This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats, even before President Donald Trump started gaining constitutional and favorable rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, joined other leftists in insisting that the institution must be changed, stacked with leftist ideologues, so the party can get its way whenever it wants.
While Joe Biden was in the White House and Democrats were at their peak power to weaponize the government against their political opponents, through Letitia James, Jack Smith, Fani Willis, the FBI and more, the talk fell by the wayside.
But with President Donald Trump back in the Oval Office and a few Democrat election victories in governors' races, it's back, and "with a vengeance," according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law and George Washington University.
Elections can cause people to speak the unspoken, he noted.
"Partisans can blurt out their inner thoughts with shocking frankness. That was the case this week as Democratic luminaries discussed plans to retake power and then fundamentally change the constitutional system to guarantee they will never have to give it up again," he noted.
"It turns out that winning votes in three blue states and a blue city in an off-year election can be quite intoxicating. It is easy to dismiss it as the talk of chest-thumping, bar-room blowhards about whom they were going to thump. But there is a truth in the bravado."
He noted the demands from Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who said "The Democrat Party looks powerful for the first time all year."
He cited the importance of the Democrats' decision to shut down the government, to coerce the Republican into giving them their way.
Those budget resolution demands include raiding American taxpayers' wallets for another $1.5 trillion for paid propaganda, health care for illegal aliens and more, and it appears the party lost as members crossed over during the weekend to support a GOP plan to reopen federal functions.
Murphy had explained how important it was that the Democrats' win, to squash the idea that Democrats were in "retreat."
And it was ex-Attorney General Eric Holder who not only talked about regaining power, but never giving it up.
"That means weakening the greatest single check on power: the Supreme Court," Turley wrote.
He said he was talking about "the acquisition and the use of power, if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028."
He said the Supreme Court must change.
"It's something that has to be, I think, a part of the national conversation in '26 and in '28, 'What are we going to do about the Supreme Court?'" he charged.
Turley noted, "In other words, the court, as we know it, has got to go. While some on the left are questioning the very need for a Supreme Court or calling for it to be simply defied or 'dissolved,' others want it to be stacked with political activists, like some state supreme courts are."
Colorado's highest state court, for example, is made up of all Democrats, who even tried to banish Trump from the 2024 election ballot before being swatted down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He\y said changes there would have to happen for Democrats to force the creation of D.C. and Puerto Rico as states with two new Democrat senators each.
"Others want election and immigration 'reforms' viewed as favoring Democratic campaigns," he said.
Democrat strategist James Carville joined the bandwagon.
"I'm going to tell you what's going to happen. A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. The Democratic president is going to announce a special transition advisory committee on the reform of the Supreme Court. They're going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That's going to happen, people."
He said, "That's going to happen to you. They're going to win. They're going to do some blue ribbon panel of distinguished jurists, and they are going to recommend 13, and a Democratic Senate and House is going to pass it, and the Democratic president is going to sign it, because they have to do an intervention so we can have a Supreme Court that the American people trust again."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to take the case involving former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who faces a catastrophe because of a leftist ruling creating same-sex "marriage" across the country by extremists who no longer are on the bench.
It is Kim Davis who now faces $360,000 in penalties for the "hurt feelings" of homosexuals who bypassed other marriage license channels and sought her out to try to force her to publicly violate her Christian faith and issue them a marriage license.
"Davis was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported hurt feelings," explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
"By denying this petition, the high court has let stand a decision to strip a government defendant of their immunity and any personal First Amendment defense for their religious expression. This cannot be right because government officials do not shed their constitutional rights upon election. Like the abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, Obergefell was egregiously wrong from the start.
"This opinion has no basis in the Constitution. We will continue to work to overturn Obergefell. It is not a matter of if, but when the Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell."
Davis, in fact, had been caught up in the disaster that marriage ruling created. While the Supreme Court created same-sex marriage, it ignored the simultaneous need for recognition of individuals' constitutional rights, leaving Davis facing a demand to violate state law and her own religious rights.
The Supreme Court's denial of a review was without a ruling on the merits.
"By declining to hear the case, SCOTUS leaves the wrongly decided Obergefell opinion in place. The court also leaves unresolved an important constitutional question of whether the First Amendment's complementary protections of Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause protect government officials sued in their individual capacity for actions taken based on their religious beliefs," Liberty Counsel, which represented Davis, said.
Also left in place was the claim from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that held Davis personally liable for a same-sex couple's "hurt feelings" from not getting a marriage license from Davis due to her upholding her religious views on marriage.
When the Obergefell case was announced, it was based on the implications of the Constitution, not any actual wording since marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. It, like the failed Roe decision earlier creating abortion, a decision that later was struck down, demanded a social change not mentioned in any way by the authors of the Constitution.
So believing marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Davis ceased issuing any marriage licenses from June 29 to early September 2015 while she sought an accommodation for her religious beliefs.
"But two sets of plaintiffs, including David Ermold and David Moore, sought to mock Davis' Christian faith by forcing her name on their marriage license through litigation. Their attempt failed when Gov. Steven Beshear agreed that the altered license without Davis' name was valid. From early September onward, licenses were issued without Davis' name on them. In December 2015, newly elected Governor Matt Bevin issued an executive order granting the accommodation Davis sought. Then in April 2016, the Kentucky legislature unanimously codified the religious exemption by removing the names of all clerks from the state's marriage licenses," Liberty Counsel said.
However, David Bunning, a leftist federal judge, didn't wait for democracy to take effect, and immediately put her in jail for her Christian faith.
Liberty Counsel pointed out the nature of the attack on Davis. "Ermold and Moore could have gone to any number of nearby clerks to get a marriage license. But they wanted Davis' name on their license. In 2017, Ermold and Moore amended their complaint and sued Davis in her individual capacity for emotional distress for 'hurt feelings.' In addition to six days in jail, Davis was held liable for $360,000 in damages and attorney's fees over their 'hurt feelings' stemming from her religious expression."
Muiltiple judges had dissented from the creation of same-sex marriage – it was adopted by only a single vote from one leftist justice. And the minority warned of the threat to the Constitution that the social-engineering decision crated.
Justice Clarence Thomas said that Obergefell would have "potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty."
The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also apply to the Obergefell "same-sex marriage" decision.
In fact, both the abortion and same-sex marriage creations rely on "substantive due process," a doctrine adopted by some justices over the years to create "implied fundamental rights."
"Through various opinions, the Court has recognized a right of personal privacy, which has been extended to other activities such as inter-racial marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing," the analysis said. To manufacture same-sex "marriages," the court relied on "substantive due process" to claim same-sex "marriage" is constitutionally protected.
Thomas said, "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous'…we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – As the head of BBC and its news chief resigned over the weekend amid a firestorm for deceptively editing Donald Trump's remarks on Jan. 6, 2021, the president wasted no time threatening a $1 billion lawsuit if the network does not retract its "false" and "defamatory" statements by Friday.
Fox News reports the president's "litigation counsel sent a scathing notice of intent to bring a civil action lawsuit on Sunday to BBC Chair Samir Shah, along with general counsel Sarah Jones. The letter, which has been obtained by Fox News Digital, demands that 'false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements' made about Trump must be retracted immediately."
Attorneys for Trump said statements by the network's "Panorama" documentary were "fabricated and aired by the BBC," leaving him no other option than to seek legal remedy.
"Failure to comply will leave President Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to recover damages for the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that the BBC has caused him to suffer, with all rights and remedies being expressly reserved by President Trump," the letter states.
"In the Panorama documentary, titled 'Trump: A Second Chance,' which was first broadcast on October 28, 2024 – a week before the 2024 United States presidential election – the BBC intentionally sought to completely mislead its viewers by splicing together three separate parts of President Trump's speech to supporters," the letter continues.
"The documentary showed President Trump telling supporters: 'We're gonna walk down to the Capitol, and I'll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.'"
Trump's actual statement was: "We're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down any one of you but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
Also edited out, according to the letter, was Trump indicating: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
The letter was written by Trump attorney Alejandro Brito, who noted: "Due to their salacious nature, the fabricated statements that were aired by the BBC have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums, which have reached tens of millions of people worldwide. Consequently, the BBC has caused President Trump to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm."
"Consequently, the BBC lacks any viable defense to the overwhelming reputational and financial harm it has caused President Trump to suffer."
Lawyers for the president believe "the BBC's reckless disregard for the truth underscores the actual malice behind the decision to publish the wrongful content, given the plain falsity of the statements."
Trump is seeking "a full and fair retraction of the documentary and any and all other false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements about President Trump in as conspicuous a manner as they were originally published," along with compensation and an immediate apology.
The British Broadcasting Corporation is now examining its options.
"We will review the letter and respond directly in due course," a BBC spokesperson told Fox News Digital.
Meanwhile, BBC Chairman Samir Shah is reacting to the controversy, saying: "This issue has led to over 500 complaints. These are now being dealt with in the normal way. It has also prompted further reflection by the BBC.
"The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgement."
As WorldNetDaily reported Sunday, two top officials at the BBC both quit the state-funded, left-leaning media giant Sunday amid fierce pressure after allegedly twisting Trump's words to make it look like he was inciting a riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
BBC boss Tim Davie, a 20-year veteran at the network who has been in charge for the last five years, resigned after "reflecting on the very intense personal and professional demands of managing this role over many years in these febrile times."
"Like all public organizations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable," Davie added. "While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision."
Also leaving her post is Deborah Turness, the CEO of BBC News.
"The ongoing controversy around the Panorama on President Trump has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC – an institution that I love," Turness said.
"The buck stops with me," she added. "While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Trump has issued pardons to Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and dozens of alternate electors who worked to make sure America's election processes would be followed should Democrat schemes that appeared during the 2020 presidential race prove to have corrupted the voting.
While the legacy media to this day still claims they were "false" electors, those individuals simply were following a process long established in American elections to set up alternate slates of presidential electors when the results of those votes are clouded with doubt, scandal and controversy.
A report at the Federalist explains while legal challenges to various state election results were under way, the individuals met and cast votes as alternates, supporting President Donald Trump in that scandal-plagued 2020 vote.
That was when Mark Zuckerberg interfered in the election by handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to elections officials who often used the flood of cash to recruit voters in Democrat districts. Further, the FBI interfered by falsely claiming scandals revealed in the laptop abandoned at a repair shop by Hunter Biden were Russian disinformation.
So while various controversies were raging, both Democrat and Republican organizations offered slates of elections to the Electoral College.
"Those actions were taken based on sound historical and legal precedent, and ensured that legislatures in the Challenged States could select the rightful winner of the Election in the event the legislatures or the courts determined there had been a flawed calculation of votes or an unconstitutional deviation from state election law resulting in the wrong electoral votes being counted.," explained a recommendation from the Office of U.S. Pardon Attorney Edward R. Martin.
He stressed legal challenges to various "unconstitutional changes to election laws, procedural violations, ineligible voters, and election irregularities" raised alarms.
Others in the pardons list were former law professor John Eastman; lawyers Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis; and Kenneth Chesebro and Boris Epshteyn.
The Federalist explained the process used simply mirrored one used by the campaign of John Kennedy in 1960 when the acting governor of Hawaii certified the Republican electors for Richard Nixon.
"There, as in Trump's case, Kennedy had filed a challenge to the results in state court, and accordingly Democrats certified three alternative electors to cast their ballots for Kennedy in the event the court ruled in his favor," the report explained.
"Two of the three Democrat electors were retired federal judges and yet they certified — as did the Trump alternative electors — that they were 'duly and legally qualified and appointed' electors for Kennedy. The Democrats further certified 'the votes of the state of Hawaii' were given to Kennedy. Kennedy later prevailed in his legal challenge, with his alternative electors then casting their votes in his favor," the Federalist explained.
However, when similar circumstances developed in the 2020 election, ex-FBI chief Christopher Wray and then-Attorney General Merrick Garland launched numerous "criminal" investigations of individuals, claiming that their efforts were "fraudulent."
Despite the processes being routine, and historic, legacy media outlets to this day claim that those individuals were trying "to overturn the outcome" of the election.
CBS referred to the individuals as "so-called" alternate state electors.
The pardon document confirmed it is done to end "a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election and continues the process of national reconciliation."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that it was persecution against those Americans, and Joe Biden put them "through hell."
Democrats' schemes to make similar claims against President Trump failed in federal court earlier this year.
While some of the cases against the Trump supporters developed in state courts, results that a president cannot pardon, some of those have been dismissed and others are on appeal.
The list included a total of 77 people who had been targeted by Democrats.
State officials involved in the attacks on the Republican-named electors included Arizona AG Kris Mayese, Nevada AG Aaron Ford, Michigan AG Dana Nessel, Wisconsin AG Josh Kaul and the now-disgraced Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis.
Martin had explained that the prosecutions are "attempts by partisan state actors to shoehorn fanciful and concocted state law violations onto what are clearly federal constitutional obligations of the 2020 Trump campaign: the establishment of the contingent electors, the actions attendant to their roles as presidential electors, and their duties under established historical and legal precedent to exercise their responsibilities as electors – all of which are functions of federal – not state – law."
"The memorandum noted because the states are prosecuting the 2020 Trump electors, and those connected to the decision to use alternative electors, for exercising a solely federal function, the president of the United States can pardon them for their supposed state law crimes. This novel theory seeks to sidestep the normal limitation on the president's pardon authority — an authority limited to pardoning individuals for solely federal crimes," the Federalist explained.
Now, the report noted, "The Democrat attorneys general behind the prosecutions may not wish to push the matter because doing so could expose either their complicity with the Biden administration or with Democrat activists. Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis already learned that lesson when her efforts to prosecute the Georgia electors and Trump attorneys led to the discovery that 'both the Fulton County prosecutor and her paramour-paid junior prosecutor engaged with Biden administration officials both before and after obtaining the indictment.'"
The former president of South Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol, was indicted Monday on charges of abusing power and aiding an enemy state for his attempt to impose martial law on the country briefly last year.
Yoon allegedly tried to engineer military conflict between South and North Korea so that he could be justified in declaring martial law, according to evidence found on his cell phone.
Former defense minister Kim Yong-hyun and former military intelligence chief Yeo In-hyung were also involved in the conspiracy and were indicted on the same charges, a spokesperson for North Korea said.
Yoon is accused of ordering a covert drone operation into North Korea in October. North Korea published photos of a smashed drone around the same time and said that it was dropping anti-North Korea pamphlets over Pyongyang.
At the time, South Korea did not disclose whether it had sent the drone.
Martial law was declared on December 3, but the National Assembly overturned the order within hours.
The apparent motive for declaring martial law was for Yoon to disband the National Assembly and rule by decree, turning South Korea back into an authoritarian dictatorship.
The National Assembly was able to thwart Yoon's alleged plans and he was impeached and suspended from office by the end of the month.
He, Kim, and Yeo were arrested, and Kim tried to commit suicide in prison.
Yoon and Kim have denied that the martial law attempt was a self-coup to get rid of political enemies, but Yeo said he regretted following the order from Yoon.
Yoon may also have been trying to end investigations into him and his wife, Kim Keon-hee and top officials.
His administration was plagued with dissension and a lack of consensus that made it difficult to get anything done.
Yoon was far-right politically, and his demise brought about the election of Lee Jae-myung, of the liberal Democratic Party, during a special election in April.
It's easy to see how liberals in this country could think our right-wing politicians are anti-Democratic if they use South Korean politics as an example, but let's remember that President Donald Trump has not tried to declare martial law or abolish Congress. It's just not the same, but American Democrats don't seem to get it.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The legal fight involves a rubber-recycling company and its alleged securities violations.
But the real dispute is something about which Americans must have concern: Whether those targeted by a government action have a right to a jury decision, or if some government functionary can simply rule against them and order them to pay a penalty.
The fight is being handled by the Pacific Legal Foundation.
"The Arizona Supreme Court's decision to hear this case recognizes that fundamental constitutional rights are at stake," said Adi Dynar, an attorney for the foundation. "When government agencies act as prosecutor, judge, and jury, they violate the basic American principle that everyone deserves a fair trial before an impartial jury of their peers."
It is the EFG America corporation that asked the Arizona Supreme Court to protect the constitutional right to jury trials, and the justices have agreed.
It was a state agency's bureaucrats at the Arizona Corporation Commission that forced the Mesa-based company into unfair in-house tribunals.
Last year, the commission claimed in an enforcement action that EFG America and its founder, Douglas Fimrite, committed securities violations.
"The commission refused to allow the case to be heard in superior court with a jury, instead forcing it through the agency's own administrative process where the same agency that investigated and charged EFG also judged the case," the foundation reported.
It then was the Arizona Court of Appeals that ruled against EFG, claiming that defendants have no right to jury trials.
"This decision eliminates jury trials for a significant portion of civil cases in Arizona, undermining constitutional protections that have safeguarded Americans since the founding," PLF said.
But, it noted, "Both the Arizona Constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Seventh Amendment guarantee jury trials in civil cases where the government seeks monetary penalties. The U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle in SEC v. Jarkesy. Now, the Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the same checks and balances protect the fundamental constitutional rights of Arizonans."
The Supreme Court is hearing a landmark case on President Trump's tariff powers, and it's entirely possible that justices appointed by Trump could prove to be a major problem.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Trump's use of an emergency law to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs, which have been the source of major controversy and several serious lawsuits.
So far, justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett seem to be the most skeptical about Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is bad news for Trump.
The Supreme Court has a 6-4 conservative majority, which Trump is banking on to score easy victories. However, with two conservative justices seemingly wavering, this could lead to a decision that isn't in Trump's favor.
Should the Supreme Court declare that the Trump administration's tariff policy is illegitimate, it will completely knock down a cornerstone of Trump's economic policy.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats. Trump has cited the trade deficit as such an emergency to impose tariffs via executive order earlier this year.
However, lawsuits filed by Democrats against Trump's declaration have claimed that since the words "tariffs" or "taxes" do not appear in the text of the IEEPA, Trump's actions are unlawful.
The Supreme Court is considering the power to "regulate importation" during a national emergency, which would certainly seem to include tariffs, which are essentially a fee on any imported goods.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer by asking, "Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase — together with ‘regulate importation’ — has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?"
Justice Neil Gorsuch also inquired, "What would prohibit Congress from abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce or declare war to the president?"
Of course, the Trump administration has been adamant that while tariffs may seem like taxes, they are legally separate concepts that should settle any concerns about the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court's leftist justices have already made it clear that they do not support Trump's interpretation of the IEEPA, which means that this will be a 6-4 decision, in the best-case scenario.
This means that the Trump administration must secure both Barrett's and Gorsuch's votes to avoid a devastating defeat that will undermine Trump's economic agenda.
Court observers have suggested that a Trump victory is still very much in play, but there is growing concern that Gorsuch or Barrett, both appointed by Trump in his 1st term, could flip and join the left. That would be an unparalleled disaster for Trump, who is in bad need of a win.
Hold onto your hats, folks—another judicial roadblock has slammed down on the Trump administration’s efforts to bring order to Portland’s chaotic streets.
In a stunning decision, a federal judge has permanently barred the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, declaring the move unconstitutional and overstepping presidential authority, the New York Post reported.
This saga kicked off when the city of Portland and the state of Oregon filed a lawsuit in September, challenging the Trump administration’s decision to send 200 National Guard members to the city. The move came after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth authorized the federalization of troops from Oregon, Texas, and California. The administration claimed the deployment was necessary to safeguard federal personnel and property amid heated protests at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building.
On a Sunday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, ironically a Trump appointee, issued a temporary order blocking Hegseth from moving forward with the troop deployment. That injunction held firm, keeping the National Guard at bay while the legal battle unfolded.
The temporary block wasn’t just a speed bump—it set the stage for a deeper examination of whether the protests justified federal military intervention. A three-day trial ensued, scrutinizing the administration’s rationale. And let’s be honest, when progressive strongholds like Portland cry foul, the courts often seem eager to play referee.
Fast forward to Friday, and Judge Immergut dropped a 106-page bombshell, converting the temporary order into a permanent injunction. The ruling didn’t just slap the administration’s wrist; it declared the entire deployment unconstitutional. If that’s not a judicial overreach, what is?
Immergut’s decision hinged on the argument that the president overstepped his bounds, especially since Oregon’s governor opposed the deployment and federal officials at the ICE building didn’t even request it. The judge found no evidence of a rebellion or imminent threat to justify federalizing the National Guard.
In her words, “evidence demonstrates that these deployments, which were objected to by Oregon’s governor and not requested by the federal officials in charge of protection of the ICE building, exceeded the President’s authority” (Judge Karin Immergut). Now, isn’t it curious how state objections suddenly trump federal needs when it suits the anti-administration narrative? One might wonder if local leaders are more interested in political theater than public safety.
Immergut didn’t stop there, doubling down by invoking the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers to the states unless explicitly granted to the federal government. She argued this deployment violated that principle, effectively telling the president to keep his hands off state-controlled forces. It’s a classic states’ rights argument—noble in theory, but often weaponized against conservative policies.
The judge also took aim at the administration’s legal footing, stating, “Even giving great deference to the President’s determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard” (Judge Karin Immergut). That’s a bold claim, considering the federal government’s duty to protect its own assets. Are we to believe that a few rowdy protests don’t warrant a strong response?
While the Trump administration argued the troops were essential to protect federal interests, Immergut countered that no sufficient emergency existed to bypass state consent. It’s almost as if the judiciary expects the president to beg permission from every governor before acting. That’s not leadership; that’s red tape.
Now, the administration faces not only this permanent injunction in Portland but also a temporary block on a similar deployment in Chicago. The legal battles are stacking up faster than objections at a city council meeting. One has to ask: Are these rulings protecting the Constitution, or just obstructing a president trying to maintain order?
The Trump administration isn’t out of options yet—an appeal remains on the table to challenge this sweeping decision. Given the stakes, it’s hard to imagine they’d let this ruling stand without a fight. After all, ceding ground on federal authority sets a dangerous precedent for future crises.
Critics of the progressive agenda might see this as yet another example of the judiciary bending over backward to undermine conservative efforts to restore law and order. While respecting state autonomy is important, shouldn’t there be a balance when federal interests are under siege? Portland’s streets aren’t exactly a bastion of calm these days.
Ultimately, this ruling raises bigger questions about the limits of presidential power and the role of the courts in second-guessing executive decisions. As the legal dust settles, one thing is clear: The fight over who controls the National Guard—and who gets to define “emergency”—is far from over. Let’s hope the next chapter prioritizes safety over political point-scoring.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Expressing doubt whether explicit and graphic sex shows in front of children actually are protected by the First Amendment, a federal appeals court has allowed a Texas law barring those activities to take effect.
"The law is not facially invalid unless its 'unconstitutional applications substantially outweigh its constitutional ones,'" said a ruling from 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The district court did not conduct this analysis, nor did the parties brief the proper standard or adequately develop the record. Consequently, we are unequipped to undertake this task in the first instance, and remand for the district court to do so."
A Fox News report said the decision lifts the lower court's injunction against enforcement of the law.
The judges turned to the explicit nature of the shows: "We have genuine doubt, however, that pulsing prosthetic breasts in front of people, putting prosthetic breasts in people's faces, and being spanked by audience members are actually constitutionally protected—especially in the presence of minors."
The ruling from the three-judge panel tossed the 2023 decision from a trial court that blocked the law.
"While nude dancing receives some constitutional protection, 'intentional contact between a nude dancer and a bar patron is conduct beyond the expressive scope of the dancing itself. The conduct at that point has overwhelmed any expressive strains it may contain. That the physical contact occurs while in the course of protected activity does not bring it within the scope of the First Amendment,'" they instructed.
The ruling could be a preliminary to a Supreme Court decision, as the 11th Circuit court recently ruled that a similar statute in Florida likely is problematic.
A federal judge has permanently banned President Donald Trump's administration from deploying the National Guard to clean up the crime and violent protests happening on the streets of Portland, NBC News reported. The judge handed down her final decision on Friday after extending a temporary stay.
U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, whom Trump appointed during his first term, said that it was a "necessary conclusion" to keep the president from sending the military to do what local law enforcement won't. The judge said that the situation didn't meet the criteria for him to do so.
"This Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion' nor was the President 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States' in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard," Immergut explained.
The city and state first sued in September to remove the National Guard from Portland and were successful in obtaining a temporary injunction. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is appealing this latest ruling and was already in the process of doing so for the temporary order.
For some reason, leftists really love it when a city is severely lacking in law and order. Citizens are afraid to leave their houses or property unprotected because of high crime, and they are told that they are the ones in the wrong.
Trump tried to do what was right for these people, but was instead met with opposition. In response to ongoing violent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents cracking down on illegal immigrants, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth sent about 200 troops into Portland to stop the attack on the immigration processing facility.
Now that his effort has been completely shut down for now by the courts, leftists are rejoicing. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said it was "a win for the rule of law, for the constitutional values that govern our democracy, and for the American people." Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek also celebrated the decision that will objectively make Portland less safe in a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Friday.
"This ruling validates the facts on the ground. Oregon does not want or need military intervention, & President Trump’s attempts to federalize the guard is a gross abuse of power. Based on this ruling, I am renewing my call to the Trump Administration to send all troops home now," she added.
This ruling validates the facts on the ground. Oregon does not want or need military intervention, & President Trump’s attempts to federalize the guard is a gross abuse of power. Based on this ruling, I am renewing my call to the Trump Administration to send all troops home now. pic.twitter.com/UtNinL7D0I
— Governor Tina Kotek (@GovTinaKotek) November 8, 2025
While the leftists on the left coast are doing all they can to thwart Trump, the president's attorneys have made the case that sending troops is the only option. In her decision, Immergut determined that Trump's justification for sending troops in and calling Portland "war-ravaged" as "ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa" from "crazy people" wishing "to burn down buildings, including federal buildings" was incorrect.
"The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts," Immergut claimed. The Justice Department said that her decision "improperly impinges on the Commander in Chief’s supervision of military operations, countermands a military directive to officers in the field, and endangers federal personnel and property.
Furthermore, his attorneys said that the president's "determination was amply justified by the facts on the ground," the legal filing said. "In the weeks and months preceding the President’s decision, agitators assaulted federal officers and damaged federal property in numerous ways, spray-painted violent threats, blockaded the vehicle entrance to the Portland ICE facility, trapped officers in their cars, followed them when they attempted to leave the facility, threatened them at the facility, menaced them at their homes, doxed them online, and threatened to kill them on social media," attorneys noted.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department pointed out that the National Guard was necessary because they're "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." Not surprisingly, Oregon has downplayed the ongoing unrest and the need it's created.
The people who live in these leftist cities and states are being held hostage by the criminals who run amok. Trump is merely trying to restore order to an area plagued by chaos, and he's met with resistance and court cases actively trying to prevent him from helping.