This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has given a complete free pass to a long list of other federal judges – the entirety of the judicial branch in Maryland – in a fight with the administration of President Donald Trump over the nation's immigration and deportation agenda.
It was Thomas Cullen who ruled for the judges in the state by dismissing the action brought by the Department of Justice over the Maryland court's decision to grant automatic delays to the deportation cases that the Trump administration brought in the state.
The fight is over Trump's agenda to secure American borders and remove illegal aliens, especially criminals, through deportation procedures.
The judges in Maryland worked against that by adopting a plan, from George Russell, the chief judge, to give deportation defendants an automatic stay in their cases.
That would halt the DOJ's enforcement of the nation's immigration laws for a multi-day period, regardless of the evidence at hand and without any court proceedings.
The Department of Homeland Security said the so-called standing rule for the judges to interfere in the government's prosecution of deportation cases without review or hearing was against the law.
It seems there had been an increase in the workload because of the cases, and the judges were upset.
"A sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law. Nor does their status within the judicial branch," the case charged.
The Washington Examiner said Cullen dismissed the DOJ's action, claiming allowing it to continue would "run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law."
Cullen refused to recognize the Executive Branch arguments that the order was unlawful because it was inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as they were designated for a "special class" of offenders, were beyond the power of the court, and violated procedures for local court rules.
Cullen claimed, "In their wisdom, the Constitution's framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign. That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another's authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the Judiciary's constitutional role."
The DOJ had argued, "Every unlawful order entered by the district courts robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect. In the process, such orders diminish the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the Executive Branch."
Cullen actually instructed the DOJ to potentially raise its concerns "in a habeas proceeding" in an appeals court.
"The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where the challenged order remains in place, has been the venue for multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration, as the left-leaning bench has become a popular place for opponents of the administration to bring their legal challenges," the Examiner confirmed.
The Maryland court's standing rule, in fact, disrupts the DHS procedures to deport or change the legal status of the immigrant.
It was one of the defendant judges, Paula Xinis, who had ordered the Trump administration to return to the United States a Salvadoran national named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was brought back to face human trafficking charges.
The judges, demanding dismissal, had claimed they are "absolutely immune" "despite the "potential merits of the executives' argument that defendants exceeded their power in issuing the standing orders."
Cullen reached back to England to build his case to dismiss the complaint against the judges, citing a Supreme Court dissent, which said, "[S]uits for injunctive relief against a judge could not be maintained either at English common law or in the English courts of equity. And even the equitable remedy that the Court found to be a 'common-law parallel to the § 1983 injunction at issue [t]here'—'the King's prerogative writs'—were never used against judges on the sovereign's courts."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Former special counsel Jack Smith, the lawyer appointed by Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, to run several lawfare cases against President Donald Trump, was doing everything exactly right, according to his lawyers.
They have submitted a letter defending Smith, who now is being investigated on allegations he violated the Hatch Act while creating charges to file against Trump.
The Hatch Act prevents federal employees from engaging in partisan political actions while being paid by taxpayers.
Smith came under investigation after Sen. Tom Cottyon delivered a referral to the Office of Special Counsel regarding Smith's politicized cases. The accusations are that Smith ran his cases in ways to harm Trump's 2024 election campaign.
Smith filed charges against Trump based on his handling of classified documents and for his actions on January 6, 2021, which Smith claimed was an attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
Both cases since have been dismissed.
But the New York Post noted an email confirms the Hatch Act Unit, which enforces a law restricting government employees from engaging in political activities, has begun reviewing Smith.
"Jack Smith's actions were clearly driven to hurt President Trump's election, and Smith should be held fully accountable," said Cotton, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a statement to the Post.
Smith indicted Trump on 37 federal counts in Miami in June 2023 for lawfully storing presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate which was protected by Secret Service agents. Ironically, this was developing at the same time it was revealed Joe Biden had boxes and boxes of secret government documents stored in an office, his home, even his unsecured garage, but no action was taken against him.
That case against Trump later was dismissed because Smith's appointment as special counsel was improper.
In the second case in Washington D.C., Jack Smith indicted Trump on four counts: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
That's even though evidence about the protest-turned-riot on that day confirmed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted liability for the events, and Trump had urged his fans to protest "peacefully."
Smith's lawyers now have claimed, "We are aware of no court decision, prior Office of Special Counsel finding, or other authority interpreting the Hatch Act to prohibit prosecutors from investigating allegations of criminal conduct committed by former public officials or candidates for public office, or prosecuting those cases when the facts and law so dictate."
A report at the Gateway Pundit described how Smith "lashed out" at the Office of Special Counsel" for its investigation.
Smith's lawyers claim he made his decisions "based solely on the evidence."
Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend and accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein, said she never witnessed President Trump behave inappropriately when he was with Epstein - pouring cold water on rumors that Democrats have been stoking for weeks.
The bombshell testimony was part of Maxwell's interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who met with Maxwell in prison last month. A transcript was released Friday.
"I never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way. The President was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects," Maxwell said in a transcript of her interview with the Justice Department.
Maxwell is serving 20 years in federal prison for trafficking girls to Epstein, who died in his cell while facing charges six years ago. Epstein was accused of recruiting underage girls to give him massages that would escalate to sexual encounters.
A political firestorm over Epstein erupted in early July when Trump's Justice Department announced it would not release additional information in the case. Democrats have tried to insinuate that Trump was somehow involved in Epstein's crimes, accusing Trump and his government of a cover-up.
Trump has never been accused of wrongdoing in relation to Epstein, and it is no secret that the two once socialized together.
In her interview with Blanche, Maxwell said Trump and Epstein seemed "friendly", but she never saw anything suspicious between them.
“I actually never saw the President in any type of massage setting,” Maxwell told Blanche, according to the transcript. “I never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way. The President was never inappropriate with anybody.”
Maxwell's testimony is sure to be celebrated by many supporters of Trump, although some are sure to question her credibility, given her criminal record and her desire for a federal pardon. The family of Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre condemned Blanche's interview as an opportunity for Maxwell to whitewash the past.
"During DAG Todd Blanche's bizarre interview, she [Maxwell] is never challenged about her court-proven lies, providing her a platform to rewrite history," the family said in a statement. "This travesty of justice entirely invalidates the experiences of the many brave survivors who put their safety, security, and lives on the line to ensure her conviction, including our sister."
Giuffre never alleged any wrongdoing by Trump before her suicide, and her upcoming book does not make any abuse allegations against the president.
Trump has said that he severed ties with Epstein years ago after the financier started hiring girls who worked at the Mar-A-Lago spa, including Giuffre.
While Democrats have focused single-mindedly on the Epstein story all summer, Republicans have also pushed for transparency.
The Justice Department started sending the Epstein files to the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee on Friday, in response to a subpoena.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
You just can't stereotype California. In a state known derogatorily as the land of "fruits and nuts," where anti-Christian agendas are common, where faith often is considered a defect, one school district has gone into court to restore opening prayer to its board meetings.
Joel Oster, of Advocates For Faith & Freedom, said in an interview with CBN that the dispute centers around the Chino Valley Unified School District.
It believes an injunction from the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals barring those invocations is wrong.
And the ban should be removed, the case argues.
"About 10 years ago, a lawsuit was filed against Chino Valley claiming that their practice of opening up a school board meeting with prayer violated the Establishment Clause, and the Ninth Circuit agreed and entered an injunction, and they based that injunction on what is called the Lemon Test," the lawyer explained in the report.
However, that "Lemon test" standard later was abandoned, in the Joe Kennedy case, by the Supreme Court.
"The Supreme Court has now overturned the Lemon Test and said it's not good law. It doesn't respect how the Establishment Clause should be enforced [and] should be interpreted," Oster explained.
That provides the foundation for the Chino Valley's argument that the 9th Circuit's old decision was wrongfully decided, and it should be thrown out.
The CBN report explained why he believes it's permissible to begin school board meetings with prayer, noting it all comes down to history and legality.
"Prayer before school board meetings … is something that has been going on in our nation's history since before the Constitution was even drafted," he said. "And prayer has … been used to start deliberative bodies for centuries. There's been a congressional prayer …for as long as there's been a Congress."
And, he noted, it's just wrong to tell religious people they're "not welcome."
"Whenever you do open up a deliberative session with a prayer, it just helps to bring solemnity," Oster said in the CBN report. "It helps to bring wisdom to an event, helps to focus people on the task at hand, and, so, for that reason, the Supreme Court has said that prayers are allowed, they are constitutional to open up deliberative body sessions."
He said he believes Chino Valley will succeed, and courts will see that opening prayers are not a constitutional violation.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who while in the U.S. House orchestrated some of the failed impeach-and-remove battles against President Donald Trump by falsely claiming there was evidence of that "Russiagate" conspiracy theory, now is in the U.S. Senate.
And he's facing possible charges of mortgage fraud over his claims that a Maryland home is his "primary residence," while he also claimed his residence in California was his "primary residence."
The issue is that mortgage rates are better for primary residences than for second and third homes, but one may not be able to claim multiple primary residences without lying on various government and mortgage forms.
Schiff over the weekend insisted on his innocence.
Asked by NBC is the allegations of fraud are true, he said, "They're patently false, and the president knows it… [Director of U.S. Federal Housing FHFA William Pulte] knows it he's essentially doing the president's bidding against me, against Letitia James, against the person on the federal reserve."
He said, "Mortgage is their new weapon to go after their critics… They will manufacture anything to go after their critics."
In fact, there have been allegations of similar mortgage fraud against New York Attorney General Letitia James for making false statements on mortgage documents, as well as Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve's board of governors, all Trump critics.
A report at RedState noted that Schiff's claims of innocence "did not sit well with Christine Bish, an activist and Sacramento-based congressional candidate who … broke the story and worked on the mortgage fraud allegations against the junior senator from California for years."
She said the allegations are "absolutely true."
She posted online a legal document called a "Deed of Trust," a "legal document used in some states as an alternative to a mortgage for recuring a real estate loan."
It shows Schiff's Marland property as his "primary residence."
The report explained," The problem is that Schiff also allegedly declared his principal residence was in California, according to 2009 and 2011 financing documents for his Burbank condominium. On top of that, RedState's Bonchie revealed a 'smoking gun' video, which shows the Senator unequivocally stating he has never maintained a primary residence other than the one he has in the Golden State, insisting his California home 'always has been and always will be' his 'primary residence.'"
Social media was vicious, with the comment: "To quote Adam Schiff: 'No one is above the law!'"
The report noted Schiff already has set up a "legal defense fund, as he prepares to be indicted … ."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The all-Democrat government in Colorado – governor's office, state House, state Senate and state Supreme Court – for years has had an agenda to eliminate the rights protected by the First Amendment.
It has tried over and over to set state requirements for speech that try to control the messages that people and organizations are allowed to express.
And now it's getting sued for its latest scheming.
NetChoice, a social media corporation trade organization, sued the state "to stop the government's attacks on websites that host free speech."
The organization said in an announcement the state law, HB 24-1136, "mandates that websites display state-approved 'warning' messages to deter users from using online services and to promote the government's controversial views on social media."
"States can't do by 'warning label' what they can't do by outright ban. Trying to chill speech through stigma is still unconstitutional censorship, and we're fighting to stop it in NetChoice v. Weiser," the organization announced.
"At its core, this case is about one thing: compelled speech. Colorado is trying to force private websites to act as a mouthpiece for its preferred message," said @Paul_Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.
"The state is free to share its view on any topic it wishes, but it cannot force private businesses to speak for it. When the government speaks for itself, there is no problem, but when it coerces others to speak, the government plainly violates the First Amendment."
The state's latest battle against constitutional rights involves its scheming to force websites and online publishers to state the state's messages, whether they agree or not.
"It doesn't matter whether it's a billboard, a newspaper or a website—the government can't force businesses to malign themselves because politicians don't like them," the organization said.
The case explains the First Amendment protects free speech, free expression and free thought, but Colorado's law is at attempt to destroy all three.
"True safety measures don't require violating the First Amendment," it said.
A report at Complete Colorado said the state is demanding "advisory labels for underage users warning of the brain development effects of social media use."
NetChoice is representing companies including Meta, Pinterest, Reddit, YouTube, and X and others.
The state's demand for "popup warnings" takes effect in 2026.
The lawsuit reads, in part: "Colorado's attempt to compel a content-based, speaker-based, and vague collection of 'social media platforms' to discourage minors from using their services is equally unlawful."
The state has gone to war against Christians multiple times in recent years, attempting to force them to spout the state's leftist messaging, specifically regarding the LGTB agenda.
Under homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, the state went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to force baker Jack Phillips to promote same-sex ideology with his cake artistry. The state lost, and got scolded by the high court for its "hostility" to Christianity.
The state did the same thing with a wedding site web designer, and lost again.
It is pursuing yet a third case, this time restricting the free speech of counselors, a case that hasn't reached a final resolution yet.
During a two-day interview with Deputy U.S. Attorney Todd Blanche, convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell said that she never observed former President Bill Clinton getting a massage on Epstein's plane.
“Do you know whether, for example, President Clinton ever received a massage?” Blanche asked Maxwell.
“I don’t believe he did,” Maxwell said, after which Blanche asked why she didn't think so. “Well, because I don’t—so that’s a good question. The time that Epstein and President Clinton spent together, the only times I believe—well, obviously they traveled. There was that, you know, the plane, they went on the plane 26 times or whatever … So they spent time on the plane together, and I don’t believe there was ever a massage on the plane. So that would’ve been the only time that I think that President Clinton could have even received a massage. And he didn’t, because I was there.”
The interview seems to conflict with photos and a Daily Caller interview given by Epstein accuser Chauntae Davies, who said that she massaged Clinton's neck on a flight in 2002.
Davies said that Maxwell encouraged her to massage Clinton, but just to get some kinks out of his neck. There are photos of Davies massaging Clinton's neck while he smiles and laughs.
Another Epstein accuser, Virginia Giuffre, who died in April by suicide, said that Clinton visited Epstein's private island, where orgies were common, but she never personally observed him participating in any illicit activities there.
Clinton's spokesperson said after Maxwell's arrest in July 2020 that he had "never been to little St. James Island," where the alleged orgies took place.
“He’d not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade,” spokesman Angel Ureña told Newsweek. “Well before his terrible crimes came to light.”
Maxwell also threw cold water on the narrative that President Donald Trump was refusing to release the Epstein files publicly because he was named as a wrongdoer in them.
“I actually never saw the President in any type of massage setting. I never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way. The President was never inappropriate with anybody,” she said.
“In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects," she added.
She also said that she didn't have knowledge of Trump giving Epstein a lewd birthday card, a narrative which was leaked to the press but has been denied by Trump.
Maxwell ostensibly offered the in-depth interview in an effort to receive a shortened jail sentence as Epstein's accomplice. She is serving 20 years for helping him recruit underage girls and women that he allegedly trafficked for the orgies on his island.
The public has been clamoring for the release of all the Epstein files since Trump took office, but so far that has not happened.
Former personal attorney to President Donald Trump, Alina Habba, has been in a career whirlwind this year with her contested appointment to the position of U.S. Attorney in New Jersey.
According to The Daily Caller, a federal judge, of course, appointed by Barack Obama, ruled this week that Habba's reinstatement — through a series of unusual maneuvers — is "unlawful" as of July 1.
She was initially appointed to the position in the interim and was set to serve 120 days in the high-powered position. However, she was later replaced by her deputy, who was then fired so that Habba could replace her.
According to the judge that ruled this week against her appointment, her actions since July 1 "may be declared void."
The Daily Caller recapped Habba's unusual rise to the position.
It noted:
When Habba’s 120-day appointment as New Jersey’s interim U.S. attorney expired in July, a panel of federal judges selected her deputy, Desiree Leigh Grace, to take the position.
The Daily Caller added:
Using an unusual maneuver, the Trump administration sought to keep Habba in charge of the office. Attorney General Pam Bondi removed Grace, appointing Habba to the position of First Assistant United States Attorney and automatically making her the acting U.S. Attorney.
Middle District of Pennsylvania Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann ruled last week that she can not prosecute two defendants who challenged her appointment.
"After reviewing several issues of first impression, the Court concludes that Ms. Habba has exercised the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey without lawful authority since July 1, 2025," the Obama-appointed judge decided.
The judge added that he would put his decision on hold until the appeals process plays out.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was targeted over the weekend for being one of the Senate Republicans who helped Democrats block her appointment.
🚨 BREAKING: Acting US Attorney Alina Habba just SLAMMED Thom Tillis and Chuck Grassley for blocking her confirmation
"I would say to Sen. Tillis and Sen. Grassley: YOU are becoming part of the issue. YOU are becoming part of the antithesis of what we fought for FOUR YEARS!"… pic.twitter.com/T5diuwqElG
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) August 24, 2025
"End of story is she needs to be confirmed. Enough of this playing with mittens on," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "This is getting ridiculous. She is perfect for the job!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Ketanji Jackson, the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by Joe Biden, is complaining that her colleagues are allowing the White House to win court cases.
Fox News reports she wrote in a dissent this week that the "recent tendencies" of the court to side with the Trump administration are wrong.
"This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins," she scolded.
Calvinball, in fact, comes out of the hilarious comic strip and book creations of Bill Watterson, where Calvin, the precocious little boy, plays games with his pet, stuffed tiger, and there are no fixed rules.
Jackson's claims, however, fall apart when considering the dozens and dozens of court rulings that have gone against the Trump administration at various court levels, based on the hundreds of legal cases leftists have brought against him as he pursues his Make America Great Again agenda.
Those include refusals to let him cut spending as he's planned, judges who insist that he bring deported criminals back to the United States, and many more.
Even if Jackson, whose personal ideologies clearly are being offended by the Trump administration's agenda for a strong America, following the law, providing protections for Americans, and calling for fair trade agreements, was referencing only the Supreme Court, those justices have been far from letting the Trump administration do all it wants.
Jackson, however, rebuked other justices for "lawmaking" on the court's "shadow docket," which involves cases that are brought to the justices on an emergency basis and require a ruling right away – before a full development in lower courts, a full briefing, and arguments.
The justice with a far-left ideology and agenda on the court said the majority on the court bent "over backwards to accommodate" Trump by allowing the National Institutes of Health to cancel more than $700 million in grants that did not align with its priorities.
Some of those grants were ideological, pushing the leftist agenda of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and gender identity, topics on which the government should be remaining neutral, not spending tax money pushing.
That ruling, she complained, is the "newest entry in the court's quest to make way for the Executive Branch…"
That 5-4 decision allows the NIH to cancel a series of grants that already had been identified.
In a second 5-4 decision that keeps a lower court's block on the NIH's directives about the grants intact, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, sided with John Roberts and the three liberals. The latter portion of the ruling could hinder the NIH's ability to cancel future grants, the report said.
Experts have noted a surge in the "rhetoric" from the leftist Jackson, who has established herself as one of the most active talkers during oral arguments.
"The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson's opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself," said constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.
Jackson, in fact, got scolded for her rhetoric in an opinion by Barrett recently.
Barrett accused Jackson of advocating for an "imperial judiciary."
Since taking office, President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration and deportation agenda has faced continued resistance and obstruction from liberal judges across the country.
Now, in what the Trump administration views as a baffling act of blatant lawfare, a magistrate judge decided to release accused MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia from federal custody, as Breitbart reports.
The subject of much legal back-and-forth in recent months, Abrego Garcia is facing a slew of criminal allegations that include not just entering and remaining in the U.S. illegally, but also the solicitation of child pornography, involvement in the murder of a rival gang member’s relative, as well as arms, drug, and human trafficking.
Earlier this year, Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador, a move that spurred legal challenges and outrage from Democrat lawmakers, and his case led to additional wrangling over Trump’s attempt to use the Aliens Enemies Act to facilitate removals from the country.
Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes’ decision to free Abrego Garcia from federal detention last week is, according to her critics, just the latest example of her liberal activism from the bench and in her life outside the courtroom.
Holmes’ background includes time spent as president of the Nashville Bar Association and as a leading voice in the “National Association of Women Judges,” a group known for its strong leftward leanings.
She also served as the Judge’s Chair for the 2018 Legal Aid Society’s Campaign for Equal Justice, an organization that has been outspoken on behalf of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and which has provided legal services to illegal aliens, pointing to a significant conflict of interest.
As Fox News reports, after Abrego Garcia was released from custody, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials informed his attorneys that he may be poised for deportation to Uganda after he reportedly declined to accept a plea agreement that would have sent him to Costa Rica.
ICE is said to have informed Abrego Garcia’s team that he could be deported in “no less than 72 hours” and that he was required to report for a check-in at the agency’s Baltimore office on Monday.
The agency specified Uganda as Abrego Garcia’s next potential destination due to the fact that the African country had just reached an agreement with the United States government to accept third-party deportations under certain conditions.
Whether the administration will act on the threat and send the controversial migrant to the far-flung country remains unclear, however.
The Department of Homeland Security’s response to Abrego Garcia’s release was unsurprisingly one of frustration,
Secretary Kristi Noem took to X to lament the fact that someone she deemed a “monster” was freed by “activist liberal judges.”
Indicating the administration’s resolve to remove Abrego Garcia once and for all, Noem stated, “We will not stop fighting till this Salvadoran man faces justice and is OUT of our country.”