This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court on Monday restored the authority of the administration of President Donald Trump to conduct raids on illegal aliens in Los Angeles.
The court, 6-3, blocked a lower court's claim that restricted federal agents' authority to conduct immigration stops.
The decision came in response to an emergency request from the Trump administration and puts on hold a July ruling from a leftist judge, Maame Ewusi-Mensha Frimpong, who sided with those who want to protect illegal aliens, even illegal alien criminals, in the U.S.
A report at NBC News said the three "liberals" on the high court dissented.
Frimpong had claimed that federal immigration authorities were not allowed to stop people based on their race or ethnicity or the fact they spoke Spanish.
The raids in L.A. had been launched as part of President Trump's ongoing effort to secure the nation's borders, which had been opened wide, admitting millions of illegals including criminals and terrorists, under Joe Biden.
The report said, "Immigrants and related groups that sued claimed the government's approach violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, according to which law enforcement need to have 'reasonable suspicion' before stopping people who may not be lawful residents in the United States."
Frimpong's claims had been allowed to stand by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
There was no explanation from the high court for its reasoning. However, NBC reported Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion concurring with the majority in which he cast doubt on whether a constitutional violation took place.
"Especially in an immigration case like this one, it is also important to stress the proper role of the Judiciary. The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities," he said.
Sonia Sotomayor, one of the extremist voices on the left in the court, said, "We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent."
Solicitor General D. John Sauer had submitted to the court that the plaintiffs demanding protection from the high court did not have legal standing and the lower court's blanket ruling was too broad.
He explained, the report said, "while speaking Spanish or working in construction alone does not automatically create reasonable suspicion, such factors 'can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States.'"
In trying to explain the latest comments by President Donald Trump about Jeffrey Epstein, Speaker Mike Johnson shocked the country on Friday by claiming that Trump was an "FBI informant" on Jeffrey Epstein.
After fielding press inquiries about his statement all weekend, Johnson clarified his statement to say that Trump helped authorities who were investigating Epstein, but backed off from his earlier "informant" statement, which implied a formal relationship between Trump and the FBI on the investigation.
What Johnson was trying to do with his original comment was explain an earlier comment by Trump that the Esptein saga was a "hoax."
The comment prompted cries of outrage by alleged victims of Epstein, but Johnson said Trump wasn't referring to Epstein's crimes as a hoax.
Instead, Trump was saying the narrative that he was involved in any of Epstein's illicit activities, which had been put forward by his political enemies, was a hoax.
To bolster his argument, Johnson said that Trump was an FBI informant.
But what he meant was that Trump had helped the FBI investigate Epstein when no one else was offering to do so.
“The Speaker is reiterating what the victims’ attorney said, which is that Donald Trump — who kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago — was the only one more than a decade ago willing to help prosecutors expose Epstein for being a disgusting child predator,” a statement from Johnson’s office read.
Democrats in Congress, and a few Republicans, are livid that Trump is backtracking on the release of the Epstein files, and speculation has been rampant for why.
Some say Trump is guilty of the same kind of conduct as Epstein and that he wants to hide his involvement, while others think he's covering up for some of his friends.
For my part, I think he has his reasons for keeping it quiet. As Johnson and others have pointed out, Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-A-Lago and cut ties with him years before his first arrest for sex trafficking.
Why would he suddenly want to protect him?
But the public has the need to be titillated by the release of all the information on Epstein, so it will kick up a fuss.
Democrats want to force Trump's hands, but they should be careful about what they wish for. The information could hurt them a lot more than it would Trump, and then where will they point the finger?
Well before he took office for a second term, President Donald Trump made clear his intention to reverse much of his predecessor’s immigration policy, including the expansion of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to migrants from a host of countries.
However, the Trump administration suffered a setback last week when a federal judge appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama blocked its attempt to end TPS for over 1.1 million arrivals from Haiti and Venezuela, as Breitbart reports.
It was on Friday that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen put a halt to the Trump administration’s desired changes to TPS eligibility.
In Chen’s estimation, the administration’s change wrongfully “truncated and condensed” the timeline for curtailing the legal protections and work permits afforded to migrants under the program.
In a 69-page ruling, Chen stated, “This case arose from action taken post haste by the current DHS Secretary, Kristi Noem, to revoke the legal status of Venezuelan and Haitian TPS holders, sending them back to conditions that are so dangerous that even the State Department advises against travel to their home countries.”
He further noted, “The Secretary’s action in revoking TPS was not only unprecedented in the manner and speed in which it was taken but also violates the law.”
Though Chen’s halt on the Trump administration action is only temporary in nature, the judge indicated his belief that impacted individuals can renew their current status while litigation is pending, with eventual Supreme Court review likely.
As Fox News reports, Trump administration officials are speaking out against the ruling, promising that the fight to effectuate the president’s vision on this issue will continue.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security told Fox News Digital, “For decades, the TPS program has been abused, exploited, and politicized as a de facto amnesty program.”
The representative continued, “Its use has been all the more dangerous, given the millions of unvetted illegal aliens the Biden administration let into this country.”
Pointing to the administration’s next steps, the spokesperson noted, “While this order delays justice, Secretary Noem will use every legal option at the department’s disposal to end this chaos and prioritize the safety of Americans.”
The statement continued, “Under God, the people rule. Unelected activist judges cannot stop the will of the American people for a safe and secure homeland.”
The Trump administration has continued to face court challenges of its immigration agenda, often butting heads with federal district judges who critics suggest are acting more like pro-immigrant activists than fair-minded jurists.
Though the president has seen some success in his appeals of lower court rulings against his immigration-related actions, whether that will be the case when it comes to TPS, only time will tell.
The Jeffrey Epstein situation continues to remain interesting with new twists and turns by the week, it seems. That was especially the case this week after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) raised new questions about President Donald Trump's involvement with Epstein.
According to the Daily Mail, while speaking to reporters about the situation, Speaker Johnson seemed to suggest that Trump once worked as an FBI informant regarding his relationship with the convicted child sex-trafficker.
Johnson made the comments in the halls of Congress this week after a CNN reporter pressed him on why the president continues to call the Epstein situation a Democrat-led "hoax."
Johnson's comments regarding Trump's possible role as an "FBI informant" sparked immediate questions.
What's happening?
The Republican House speaker attempted to explain the president's take on the Epstein situation, which has proven to be a challenge for his administration.
"What Trump is referring to is the hoax that the Democrats are using to try to attack him," Johnson said.
He added, "I’ve talked to him about this many times, many times. He is horrified. It’s been misrepresented. He’s not saying that what Epstein did is a hoax. It’s a terrible, unspeakable evil. He believes that himself."
That's when he dropped the potential bombshell regarding the president's alleged former role as an FBI informant.
"When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down," Johnson said.
Ever since the president's Department of Justice concluded that there was no conspiracies behind Epstein's death or some kind of secret "file" filled with the names of celebrities and power players, the president has essentially downplayed the entire situation.
On more than one occasion, Trump has written it off as a "hoax."
"From what I understand, I could check, but from what I understand, thousands of pages of documents have been given. But it's really a Democrat hoax because they're trying to get people to talk about something that's totally irrelevant to the success that we've had as a nation since I've been president," Trump said recently.
The MAGA base hasn't been thrilled with the administration's seeming lack of interest in the matter.
Only time will tell if Johnson accidentally let something slip as far as Trump's possible former role as an FBI informant.
President Donald Trump and his administration have been forced to turn to the U.S. Supreme Court probably more often then they had anticipated when they took over the White House earlier this year.
According to Newsweek, the high court received its latest emergency request from the White House, this time revolving around the attempted termination of a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Earlier this year, the president tried to fire Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, and the issue was immediately litigated.
On Tuesday, a lower court finally weighed in on the matter and, as usual, gave the Trump administration bad news.
The lower court ruled against the Trump administration having the authority to fire Slaughter, "ruling that commissioners can only be removed for reasons such as misconduct or neglect of duty."
Newsweek noted:
The lower court ordered her reinstated by finding that statutory protections limit removal to causes such as "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and district courts have issued rulings in the dispute.
Trump's Department of Justice has argued that such firings fall within the authority of the president, insisting that Trump has the ability to fire commissioners "at will."
However, lower courts have not agreed, and the rulings have forced Trump and the White House to seek relief at the highest level -- the Supreme Court, which they've had to do multiple times in similar situations.
Trump has had a great success record with emergency requests filed with the high court on such issues.
Depending on how the high court rules in this case, it could have broader implications as far as presidential authority is concerned.
Newsweek noted:
If the Court does rule for the administration, presidents could gain broader authority to remove members of multimember agencies, reshaping enforcement across multiple policy areas. If the Court upholds the lower-court rulings, existing statutory shields for independent agencies would remain intact.
Earlier this year, when Trump announced the firing, several high-profile Democrats were triggered, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
"Donald Trump just illegally fired two independent commissioners at the FTC who fight big corporations that abuse consumers and workers. Why? Trump's billionaire donors expect a return on their investment. He works for them, not you. The courts must reinstate the commissioners," she wrote at the time on X.
Social media users were quick to respond to Warren at the time.
"Sounds like something you would have said 8 years ago. Trump did nothing illegal and he is not aligned with billionaires against workers and consumers. Your analogy is grossly simplistic outdated and nauseatingly repetitious!" one X user wrote.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said that President Donald Trump is committed to cracking open the files on Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and acted as an "FBI informant against him," the UK Daily Mail reported. Trump promised during his 2024 campaign that he would release the disgraced financier and sex trafficker's client list, but has yet to do so.
The media has slammed Trump for using the word "hoax" when describing the controversy over the Epstein files. When asked about it on Friday by Manu Raju of CNN, Johnson explained what Trump meant by the word and made the stunning revelation.
"What Trump is referring to is the hoax that the Democrats are using to try to attack him. I’ve talked to him about this many times, many times. He is horrified. It’s been misrepresented. He’s not saying that what Epstein did is a hoax. It’s a terrible, unspeakable evil. He believes that himself," Johnson recounted
"When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down," Johnson added, which puts a new spin on the issue.
Commentator Brian Kressenstein shared Johnson's words in a video post to X, formerly Twitter, on Friday. "BREAKING: Mike Johnson just claimed that Trump 'was an FBI informant' to help take down Jeffrey Epstein. If this is the case, then Trump would be a hero after it’s all released in the Epstein Files. Release the files!" Krassenstein urged.
BREAKING: Mike Johnson just claimed that Trump “was an FBI informant” to help take down Jeffrey Epstein.
If this is the case then Trump would be a hero after it’s all released in the Epstein Files.
Release the files! pic.twitter.com/rftV7WYUhX
— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) September 5, 2025
This report comes on the heels of Trump's repeated insistence that the issues around the Epstein files are a "hoax" cooked up by Democrats after the Department of Justice said in July that Epstein's client list simply did not exist and that the disgraced financier indeed killed himself in prison. However, even some on the right have cried foul after Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the files were "sitting on my desk" before the administration reversed its claim and said they did not exist.
Nevertheless, Trump has stuck to the story that it's just another scheme cooked up by his political opponents to smear him. "This is a Democrat hoax that never ends," Trump said of the scandal on Wednesday.
"From what I understand, I could check, but from what I understand, thousands of pages of documents have been given. But it's really a Democrat hoax because they're trying to get people to talk about something that's totally irrelevant to the success that we've had as a nation since I've been president," Trump said.
If Trump were an FBI informant, it would make sense for him to have a sudden change of heart, as even his staunchest supporters are left unsatisfied with his handling of the issue. Now that Congress is back in session, the Epstein issue is once again at the forefront, especially because Democrats believe they can smear Trump with allegations about his association with him.
Just before the summer recess, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) sought to circumvent Johnson by introducing a congressional vote to release the files, Fox News reported. The issue was one of the first priorities in the new session after victims of Epstein spoke with lawmakers at the Capitol.
"It is very much a possibility that Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset working for our adversaries," Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) said following the meetings. "I think this is going to be a criminal investigation for sure. I will say that what's been released, obviously, the American people have wanted for a long time."
Epstein victim Chauntae Davies testified about some of the horrible things she experienced and even name-dropped a former president. "I was even taken on a trip to Africa with former President Bill Clinton and other notable figures. In those moments, I realized how powerless I was," Davies said.
It's unlikely that Trump had anything to do with Epstein's horrific activities, as his political enemies would have released the files already. Still, it's one of the many reasons the public deserves answers about it. The truth about Epstein must come out, and let the chips fall where they may.
Ten federal judges complained about the Supreme Court's rulings that cut in favor of President Donald Trump and overturned lower courts' rulings, Fox News reported. The judges, who chose to remain anonymous, were part of a 12-member panel that included both Democratic and Republican appointees.
The judges spoke with NBC News about the spate of rulings that overturn lower courts' decisions when they get to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and many attempts to block Trump's agenda have been thwarted once the decision works its way up to Washington, D.C.
These decisions come in the form of emergency rulings, which were previously rare but have become more common as judges repeatedly attempt to undermine the president's agenda. The judges who were asked about this trend stated that they believe it's a criticism of the lower courts and demonstrates disloyalty to their authority.
"It is inexcusable. They don’t have our backs," one of the judges interviewed said of the Supreme Court. However, the president sees it differently, as he has repeatedly warned that federal judges are intentionally chipping away at his agenda with their rulings, rather than examining the laws.
The judges believe that Trump's outspoken criticism of their conduct has led to a dangerous situation. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller indeed stated that rulings blocking Trump's tariffs amounted to a "judicial coup," and the president has repeatedly criticized the judiciary for what he believes is bias against him.
Still, the ominous predictions some made about Trump's habit of freely criticizing them are out of proportion. One judge said that "somebody is going to die" because the Supreme Court has decided to overturn the lower courts' rulings, while another judge claimed they were being "thrown under the bus" by the high court.
"It's almost like the Supreme Court is saying it is a 'judicial coup,'" yet another judge chimed in. Despite these criticisms from the three judges, a fourth, who was an Obama appointee, acknowledged that some of what Trump has said about the lower courts' agenda-driven decisions has merit.
"The whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane," the judge said.
"Certainly, there is a strong sense in the judiciary among the judges ruling on these cases that the court is leaving them out to dry. They are partially right to feel the way they feel," the fourth judge conceded. Nevertheless, Trump has a point about how the courts are being used against him.
The president believes his agenda has been unfairly attacked using litigation, and it's no secret that his opponents have intentionally filed lawsuits where the court overseeing the matter would reliably rule against him. According to the Washington Examiner, legal experts say it's a practice Democrats and Republicans employ, but it has gone into overdrive during Trump's presidency.
"Many of these lawsuits are being filed in places like California, Washington State, New York, Boston, other courts around the country where I suspect litigants are more likely to get a favorable with those challenging these policies, expect to get a more favorable judge who might be more inclined to rule in their favor," said Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage foundation and former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Florida. The court will then issue injunctions that apply nationwide, a practice which was halted by the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Trump v. CASA.
During a news briefing in May, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained the extent of the problem. "Nationwide injunctions ordered against the first Trump administration, Trump 1.0, account for more than half of the injunctions issued in this country since 1963. And President Trump had more injunctions in one full month of office, in February, than Joe Biden had in three years," she pointed out at the time. The courts even "prohibited the Trump administration from eliminating federal funding for child transgender surgery and mutilation, a practice that the American people overwhelmingly reject."
The Supreme Court is meant to be a stopgap against rogue judges, and it appears that's precisely what it has been doing. The federal judges who were asked about this practice are incensed about being overruled by the high court because they have been caught in the act and stopped from carrying out this cynical mission. Even if they don't like it, this is precisely how the judiciary is supposed to work.
In a bold legislative initiative, U.S. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie, alongside Democrat Ro Khanna, have declared their intention to disclose the names of individuals linked to Jeffrey Epstein should a new bill mandating the release of related files pass, as the Daily Mail reports
The proposed bill, which seeks bipartisan support, aims to bring transparency to the ongoing Epstein case by compelling the release of withheld information.
The announcement emerged amid widespread bipartisan concern over the limitations of information concerning Epstein's associates and their activities. Despite the Department of Justice previously unveiling a document cache related to Epstein, legislators and the public alike have voiced dissatisfaction with the extent and scope of these disclosures.
At a recent press conference, Greene and Massie, along with Khanna, vocalized their support for legislation initially proposed by Khanna. This bill, if passed, would force Attorney General Pam Bondi to release the Epstein files in their entirety to the public.
Amid this legislative push, the issue of constitutional immunity surfaced. Citing this rule, both Greene and Massie expressed their preparedness to use their privilege of legislative immunity -- which permits open speech on the House Floor without legal backlash -- to publicly name implicated parties.
In their statements, the representatives underscored the gravity and potential risk involved in naming high-profile individuals linked to the Epstein scandal. Greene highlighted the significant power disparities that could threaten the legal and financial stability of those who come forward against influential figures.
Recent releases by the House Oversight Committee, which consisted of 34,000 pages connected to Epstein, have not met expectations. Massie pointed out that much of this report was redundant and heavily redacted, rendering it ineffective in providing new insights or clarity.
This frustration coincides with actions from Epstein survivors as well. Lisa Phillips, representing a group of abuse survivors, intimated that they might release names themselves if the government continues to fail in its disclosures. This collective sentiment underscores a pervasive demand for accountability and transparency.
Massie's commitment was clear as he discussed a strategy to advance the bill despite current challenges, noting a discharge petition requiring 214 signatures -- just four shy of the target -- to force a vote on the bill.
While some politicians see a path forward in transparency, others dismiss the urgency or legitimacy of the matter. President Donald Trump labeled the ongoing controversy as a mere distraction orchestrated by Democrats, disconnected from his administration's achievements.
Contrasting sharply with Trump's statements, Massie rebuffed the notion of the case as a hoax. He emphasized the authenticity of the survivors' experiences and the injustice of ongoing protection afforded to perpetrators.
The political narrative surrounding the Epstein files splits significantly, with Trump distancing himself from the implications of the disclosures while others in Congress stress the imperative of addressing the victims' truth.
The legislative trajectory remains uncertain, but the proposed bill represents a significant stride towards resolving some of the opacity surrounding the Epstein scandal. With potential revelations on the horizon, the coming weeks could prove pivotal.
The discourse at the congressional level mirrors a larger societal confrontation with issues of power, abuse, and the accountability of high-profile individuals in criminal enterprises.
As Congress navigates these turbulent waters, the world watches, awaiting clear outcomes from a saga that has captured global attention. The decisions made in the upcoming sessions will likely resonate far beyond the halls of Congress, affecting legal precedents, privacy issues, and public trust in political and justice systems.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Letitia James, the Democrat attorney general in the state of New York, is demanding an appeals court restore a $500 million penalty against President Donald Trump that a New York judge created.
It was Arthur Engoron who heard the case in which James alleged Trump and his companies committed fraud.
James, who herself is under investigation now on fraud charges of her own related to alleged lies she submitted on federal mortgage documents, claimed that the companies' actions left behind damages even though testimony during the trial, which went down without a jury, proved those who made loans to Trump were happy with them, they were all paid off, they made money off Trump and would like to do business with him again.
Engoron and James worked together to create the $500 million penalty, and then tried to arrange requirements so that Trump could not appeal. He did, and the appeals court bluntly said the fine violated the U.S. Constitution.
Now, a report in the Epoch Times reveals that James wants that constitutional violation restored.
The report explains she filed a notice of appeal to the New York Supreme Court, confirming she is appealing.
"The brief notice does not spell out arguments from James as to why the appeal should be allowed," the report explained.
It was the New York Appellate Division's First Judicial Department, a branch of the New York Supreme Court, that tossed the penalty in a fractured ruling but left the civil judgment against Trump.
Engoron ruled against Trump in February 2024 and issuing a judgment of more than $460 million, with interest accruing.
Even the appellate judges who thought James' claims of fraud were justified opposed her penalty.
"Justice David Friedman criticized James, saying she was focused on 'political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,'" the report said.
In a surprising turn of events, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has publicly distanced herself from former President Donald Trump, criticizing his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
Greene has called for greater transparency with the Epstein files and criticized Trump for neglecting meetings with Epstein's victims.
Historically a staunch Trump supporter, Greene recently expressed displeasure with Trump's refusal to engage with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. This issue came to a head when she requested that Trump host these victims at the White House—an invitation Trump did not acknowledge.
Joining forces with Reps. Thomas Massie (R-TX) and Ro Khanna (D-CA), Greene co-sponsored legislation to release the Department of Justice's files on Epstein to the public. Despite warnings from the White House deeming support for this legislation as a hostile act, Rep. Greene remained undeterred.
In her conversation with CNN's Manu Raju, Rep. Greene stated, "This isn't a hostile act towards the administration," asserting her commitment to transparency and accountability in the Epstein case.
Greene's advocacy extends to a direct appeal to Trump, encouraging him to reconsider his stance and meet with Epstein's victims to acknowledge their suffering and seek justice.
Amid these calls for action, Trump instead prioritized international relations, meeting with the president of Poland during the crucial period when a dialogue on the Epstein scandal was sought by Greene and others. During this meeting, Trump explicitly dismissed the Epstein files legislation as irrelevant and a distraction from his administration's successes.
Trump equated the ongoing demands for the Epstein files to the controversy surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy, suggesting a pattern of dissatisfaction no matter the extent of disclosures provided.
Following Trump's refusal to meet with the victims, Greene joined a press conference organized by Massie and Khanna, which featured about a dozen Epstein victims sharing their stories.
At the press conference, Greene did not mince words. She criticized the Department of Justice under Trump for its opacity and called for the truth to be revealed by federal agencies, including the FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA.
Her statements at the conference underscored the need for truth and justice, advocating on behalf of the victims. "The FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA hold the truth. And the truth we’re demanding comes out," she declared, emphasizing the significance of transparency.
Highlighting the broader implications, Greene stated, "This should never happen in America, and it should never be a political issue that divides us," marking a notable shift from her typical alignment with Trump's policy positions.
Greene's stance represents a significant departure from her previous unwavering support for Trump, reflecting a broader schism within parts of the Republican Party over issues of justice and transparency.
Such a stance not only brings attention to the Epstein scandal but also pressures other political leaders to take a stand on matters involving high-profile figures and federal transparency.
Her participation and vocal criticism at the press conference illustrate a critical turning point, suggesting that her political alignment might be shifting towards more bipartisan and victim-centered justice initiatives.