This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Pacific Legal Foundation is going to court in California over a city's demand for $55,000 in fees for a landowner to put up a modest home on his own land.
"Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, no government agency may take private property for a public use without paying just compensation," a new court filing in U.S. district court in California charges.
"As a corollary to this rule, a government agency imposing a land-use permit condition that requires the dedication of private property, including money, 'must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development,'" it continues. "Specifically, the agency must carry the burden of showing that the exaction bears an 'essential nexus' and 'rough proportionality' to the public impacts of the proposed project, lest the exaction be nothing more than an 'out-and-out plan of extortion.'"
The fight is being brought on behalf of Wesley Yu, who sued East Palo Alto over its housing ordinance that purports to force property owners to "surrender their land or pay steep fees just to build homes on their own property."
The city's demand is that Yu build an "affordable housing" unit on his own property with a permanent deed restriction.
Or, in the alternative, he can pay $54,891 in "fees" on his "modest home and guest unit."
"The government can't hold building permits hostage and force families to choose between giving up control of their property or paying unconstitutional fees," said David Deerson, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation. "Wesley just wants to build a home where his daughter can play safely and grandparents can visit comfortably—that's the American Dream. Instead, they are facing government extortion."
The legal team explained Yu and his wife live with their 3-year-old daughter in a small, 1,000-square-foot home in East Palo Alto.
They need more room.
So they proposed building, on an adjacent lot they own, a new family home and detached accessory dwelling unit.
"The lawsuit argues the ordinance violates constitutional property rights established in Supreme Court cases including Cedar Point v. Hassid and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. The Yu family's project would increase housing supply, not reduce it, yet the city demands mitigation as if the family were causing harm," the legal team charged.
The case, in federal court in San Francisco, seeks a court judgement that the city ordinances are unconstitutional conditions, an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the rules, and an award of costs and fees.
Minnesota residents saw a huge win on the topic of Second Amendment rights this week, following a ruling by the state supreme court about serial numbers on firearms.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on Aug. 6 that state law does not preclude residents from carrying a “ghost gun,” which doesn’t have a serial number, as Minnesota's KSTP reported.
The case came before the court due to a legal issue that began in 2022 with a state patrol trooper’s response to a car crash when the firearm was found.
During the course of the state trooper's response to an accident that included a rollover crash in Fridley, Minnesota, the driver told the officer about the firearm.
He also told the law enforcement official that he didn’t have a permit to carry that gun. The trooper found it and discovered it was a so-called “ghost gun” without a serial number.
Thanks to that discovery, the man was charged with felony possession of a firearm without a serial number, as well as carrying a handgun without a permit.
In response to those charges, the man’s defense team moved to dismiss the serial number charge, saying there was no probable cause.
The firearm owner had to defend himself from a Minnesota statute that was put on the books more than 30 years ago in 1994, which made it criminal to receive or possess a firearm that is "not identified by a serial number."
The state’s high court, however, decided that the 1994 statute is but a refrence to the federal law, and that the state of Minnesota doesn’t have an independent system to require the serial numbers.
Judge Paul Thissen penned the majority opinion, in which he asserted that the state statute doesn’t clearly define enough about what a serial number references.
According to the Thissen-authored opinion, the possession of a firearm that is not identified by a serial number is illegal "only if federal law requires that the firearm have a serial number."
While the court ruled in favor of the gun owner, this doesn’t mean the justices are in favor of guns without serial numbers.
In fact, Thissen wrote that the guns "pose real dangers to public safety and the proper regulation of such weapons is an important policy issue. Many states have regulated ghost guns through the legislative process, yet Minnesota has not acted."
“Ghost guns” are generally firearms that are assembled from parts put together by those other than the manufacturer, and since they don’t have serial numbers, are much more difficult for law enforcement to track.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives said that between the years 2016 and 2021, they suspect that over 45,000 suspected ghost guns were recovered from crime scenes nationwide.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A fight to hold accountable a cop who framed a teen for a crime she did not commit and watched her go to prison for two years is being elevated.
The Institute for Justice confirms it is seeking a review by the full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a panel affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights case brought on behalf of Hamdi Mohamud.
She sued St. Paul officer Heather Weyker, "who framed Mohamud in 2011," the IJ explained.
"Because Weyker was working on a state-federal task force and cross-deputized as a federal officer at the time, the court held that Weyker cannot be held accountable for fabricating evidence that put then-teenaged Mohamud behind bars for nearly two years," the IJ charged.
It now will petition the entire 8th Circuit for en banc review so that all active judges may reconsider the panel's decision.
"Today's decision is deeply disappointing," said Patrick Jaicomo, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "Despite clear evidence that Officer Weyker lied to frame Hamdi, the courts continue to grant her immunity. No constitutional right is safe if judges invent or maintain loopholes for officers who flout the law."
The decision being targeted was from a three-judge panel of the court.
"At the heart of Mohamud v. Weyker is a growing accountability gap created when local police officers join work cooperatively with federal officers on task forces. Ordinarily, a federal law known as 'Section 1983' allows victims to sue state and local officers who violate the Constitution. But when those officers work alongside federal colleagues, courts tend to bless them with sweeping immunities that leave their victims with no legal remedy. This long-running is a case in point," the IJ charged.
It reported in 2019, the Eighth Circuit first held that Weyker could not hide behind qualified immunity because "a reasonable officer would know that deliberately misleading another officer into arresting an innocent individual to protect a sham investigation is unlawful," the legal team explained.
Then a year later the court claimed Weyker could not be sued "as a federal officer," but that Mohamud had to show Weyker was acting as a state officer.
The IJ presented extensive documentation describing how Weyker was working as a state officer—on a St. Paul led task force with its mission to benefit Minnesota.
But the decision disregarded the evidence, the IJ said.
"Today's decision allows Officer Weyker to escape scot-free for framing an innocent teenager. But IJ will continue the legal battle by appealing this case to the full Eighth Circuit and, if necessary, Supreme Court," the IJ said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal appeals court has handed a victory to the owners of a family farm – now shut down – that was attacked, prosecuted and convicted by a federal agency that claimed the authority to act as both prosecutor and judge.
According to the Institute for Justice, the victory for Sun Valley Orchards' owners comes from a panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
That unanimous ruling was that the actions of the Department of Labor violated the Constitution and the charges against the farm had to be brought to a neutral court.
The federal agency had imposed some $500,000 in penalties, mostly for paperwork mistakes, in the case. Then the agency went to its own court, prosecuted and convicted the owners.
"The Department of Labor (DOL) first targeted Sun Valley Orchards for penalties in 2016, beginning a years-long legal odyssey through the DOL's administrative courts. Sun Valley's owners, Joe and Russell Marino, teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit challenging DOL's system of in-house courts in 2021," the IJ said.
"The upshot of the Third Circuit's decision is that the days of the Department of Labor imposing liability through its own in-house courts are over," explained IJ lawyer Rob Johnson. "Employers will have the right to defend themselves before a real judge, not an agency employee. That's a win for basic fairness and for small businesses across the country."
The IJ reported the victory followed the Supreme Court's precedent in Jarkesy, v. SEC, a case that similarly challenged an administrative court system at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
That ruling said the SEC was required to press its case in a federal court in front of a jury.
"This is a huge relief for my family, after years spent fighting for a fair chance to clear our name," said Joe. "We've been dragged through the mud, and it seemed impossible to fight back."
Because of the years-long and costly fight against the agency's warfare, the family shut down their farm several years ago.
"Today's decision vindicates a right of enormous importance to everyone in America." said IJ Attorney Bob Belden. "When a federal agency wants to take your money as punishment, it must prove its case against you in a real court, not in agency courts where the government plays investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury."
The IJ said it also is representing a Maryland landscaping company that also is challenging the DOL in-house adjudication agenda.
In a recent reveal, President Donald Trump has narrowed his choices for the next chair of the Federal Reserve, sparking discussion on the future of U.S. economic policy.
Four candidates are currently under consideration by President Trump to replace Jerome Powell as the Federal Reserve Chair, potentially reshaping U.S. economic strategies, Newsmax reported.
The two names making headlines from Trump's list are Kevin Hassett and Kevin Warsh, adding to the intrigue of who will lead the Federal Reserve after Powell's term concludes in May 2026.
Trump's criticism of Powell centers on his handling of interest rates, characterizing him as "too late" in these adjustments. This criticism underscores Trump's intent to influence the Fed's future direction significantly.
Further, Trump discussed the possibility of removing Powell from his position, leveraging a Supreme Court ruling that a Fed Chair can only be removed for cause. Trump has publicly accused Powell of mismanaging a $2.5 billion renovation of Federal Reserve facilities.
Amidst these controversies, the resignation of Fed Governor Adriana Kugler last Friday added complexity, described by Trump as "a pleasant surprise." He hinted that her replacement might also be in contention for Powell's job.
Kevin Hassett, currently a director at the White House National Economic Council, has been lauded by Trump as a "true friend" and was praised for his effective management during his tenure as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, is known for advocating for lower interest rates and critiquing Powell's leadership. Warsh's perspectives on monetary policy, especially post-pandemic inflation misestimations, align with Trump's criticisms.
Trump has underscored the capabilities of both Kevins, stating on CNBC's "Squawk Box," "I think Kevin and Kevin, both Kevins, are very good," indicating his support for their economic ideologies.
Trump emphasized that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is not among the candidates for the Federal Reserve Chair, as Bessent prefers to remain in his current position. "I love Scott, but he wants to stay where he is," said Trump, clearing up earlier speculations.
This ongoing selection process highlights Trump's proactive approach toward economic management, reflecting a desire for major changes in how U.S. monetary policy is conducted.
Warsh echoed this sentiment in his commentary, advocating for a "regime change" in policy conduct to address the errors noted post-pandemic, further hinting at the strategic pivot Trump desires from the Federal Reserve.
The decision on who will succeed Powell carries profound implications for the U.S. economy. With high-profile candidates in consideration, the outcome is poised to influence economic policy and market dynamics significantly.
The financial sector and broader public are closely monitoring this development, anticipating the potential shifts in economic policy under new leadership.
As the decision nears, the discussions around these appointments offer insight into the evolving dynamics at the highest levels of economic decision-making in the United States.
A federal appeals court has ruled that a pair of illegal immigrants can remain in the U.S. for now, after an "error" made by the Biden Justice Department.
The case, Cortez v. United States Attorney General Pam Bondi, concerns a Salvadoran woman and her minor son, who entered the country illegally in 2021. They "admitted that they were removable" to the immigration judge but sought relief from deportation on various grounds. When they were denied, they asked the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to review the judge's decision.
The Tenth Circuit Appeals Court sent the case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), finding the board was wrong to reject petitioners' appeal because their lawyer did not provide a signed proof-of-service.
"The BIA’s rejection of Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was predicated on an error of law and must be set aside," the court stated in its opinion.
Immigration judges are part of the Justice Department. They have broad discretion to "determine removability, excludability, or deportability" and to accept or reject applications for relief from deportation.
When appeals have been exhausted in immigration court, aliens can seek judicial review in the federal court system, which is what happened here.
On June 21, 2022, the immigration judge denied petitioners' requests for relief and ordered them to be deported back to El Salvador.
An immigrant who receives an unfavorable ruling has 30 days to make an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) or the judge's decision becomes final.
Towards the end of the 30-day window, the petitioners filed the appeal using the government's electronic system. It was rejected by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which said a signature was missing for proof of service.
However, the Tenth Circuit found that the BIA erred "as a matter of law" because the appeal was filed electronically. The court concluded that petitioners complied with the "most reasonable interpretation" of the instructions on the form, which note that signature is needed "if applicable" and that electronic filers are not required to serve the opposing party, i.e. the government.
The Trump administration provided official documents that it says support the signature requirement, but the court reasoned that due process concerns should take precedence.
"Even if we accepted this argument, due-process concerns would make us hesitate to penalize Petitioners for complying with the most reasonable interpretation of the form’s instructions. But we need not address that issue because we do not accept the government’s interpretation of its document," the court wrote.
The illegal aliens in Cortez v. United States Attorney General Pam Bondi have now managed to remain in the United States three years past their original deportation order. Thanks to the government's apparent mistake, they now have another opportunity to continue gaming the system.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge has scolded Democrats in Fulton County, Georgia, for creating a new definition of "shall" to include that when lawmakers used that word in a law, they really meant that something should happen, or could happen, but only if the politics line up with a leftist agenda.
The fight was over the appointment of two Republican-nominated individuals to be on the county board of elections.
The law says that Democrats shall nominate two candidates, Republicans two and the county a fifth.
However, Democrats on the board of county commissioners decided they didn't like the opinions of the two Republicans nominated, so they were going to ignore the law and they told the GOP to come up with other names, names of individuals that the Democrats would like.
David Emerson, Fulton County Courts judge, demolished their ideology.
"The court … notes that the appointment statute contains no provision to support the respondents' position that it should have the power to veto any given nominee and force the county chairperson to submit other nominees. There is nothing in the statute to support the BOC theory that the county commissioners can veto the chairperson's nominees other than for failure of the nominee to meet the two qualifications and one restriction (be a county resident, be an elector, and cannot be a holder of elected office).
"The court finds that the 'shall' as used here is mandatory, and the BOC does not have discretion to disapprove an otherwise qualified nominee. The court grants the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus directing the BOC to comply with the statute: The board shall appoint the two members as nominated by the county executive committee chairperson. Those nominees are Jason Frazier and Julie Adams."
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who has testified as an expert on the Constitution before Congress and even represented members in court, said it was a loss for Democrats who now "have lost their effort to block two Republican commissioners from sitting on Fulton County's Board of Elections because of their political views."
He said significant was "not just the raw partisanship but the utter lack of legal authority of Democrats to refuse to recognize the duly selected GOP members."
The candidates to be put on the board now are Jason Frazier and Julie Adams.
One of the radicals opposing the Democratic process through which nominees are selected, Commissioner Marvin Arrington, had claimed, "I think the Republican party ought to take a look at their people and not nominate people that are on the far right and nominate people that are in the center."
Turley noted that, "While self-proclaimed defenders of democracy often seem to have no qualms about curtailing democratic choices from ballot cleansing to jurisdiction flight, this is particularly raw and outrageous. There is no law supporting this action and the state law is clear on the need to seat the GOP commissioners."
He said the board has two members appointed by the Democrat party, two named by the GOP, and a chief named by the Fulton commissioners.
The fight has resulted in the judge's decision that "crushed" the Democrats.
Emerson concluded Fulton County Commission did "not have the discretion to disapprove an otherwise qualified nominee."
The fight was over, Turley noted, the commissioners' demand to be allowed to "bar members based on their political views."
The Democrats, the judge pointed out, were claiming, "the 'shall' is not mandatory, but rather 'directory,' and that the county commissioners can exercise discretion to reject any nominee for any reason." The party members, in fact, were doing something that "harms the election process and deprives the nominating party of representation … ."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A dinner at the vice president's residence scheduled for Wednesday evening is being described as a strategy session to discuss how the Trump administration should handle the ongoing controversy surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files.
According to Fox News, attendees will include Vice President JD Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. The latter recently spent two days interviewing convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell in prison. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles is also expected to be in attendance, according to sources familiar with the confab.
News of the dinner was first reported by CNN. It comes after weeks of unsuccessful attempts by senior Trump officials to quell mounting public pressure, from both Republicans and Democrats, to release more information related to the Epstein investigation.
The controversy grew exponentially after the release of a Justice Department memo July 7 noting that no new information about Epstein would be released. Soon afterward, news broke that Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino was considering resigning over how the issue was handled.
Most recently, the White House and DOJ have been at odds over whether to release an audio file and transcript from Blanche's interview with Maxwell late last month, senior administration officials confirmed to Fox News.
News of the vice president's dinner prompted fresh concerns from family members of Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who committed suicide earlier this year.
"We understand that Vice President JD Vance will hold a strategy session this evening at his residence with administration officials," Giuffre's sibling said in a statement. "Missing from this group is, of course, any survivor of the vicious crimes of convicted perjurer and sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Their voices must be heard, above all," they said.
The meeting comes two days before Vance and his family begin their summer vacation in the U.K.
Much attention has shifted recently towards Mike Morell, the former Acting CIA Director, who has played a pivotal role in shaping U.S. political narratives during crucial elections, JustTheNews reported.
Morell's actions were aimed at discrediting Donald Trump by connecting him to Russian influences in both the 2016 and 2020 electoral contexts.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Morell emerged as a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton, going so far as to author a significant op-ed that not only endorsed Hillary Clinton but also denounced Trump as a potential national security threat due to alleged ties to Russia.
The Clinton campaign, as revelations have shown, saw potential in Morell’s outspoken stance. Top advisors were involved in orchestrating narratives that posited Trump as a puppet to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
This maneuver was intended as a diversion from Clinton’s own controversies surrounding her email usage. Official records later revealed that these strategies were rooted in what was termed the “Clinton Plan intelligence,” aimed at fostering a connection in public perception between Trump and the Kremlin.
More than 50 former national security officials signed onto a letter, initiated by Morell, that propagated the theory of Trump’s alliances with Russian interests, which many saw as an attempt to bolster the Clinton campaign's position by drawing on Morell’s credibility.
By 2017, Morell had publicly stated in an interview with The New York Times that his decision to enter the political fray was made independently. "I made the decision to speak out entirely on my own, with no other consideration given any thought," said Morell, contradicting claims that his actions were coordinated with the Clinton campaign.
Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton’s communications director at the time, recalled the shock within the campaign's Brooklyn headquarters upon reading Morell’s forceful op-ed. “I remember my jaw dropping…,” Palmieri reflected in a 2017 Washington Post piece.
Moreover, Morell’s accusations found further echo in the Senate, with Minority Leader Harry Reid using them in a letter to the FBI regarding concerns of Russian interference in the election process.
Donald Trump responded to Morell’s accusations by dismissing him as a "lightweight" and a "total Clinton flunky" on social media platforms, highlighting the contentious nature of Morell's involvement.
Hillary Clinton, on her part, leveraged Morell’s statements during speeches, including one at Kent State University on Halloween in 2016, where she portrayed Trump as being susceptible to Putin’s influence due to his flattery tactics.
Morell’s narrative continued to play a significant role in the discourse as Clinton emphasized, "Putin knows he can use flattery to get into Donald's head — to make Donald the Kremlin's puppet. And it seems to be working."
Morell's role didn’t just stop with the 2016 elections; it carried forward to 2020 when the Hunter Biden laptop controversy surfaced. He led a call for transparency in a letter mirroring the earlier structure used against Trump, trying to cast doubts about the authenticity and implications of the laptop's contents.
John Durham’s report later discussed intercepted communications allegedly part of the strategized smear against Trump by the Clinton campaign, further complicating the narrative around the interventions by former national security officials like Morell.
This array of interventions by Morell has provided a rich case study in how intelligence figures can influence electoral politics and public opinion, raising questions about the intersection of government authority and political campaigning.
The Justice Department is opening a grand jury investigation into Obama administration officials over the Russia hoax.
Trump said he is "happy to hear" about the bombshell development, which was first reported by Fox News.
"They deserve it," Trump told Squawk Box Tuesday morning. "I was happy to hear it."
For years, Trump and his supporters have demanded justice over what many believe was an attempted coup against Trump by intelligence community insiders working with Democratic party operatives.
It is unclear who could face charges in the probe. But the names could possibly include former intelligence community heads like FBI director James Comey and CIA director John Brennan, who both played roles in amplifying the baseless Trump-Russia narrative that consumed much of Trump's first term.
As reported by Fox, attorney general Pam Bondi "personally ordered an unnamed federal prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings and the prosecutor is expected to present department evidence to a grand jury, which would allow the department to secure a potential indictment."
The grand jury's opening comes after intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department, accusing Obama and his inner circle of a "treasonous conspiracy" to discredit Trump's 2016 election with false intelligence.
Gabbard revealed last month that Obama personally asked for a new assessment of Russian interference after Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Obama's intelligence community concluded that Russia actively favored Trump, a finding that helped stoke unfounded suspicions about Trump colluding with Russia.
Trump was eventually vindicated with the release of the Mueller report in 2019, which found no evidence of collusion. But no one has ever been held accountable over the alleged conspiracy, which cast a shadow over Trump's White House for more than half of his term.
This is not the first criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax, but it is a marked escalation compared to Special Counsel John Durham's probe, which focused on the Clinton campaign and did not lead to charges against any prominent individuals.
The Durham investigation lasted over three years and ended with acquittals for a Clinton campaign lawyer and a Russian source of the infamous Christopher Steele dossier. An FBI lawyer was sentenced to probation for fabricating evidence that was used to spy on Trump campaign official Carter Page.
Durham did not uncover a criminal conspiracy, but he found "confirmation bias" at the FBI that worked against Trump and in favor of Clinton, who also faced FBI scrutiny over her private e-mail server, only to avoid charges.
The Trump administration recently declassified the annex of Durham's report, which contains evidence of an effort by the Clinton campaign to distract from Clinton's e-mail scandal by tying Trump with Russia. The FBI was apparently involved in the plan, which came from Clinton foreign policy adviser Julianne Smith.
“Julie [sic] says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump,” wrote Open Society senior vice president Leonard Benardo on July 25, 2016.
“Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later the FBI will put more oil into the fire.”
Obama's FBI did not scrutinize intelligence reports of the Clinton plan before opening the politically explosive investigation of Trump - and setting into motion one of the greatest scandals in American history.