U.S. District Judge Michael Simon has recused himself from a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's policy of sending the National Guard to Oregon, the Washington Examiner reported. The Obama-nominated judge was randomly assigned to the case and is married to Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), who publicly opposed the policy.
Trump has been sending troops to beleaguered cities where local law enforcement is either unable or unwilling to maintain law and order. Because Democrats have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to this issue, Bonamici dutifully opposed the idea and said the president should "rescind" that order.
This forced the Department of Justice to have the case reassigned as Simon recused himself. "JUST IN: DOJ suggests Judge Simon recuse from the Oregon National Guard case because he's married to @RepBonamici, who has vocally opposed the deployment," Politico reporter Kyle Cheney posted to X, formerly Twitter, along with an image of the legal document.
JUST IN: DOJ suggests Judge Simon recuse from the Oregon National Guard case because he's married to @RepBonamici, who has vocally opposed the deployment. https://t.co/BfrUkAng8t pic.twitter.com/hR50pPw8rA
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 2, 2025
One of the many pitfalls of Democratic rule in a given city is that it turns the community into a nightmare for the people who live there. Lately, the violence and chaos are being directed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, and Trump is attempting to turn the tide on that with the National Guard.
As Fox News reported, Trump did the same in Portland, Oregon to secure the ICE facility. "At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary."
With that aim, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth signed a memo on Sept. 28 noting that "200 members of the Oregon National Guard will be called into Federal service effective immediately for a period of 60 days." Just the day before, Bonamici made her position known on the Bluesky social media platform.
She said Trump was "lying" after she conducted her own visit to the facility and was unfazed by what she saw. "I was at the ICE facility two days ago and saw a few peaceful protesters, not a 'siege,'" the lawmaker claimed.
Bonamici went on to sign a letter in protest addressed to Trump, Hegseth, and Noem. "This unilateral action represents an abuse of executive authority, seeks to incite violence, and undermines the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and states. We urge you to rescind this decision, and withdraw any military personnel and federal agents you have recently sought to deploy."
According to the Oregon Department of Justice, the state's Attorney General Dan Rayfield and the City of Portland filed a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration on Sept. 29. The intent was to prevent Hegseth from deploying the National Guard to restore order in the city as outlined in his memo.
“The facts are egregious. The President’s response to federalize 200 National Guard members for 60 days is not about keeping people safe – it’s about chasing headlines at the expense of our community," Rayfield said.
The lawsuit stated that doing so would violate the Constitution and "multiple federal laws," arguing that the president could only do so "in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when federal laws cannot otherwise be executed. None of those conditions exist in Oregon," the lawsuit said.
“Putting our own military on our streets is an abuse of power and a disservice to our communities and our service members. The Guard is made up of our neighbors and friends, not political props. Oregon is our home — not a military target," Rayfield said. Unfortunately, violent protests are par for the course in Portland, as some fear a particular escalation at ICE facility demonstrations.
Portland's resistance to help from the National Guard continues to perpetuate the same poor decisions that have turned the city into a war zone, even as Bonamici insists that all is well there. At least Judge Simon has acknowledged his conflict of interest because of her remarks, but it may be difficult to find another judge who isn't biased in favor of anarchy in that area.
Sean "Diddy" Combs faces up to 20 years in jail after a judge declined to overturn his conviction, Fox News reported.
The 55-year-old hip hop mogul will be sentenced Friday after U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian said the prosecution "proved its case many times over." Combs had asked the judge for a new trial and to toss out his convictions on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. He faces up to 10 years for each count.
"That by itself might be enough to dispose of Combs’s challenge. But the other factors don’t do much to help Combs either," the judge wrote.
Combs was acquitted of the most serious charges of racketeering and sex trafficking, which could have sent him to prison for life.
Prosecutors had accused Combs of running a criminal enterprise that involved forcing women to engage in degrading sex acts with male escorts. He was found guilty on two lesser counts for transporting his ex-girlfriends to engage in prostitution.
During Combs' eight-week trial, his lawyers acknowledged the rapper engaged in physical abuse, but they insisted the key prosecution witnesses, Cassie Ventura and a woman who went by the pseudonym "Jane," had consented to sex sessions that Combs often filmed, which were called "freak-offs."
Combs was convicted under a century-old human trafficking law, the Mann Act, which made it a crime to transport women and girls across state lines for prostitution and other "immoral" purposes.
Ahead of the trial, Combs' attorneys tried to dismiss the charges by arguing the Mann Act has "racist origins." The original broad wording of the law was at one time used to prosecute interracial couples, but it was later amended to primarily target sexual exploitation, particularly of children.
After Combs was found guilty, his attorneys sought to beat the convictions by characterizing Combs as a voyeur or pornographer. The verdict, they said, violates Combs' First Amendment rights.
"We are talking about adults having a threesome, bringing another adult into their private sex life," Alexandra Shapiro, one of Combs’ defense lawyers, told Subramanian at a hearing.
Ultimately, the defense's various arguments failed to convince the judge.
“Illegal activity can’t be laundered into constitutionally protected activity,” the judge wrote, dismissing Combs' free speech argument.
Combs' lawyers have asked for 14 months in prison, saying the time he has already served is enough punishment.
Prosecutors have sought over 11 years in jail, arguing the penalty should reflect Combs' lack of remorse and his years of abusive behavior.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Tina Peters, the embattled former county clerk in the radically left state of Colorado – run by a homosexual governor and dominated by Democrats in the legislature – who was jailed by extremists there for protecting presidential election records, has gone to social media and has gotten blunt with the U.S. Department of Justice.
"Why is the DOJ defying Trump's demands? Get off you're a—- and get me out!" she posted.
The attacks on her came amid the scandalous revelations about voting system insecurities in the presidential election. She was accused, among other things, of allowing a voting system password to be online.
Incidentally, Jena Griswold, Colorado's Democrat secretary of state and a key player in the prosecution of Peters, was confirmed to have posted online hundreds of election system passwords, but she was never charged.
Peters was sent to prison for years.
And she's fed up:
Her statement said:
UPDATE FROM TINA PETERS: 364 Days of Injustice As I approach 365 days in this hellhole—tomorrow marks one full year, and Friday is the anniversary of the day they shackled me and dragged me out of the courtroom—my chest hurts just thinking about it. It's seared into my mind. I've been deprived of everything everyone else takes for granted: going to a restaurant, driving somewhere, flying, being with whoever I want, seeing my granddaughter, visiting my mother who'll be 97 next month. All of that, gone.
Where is everybody? I did what I was supposed to do—legally—to expose their crimes. Who has my back now? Where are the people who benefited? Has it been decided that I will be made the SACRIFICIAL LAMB to give the networks something to rally behind? The President has demanded my release four times—twice on Twitter, twice verbally. Why is the DOJ defying Trump's demands? Get off you're a—- and get me out! This is not right.
The state never had jurisdiction to indict, prosecute, or imprison me because of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, and Immunities Clause. I was protecting federal election records. Colorado violated federal law by locking me up. The federal government could come in right now, pluck me out, and say, "No, you're violating her constitutional rights. She was performing a federal duty." Send in the marshals—get me! Not just because I'm a whistleblower, but because they had no right to do this. This is straight-up lawfare.
I'm a political prisoner suffering cruel and unusual punishment, just like Tore called out in her amicus brief. How many whistleblowers, reports, and proofs do we need? We have already proven it all—yet here I am, in a medium-security prison with murderers, the worst of the worst. People serving life for gruesome murders, featured on Dateline and 20/20. I was just in the gym with one—she's sweet to me, but that's the reality I'm living every day. For what? Protecting elections?
The same biased judges who denied my bond with no explanation will drag out any appeal for years. They're not normal; they were put in place illegally, selected by benefactors in these blackmail rings like Epstein and P. Diddy. They collect their dues. Forget the appeal—optics don't matter. Just do it, and deal with the court later. And the prosecutor calls me a danger to society? A flight risk?
Meanwhile, they let out a criminal with 39 convictions, 25 felonies, who then murdered that poor little girl. Her father's been yelling about it on Fox News every day—bring that up. It just validates I'm a political prisoner in a state that could be criminally prosecuted for this. Something's got to break. Go to http://tinapeters.us to see the filings and the latest. And if you can support me, I need your help. I cannot pay my attorneys and my appeal still has a very long time to go. If you can help please donate at http://Tinapeters.us —Tina Peters
WND previously reported on the case involving Peters, a grandmother, Gold Star mom and election watchdog.
Trump, in fact, has described Peters as a "brace and innocent Patriot" being tortured by "Crooked Colorado politicians.'
The report said, "Tina Peters, once the trusted Mesa County clerk, now faces a staggering nine-year prison sentence, convicted of crimes her own prosecutors essentially admit she didn't commit. Her 'crime'? Daring to protect election records in the wake of the contentious 2020 presidential election, a fight that has left her career and life in tatters, her freedom stolen and her name smeared by a corporate press eager to paint her as a villain."
The report noted within the prosecution's own claims is a "stunning admission."
She's serving nine years for "attempting to influence a public servant," "conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation" and "first-degree official misconduct."
But her appeal explains the district court erred in denying her immunity under the Supremacy and Privileges or Immunities Clauses and her actions were lawful efforts to preserve federal election records.
Further, David Underwood, a prosecution witness, testified that Peters, as the county's chief election official, had the sole authority to decide who could access the voting system for a software upgrade known as the "Trusted Build."
And Danny Casias, another witness, could not identify any decision he was influenced to make due to alleged deceit by Peters.
The prosecution's own statements, her lawyers charge, document how she acted within her authority and lacked the intent to deceive.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal court has ruled in favor of free speech in a fight that was created by an attack by the city of Louisville, Kentucky, on a local photographer.
The city had decided to impose its religious viewpoint and ordered the photographer, Chelsey Nelson, to use her artistic talents to promote anti-Christian same-sex wedding ceremonies "if she photographers and blogs about weddings between one man and one woman," the biblical standard.
Leftist city officials even had tried to order her to be silent on such issues, claiming that they could forbid her and her studio from explaining to clients and potential clients her beliefs.
The ADF, representing Nelson, called the ruling from the federal court in Kentucky a "victory" for free speech.
Louisville, under the ruling, now will be held accountable for violating the First Amendment.
"Free speech is for everyone. As the U.S. Supreme Court held two years ago in 303 Creative v. Elenis, Americans have the freedom to express and create messages that align with their beliefs without fear of government punishment," said her lawyer, Bryan Neihart. "For over five years, Louisville officials said they could force Chelsey to promote views about marriage that violated her religious beliefs. But the First Amendment leaves decisions about what to say with the people, not the government.
"The district court's decisions rests on this bedrock First Amendment principle and builds on the victory in 303 Creative."
That was an earlier case where Colorado officials tried the same leftist stunt, and failed. They claimed that the web designer behind 303 Creative could be forced to promote LGBT ceremonies if she did websites for weddings that followed the Christian model of one man and one woman.
Colorado repeatedly has launched state attacks on the Christian faith, including its years-long campaign against Jack Phillips, of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who refused to submit to leftist religious beliefs promoted by the government of Democrat Gov. Jared Polis, a homosexual, and promote LGBT weddings with his cake artistry
When the state lost that fight at the Supreme Court, the justices scolded the leftist state for its "hostility" to Christians. Subsequently, its taxpayers have been forced to hand over millions of dollars to cover the damages from the state's losing cases.
"The government can't force Americans to say things they don't believe, and state officials have paid and will continue to pay a price when they violate this foundational freedom," Nelson said. "The freedom to speak without fear of censorship is a God-given constitutionally guaranteed right."
The case went to court in 2019 "because Louisville's law prohibited Nelson from expressing her views on marriage on her studio's website and threatened to compel her to create photographs and blogs celebrating a message about marriage she does not believe," the lawyers explained.
"The district court kept a permanent bar in place that prevents Louisville from enforcing its law against Nelson in this way. The court also ordered Louisville to pay Nelson nominal damages for restricting her speech. Nominal damages are a type of compensation that remedy past harm, prevent future misconduct, and vindicate constitutional freedoms," the ADF reported.
The court earlier had ruled that the First Amendment protects Nelson's freedom to create photographs and blog postings promoting her own religious faith about marriage.
The city had taken its fight to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
"While the case was on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 303 Creative v. Elenis, a monumental decision that held that government officials cannot force artists to create speech they disagree with. The Sixth Circuit returned the case to the district court after 303 Creative and other developments but otherwise kept the decision 'in place,'" the ADF explained.
Now the district court has affirmed its original decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant President Donald Trump's emergency request for permission to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook despite accusations that she lied on applications to obtain mortgages, Breitbart reported. In its decision on Wednesday, the high court ruled that Cook will stay on until at least January, when the case will be heard by the court.
The Department of Justice filed the emergency order after a lower court issued an earlier injunction against the firing. None of the nine justices dissented from the decision, leaving Cook in place on the Board of Governors while the allegations are investigated.
Because of this, Cook will be able to vote at the October 28-29 meeting, where the Feds will set policy, including a possible cut to interest rates, and another on December 9-10. The Fed refused to slash interest rates when Trump was first elected and only backed off by half a percentage point in September.
This decision comes after Trump attempted to fire Cook in August over allegations of potential mortgage fraud, which is within his rights when it is "for cause." However, there's no explanation in the standard as to whether such conduct is enough for the president to remove her from her 14-year term as defined by law. In appealing the case to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the Trump administration argued that the Fed's "uniquely important role" in the U.S. economy only heightens the government’s and public's interest in reviewing the case.
As the New York Post reported, the allegations against Cook stem from mortgage documents allegedly claiming both her home in Massachusetts and in Atlanta were her primary homes, and an investigation by Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, allegedly found. This designation would mean a lower interest rate for the loan.
Armed with that allegation, Trump moved to fire Cook. However, Cook has denied these allegations, and later loan documents surfaced proving that Cook's 2021 home purchase in Atlanta was indeed designated as a vacation home at the time of application, thus contradicting earlier claims that she failed to disclose this fact.
Cook sued Trump, and Trump appealed the initial decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which decided the case last month in a 2-1 decision, upholding the lower court's ruling. This decision then sent the matter to the Supreme Court.
Still, the underlying accusation has yet to be adjudicated, and therefore the allegations stand as reason to dismiss her, the administration claimed. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued on Trump's behalf Thursday at the Supreme Court, citing the gravity of such claims against Cook, Fox News reported.
"Put simply, the president may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations," Sauer noted. However, a president removing a member of the Fed's board of governors is unprecedented in its 112-year history and thus will receive additional scrutiny.
In a post to X, formerly Twitter, legal expert and GOP strategist Mike Davis made the case that firing Cook is a straightforward decision within the president's rights. "The Supreme Court blinked," Davis charged before explaining his theory that Cook indeed committed mortgage fraud based on Pulte's initial investigation and therefore deserves to be fired.
"Lisa Cook is one of the seven governors on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Among other tasks, the Fed 'conducts the nation’s monetary policy, promotes financial system stability, [and] supervises and regulates financial institutions.' 'The Federal Reserve is committed to upholding the highest ethical principles to strengthen public confidence in the impartiality of its decision-making processes,'" Davis cited as a standard.
"There is clear evidence that Lisa Cook committed mortgage fraud when she lied about her principal residence to secure a lower interest rate. Even if Lisa Cook fraudulently secured this mortgage before her current Fed appointment, she is still benefiting from the lower interest rate each month. (Did she pay off the mortgage before she started?) President Trump fired her for cause under the relevant statute," Davis contends.
The Supreme Court blinked.
Lisa Cook is one of the seven governors on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Among other tasks, the Fed "conducts the nation’s monetary policy, promotes financial system stability, [and] supervises and regulates financial… pic.twitter.com/sh5dNy9fGq
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) October 1, 2025
Without a clear indication one way or the other that Cook lied on her mortgage application, it should at least be within Trump's purview to suspend her from the board while investigations proceed if not outright fire her. There's a case to be made for safeguards against political interference, but this is a serious accusation that should disqualify Cook from the board if true.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A renowned constitutional expert, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, has called out a list of federal judges for inserting politics into their judicial rulings, which are supposed to be following the Constitution and the law, not necessarily the Democrat party.
Turley, whose commentary is valued online and in publications, by Congress where he has testified as an expert, and even by members of Congress who have chosen his representation, cited a recent opinion from William Young, who recently released his ruling about the pursuit of the administration of President Donald Trump to secure America's borders.
His opinion, finding the administration "in violation of the First Amendment over visa denials," was "bizarre," Turley concluded.
"With all due respect to Judge Young (who warrants considerable respect after his remarkable career), the captioning and conclusion are improvisational, impulsive, and injudicious. The court injected a political dialogic element in an opinion with sweeping implications for our constitutional system."
Young, relying on a quote from former Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, a Joe Biden appointee, said that the speech of illegal aliens in America, and those who may be pursuing entry into the United States, is protected by the First Amendment.
The Trump administration had sought to enforce deportation orders against those non-citizens radicalizing American college campuses with their pro-Palestinian riots.
Young also quoted his own wife as an authority, as she claimed Trump "seems to be winning. He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead."
The judge claimed that "perfectly captures" Trump's public approach to power.
He found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio "deliberately and with purposeful aforethought" used immigration powers to chill noncitizens' free speech.
The ruling undoubtedly will end up before at least one appellate court before it is concluded.
The judge claimed that his decision now "limits the government's ability to use deportation threats to stifle speech and reinforces academic freedom on U.S. college campuses."
And he wasn't finished, insisting on another hearing when he will purport to decide a "remedy."
But he stepped over the line, Turley explained.
"The bizarre captioning and conclusion in this case is another such example. It only served to undermine the opinion itself and the legal points raised by the court. It may have been cathartic, but it was also tedious and prejudicial. It has a certain chest-pounding element that is neither necessary nor compelling for a court to insert into an opinion," he explained. "Judge Young would be wise to issue a corrected opinion without the novel captioning and conclusion . . . and simply send a postcard to this curious penpal."
It was because the judge, in his opinion, included an image of a scrawled, disjointed question, "Trump has pardons and tanks.. .. What do you have?" which purportedly was from that "penpal."
The judge responded to "Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous…" with a comment about having the Constitution. Then he finished his opinion with an invitation to stop in at the courthouse to see where "burns the lamp of liberty."
Turley cited other political judges.
"Take District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who had previously presided over Trump's election interference case. Chutkan was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan said that the rioters 'were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.' She added then, '[i]t's a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.' That 'one person' was still under investigation at the time and, when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go," he explained.
Then she took politics further into her courtroom, insisting in a proclamation that the pardons from Trump for January 6 protest offenders could not change the "tragic truth" of those events.
"Chutkan's colleague Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump's actions, writing, "[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement," he said.
Those comments, and the rants from "other judges," have been undermining "the integrity of the court system," he warned.
In fact, there have been multiple cases in which judges have given every appearance of being in cooperation with the prosecution against Trump, such as Arthur Engoron in his help to New York Attorney General Letitia James in her failed fraud case against Trump and his companies.
Engoron delivered a $500 million penalty to Trump at James' insistence, a decision that has been thrown out by an appellate court because it violated the Constitution.
Ironically, James herself now is under federal investigation for mortgage fraud. She's accused of lying on federal forms in pursuit of special, lower, interest rates for her own loans.
YouTube has agreed to pay $24 million to settle a lawsuit from President Trump, who sued the tech giant over the suspension of his account following the January 6th, 2021, riot.
The settlement marks a dramatic reversal of political fortunes, with Trump back at the center of power and his MAGA movement operating in a much friendlier tech landscape than the one that existed during Trump's first term.
Most of the $24 million form YouTube will go towards the construction of Trump's White House ballroom, while the remainder will go to conservative plaintiffs that accused YouTube of censoring them.
The immediate aftermath of the Capitol chaos marked the low point of Trump's political career, as Big Tech companies moved swiftly to blacklist him while he was yet a sitting president.
As he campaigned for the White House in 2024, Trump gradually regained access to social media. He was reinstated by X, formerly known as Twitter, after Elon Musk bought the platform with a pledge to restore freedom of speech. Facebook and Google eventually followed suit months later, bringing Trump back to their platforms.
Trump was barred from YouTube for a little over two years before he was brought back in March 2023.
As Breitbart notes, YouTube suspended Trump “in light of concerns about the ongoing potential for violence" following the Capitol protest.
"After review, and in light of concerns about the ongoing potential for violence, we removed new content uploaded to Donald J. Trump’s channel for violating our policies,” the company said at the time.
The political landscape could not look more different now than it did in 2021, with Trump back in the White House and extracting massive sums from his former adversaries in tech and the legacy media.
In addition to YouTube, Trump has pressured Meta/Facebook and X/Twitter to pay up for suspending his accounts, settling for $25 million and $10 million, respectively.
Meanwhile, major tech companies have changed their policies and apologized for Biden-era censorship.
Just last week, YouTube agreed to reinstate conservatives who had been suspended for disfavored political speech on contentious topics like COVID-19, with Google - which owns YouTube - conceding the Biden-era censorship was "unacceptable and wrong."
At the center of this revolution in the political climate is Trump, whose historic comeback in 2024 changed the course of history.
“[Trump’s] election had a lot to do with it,” John Coale, Trump’s personal attorney, told the New York Post of Trump's tech settlements.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The dispute is over the state's virulent attack on baker Cathy Miller because she declines to promote ideologies that violate her Christian faith in her cake artistry.
The court already has ruled on the issue, deciding in the case involving Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado that he could not be forced to violate his faith.
There, the leftists in the state who had launched vicious attacks on Phillips, even trying to force him into an LGBT indoctrination program, were scolded for their "hostility" to Christianity.
That didn't deter California from its war on Christianity, though. Even the state Supreme Court there has allowed attacks on Christians who respect alternative lifestyles, do business with people in those lifestyles, and more, but simply cannot appear to be endorsing what the Bible declares is sinful.
Now a legal team representing Miller has confirmed that officials from 16 states, a long list of prominent legal scholars, a variety of faith organizations and more have submitted requests to the U.S. Supreme Court that it rule on Miller's case.
"California opened an investigation into Cathy Miller after she explained to a same-sex couple that her faith did not allow her to personally design their wedding cake," explained officials at Becket.
"For almost a decade, California has ridiculed Cathy for her religious beliefs about marriage and argued that Cathy's actions harm 'the dignity of all Californians.' Becket, LiMandri & Jonna LLP, and the Thomas More Society are working to protect Cathy's ability to design and create custom baked goods in peace," the report said.
The announcement explained, "Cathy Miller is a faithful Christian and baker. For over a decade, Cathy has brought her unique touch to custom cakes and cookies at Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield. As a former teacher, Cathy's process for designing wedding cakes is unique: she meets with each couple for over an hour and spends time teaching them the religious and symbolic meaning behind the wedding cake they're commissioning to celebrate their union."
Now 16 states led by a filing from Texas are urging the court to issue a "clear rule" that protects the expressive nature of wedding cakes, to give lower courts a way to correctly resolve such fights.
Those fights almost always are brought on by radical leftists who already have permission to live their lifestyle, but also demand that others support and promote their personal ethical and moral decisions.
Law scholars including Michael W. McConnell also have joined the requests.
Also joining the requests are diverse faith groups, "including the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy, emphasizing that people of faith can lose their livelihood and suffer far worse religious discrimination when states like California use their public accommodations laws to try to purge religious beliefs from believers' own businesses."
Further, the Manhattan Institute and the Pacific Justice Institute also have joined, "arguing that the First Amendment forbids California from compelling religious objectors like Cathy to participate in religiously meaningful ceremonies by creating a symbol—a wedding cake—universally recognized as a celebration of that ceremony."
The attacks on Miller started a decade ago, and even though a trial court ruled she served and employed people of all sexual orientations and her intent was only fidelity to her Christian faith, radicals at higher levels in the California courtroom industry renewed the war against her.
"The diverse voices rallying to Cathy's side—states, respected scholars, and faith communities from across the country—make clear that her case is about far more than one bakery," said Adèle Keim, senior counsel at Becket. "California's relentless campaign against Cathy is unjust and un-American. The Justices should end California's crusade and affirm that no one should be punished for living out their faith."
Miller already has written standards for her work, such as that she will not design custom bakery items that depict gory or pornographic images, celebrate drug use, or demean others.
An upcoming Supreme Court battle has massive implications for the structure of the federal government.
As reported by Fox News, President Donald Trump has been building a case to overturn a 90-year-old precedent, Humphrey's Executor, which places limits on the president's power to fire independent agency officials. Humphrey's Executor is widely seen as critical to the power of the so-called administrative state, sometimes known as the fourth branch of government to detractors.
In recent months, Trump has been challenging Humphrey's by firing various independent agency heads without cause. The Supreme Court has sided with Trump in these controversies, overruling lower courts that have tried to block him.
The latest development came last week when the court permitted Trump to fire a Biden-appointed Federal Trade Commission (FTC) official, Rebecca Slaughter.
Not only did the court let Trump fire Slaughter, for now, but the justices also agreed to examine Humphrey's, which Slaughter has cited in her defense. The ruling split the court's conservative majority and its vocal liberal wing, which accused the court of "raring to" overturn the New Deal-era ruling.
"The majority may be raring to take that action," Justice Elena Kagan wrote. "But until the deed is done, Humphrey's controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him."
The Humphrey's ruling stems from the time of President FDR, who tried to fire a Republican member of the FTC over a policy dispute.
In its brief to the court, the Trump administration argued that FTC has absorbed "considerable executive power in the intervening 90 years" since Humphrey's, placing the president's authority at risk.
A Supreme Court ruling tossing Humphrey's would be a massive victory for conservatives who hold to the so-called "unitary executive theory," which views the sprawling administrative state as an unconstitutional growth on the legitimate structure of the government. To many on the left, Humphrey's is seen as critical to checking Trump's so-called autocratic ambitions, but the Supreme Court has, broadly speaking, shown sympathy for Trump's view of executive power.
Hans von Spakovsky, a legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Fox News that Humphrey's is on "life support." Van Spakovsky noted that the Supreme Court's conservatives have long been skeptical of independent agencies wielding executive power on the president's behalf.
"The Constitution says the president is the head of the executive branch," von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital.
"That means, just like the CEO of a big corporation, they get to supervise and run the entire corporation, or in this case, the entire executive branch, and you can't have Congress taking parts of that away from him and saying, ‘Well, they’re going to keep doing executive branch things, including law enforcement, but you won’t have any control over them.’"
Meanwhile, Trump has asked the Supreme Court to uphold his firing of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook over mortgage fraud allegations. The Supreme Court gave a cryptic hint of how it may treat the controversy in a separate dispute, noting the Fed is a "uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court to review – and decide – the birthright citizenship case this term.
The fight is over whether the 14th Amendment grants American citizenship to the children of illegal aliens who have broken U.S. laws to enter then give birth inside U.S. borders.
President Donald Trump contends that's not what the writers of the Constitution intended, even though that's been the practice for a good many years already.
A report at the Washington Examiner explained the Trump administration filed two petitions seeking the review soon.
The petitions, filed Friday, appeared on the court's public docket Monday.
The cases were launched by Democrat-run states and groups of people who might be affected.
When the issue originally arose, Trump commented:
Experts have contended that the 14th Amendment never was intended to create massive grants of citizenship to children of illegal aliens.
The Examiner report said the fight stems from Trump's order in January that said the amendment does not include children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
"The issues in this petition are unquestionably cert-worthy," the DOJ said. "The government has a compelling interest in ensuring that American citizenship — the privilege that allows us to choose our political leaders — is granted only to those who are lawfully entitled to it."
The filing noted a lower court ruling against the president actually causes problems, invalidating "a policy of prime importance to the President and his Administration in a manner that undermines our border security. Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people."
Earlier this year, the high court addressed the issue, but did not decide the core question.
The fight was the vehicle for the Supreme Court to put a limit on nationwide injunctions that were commonly being used by lower court judges to control the president's international policies, economic policies and much more.