Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy fears that the nation's highest court is not immune to America's growing political divide, as the language in written opinions grows sharper and more "personal."
Kennedy spoke to CBS about his new memoir, Life, Law & Liberty, which is out Tuesday, the Hill reported.
“I’m actually somewhat concerned about the Court,” Kennedy said in an interview with CBS News published Sunday. “It’s a little bit too personal and confrontational, some of the opinions. I’m hoping that will settle down a little bit.”
Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1989 by Republican president Ronald Reagan. Eventually, Kennedy became known as the "swing" justice on what was fairly liberal Supreme Court. He wrote the opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which required all 50 states to recognize gay marriage, and also defended the right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe v. Wade.
On the other hand, Kennedy joined the majority in Bush v. Gore, a decision deplored by the left.
The 89-year-old retired during President Trump's first term and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose confirmation hearings exposed a bitter divide in the country.
Despite sometimes sharp disagreements, the justices typically speak well of each other in public appearances. But Kennedy said there are signs that the court's well-known collegiality is fading.
“Yes, I’m concerned. Democracy presumes an open, rational, thoughtful, decent discussion where you respect the dignity of the person with whom you disagree. And if it doesn’t have that, then democracy as we know it is in danger,” he said.
Despite his role as a "swing" vote, Kennedy did not shy from controversy during his time on the bench.
In Obergefell, Kennedy was accused of replacing sound legal reasoning with flowery poetics, or what the late Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed as the "mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." But Kennedy stands by his prose.
“Someone told me it passed the refrigerator test, [which means] if there’s something that’s interesting and well-written, you put it on your refrigerator,” Kennedy told CBS.
While most Americans now accept gay marriage, Obergefell has continued to face criticism from conservatives who regard it as a textbook case of judicial overreach. And Kennedy's whimsical definition of "liberty" in Planned Parenthood v. Casey as the "right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" still attracts scorn in the conservative legal movement.
Since Roe v. Wade was repealed, there has been speculation that Obergefell could be overturned next. A petition is currently before the court do so just that, although it is far from clear that the justices will take that leap.
The Supreme Court's 2024-2025 term ended with a blockbuster opinion authored by Amy Coney Barrett, the new "swing" vote in the eyes of many, in which Barrett mocked liberal colleague Ketanji Brown Jackson for a passionate, legally adventurous dissent.
Barrett ripped Jackson's dissent, which predicted the end of the American Republic, as "extreme" and superficial.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It is the next step in the war against InfoWars, the Alex Jones organization that was sued over his comments about the Sandy Hook school shooting and the families involved. And it's gone to the Supreme Court.
Jones, who was declared liable for more than a billion dollars in damages in default judgments from two different judges, is challenging those rulings.
Jones has submitted an appeal to the high court that centers on a judgment in Connecticut.
He charges the default judgment was improper because it presented an incomplete picture of his statements about Sandy Hook, it made too much of "trivial" discovery issues, and it undermined Supreme Court precedent on the First Amendment rights of media defendants, like him, according to a blog that focuses on the high court and its issues.
"Viewed in full context, Jones expressly affirmed that deaths occurred, while using the phrases 'staged' or 'hoax' to characterize media and governmental scripting. It is therefore contextually impossible to construe his remarks as denying deaths, as the Complaint did by selective editing. Precisely to guard against such distortions, this Court has required independent judicial review of the entire record in First Amendment cases," said the petition.
He is seeking emergency relief because he charges that allowing the collection of the full $1.4 billion judgment while his appeal is being reviewed would inflict "irreparable injury."
He warned that Sandy Hook families would take control of his InfoWars and turn it over to another company, the Onion.
"Without a stay now, when this case is reviewed and later reversed, InfoWars will have been acquired by its ideological nemesis and destroyed — which Jones believes is the Plaintiffs' intention. Hence, Jones will clearly experience irreparable injury if a stay is not granted," his application said.
The report explained Jones is a longtime talk-show host who had built a platform for comment and discussion.
He repeatedly has addressed "conspiratorial claims about major world events, such as that the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 was staged or that the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 were an inside job," the report said.
In this case, after the 2012 shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead, Jones repeatedly criticized coverage and suggested parts of the events were staged to push for new gun limits.
Family members of victims sued, both in Connecticut and Texas.
Both judges ruled against Jones by default.
After the judgment, the companies filed bankruptcy petitions and that process has not yet yielded a final result.
More than a month has passed since the tragic murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University, and court watchers are closely following developments in the case against the man accused of committing the heinous crime.
As Breitbart reports, as defendant Tyler Robinson prepares for upcoming appearances in the courtroom, he is asking the presiding judge to allow him to present himself not in prison garb and shackles, but rather in civilian clothes.
The accused killer’s request came in the form of a 21-page motion submitted to Judge Tony Graf last week, a document that outlined the defense team’s rationale for the desired adjustment.
Robinson’s attorneys made reference to the Idaho murder case of Bryan Kohberger in their contention that allowing their client to wear civilian attire would help secure his constitutional right to a fair trial.
In addition to their request regarding Robinson’s clothing, defense lawyers also now seek a closed-door hearing regarding whether physical restraints will be used during courtroom appearances.
The motion stated, “In the face of worldwide scrutiny, permitting Mr. Robinson to wear civilian clothing for court appearances is a minor inconvenience compared to the already present concerns with securing a fair trial before an impartial jury.”
Their filing continued, “With each development in the case generating thousands of articles and comments online, the likelihood of potential jurors seeing and drawing conclusions regarding Mr. Robinson’s guilt and or deserved punishment from obvious signs of pretrial incarceration will only increase.”
It is not just Robinson’s trial attire on which his defense team is focusing, as attorneys are busy developing their approach to evidence in the case and strategic arguments in furtherance of their attempt to secure an acquittal -- or at the very least prevent the imposition of the death penalty upon conviction.
Speaking to Fox News Digital, veteran defense attorney Randall Spencer described some of the priorities likely guiding the work of Robinson’s team.
Spencer noted how critical it will be to maintain the confidentiality of evidence ahead of trial in order to safeguard the impartiality of potential jurors.
“If the prosecutor or the defense of leaking…evidence to the public…that may inhibit Tyler’s right to a fair trial.”
In terms of potential defense theories, Spencer opined, “There perhaps could be a factual innocence defense being raised indicating that Tyler wasn’t actually the shooter. Probably more likely the defense…is addressing the aggravating factor…whether the defendant’s alleged actions had a high probability of causing the death of someone other than Charlie Kirk,” suggesting that such a pivot -- if successful -- could shift the charge downward “from capital homicide to standard murder.”
Even so, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Neama Rahmani suspects that prosecutors in the case will focus on efforts to “dirty up” Robinson to boost the chances that, if convicted, he will receive the death penalty, working to present evidence of alleged statements from the defendant regarding Kirk’s supposed “hatred,” his apparent admission of guilt to a romantic partner, and incriminating words said to have been etched on bullets used in the crime.
Noting that 12 of 12 jurors must agree for Robinison to be put to death, Rahmani observed, “So when jurors are weighing the death penalty, the reason why someone killed another human being, if it was for political reasons, that’s certainly an aggravated factor” but whether such consensus will be reached at the end of the process, only time will tell.
A federal appeals court reversed a lower court ruling blocking President Donald Trump from calling up the National Guard in Chicago.
Thanks to this decision, troops stationed at the U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, Illinois, can stay put. However, there is still the question of whether Trump can actually deploy these troops into the city.
The one-page order from the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals read, "Members of the National Guard do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so."
This order reverses a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry, who barred the White House from federalizing and deploying National Guard troops from Illinois and Texas in Chicago.
She rejected the Trump administration's argument that, because of increasing lawlessness and riots against federal law enforcement, the National Guard was required to ensure federal law enforcement would be able to do its job.
It's also worth noting that Perry was appointed by former President Joe Biden, in case that wasn't immediately obvious.
This latest decision is another win for President Trump, but there are real questions to be settled about whether he has the power to actually use the National Guard in Chicago, a Democrat-run city that has been designated a "sanctuary city."
Under radical leftist mayor Brandon Johnson, Chicago has become home to scores of illegal immigrants who are putting a strain on Chicago's infrastructure and social safety nets. This hasn't stopped Chicago Democrats from fighting tooth and nail to protect these illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have been working in the city, but that is very much in spite of Democrats. In fact, the Chicago Police Department was ordered not to assist federal agents who were under literal siege by violent leftist protestors.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson would rather defend illegal immigrants than make life better for American citizens in Chicago and the state of Illinois and they are willing to let federal law enforcement be besieged like they are conducting operations in a warzone.
Of course, it seems like Trump will come out on top in this particular fight as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also appears poised to authorize Trump's use of the National Guard in Portland, another leftist city committing insurrection by protecting criminals against federal law enforcement.
Democrat cities around the nation have opened their doors for illegal immigrants and other criminals, but refuse to allow federal law enforcement to come in and do their job.
Considering Democrats screeched about Trump committing "insurrection" for questioning the outcome of the election in 2020, one would think Democrats would believe strongly in the rule of law and the federal government's role in keeping the peace.
The actions of Democrats like Brandon Johnson must be viewed as blatant insurrection and rebellion against the federal government's lawful enforcement of immigration law.
Once this National Guard issue is put to rest, the Department of Justice ought to look into what charges could be brought against Democrat politicians who willfully obstruct and endanger federal agents.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Forfeiture schemes abound across America. Government agents have been known to see money in a traveler's luggage, take it and keep it.
But it could be that the tide is turning, with the latest ruling from the Texas First Court of Appeals that reversed a civil-forfeiture judgment in Harris County.
The decision ordered the state to return to Ameal and Jordan Davis a total of $41,680.
The ruling confirmed, "Harris County's evidence was legally insufficient to prove the cash was intended to be used to purchase a controlled substance—confirming that private property, including cash, cannot be taken on mere suspicion."
"Cash is not a crime," said Arif Panju, managing attorney of the Institute for Justice's Texas office. "Today the First Court of Appeals entered judgment for Ameal and Jordan and ordered their life savings returned. That's a decisive win for due process and a sharp rebuke to civil forfeiture based on hunches."
The fight dates to 2019 when the Davises decided to pursue the dream of owning their own trucking business. They saved money from jobs, tax refunds, and by keeping expenses low—eventually accumulating more than $40,000, enough for Ameal to rise from truck driver to truck owner, the IJ said.
When Ameal was ready to buy his truck, driving from Natchez, Mississippi, toward Houston, he was stopped by police officers in Harris County. They took his cash and released him.
"Although the government's forfeiture case involved no drugs or drug dealers whatsoever, and Ameal was never charged with any crime, the county nevertheless pursued civil forfeiture. After a six-day trial, a jury found the money was intended to be used to possess a controlled substance at some point in the future; the trial court entered judgment for forfeiture," the IJ said.
However, the appeals ruling said the state's evidence failed.
There was no evidence of any "substantial connection" between the money and the alleged and undefined "drug offense."
"This ruling makes clear that the government can't take people's property without evidence of a crime," said James Knight, attorney at the Institute for Justice. "Ameal and Jordan fought back, and today's decision restores what was theirs and strengthens protections for everyone who carries cash."
A class action lawsuit over Harris County's practices of taking citizens' money remains pending.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal court has delivered a victory to a driver who was stopped by Louisiana police and interrogated on the roadside.
According to a report from the Institute for Justice, the decision came from federal court in the Western District of Louisiana.
That decision said the case brought against the officers and the city of Alexandria will not be dismissed at this point, allowing claims by Mario Rosales and Gracie Lasyones to move forward.
"Mario and Gracie should get to enforce their rights in court, helping protect other motorists' rights, and this ruling is an important step forward," said IJ Attorney Marie Miller. "But there is still work to be done. While Mario and Gracie have overcome one roadblock, they have to wait until later stages of the case to ultimately vindicate their rights with a final judgment. Qualified immunity is delaying justice."
The Alexandria officers are accused of an unconstitutional traffic stop and interrogation.
It happened when, several years ago, the plaintiffs were on the highway and officers pulled them over on "bogus traffic infractions to fish for drug and other crimes,"
"Mario and Gracie were questioned about not just about where they live and work, where they had been, and where they were going, but also about a litany of drugs, past interactions with police, and their feelings about the U.S. Constitution," the IJ said.
The IJ explained, "The officers and their city employer used various tactics to delay proceedings. These included securing a stay of the case based on the criminal prosecution of one of the officers, Jim Lewis, for a crime committed on the job. The court lifted the stay. But then the officers pressed qualified immunity defenses, halting progress in the case again."
Finally, the court ruled against claims of qualified immunity, so the case now can move forward.
However, the case is not yet to the point of vindicating the rights of Mario and Gracie because multiple existing issues could drag in the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals.
The conservative justices on the Supreme Court appear to be poised to deal a fatal blow to the incredibly flawed Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, and it appears that the court is leaning towards striking down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans "racial gerrymandering when it dilutes minority voting power."
Gerrymandering is a frowned-upon but legal act except in this one specific exception, thanks to the Voting Rights Act. It essentially creates a requirement that certain Congressional districts favor minority voters to "ensure representation."
While the left has framed this court battle as the Supreme Court ending minority representation, this is actually an opportunity for the Supreme Court to end a law that has overtly written racial preferences into American law.
Of course, the GOP has a ton to gain as this case could lead to significant redistricting efforts that could net Republicans over a dozen House seats.
Without Section 2, it's estimated that 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus's seats could be wiped out.
Of course, the only reason these seats exist is because of an arbitrary and racist requirement that Congressional maps specifically carve out districts that would advantage minority candidates. Racial demographics should never have been a factor in writing district maps.
States like Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi would have a massive GOP shift with Section 2 being struck down.
These overwhelmingly conservative states have Democrat enclaves thanks to Section 2, requiring racial district maps that favor Democrats and preserve their existence in states where they would otherwise be voted out easily.
Predictably, Democrats are in full panic mode and are busy screeching about democracy and about the "corrupt" Supreme Court. Corruption is when a properly installed Supreme Court makes rulings that don't benefit Democrats.
Fair Fight Action CEO Lauren Groh-Warg issued a statement saying, "The only way to stop it is to play offense — aggressively redraw maps wherever possible, focus relentlessly on taking back Congress, and be ready to use that power to pass real pro-democracy legislation and hold this corrupted Court accountable."
The Supreme Court has been on a tear these past few years, taking a sledgehammer to decades-old legal mistakes ranging from 2nd Amendment rights to election laws.
The Supreme Court has been ruled by leftist ideologues who believe the Constitution is a living document and can be adjusted with the times at will. This new regime of conservative justices believes in a more rigid originalist interpretation and is working hard to shore up rights that have been torn down.
The Voting Rights Act was a well-intentioned piece of legislation, but it was deeply flawed, and it's good to see that this Supreme Court may have the courage to finally reform the Voting Rights Act, which has been overtly favoring Democrats for decades.
Typically, after a high-profile shooting or assassination, copycats will try to get their 15 minutes of fame by emulating the act, and that's what nearly happened in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination.
According to the Daily Mail, conservative influencer Benny Johnson was a target of a man who wanted to make headlines with another assassination of a high-profile conservative activist.
The bombshell revelation was announced by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi this week during what was described as a "fiery" press conference.
The Department of Justice announced charges against George Isbell Jr., which was a continued effort by the Trump administration to crack down on political violence.
The charges against Isbell are serious, as he reportedly sent a letter to Johnson and his wife threatening to "orphan" their children while also strangling Johnson with an American flag.
BREAKING: An internet TOUGH GUY has just discovered that his THREATS against Benny Johnson are CRIMINAL.
“You are NOT going to get away with threatening people."
FAFO to the keyboard warriors! pic.twitter.com/rGHS72L3cX
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) October 10, 2025
Aside from the late, great Charlie Kirk, few conservative influencers come close or beat Johnson's level of popularity in MAGA circles.
The Daily Mail noted:
Johnson commands a following of over four million on X and is one of the most outspoken conservative commentators on social media known for rubbing shoulders with Donald Trump and other influential MAGA stars.
Bondi held nothing back in her press conference, saying, "This arrest will serve as a reminder, we will find you."
She said the plot to assassinate Johnson was part of an Antifa plan to "wreak havoc on the streets of our cities," while linking the threat to the murder of Kirk last month.
Users across social media reacted to the news of the plot to kill Johnson, and many were thankful that the whackjob leftist was taken off the streets and charged.
"Any and all threats should be treated as criminal," one X user wrote.
Others warned that while threats should be taken seriously, the First Amendment seems to be in rocky territory as far as online speech is concerned.
Another X user wrotem, "I haven't seen the message, so if it contained a direct threat, action was warranted. However, I'm concerned that in this heightened environment, we may fall into the trap of censoring speech. Pam wanted to censor speech before, might use this as an opportunity."
Hold onto your hats, folks—former FBI Director James Comey is in hot water, facing serious charges that could unravel a tangled web of Washington intrigue.
The saga unfolded with Comey entering a not guilty plea to accusations of making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding from 2020, a case now complicated by the looming presence of classified materials.
This legal drama kicked off with an arraignment in Alexandria, Virginia, on a Wednesday morning, where Comey stood before the court to face the music.
When questioned by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff about whether he grasped the gravity of the charges, Comey responded with a calm, “I do, your honor. Thank you very much.”
That polite reply might sound confident, but it’s hard to ignore the irony of a former top lawman now defending himself against claims of dishonesty—shouldn’t the FBI’s finest be above such accusations?
Following an indictment on Sept. 25, Comey issued a statement welcoming the chance for a trial, seemingly eager to clear his name in the public eye.
Yet, his attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, hinted at a different strategy, suggesting they might try to sidestep a full-blown trial altogether—a move that raises eyebrows about what might be lurking in the shadows of this case.
Prosecutors, led by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, dropped a bombshell by revealing that classified information will play a role in the discovery phase, a detail not previously discussed before the arraignment.
Halligan described the situation as intricate, requesting extra time before heading to trial, a plea that suggests the government is wading through a bureaucratic swamp of sensitive data.
Judge Nachmanoff, however, wasn’t entirely buying the complexity argument, expressing skepticism over the fuss surrounding what appears to be a straightforward two-charge indictment.
Still, he agreed to set a preliminary trial date for Jan. 5, giving a nod to the prosecution’s concerns while keeping the wheels of justice turning.
The government also pushed for the trial to fall outside the usual speedy trial window, citing the sheer volume of discovery materials—including those classified tidbits that could make or break the case.
From a conservative lens, this case reeks of the deep state’s endless appetite for drama—why does it always seem like classified info pops up to muddy the waters when high-profile figures are in the dock?
Comey’s tenure at the FBI was marked by decisions many on the right view as overreaching or politically motivated, and now, seeing him face charges feels like a long-overdue reckoning, though one must wonder if justice will truly be blind here.
While the left may paint this as a witch hunt, the presence of classified materials and the serious nature of obstructing congressional proceedings demand accountability—no one should be above the law, especially not a former FBI director.
Anti-Trump attack dog and notorious “Russian collusion” fabulist Eric Swalwell (D-CA) claims that President Trump is about to be overwhelmed by a groundswell of GOP opposition, the Daily Mail reports.
In a dramatic, vaguely threatening post on X, Swalwell alleged that as many as 100 Republicans will defy the president over the so-called Epstein files, which have dominated Democrats’ talking points in recent months.
In a curious shift, Democrats have cast themselves as champions of transparency in the Epstein case, which they showed little interest in until recently.
But since July of this year, when the Justice Department officially rejected the existence of the so-called client list, Democrats have fixated on accusing Trump and his administration of protecting a shadowy cabal of pedophiles.
“It's coming to an end guys. I've spoken to a lot of House Republicans this week and they've confided that Trump's movement/support is fading,' Swalwell wrote on X.
“As one told me, ‘this Epstein bomb is about to drop and no want [sic] wants to defend a pedo-protector. It's just a matter of time."
Swalwell then claimed in a follow-up post: “One Republican just texted me that if there's a discharge vote on Epstein they expect a ‘jail break’ of over 100 members. Trump will go nuts!'
Swalwell did not name any of these rebel Republicans who are supposedly ready to break with Trump.
Swalwell’s Epstein claims likely reflect the wishful thinking of his party's base more than political reality. We have heard many times before that the “walls are closing in” on Trump, and each time those predictions have proven wrong.
During Trump's first term, Swalwell was among the most prolific promoters of the baseless "Russian collusion" hoax that was predicted to end Trump's political career.
It surely does no favors to Epstein’s victims that a notorious, lying blowhard like Swalwell is now claiming to be their advocate. But Democrats believe they can use the Epstein scandal to drive a wedge between Trump and his MAGA base and tarnish the president’s reputation without evidence of wrongdoing.
Many Trump supporters remain skeptical of the government’s tidy conclusions in the Epstein case, and a few Republicans in the House have clashed with the White House over the files. But Trump’s approval rating has held steady through months of Epstein-related drama, despite Swalwell’s dramatic claims of Trump’s movement collapsing.
When asked for a response to Swalwell’s latest outlandish claims, the White House referenced Swalwell's past romantic involvement with a Chinese spy.
“Did his Chinese spy lover Fang Fang write this tweet?” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said.