This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court ruled Friday that most of President Trump's many tariffs on other nations are illegal and unconstitutional, striking down the policies.
As Fox News reported, the ruling stated:
"We affirm the CIT's holding that the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA's text. We also affirm the CIT's grant of declaratory relief that the orders are invalid as contrary to law."
The IEEPA is the International Emerge Economic Powers Act. While the law gives the president broad authorities, the court ruled, they do not include the power to impose tariffs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., was divided in the ruling, 7-4, and says Trump's tariffs can continue until Oct. 14. In the meantime the White House is expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
President Trump vehemently opposed and decried the ruling on social media, saying it would be "a total disaster" if the tariffs were to be stopped.
In a win for the Trump administration, the Wisconsin judge accused of helping an illegal alien escape her courtroom has lost her bid to dismiss the charges.
A federal judge rejected Judge Hannah Dugan's claim that she is immune for "official acts," exposing the Milwaukee County judge to prosecution for her alleged crimes.
“There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered 'part of a judge’s job,'" Judge Lynn Adelman wrote.
Dugan is accused of trying to obstruct Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by letting a Mexican defendant in her courtroom charged with battery, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, slip out through a non-public door as agents waited to apprehend him in a public hallway.
According to prosecutors, Dugan became "visibly angry" when she learned that ICE was there on April 18 and told them to report to the office of the chief judge. Upon returning to the courtroom, she told Flores-Ruiz something to the effect of "Wait, come with me" and led him through a door meant for the jury.
After a foot chase that spanned the length of the courthouse, agents were able to catch Flores-Ruiz outside.
In May, Dugan was charged with concealing a person from arrest and obstructing a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States.
The state's Supreme Court suspended her from her job to protect the integrity of the court system.
Dugan fought the charges by invoking the landmark Supreme Court ruling that found President Trump - and all U.S. presidents by extension - are immune from prosecution for their "official acts."
"The problems with this prosecution are legion, but most immediately, the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts," her lawyers said. "The prosecution against her is barred. The Court should dismiss the indictment."
The Justice Department asserted that "well-established law... has long permitted judges to be prosecuted for crimes they commit," an argument that ultimately won the day in Judge Adelman's courtroom.
A magistrate judge had previously recommended that the case against Dugan move ahead.
The courts' refusal to shield her from charges is a victory for the Trump administration, which has complained about facing obstruction from "activist" judges who have tried to thwart Trump's immigration agenda.
Dugan, who denies wrongdoing, is scheduled to return to court on September 3.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new report at Fox News explains that newly declassified government papers have confirmed that Barack Obama was at key meetings with key government bureaucrats "that led to critical steps in the opening of the Trump-Russia investigation."
That would be "Russiagate," the fabricated conspiracy theory apparently started by Hillary Clinton's failed campaign that claimed Trump's campaign was colluding with Russia.
A years-long investigation by a special counsel came up with no evidence, but that didn't stop some diehard anti-Trump activists like then-Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., from claiming they'd seen the evidence. Some even continue to claim it to this day.
The investigation, called "Crossfire Hurricane," now is being exposed by government documents being released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
Obama was, according to Trump, a "ringleader" in the conspiracy. Obama denies that, and his spokesman described the suspicions as "bizarre" and "ridiculous."
However, Obama and his key administration players now are under investigation by Congress, and the Department of Justice, in the case and the Fox report cited a number of meetings at which the scheme was promoted, and Obama was there, over and over.
For instance: On Aug. 3, 2016, then-CIA chief John Brennan reportedly briefed Obama on how Clinton was allegedly creating a plan to link Trump to Russia, in order to distract voters from her own email scandal.
Another meeting, July 31, 2016, involved a decision to open the investigation into the Trump campaign.
Fox said it got details about a Counterintelligence Operational Lead in 2020 that said, "The following information is provided for the exclusive use of your bureau for background investigative action or lead purposes as appropriate."
It added, "Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date. An exchange (REDACTED) discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."
Other details charge that foreign "sources" allegedly linked to left-wing billionaire George Soros, an ardent critic of Trump, were sending emails about the new "probe."
One activist confirmed in an email, "The media analysis on the DNC hacking appears solid …. Julie (Clinton Campaign Advisor) says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump. Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later the FBI will put more oil into the fire."
That same adviser later said that Clinton approved the "idea" about Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections."
"This should distract people from her own missing email, especially if the affair goes to the Olympic level," the activist wrote. "The point is making the Russian play a U.S. domestic issue. Say something like a critical infrastructure threat for the election to feel manic since both POTUS and VPOTUS have acknowledge the fact IC would speed up searching for evidence that is regrettably still unavailable."
After Trump won the election, the report said, Obama warned Trump not to have Michael Flynn, formerly Obama's head of military intelligence, in his administration.
He later was caught up in Russiagate, pleading guilty to making false statements about a meeting with a Russia official.
Later, the report said, the DOJ dropped its case when documents appeared showing agents discussing their motivations for interview him, in order to "get him to lie."
He ultimately charged Obama's supporters set him up in a "perjury trap."
The report explained, "Current Director of National Intelligence Gabbard recently declassified documents claiming that the Obama administration 'manufactured and politicized intelligence' to allegedly create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election, despite information from the intelligence community stating otherwise. Documents revealed that in the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia was 'probably not trying…to influence the election by using cyber means.'"
Other documents have undermined the Democrat claims about Trump and Russia, including then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who said, "Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome."
Further, Brennan told Congress any hacking "did not achieve a notable disruptive effect."
And the report cites declassified information in charging Obama officials allegedly "leaked false statements to media outlets" claiming that "Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election."
Then-President Obama held an Oval Office meeting Jan. 5, 2017, with then-FBI Director James Comey, then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-Vice President Joe Biden," the report said, when Comey reportedly lobbied Obama to hide "Russia" information from the incoming Trump administration.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge has assigned liability for disabilities suffered by a Wyoming baby to the hospital system that ran the facility where she was born, and it's nearly a billion dollars.
A lawyer for the family of Azaylee Zancanella said the family should be able to collect a substantial sum, even if it's not the full award of $951 million, from the corporation that closed and sold its hospitals.
A report at the Daily Mail noted the judge in the case emphasized the child would have been safer being born in "the bathroom of a gas station, or a hut somewhere in Africa."
The pregnancy, which had been normal, took a turn in October 2019 when Anyssa Zancanella's water broke during a trip from the family's Wyoming home to Salt Lake City.
They rushed to Jordan Valley Medical Center West Valley Campus, which was operated at the time by the now defunct Steward Health Care, the report said.
There, the lawsuit charges, the mother as given "excessive" doses of Pitocin, a labor-inducing drug.
And then ignored.
Eventually a C-section was performed, but, the lawsuit charged, the failures deprived the baby of oxygen, causing brain damage.
"[The obstetrician] abandoned mother and fetus/infant when she was fully aware of significant and dangerous issues with the ongoing labor process and the ongoing health and well-being of the fetus," the lawsuit said.
Azaylee now suffers seizures, and experiences "damages, including but not limited to, permanent neurological and cognitive damages, physical damages, emotional damages, limitations in physical, cognitive and mental function, as well as pain and suffering," the case charged.
It was Third District Judge Patrick Corum who found Steward Health Care liable in Zancanella's medical malpractice case, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune
Corum awarded Zancanella, her partner, Daniel McMichael, and their daughter $951 million.
The judge noted Steward essentially walked away from any participation in the case.
"Indeed, since at least the early Spring of 2024, Defendants' entire strategy seems to have been nothing other than an attempt to thwart justice and the judicial process," the judge said.
The family's lawyer, Jennifer Morales, said she expects the family to be able to collect about half of the award, which represents punitive damages.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Sean Charles Dunn, 37, a now-former federal employee, was accused of shouting obscenities and throwing a sub sandwich at federal officers in Washington, D.C., striking one officer.
It turns out that a grand jury in that leftist enclave declined to indict him on a charge that presumably fell under "Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees."
That law bars those who assault, resist, or oppose anyone engaged in official duties, and provides penalties of up to eight years in prison if there's physical contact "or intent to commit another felony." It provides that "simple assault" be penalized with a sentence of up to one year.
According to Jonathan Turley, an expert on the U.S. Constitution, law professor at George Washington University, and popular commentator, "The District of Columbia is known as one of the most Democratic and liberal jury pools in the country. However, this may be a case of overcharging in the eyes of the jury."
He noted Dunn was "on video shouting obscenities at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents standing near 14th and U streets in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 10 and then striking an officer with a wrapped sandwich."
"Dunn appeared to shrug off the incident, saying, 'I did it. I threw a sandwich,'" Turley noted.
He concluded, "There is a basis for a criminal charge of assault. A refusal to indict even on a lower offense would, in my view, be a form of jury nullification."
He said the question now is whether prosecutors will seek the lower charge.
"She should do so. Law enforcement officers are not dunk-tank targets for any citizen with rage issues. There need to be consequences—even if it is only a misdemeanor charge," he suggested.
The issue of foreign aid is once again at the forefront of political discourse as the Trump administration looks to adjust how American taxpayer dollars are distributed.
In this case, the Trump administration has requested that the Supreme Court allow the withholding of billions of dollars of congressionally approved foreign aid, as USA Today reported.
That aid would have been distributed before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, if the previous funding plan had moved forward.
However, the Department of Justice filed an appeal with the court this week, asking for the justices to pause a lower court’s order that would require the administration to distribute the money.
Solicitor General John Sauer said in the filing that the groups representing the aid contractors don’t have a legal basis to push the spending forward.
This is due to the fact that it’s up to Congress to challenge the administration if spending isn’t done appropriately by the executive branch, under a 1974 law called the Impoundment Control Act.
“Congress did not upset the delicate interbranch balance by allowing for unlimited, unconstrained private suits,” Sauer said.
“Any lingering dispute about the proper disposition of funds that the President seeks to rescind shortly before they expire should be left to the political branches, not effectively prejudged by the district court.”
Before the Supreme Court was involved in the case, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled in favor of the groups that rely on the aid. The Biden appointee said it was an obligation of the executive branch to distribute the funds by the end of next month.
The AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition is one of the groups in question, and one of their officials is who is challenging the holdbacks. That official was allegedly not surprised by the ruling.
“Time and again, this administration has shown their disdain for foreign assistance and a disregard for people’s lives in the United States and around the world. But even more broadly and dangerously, this administration’s actions further erodes Congress’s role and responsibility as an equal branch of government,” said coalition’s executive director, Mitchell Warren.
“The question being put to SCOTUS is whether they will be complicit in further eroding the constitutional commitment to checks and balance.”
Trump’s DOJ races to the Supreme Court to stop lower court judges from forcing billions in foreign aid payouts before the deadline. pic.twitter.com/oQDG2R290j
— Robert Gouveia Esq. (@RobGouveiaEsq) August 28, 2025
Sauer thinks that the question should be left to Congress, and those who believed they would receive the money, believe the battle was already won, and it should go to them. The Supreme Court has yet to rule.
In a striking legal intervention, U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis has blocked the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a suspected MS-13 gang member, Breitbart reported.
Judge Xinis’ order prevents the Trump administration from deporting Garcia, despite plans to send him to Uganda.
Appointed by former President Barack Obama, Judge Xinis took definitive action against the deportation after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained Garcia, who had just been released from federal custody on human smuggling charges.
Federal authorities describe Abrego Garcia as an illegal alien involved in multiple criminal activities, including being a part of the notorious MS-13 gang, engaging in human smuggling, and domestic abuse. His arrest by ICE followed these allegations after his release.
This Monday, during a court session, Judge Xinis informed federal prosecutors about her decision, stating, "Your clients are absolutely forbidden at this juncture to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia from the continental United States," ensuring he remains within U.S. borders.
The judge's order specifies that Garcia must stay at the immigration detention center in Virginia, where he is currently held, instead of being deported.
Previously, federal prosecutors had offered Garcia a plea deal. In exchange for pleading guilty to human smuggling charges, they proposed deporting him to Costa Rica instead of Uganda. This plea deal represents a complex layer of legal alternatives explored by the authorities.
Abrego Garcia's link to broader criminal operations emerged in 2022 during a significant event. Tennessee state troopers stopped him while he was driving a vehicle owned by another indicted individual, Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes, known for running a human smuggling scheme.
During this stop, officers discovered nine individuals without luggage in the vehicle, raising immediate suspicions about a smuggling operation.
Further investigations and associations came to light as FBI agents noted that Hernandez-Reyes, who currently serves a sentence in federal prison, was indicted in 2020. His indictment included details of his operations, which he admitted involved hiring Abrego Garcia for smuggling purposes.
These facts laid the groundwork for heightened scrutiny of Abrego Garcia’s activities, drawing a clear link between his actions and a broader criminal network.
The decision by Judge Xinis represents a critical junction in assessing the balance between law enforcement’s pursuit of criminal deportation and judicial oversight preserving individual rights amidst deportation proceedings.
This case illustrates the ongoing tension between judicial authority and administrative immigration policies, especially in cases involving suspected gang affiliations and serious criminal allegations.
The broader implications of such judicial interventions raise questions about the dynamics between the judiciary and executive intentions, particularly under the polarized administration of President Trump.
As this case continues to unfold, the judicial oversight by Judge Xinis will undoubtedly be a significant point of reference in discussions about immigration law enforcement and the role of individual rights in deportation proceedings.
President Trump's sacking of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook appears to challenge the Supreme Court's inclination to leave the central bank alone.
Days after he demanded her resignation, Trump fired Cook on Monday, citing allegations that she engaged in mortgage fraud.
Congress allows Federal Reserve board members to be removed "for cause," but Trump is the first president to ever use that power, setting up an unprecedented legal controversy that appears destined for the Supreme Court.
While we can only guess how the justices might rule on Trump's power over the Fed, they recently offered a brief hint - by brief, we mean one sentence.
"The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States," the court wrote.
This single ambiguous sentence does not tell us much, but it appears to suggest that the Supreme Court sees the central bank differently from other government agencies that Trump has shaken up, with the Supreme Court's blessing.
The justices' brief commented appeared in a May emergency ruling that allowed Trump to fire Democratic members of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and National Labor Relations Board (NRLB).
The court could now be asked, for the first time, to draw a line on when the president has established "cause" to shake up the Federal Reserve.
Given the Supreme Court's broad view of executive power, it is not unreasonable to predict that they will side with Trump when push comes to shove.
Trump's critics have blasted Cook's firing as an assault on the traditional independence of the central bank, which has for months resisted pressure from Trump to lower interest rates.
The president nominates Federal Reserve members, who serve 14-year terms spanning different administrations. Cook, who was appointed by Joe Biden, says her removal is baseless, and she plans to challenge it in court.
Trump says there are clear indications of misconduct by Cook, who allegedly claimed two different homes as her primary residence two weeks apart.
"The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve," Trump wrote in a letter to Cook.
"In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot, and I do not have such confidence in your integrity."
President Donald Trump has made a number of changes that made their way to the Supreme Court, and it appears that might be happening again.
Trump announced earlier this week that he was removing Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in what many saw as an unprecedented move, as ABC News reported.
However, this could be a legal battle for Cook that takes the case all the way to the nation’s high court, because it could be seen as political interference.
Some believe the move by Trump is an escalation in his push for control over the influential financial institution that is the Fed.
The president posted on social media on Monday evening about the change, saying he was removing Cook, effective immediately.
According to the president he this is due to allegations that she was involved in mortgage fraud before she joined the board.
“Pursuant to my authority under Article Il of the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended, you are hereby removed from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, effective immediately,” Trump said in a letter to Cook.
🚨 LMAO! Leftist professor Paul Krugman says Lisa Cook’s literal MORTGAGE FRAUD is the equivalent of “cheating on a third grade exam”
Democrats are now openly backing fraudsters 🤣
The midterms are going to be EPIC. pic.twitter.com/X6LlhVHy29
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) August 26, 2025
Cook responded, saying that she wouldn’t step down, and that the president doesn’t have the authority to fire her.
“President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” she said in a statement. “I will not resign.”
“I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.”
Cook has long been an influential figure as she became the first black woman to serve on the Fed’s board of governors.
The Fed itself votes on the central banking system’s major interest rate decisions, and has a wide-reaching impact on economic issues.
Before she was appointed to the board, she was an economics professor and held roles in the Clinton, (second) Bush, and Obama administrations.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
When the U.S. Supreme Court, with the extremist liberal votes of several justices no longer there, fabricated "same-sex marriage" for all of American in 2015, there were warnings about how the ruling would be used against people of faith, those the values of family that have endured for millennia, and more.
All of those warnings were rejected by progressives and other leftists as likely not to exist, or be extremely rare.
Now that those observations have been proven wrong, there is a new movement, a new sentiment, that the precedent fabricated in Obergefell, a precedent that even dissenters on the Supreme Court warned was unrelated to the Constitution, should be overturned.
It's in a report in the Federalist that experts now confirm, "We can either recognize gay marriage or recognize children's right to their mother or father. We can't have both."
That's according to Katy Faust, of Them Before Us, an organization that advocates for the right of children to their biological parents.
"Marriage has, throughout our country and nearly every other culture throughout history, been the pathway to secure that right. But as every one of the 38 countries which have legalized gay marriage has learned, when you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, you make mothers and fathers optional in parenthood. The problem is, from the child's perspective, their own mother and father are never optional. Not in terms of their identity, their development, their safety, or their rights," she said.
The report in the Federalist warns the "tentacles" of the decision now are "in media, schools and curricula."
"The decision has left in tatters the single most important institution in society — marriage and family — while ushering in an LGBT indoctrination agenda, annual state-enforced homosexuality, a boost to the rent-a-womb industry, and a burgeoning acceptance of eugenics to service the rent-a-womb industry," the report warned.
The backlash has been developing for some time already. The report noted support for "gay marriage' among Republicans has dropped 14% since 2021, when it reached its high.
Faust is going to be part of a panel explicitly calling for the overturn of Obergefell at National Conservatism's fifth annual conference in September, the report said.
She will be joined by Claremont Institute senior fellow and constitutional lawyer Dr. John Eastman and Hale Institute Director Jeffrey Shafer.
The fight already has been pending at the Supreme Court, where several justices have pointedly noted the precedent should be reviewed. It is Kim Davis — the former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk known best for refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple in the aftermath of Obergefell, who has asked the high court for a resolution.
It was Justice Clarence Thomas in the Dobbs decision that overturned the faulty Roe decision creating a "right" to abortion that didn't really exist in the Constitution who said Obergefell was endangered, because it was presupposed on the same faulty groundwork, substantive due process, as Roe.
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [right of married persons to obtain contraceptives], Lawrence [right to engage in private, consensual sex acts], and Obergefell," he wrote.
He noted any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," so the court needs to "correct the error."
Eastman told the Federalist how Obergefell has damaged American law.
"There is no question that the ability to 'marry' someone of the same sex was never any part of the history and traditions of this, or any other, country. Normally, when articulating new unenumerated rights, the Court looks to whether the asserted right was part of the history and traditions of this country."
The Obergefell activists on the court did no such thing.
Which opens "the door to other novel claims, such as a 'right' to polygamous marriages, to polyamory, even bestiality — claims which followed on the court's decision in fairly short order," he noted.
Justice Samuel Alito also expressed concern when Obergefell was argued, and in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out the problems.
Anthony Kennedy wrote the Obergefell decision, ignoring the dangerous social experiment he was mandating.
But even he allowed that people of sincere belief and good faith would continue to advocate against gay marriage, and he said they should be allowed to do so.
But the Davis case showed how wrong that has been: "For in adhering to and advocating for her sincerely-held religious view, [Davis] was hounded out of office, prosecuted, and financially ruined. Her First Amendment rights of speech and the free exercise of religion have been trampled beneath the foot of the LGBTQ+ agenda," Eastman said.
Faust warned, "In the post-Obergefell world, it's not just marriage that has been redefined. It's parenthood, infertility, and natural familial relationships. Children are now regarded as objects to be awarded to whichever adult has the money and means to assemble them. But children are not commodities. They are humans. With fundamental natural rights. The first of which is their right to life. But a close second is their right to be known and loved by both mother and father."
The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also could be used against "same-sex marriage." Neither abortion nor marriage actually is in the U.S. Constitution, so justices over the years have manufactured reasons to support both "rights."
The analysis, from several years ago, cited the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe for being based on "substantive due process," a doctrine adopted by some justices over the years to create "implied fundamental rights."
"Through various opinions, the Court has recognized a right of personal privacy, which has been extended to other activities such as inter-racial marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing," the analysis said.
To manufacture same-sex "marriages," the court relied on "substantive due process" to claim same-sex "marriage" is constitutionally protected.
And the analysis said, "The aftermath of the Dobbs decision spans beyond abortion by calling into question other decisions that were decided on similar grounds to Roe — Obergefell (same-sex marriage), Lawrence (same-sex sexual conduct), and Griswold (contraceptives)—and whether the overturning of Roe presents a similar fate for these decisions."