed that call.
Alito criticized the appeals court for flipping the burden of proof, arguing it wrongly placed the onus on the sheriff to justify stopping the project rather than on opponents to defend it.
With a split among circuit courts on who bears that burden, this legal gray area just got murkier, and the Supreme Court’s pass means no clarity anytime soon.
Meanwhile, the new prison—dubbed Phase III—is already 68.6 percent complete as of mid-July 2025, according to U.S. attorneys opposing the sheriff’s petition.
They argued that even if the Supreme Court took the case, a ruling wouldn’t likely come until mid-2026, rendering any decision moot since the facility would probably be finished by then.
That’s a pragmatic jab at the sheriff’s fight—why bother with a legal battle when the concrete’s already poured?
With the Supreme Court stepping aside, the lower court’s ruling stands, construction continues, and New Orleans residents are left wondering if this was the right fix—or just another government overstep.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – A powerful public service announcement featuring survivors of Jeffrey Epstein was aired during ABC's broadcast of "Monday Night Football," just ahead of the U.S. House vote Tuesday on releasing the files probing the Palm Beach pedophile.
"I suffered so much pain," numerous women state in the PSA, as they hold photos of themselves when they were girls as young as 14 when they met Epstein. "There are about a thousand of us."
"It's time to bring the secrets out of the shadows. It's time to shine a light into the darkness," the women say.
The video concludes with an on-screen message indicating: "Five administrations and we're still in the dark."
There's also a plea to call Congress and demand release of the Epstein files.
"This should have never been a fight," said U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who has been vocal in her push for the public to see the files.
"Raping teenage girls, trafficking victims, and protecting powerful people is not a hoax. I unapologetically and proudly stand with these women."
Human Events host and bestselling author Jack Posobiec shared the video, reminding everyone that "Epstein visited the White House 17 times during the Clinton Presidency."
As WorldNetDaily reported, both Bill and Hillary Clinton are refusing to appear before Congress to testify in connection with the sordid case of Epstein, according to a member of the House Oversight Committee.
U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., made the assertion Monday, stating: "Bill and Hillary Clinton are refusing to appear before House Oversight for their depositions regarding Jeffrey Epstein."
"Notice how House Democrats suddenly have nothing to say about it," the congresswoman added.
On Monday, President Donald Trump again directly tied Bill Clinton to Epstein, saying, "All of [Epstein's] friends were Democrats. You look at this Reid Hoffman, you look at Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, they went to his island all the time, and many others. All Democrats."
The survivors' PSA was produced by World Without Exploitation, which calls itself "a fiscally-sponsored project of the Tides Center," which has been linked to billionaire leftist George Soros.
"It's a call to action," one of the women, Danielle Bensky, told NBC News on Sunday. "While we are Epstein and [Ghislaine] Maxwell survivors, we are standing for so many victims of sexual assault and of domestic violence, as well."
"Many people scroll and they see our stories, and they want to find a way to advocate, and they're not really sure how," Bensky said. "We really want to tell people that you can get out there and you can do this for yourself and be a part of what's starting to really feel like a movement, in a way."
NBC reported: "Epstein survivor Annie Farmer, whose sister Maria Farmer was the first woman to file a criminal complaint against Epstein, in 1996, stressed the release of the files is not a political issue but one that has been buried too long."
"Please remember that these are crimes that were committed against real humans, real individuals. This is not a political issue. This, this has been going on for decades," Annie Farmer said.
"My sister Maria Farmer reported this under the Clinton's administration, right? There have been mistakes that were made in this case under the Bush administration. So many things have happened over the decades that were law enforcement failures in this case.
"This is not partisan. We're asking for you to stand with us now to release all of the files."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A censure is being sought for a Democrat member of Congress who was caught taking directions from, and reporting to, the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing with a lawyer for President Donald Trump.
According to a report from the Blaze, it is House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., who has filed a motion to censure Delegate Stacey Plaskett, a non-voting representative for the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Emails released recently from Epstein's file confirmed she was "colluding" with Epstein during the hearing, the report said.
It was during a 2019 hearing with Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, when Plaskett and Epstein exchanged numerous text messages, with Epstein complimenting Plaskett on her appearance, her questions and more. And he directed some of her questions by providing insider information.
The censure would formally condemn Plaskett and strip her of her committee assignments, the report said.
The Washington Post reported the text messages appeared to influence Plaskett's questions.
"In the texts, Epstein appeared to be watching the February 2019 hearing in real time and at one point informed Plaskett — whose name is redacted from the documents — that Cohen had brought up former Trump executive assistant Rhona Graff in his testimony. At the time, Cohen was testifying before the House Oversight Committee against his former boss, alleging that Trump was racist, manipulated financial records and directed hush money payments to cover up his extramarital affairs — allegations Trump denied. The president said on social media that Cohen was 'lying' before testimony began," a report said.
"Cohen brought up RONA – keeper of the secrets," Epstein texted, misspelling Graff's name. "RONA??" Plaskett responded. "Quick I'm up next is that an acronym?"
Plaskett's office eventually released a comment: "During the hearing, Congresswoman Plaskett received texts from staff, constituents and the public at large offering advice, support and in some cases partisan vitriol, including from Epstein. As a former prosecutor she welcomes information that helps her get at the truth and took on the GOP that was trying to bury the truth. The congresswoman has previously made clear her long record combating sexual assault and human trafficking, her disgust over Epstein's deviant behavior and her support for his victims."
WorldNetDaily previously reported on comments that suggested Epstein was influencing what questions Plaskett asked.
Plaskett has a history with Epstein going back to her time in the Virgin Islands' government.
The Daily Signal documented, "Plaskett received a total of $8,100 in campaign donations from Epstein in 2014, 2016, and 2018, the New York Post reported, the maximum allowed. This was years after Epstein pleaded guilty to procuring a child for prostitution. She also personally solicited from Epstein at his New York home a $30,000 donation to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."
Epstein was arrested again in July 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking minors and conspiracy. One month later, Epstein was found dead in his jail cell.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An insider to that years-long Democrat lawfare campaign against President Donald Trump has confirmed in testimony to Congress that it was the Barack Obama Department of Justice that vetoed plans to accuse Hillary Clinton of gross negligence in her email scandal.
That scandal developed just as she was running her failed campaign, as the Democrat nominee, to become president in 2016.
She set up a private computer server in her home and, allegedly in violation of the federal law, ran government secrets through it. She notably allegedly used a hammer to destroy some of her communications devices at the time.
She was not charged after then-FBI chief James Comey claimed an independent investigation had made clear that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case.
Online reports are calling it a "bombshell" from ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
She also has been in the headlines as the paramour with whom former FBI agent Peter Strzok exchanged messages about how they would not allow Trump to become president, because of an insurance policy.
That whole scenario, in fact, involved multiple government agencies under Obama's tenure, a scheme from Clinton to distract voters' attention from her own scandal by falsely tying Trump to Russia, and much more.
A new report outlines Page's testimony, earlier this year.
She confirmed Obama's DSOJ ordered lawyers not to even consider charging Clinton over that email scandal.
A Fox News report explained Rep. John Ratcliffe, during the hearing, brought up several questions.
"You're making it sound like it was the department that told you: you're not going to charge gross negligence because we're the prosecutors," he said.
Page interrupted, "That is correct."
At the time of the email scandal, Comey, now under investigation for allegedly lying to Congress, claimed in a broadcast speech, "What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done honestly, competently and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear."
Trump's response included that that "makes the Obama justice department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine."
President Donald Trump has reversed course to call for House Republicans to "vote to release" the files of disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Breitbart reported. The president hopes this will allow the nation "to move on from this Democrat Hoax" that has been used to smear Trump as an alleged associate of his.
Republicans have been demanding the files that are thought to contain the names of Epstein's clients who may have abused the trafficking victims. Trump seems to have reversed course on this issue after getting blowback from both sides for dismissing the importance of this information.
Now, Trump is urging the vote to release the files and hopes to take the issue off the table. He said as much in a post to his Truth Social on Sunday to reiterate remarks he made on Friday about the next steps for Congress.
Trump had told reporters aboard Air Force One that he was in favor of the GOP voting to release the Epstein files "because we have nothing to hide and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party," the president charged. Trump claimed it was all an effort to distract from Republican successes.
The president went on to say that "thousands of pages" were already released by the Justice Department on "operatives," including former President Bill Clinton, Democratic donor Reid Hoffman, and others with a "relationship to Epstein." Trump said moving on was imperative so that Republicans could get back to their job fighting the insanity of the left.
"All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT, which is the Economy, ‘Affordability’ (where we are winning BIG!), our Victory on reducing Inflation from the highest level in History to practically nothing, bringing down prices for the American People, delivering Historic Tax Cuts, gaining Trillions of Dollars of Investment into America (A RECORD!), the rebuilding of our Military, securing our Border, deporting Criminal Illegal Aliens, ending Men in Women’s Sports, stopping Transgender for Everyone, and so much more!" Trump went on. He then p;ointed out Democratic hypocricy on the issue.
"Nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive and, if the Democrats had anything, they would have released it before our Landslide Election Victory. Some 'members' of the Republican Party are being 'used,' and we can’t let that happen. Let’s start talking about the Republican Party’s Record Setting Achievements, and not fall into the Epstein 'TRAP,' which is actually a curse on the Democrats, not us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump concluded.
This reversal comes after Democrats attempted to use the files against Trump by insinuating he was somehow involved in Epstein's seedy behavior because the financier referred to him in his private emails, CNN reported. Of course, Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, who committed suicide in April, never implicated Trump despite having worked as a locker room attendant at Mar-a-Lago.
With Trump's blessing, the files could soon be released as the House and Senate have both agreed to do so. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said as much in a statement on Tuesday. "Once the House passes the bill to release the Epstein files today, I will move for the Senate to immediately take it up and pass it — period," Schumer said.
"Republicans have spent months trying to protect Donald Trump and hide what’s in the files. Americans are tired of waiting and are demanding to see the truth," Schumer added.
Perhaps the elderly senator can be excused for forgetting that Trump has only been in office since January. Epstein has been dead since 2010, so there was no legal reason to hold off on releasing the files while then-President Joe Biden was in office, and yet Democrats like Schumer were not so adamant to have them released.
It's also suspicious that the left tried to throw everything at Trump while he was running for president, but they never could pin any of the Epstein crimes on him. Now they think they will get him this time, and Trump has decided to release the files to take the issue off the table.
Trump is wrong that only the Democrats care about this issue, but he's right to go ahead and release the files. The American people are demanding answers, and even if it's phony support, there's no bipartisan agreement that the time has come. Whether we'll finally get any real answers or revelations is another matter entirely, unfortunately.
A divided appeals court ruled last year that migrants must be allowed to apply for asylum in the U.S. even if they are stopped at the border before they actually enter the U.S.
President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse this ruling and allow immigration officials to turn away asylum seekers before they get to the border and before they actually apply for asylum.
The case hinges on the court's interpretation of The Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows an “alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” to apply for asylum.
Trump wants the high court to flip the current interpretation of the law, that migrants are considered "physically present" even if they are on the Mexico side of the border.
“In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders,” Solicitor General John Sauer said in a filing. “An alien thus does not ‘arrive in’ the United States while he is still in Mexico.”
Immigration rights group Al Otro Lado obviously disagreed, according to Breitbart.
“Our immigration laws require the government to inspect and process people seeking asylum at ports of entry and allow them to pursue their legal claims in the United States,” it said in a statement.
“The government’s turnback policy was an illegal scheme to circumvent these requirements by physically blocking asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry and preventing them from crossing the border to seek protection,” Al Otro Lado said.
The group also argued that the turnback policy put families and individuals in jeopardy by forcing them to stay in unsafe conditions in Mexico while they wait for their asylum hearings.
Migrants have been assaulted, kidnapped, and murdered, they said.
Most would rather just give up than wait for potentially months or years in such conditions, but isn't that the point?
The vast majority of asylum seekers will be rejected, so letting an unlimited number of migrants into the country to await their hearings doesn't make sense.
That's how we ended up with millions of illegal immigrants in the country under former President Joe Biden, and Trump has pretty much turned all of that around just by adopting a stern attitude and letting migrants know his administration was going to make it hard on them.
Trump definitely has the right idea, and the court will hopefully see it his way.
Brace yourselves, patriots—newly uncovered records expose a stunning double standard at the Department of Justice that reeks of political favoritism.
Documents released by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley reveal that DOJ attorneys who blocked a probe into the Clinton campaign’s dubious financial dealings later spearheaded special counsel Jack Smith’s case against President Donald Trump, the Daily Caller reported.
Let’s start at the beginning, back in 2016, when the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funneled over $1 million through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS, the group behind the notorious Steele Dossier smearing Trump with unproven Russia ties.
Those hefty payments, cleverly listed as “legal services” in Federal Election Commission filings, were anything but transparent, yet they didn’t seem to bother certain DOJ insiders.
By 2019, when allegations of misreporting emerged, FBI officials initially believed there was enough evidence of concealment to justify an investigation.
Enter DOJ attorneys Richard Pilger and J.P. Cooney, who swiftly poured cold water on the idea, arguing it would be tough to prove deliberate falsehoods in the filings.
In a June 14, 2019, email, Cooney noted, “The FEC has approved campaigns hiring vendors... and any money paid to Fusion GPS for the dossier through [Perkins Coie] was probably reported as legal services or something like that.” (J.P. Cooney, June 14, 2019, email)
Isn’t that a neat little loophole? Hiding political hit jobs under vague labels while dodging accountability hardly sounds like the integrity we expect from campaign finance laws.
Thanks to their input, the FBI dropped plans for a Clinton probe in 2019, per a memo Grassley disclosed, despite the FEC later fining the campaign and DNC $113,000 in 2022 for improper reporting.
Now here’s the kicker: Pilger and Cooney, the same duo who shielded Clinton, later played key roles in the Arctic Frost case against Trump under Jack Smith.
Cooney rose to a top prosecutor spot on Smith’s team, while Pilger assisted in reviewing and approving the investigation, according to Grassley’s records.
Grassley pulled no punches, declaring, “These records show the same partisans who rushed to cover for Clinton rabidly pursued Arctic Frost, which was a runaway train aimed directly at President Trump and the Republican political apparatus.” (Chuck Grassley)
This isn’t a shock to Grassley, who revealed that whistleblowers alerted him years ago about DOJ interference in Clinton-related investigations.
While some might dismiss this as mere red tape, the glaring pattern of protecting one political faction while hounding another raises troubling questions about impartiality in our justice system.
For those who value equal treatment under the law, this saga is a stark reminder that vigilance against bias in our institutions isn’t just necessary—it’s urgent.
Hold onto your hats, folks—former President Donald Trump has just thrown a curveball at House Republicans, demanding they vote to release long-hidden files on Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump’s latest push, coupled with a Department of Justice probe into Epstein’s ties to prominent Democrats, has reignited a controversy that he calls a distraction from Republican priorities, Fox News reported.
This saga kicked off on Friday when Trump, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, insisted that House Republicans should push for the release of Epstein-related documents.
He doubled down on Sunday with a fiery Truth Social post, framing the issue as a political ploy by Democrats to sidetrack GOP momentum.
“As I said on Friday night aboard Air Force One to the Fake News Media, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax,” Trump declared. Let’s unpack that—Trump’s confidence suggests he believes there’s no dirt to find, or at least none that sticks to his party.
Instead of dwelling on Epstein, Trump urged Republicans to pivot to bread-and-butter issues like the economy, tax cuts, border security, and rebuilding the military.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice isn’t sitting idle—Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Friday a fresh investigation into potential links between Epstein and high-profile Democrats.
Names like former President Bill Clinton, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers are under scrutiny, per Trump’s own remarks.
Bondi tapped Jay Clayton, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, to lead the probe, praising him as a top-tier prosecutor. “Clayton is one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country,” she stated on X, signaling a no-nonsense approach to the investigation.
Trump isn’t just cheering for transparency—he’s sounding the alarm that this Epstein fixation could be a snare for Republicans.
He argues that if Democrats had any real bombshells, they’d have dropped them long before now, rather than letting the issue fester.
His message to the GOP is clear: don’t get bogged down in this mudslinging when there are bigger wins to tout, like slashing inflation and boosting affordability.
Trump also pointed out that the House Oversight Committee should have full access to whatever files they’re legally owed, showing he’s not dodging accountability.
Yet, he’s adamant that the party must steer the conversation back to policy victories over progressive distractions. If the GOP falls into what he calls a “trap,” they risk losing focus on rebuilding America’s strength and security.
Ultimately, Trump’s stance blends a call for openness with a sharp reminder to prioritize the issues that resonate with everyday Americans. While the Epstein files may hold secrets, the real story might be how Republicans navigate this sideshow without losing sight of their core mission.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Members of the U.S. Senate are asking the chief judge in the Washington district to suspend James Boasberg while an impeachment case against him develops.
Boasberg was the judge who was an active participant in the Democrats' lawfare against President Donald Trump as far back as the 2016 presidential election, that vote stained by the fabricated "Russiagate" scandal that used lies to try to injure Trump.
Boasberg's long activism against Trump extends far beyond his pursuit of the Democrats' "Arctic Frost" investigation against Trump, too.
He radically ordered jets carrying illegal aliens being deported from the United State to be returned, with the criminals aboard, disregarding whether the jets even had the fuel to make it back.
He's been targeted with misconduct complaints for openly questioning whether Trump, who was involved in cases pending before the judge, would obey court orders.
The letter explains there is bicameral support for an impeachment of Boasberg, who was accused of improperly assigning himself a case for which the Supreme Court later found he lacked jurisdiction.
He's tried to enforce his own orders despite being overturned by the Supreme Court.
Now the Washington Examiner said senators led by Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., are pressing the federal judiciary for a Boasberg suspension.
They cite the latest scandal involving Boasberg, his decision to authorize Biden administration investigators to access the telephone records of multiple senators – without informing them.
The letter was directed to D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan.
U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, already has filed impeachment articles over Boasberg's activism.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Colorado family wants to punish the town of Elizabeth for ticketing their son, now an adult, for an alleged curfew violation that was based on an unconstitutional law.
Technically, the family is suing for years of out-of-pocket costs for court battles, compensatory damages, and even punitive damages. Plus lawyers' fees and interest.
It is at Complete Colorado that the situation is described.
Michael and Jennifer Saunders, along with their now-adult son Joseph, are suing the town for the curfew ticket issued to a then 17-year-old Joseph several years ago.
It was in 2021 when he was returning home from a Saturday evening with friends, with his parents' permission.
It was a little after midnight that Elizabeth police officers stopped a group of people and cited the high school boys for the curfew violation.
That law, at the time, banned individuals under 18 from being out past midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. It also barred them from public streets before 5 a.m. on all days.
A municipal court found Saunders guilty, but the case was appealed and a district judge in Elbert County in 2024 declared the ordinance unconstitutional.
The town didn't appeal and the citation eventually was waived and the ordinance changed to comply with constitutional requirements.
Now the Saunders family members are seeking, in federal district court, compensation for their years of trouble and expense.
The parents spent "thousands of dollars defending" this case, according to their complaint, and the "entire family suffered extreme emotional distress from the incident, the Parents were ridiculed by others in the community, and they were afraid to allow their children to travel within the Town of Elizabeth at any time. The Parents feared reprisal from the Town and the Police Department. The Parents experienced great stress and lived in fear that they may be improperly parenting their children."
It cites, specifically, "damages for pain and suffering, physical injury, mental and emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and all other non-economic and economic damages."
Defendants, beside the town, include three police officers involved in the original citation.