This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials in Cincinnati have charged the white man beaten by multiple blacks with a crime related to the July 26 late-night racial street brawl.
As Fox News reported, on Wednesday, authorities charged the unidentified 45-year-old white man with disorderly conduct for his part in the fight.
Police are not legally allowed to identify the man at this time. Under Marsy's law, victims of crimes are allowed to have their names withheld from the public.
According to the Fox report, authorities did not indicate what the man specifically did to warrant a disorderly conduct charge.
The charge comes after black community leaders in Cincinnati last week demanded the white man's prosecution, citing a video appearing to show him slapping one of the black individuals before the all-out assault.
As the Gateway Pundit reported, those leaders said the footage proved the white man should be facing at least the same charges as the six black Cincinnatians who brutally beat him and a white woman, Holly, who had tried to intervene to stop the melee, which left six people injured altogether.
At a press conference Aug. 11, Senior Pastor Tracie Hunter of the Western Hills Brethren In Christ Church demanded that the bald white man face criminal charges after citing the charges that had been filed against the black participants.
"Because those six individuals were charged with aggravated assault, which is a felony, the white guy incited or urged six other people to commit a felony, which means based on part B of the statute, he should be charged with inciting to violence, a felony of the third degree," Hunter claimed.
"If the riot is because of a slap, who incited the riot?" asked Rev. Damon Lynch. "Why are the only people being charged are the ones who look like me?"
Other black elected officials have made inflammatory statements about the incident, with Councilwoman Victoria Parks of Cincinnati saying the victims in the brawl "begged for that beat down," drawing calls for her resignation.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The investigations already have begun, in Congress, in the Department of Justice, and more, over the Democrats' scheming during the 2016 election to falsely accuse then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign of colluding with Russia.
Evidence shows what now is known as Russiagate was triggered by then-Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton but was pushed by Democrats at the highest levels of the Barack Obama administration.
While adherents sometimes still regurgitate the lies, it's been debunked, and investigators in Congress are reviewing the evidence, as are the professionals in the Department of Justice.
But now Hillary Clinton herself might be facing one move that others might not: An investigation into were ability to practice law.
A complaint has been filed by government watchdog Democracy Restored about her ethics, asking the Arkansas state bar to review whether her involvement in the conspiracy theory should affect her ability to practice law in the state.
The complaint cites the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct involving "Dishonesty" and "Prejudice to the Administration of Justice" and seeks a "formal review of the conduct of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Esq., a licensed attorney in the State of Arkansas, in connection with her actions during the 2016 presidential campaign," according to a report at Fox News.
Evidence revealed recently by the Senate Judiciary Committee suggests Clinton herself approved a plan "to release false information" with the purpose of smearing Trump.
The goal also apparently included distracting voters from her own scandal, in which she was investigated for putting government secrets on a private and unsecure email server in her home.
Investigations suggestions show that Democrats in power protected her from any charges for that.
The complaint said, "Within this release, there is an annex, which suggests that Clinton approved a plan created by one of her advisors to release false information with the purpose 'to smear' her political opponent during a presidential campaign and distract from the news surrounding her own legal accusations. This revelation demands an already overdue inquiry into Clinton's fitness as a member of the Arkansas Bar."
The complaint details her links to anti-Trump "opposition research" and alleges her campaign pushed unverified information to "injure" Trump.
She also allegedly, "personally signed off on an effort to amplify this bad intelligence to the media and federal law enforcement."
"Former Secretary Clinton's utilization of a bunk dossier by a foreign ex-spy to harm a political opponent violates basic ethical norms as well as the Arkansas bar's own rules of conduct for attorneys. The Arkansas bar needs to take a serious look at former Secretary Clinton's involvement in this scandal and take appropriate action," a Democracy Restored official told Fox.
While the letter states no criminal charges have been filed, "Recently released records have again increased the prospect of a federal investigation into her conduct."
The Trump administration already has been canceling the security clearances held by those involved in the scheme.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The shooting death of Kevin Mullins, a district judge in Kentucky, in his office in the courthouse – allegedly by his friend Sheriff Shawn Stines, has been in the headlines for months already.
But the case has taken a new turn as a woman now has charged that the judge was running a "depraved sex ring" from his government office.
The Daily Mail has documented the twist in the case involving the death of Mullins, 54, killed in a shooting in September 2024.
One witness has told police Mullins ran his chambers "like a brothel" and was seen having sex with a girl inside his office in Whitesburg.
"Tya Adams – another alleged victim – has now come forward with her account, saying she first knew Judge Mullins through his former role as an assistant commonwealth's attorney," the report explained.
Adams confirmed the judge introduced her to "his friends."
"And we would do sex parties and perform shows and have sex with them for money, things like that," she charged.
The judge's power came from her fear, and the fear of others, of the powerful legal system and the threat of Child Protective Services.
"They would make sure to make you feel as small and degraded and belittled as possible to take your power away," Adams charged, adding "It was consensual. But it was the thing that we were so young, and then they used it against us to destroy our lives later.
"He's the one with the power; he holds my entire life in his hands. He's the one who makes the decisions over whether I get to keep my children or not. He's the one who makes the decisions on whether I go to jail."
She confirmed she was warned to stay silent.
"And, who would believe it anyway? Because the whole town was doing it. Nobody cares. They're all swingers. It's all a big party to them. It was just normal," she charged.
Further, the Daily Mail said Sarah Davis, a former deputy jailer at Letcher County Jail, said she didn't witness such misconduct firsthand, but said the rumors that reached her were "nasty and sickening," according to a report from NewsNation about the case.
The Daily Mail said Adams' interview "marks the third time a woman has come forward alleging that Mullins' alleged abuse of power extended far beyond just what happened inside his chambers. She claimed it wasn't just her – that hundreds of women, along with men and even children in trouble with the law, were sent to visit him for the same reason."
A further allegation was from Sabrina Adkins, who was raped by Ben Fields – one of Stines' deputies.
News Nation reported she said, "I seen Judge Mullins having sex with a girl… in his office, in the judge's chambers."
The report said Fields later served six months in jail for coercing Adkins into sexual favors within Mullins' chambers.
Stines has pleaded not guilty to murder, charging that the shooting happened in the heat of passion and should be considered manslaughter at most.
The report revealed, "Detectives have been investigating possible motives, with one theory suggesting that Stines may have discovered his daughter's phone number in Mullins' phone – allegedly after Mullins called her just moments before the shooting."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Judges on an appeals court bench in New York, a judicial system already contaminated by a series of lawfare cases against President Donald Trump, have become "lost in navel-gazing," instead of delivering justice, according to new charges from constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.
The fight is over a case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who now is under investigation herself on various criminal counts, alleging fraud in Trump's business operations. At trial, it was documented no one lost money, the lenders involved were happy with their deals with Trump and wanted to do business with him again.
Yet a sole partisan judge, Art Engoron, decided to punish Trump by ordering him to pay about half a billion dollars.
Legal commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano at the time called Engoron's agenda no more or less than "government theft."
He said the case involved no crime or harm.
Engoron openly was antagonistic to Trump during the trial, and he claimed that Trump committed fraud in the way he valued his billions of dollars in property.
Further, he claimed to know more about property values than anyone, insisting that Trump's Mar-a-Lago home was worth not even $20 million. Actual real estate experts said it would be worth 25 times that, or more.
Napolitano said Engoron's decisions violated all the ordinary rules of American jurisprudence.
He found, "The government created a phantom harm by arguing to the court that Mr. Trump's corporation was not fully accurate in its loan applications and thus was charged a lower interest rate on the loans than it should have been charged had it been accurate, and thus, it earned more income on its use of the money it borrowed than would have been the case had it scrupulously reported the value of its pledged assets. And thus — somehow — the government ought to be able to confiscate the excess income plus interest. This, of course, defies the principles of no damages without breach of a duty and no damages without caused harm, which have been the bedrock of American tort law. It also redefines fraud."
Curiously, James now is under investigation herself on federal allegations she lied to government authorities about her own properties, and the relationship with her father – she apparently described him as her "spouse" on one application – all in order to obtain more favorable mortgage interest rates.
Engoron's rulings essentially ignored what should have been a deciding factor in the case, that the banks involved "did their own due diligence on the value of the assets.'
"The government won't say how it was harmed by Mr. Trump's commercial loans because it wasn't harmed by them. The government lawyers made a fanciful argument to the effect that if Mr. Trump had borrowed less because the buildings pledged as security were worth less than he claimed, the banks would have had more reserves available to lend to others. That is nonsense," Napolitano said.
Now Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and popular commentator for multiple forums, cited a report from the Wall Street Journal that the appellate judges hearing the case have let it drop into "some judicial black hole."
"This should not be a close case and certainly should not take this long. The case against Trump was raw lawfare, and the entire trial by Justice Arthur Engoron made a mockery of the court system, particularly his ridiculous half-a-billion-dollar judgment," he explained.
"Yet, weeks turned into months and then into years as the appellate court seemed lost in navel-gazing. There was also a concern over passive-aggressive delays; the long appeal is not only preventing Trump from moving this case toward the Supreme Court but keeps him trapped in an appellate amber."
The Journal report claimed, "A five-justice panel has yet to render a decision nearly a year after taking up the case, leaving him and his business in limbo. Behind the scenes, members of the panel have been divided, and three of them have been writing opinions, according to people familiar with the matter. It couldn't be determined how they are split. Justices do occasionally shift their positions, and the number of opinions could change, the people said."
Turley continued, "It is distressing to hear that some of these judges may be striving to preserve this nonsensical opinion where Trump was hit with half a billion dollars in a case where no one lost money and the banks wanted renewed business with his company. Affirming the decision would be the final nail in the coffin for the New York legal system, which was turned into a farce by New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Engoron."
The judges, if they are fractured, he said, "could do us all a favor and allow the case to proceed toward more competent jurists and final resolution."
He warned, "There is certainly no rush by these appellate judges to right any wrong done to Trump, who appears, again, to fall into a special category of persona non grata in the New York legal system. This appellate panel appears content to leave Trump twisting in the wind as it contemplates what to do with a defendant who garners little sympathy from its members.
"Most appeals are measured in months; this seems measured in millennia. Even with the notoriously slow New York legal system, the pendency of this appeal is becoming itself a controversy. It is often said that justice delayed is justice denied. However, delayed and denied justice for Trump appears to be a bedrock principle of the New York justice system."
The Trump administration has moved to dismiss a case against the IRS centering on the Clinton Foundation, just the latest twist in a years-long legal saga.
As reported by Just the News, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) says the two plaintiffs - who are fighting to receive a monetary award for whistleblowers - lack standing and the case should not move forward to a trial tentatively scheduled on December 1.
Retired federal agent John Moynihan and private fraud expert Larry Doyle have alleged for years that the Clinton Foundation engaged in pay-to-play politics with foreign donors.
"Not surprising that the IRS would seek to dismiss our case in this fashion simply because that is the same tactic the IRS deployed in our initial case ongoing now almost 6 years in US Tax Court and growing more serious everyday," Doyle told Just The News.
In 2018, Doyle and Moynihan appeared before Congress to share their findings, but they refused to hand over their 6,000-page evidence dump to the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee, causing a clash with then-chairman Mark Meadows.
An initial IRS review found that their allegations of wrongdoing were not credible, but a U.S. Tax Court judge found in 2020 that the IRS had "abused its discretion" when it rejected their whistleblower complaint and the judge allowed it to proceed.
In a motion last week, the IRS argued the case should be dismissed on procedural grounds.
"In this case, the Whistleblower Office denied petitioners’ claims because the petitioners’ claims were never considered in an IRS action. Here, the Whistleblower Office forwarded petitioners’ claims to a classifier,” the IRS motion said. “Following the classifiers’ preliminary review, the Classifier declined to forward petitioners’ claims to exam and recommended that it be forwarded to the CI [criminal investigation] division."
“The IRS did not proceed with any potential action when it investigated petitioners’ claims,” the IRS added.
The IRS' opposition may come as a surprise to many, especially as Trump's FBI continues to shed light on an effort by Obama officials to block investigations into the Clinton Foundation.
Newly declassified records shared by FBI director Kash Patel provide more detail on the cover-up, which involved high-level figures known to be anti-Trump, like former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.
In February 2016, McCabe ordered that "no overt investigative steps" be taken concerning the Clinton Foundation without his approval, and then-deputy attorney general Sally Yates later instructed a prosecutor's office in Arkansas to "shut it down," according to an internal FBI work document.
The obstruction was previously noted by Former Special Counsel John Durham in his lengthy 2023 report, which delved into the FBI's disparate treatment of Trump and Hillary Clinton as they battled for the White House in 2016.
Even as the FBI and DOJ rushed to investigate Trump over illusory Russia ties, top officials "placed restrictions" on scrutinizing the Clinton Foundation "such that essentially no investigative activities occurred for months," Durham found.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal appeals court has ordered revived a series of lessons for Minnesota state prison inmates on "manhood" that are derived from the morals established by the Bible and accepted by society over millennia.
Social activists in the state prison system had canceled the lessons because they did not comply with the leftists' ideologies of DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion.
The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the lower courts to return to the case and provide a preliminary injunction for Anthony Schmitt to teach the course.
The program, called "The Quest for Authentic Manhood" had been taught for years at a Minnesota prison, but was discontinued during COVID. When such programs were restored after the pandemic, Anthony Schmitt wanted to resume teaching the "Authentic Manhood" series of videos narrated by Robert Lewis.
The program was up-front in its description: "Authentic Manhood is all about setting men up to live lives of truth, passion and purpose. Our resources offer clear and practical Biblical insights on God's design for manhood that are both refreshing and inspiring. We point men to a gospel-centered vision of life that sets them up to enjoy God's grace as they pursue the promises of His Word."
But a prison "supervisor" complained that "discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in Minnesota" as the state human rights law makes it a "protected class."
Eventually, as the request to restart the program was processed, Jolene Rebertus, an assistant commissioner of "health, recovery & programming" became alarmed because in her opinion, the program "directly conflicts with the diversity, equity and inclusivity values of the department by defining manhood, or the study of masculinity, through a biblical lens of what a 'real man looks like.'"
She was unhappy that the sessions portray men as heterosexual, seeking ideal relationships and marriage with women, even though those biblical standards have been acknowledged and accepted by society for millennia.
Her conclusion was that such beliefs "can be hurtful and downright dangerous … ."
Schmitt eventually sued over the discriminatory beliefs on which the program was then canceled, and a district court denied his motion for a preliminary injunction to reopen the program while the court case proceeds. Schmitt charged that the decision violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise and established a denominational preference in violation of the Establishment Clause.
The appeals court panel agreed, reversing the lower court and ordering the Quest program reinstated pending "A full adjudication."
The ruling found the state discriminated against the program because of its biblical connections.
"Rebertus's letter plainly states that the MDOC did not oppose Schmitt teaching generally about 'manhood, or the study of masculinity'; instead, it objected to Schmitt discussing the topic 'through a biblical lens of what a 'real man looks like' or through what the MDOC perceived as 'through a lens of discrimination, exclusivity, gender biases and stereotypes,'" the opinion said.
The ruling said, "In short, the MDOC objected to Schmitt's religious viewpoint on masculinity. This is viewpoint discrimination."
It quoted from various Supreme Court rulings, including that, "[T]he government, if it is to respect the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."
Further, "The '[g]overnment fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.'"
The ruling found even, "subtle departures from neutrality on matters of religion" are prohibited by the Free Exercise Clause.
The panel ruled Schmitt likely was to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claim.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An increasing number of members of the U.S. military services are choosing to take a religious objection to the mandated flu shot. Many also question the likelihood of a flu pandemic at this point in history, while others claim evidence shows the flu shot is not effective.
Recent news stories of a Marine Corps officer, an Air Force major and an Army sergeant continue to document the concerns of countless service members who have taken a moral and religious objection to the mandated flu shot.
WorldNetDaily spoke to Technical Sergeant William "Tony" Oslin, whose religious convictions may cost his service in the military. Having both a father and stepfather who served in the military for 20 years each, Oslin's desire to join the military was present at an early age.
He served as an active-duty noncommissioned officer in the U.S. Air Force between 1991 and 1995. Then in 2013, he returned, joining the Air National Guard, and a few years later, began serving full-time, working in the Active Guard Reserve program as a technician.
In August 2021, his dedication to the Air Force became jeopardized over the then-mandated COVID-19 shot. Interestingly, his Religious Accommodation Request was never adjudicated, allowing him to continue to serve without being separated from the military.
During this time, Oslin's knowledge of the so-called vaccine increased. He admitted questioning the efficacy and effectiveness of the COVID-19 shot – and other vaccines, including the flu shot. But more than that, he maintained a religious objection to the shots, considering his body "a temple of the Lord." Even with this sincerely held belief, his request for a religious accommodation with regard to the flu shot was denied.
With that, Oslin said the Air Force began to "build a case that [he] was nondeployable." Although he still serves in the Air National Guard, his enlistment expires Sept. 3.
"Due to not taking the influenza immunization," he said, "they have twisted it into my not following direct orders and Air Force regulations." All the while, he noted, "I have claimed the entire time that the orders [to take the flu shot] are unlawful and discriminatory, therefore I will not … cannot follow unlawful orders."
Oslin told WND he could not recall the last time he contracted the flu. And the blatant disregard for his requested religious accommodation has left a bad taste in his mouth. Today, he is the grandfather of three, and hopes they will choose a different career path than the military.
"If I have anything to do with it," he told WND, "they will not be in the military." Why? "Because our country became the greatest country in this world because of the many who stood up for the freedoms we all enjoy, and I'm just not fully convinced the military can sustain itself following the religious purge [of those who objected to the COVID-19 mandate] and now the flu shot."
According to Oslin, "President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth are giving the illusion that they are trying to make it right," explaining that "it seems like an illusion because they're allowing others to ignore the policies they should be protecting." By disregarding service members' religious convictions, he said, the administration is ignoring their constitutionally protected religious rights.
What's more, he noted, "This is not about military readiness. Whether people get the flu, with or without a flu shot, they still get the same treatment," which boils down to rest, symptom management and possible antiviral medication. "It's not like people who took the shot don't get the flu. Even the package inserts say the flu shot might prevent the flu; it doesn't say it will prevent the flu."
"If the flu shot may or may not protect you from the flu, why is it required, especially when someone takes a legitimate religious objection to it?" Oslin asked. "It's about generals and the higher ups, to include congressmen, who have invested in the pharmaceutical industry. That's why they're pushing shots."
For those in positions of power, Oslin shares the King James Version of 2 Samuel 23:3, hoping they'll take the text to heart: "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God."
Oslin recently joined Air Force Col. (Ret.) Rob Maness, a former bomber squadron commander, on "The Rob Maness Show" to share his story:
Technical Sergeant Oslin emphasized his views do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense or Department of the Air Force.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Ed Martin, the director of the U.S. Justice Department's Weaponization Working Group, said Sunday probes into Democrats' targeting of American citizens in recent years are "going like crazy," and he says there could be indictments of major players who did not receive a pardon by Joe Biden.
Attorney General [Pam] Bondi has that Department of Justice spinning like a top," Martin said on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel.
"We've got more stuff going on, a lot of it we can't talk about because of the nature of it, but it's going like crazy."
"A lot of people did not get a pardon," he added. "It was not like anything in the history of America."
"Pam Bondi has let us loose and when this comes out, it'll take the whole of these people's hoaxes down."
In a wide-ranging interview, Martin discussed hoaxes including Jan. 6 and the 2020 presidential election, and criminal referrals for U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Democrat New York Attorney General Letitia James, both of whom face allegations of mortgage fraud.
"Every American that has a mortgage or has other documents they sign, has to follow the law," stressed Martin. "We're gonna follow the facts."
"When you're a liar, you lie not just on one thing. When you're a cheater, you cheat not just on one thing. When you're doing corruption, you generally don't do it on one thing."
Regarding the targeting of Americans, Martin said, "Joe Biden's Justice Department actively targeted American citizens: Catholics who went to mass, parents who went to school boards."
"The FBI and others were putting people on terrorism watchlists," he added.
With a series of criminal referrals being examined, Martin said a grand jury is merely one of the tools that can be used to investigate.
"When you get a criminal referral, you can infer what you need to," he indicated.
Martin concluded by saying, "The whole thing is falling apart … The players are always the same."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An innocent property owner in New York City is asking the Supreme Court to rein in an out-of-control municipal fine scheme that doesn't reliably let people know they're being charged with an offense – and then argues that they've lost their ability to dispute it because they didn't respond to something they didn't know about.
"Being punished for a violation I did not commit, never receiving notice of the violation, and having the city routinely ignore my pleas to prove my innocence was incredibly frustrating," explained owner Serafim Katergaris. "What happened to me could happen to any New Yorker, which is why I'm asking the Supreme Court to hear this case."
It is the Institute for Justice that provided details of the horrifying situation that could threaten many people.
"In 2014, Serafim bought a home in Harlem and the title search came back clean. However, when Serafim went to sell the home in 2021, he learned for the first time that the city had issued him a $1,000 fine in 2015 for failing to submit a boiler inspection report in 2013. He never received the violation in 2015. And he had no way to know about it: Serafim didn't own the home when the inspection should've been done, and by the time he bought the house, the boiler had been removed," it explained.
"The Department of Buildings (DOB) claimed that it issued Serafim a notice of violation on March 3, 2015, but Serafim never received the notice. By the time he was selling the home in 2021, the violation now showed up the prospective buyers' title search. Serafim explained the situation to DOB and asked for a waiver, but DOB refused to grant him one. He then requested a hearing with DOB but was ignored. Without any other legal options available, Serafim paid the fine so the sale could move forward, but submitted a letter to DOB explaining that he was paying under protest and that he wanted a refund. DOB refused. It rebuffed him at every turn."
"New York City's scheme of issuing unreviewable fines for code violations and giving people no way to appeal in state courts a clear violation of basic due process rights enshrined in the Constitution," said IJ lawyer Diana Simpson.
"On top of that, the city's methods for informing owners of these fines are sloppy, leaving many without knowledge of them for years. By then, the city says it is too late to challenge the system in federal court. The city cannot insulate itself from the Constitution."
William Maurer, another IJ lawyer, said, "In America, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but New York's code enforcement system flips that principle on its head. New Yorkers from all walks of life are issued fines for minor code violations every day, and they deserve a way to be able to contest these fines."
A federal court ruling in 2024 assumed that the city had mailed the notice, and assumed that it had been received, despite no evidence of either.
The court didn't acknowledge "evidence that hundreds of people never received their notices for boiler violations that year and that Serafim himself swore he hadn't received it."
The IJ noted that the standards in 13 other federal courts are in opposition to this case.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A newly filed friend-of-the-court brief in the legal battle over sending taxpayer cash to abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood, over the objections of taxpayers, Congress and the president, warns just exactly how dangerous is the precedent the abortionists want.
They are, in fact, endorsing a system in which court judges would be able to allocate tax money to their pet causes, thereby violating the "constitutional separation of powers" that allows only Congress that power.
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that has filed the arguments in the legal fight over the law of the land – adopted by Congress and signed by the president, that no tax money should go to Planned Parenthood.
Then there is a single pro-abortion judge, Indira Talwani, who claimed the power of Congress and is insisting that tax money be handed over to the abortionists.
"Our brief makes a fundamental point that Planned Parenthood desperately wants to obscure: There is no constitutional right to government subsidies. The Supreme Court established this principle decades ago and has reaffirmed it consistently, even during the Roe v. Wade era," the ACLU reported.
"When Americans elect representatives who prioritize protecting life over funding abortion providers, those policy choices must be respected. The Constitution does not transform every legal activity into a taxpayer-funded entitlement, and courts cannot conscript unwilling taxpayers to subsidize practices they find morally objectionable."
It explained, "Planned Parenthood's argument ignores a critical reality that the Supreme Court has acknowledged: Money is fungible. When the government provides funding to an organization for one purpose, those funds free up other resources that can be redirected toward activities the government prefers not to support."
The brief to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals defends Congress' constitutional authority to decline to fund abortion providers like the industry giant.
"This case, Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., represents far more than a dispute over government funding – it strikes at the heart of our constitutional separation of powers and America's commitment to protecting life," the organization confirmed.
It was Talwani, in a Massachusetts court, who is insisting that Planned Parenthood get all of the money it requests from taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars.
"This judicial activism represents nothing less than a direct assault on the will of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress, who voted to stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize abortion," the legal team noted.
"When Congress exercises its constitutional authority to direct taxpayer dollars away from organizations that perform abortions, it reflects the deeply held values of millions of Americans who believe their tax dollars should not subsidize the taking of innocent life."
In the case of Planned Parenthood, when it gets Medicaid payments for "family planning services, that money allows the organization to redirect other funds toward performing abortions. Congress has every right – indeed, the responsibility to taxpayers who oppose abortion – to prevent this indirect subsidization of abortion providers."
The congressional action, it explained, "involves no punishment whatsoever."
"Planned Parenthood remains free to operate, employ staff, and provide services. No one is barred from working there or prohibited from seeking their services. Congress has simply decided not to pay for its activities with taxpayer dollars – a decision well within legislative authority. Every time Congress makes funding choices – supporting some activities while declining to fund others – it could face similar challenges if Planned Parenthood's theory prevailed. This would transform every appropriations decision into potential constitutional litigation, undermining the democratic process and separation of powers," the ACLJ argued.
But maybe most troubling is the assault in the case on "constitutional separation of powers."
"The Appropriations Clause could not be clearer: 'No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.' This power belongs exclusively to Congress, not to courts or executive agencies."
But the abortion industry leader is demanding courts order Congress to spend money "it has explicitly declined to appropriate."