This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials demanded to confiscate property acquired by Chabad of the Beaches, secretly exchanged anti-Semitic tropes
A fight erupted a few years ago in Atlanta Beach, N.Y., because city officials, as soon as a Jewish organization purchased a long-vacant property to use for a worship center, decided to take title to the property through eminent domain.
The fight, which erupted in 2022, immediately went to the courts and in 2023 a settlement was reached that would allow the Chabad of the Beaches to keep the property and use it for its ministry purposes.
Then city officials refused to follow the agreement.
So back to court, and now a new settlement has been reached that allows the Chabad to keep the property, provides that the town officials will grant all its needed permits and variances, and also pay $950,000 to the Chabad.
In a statement released by town officials, they said, "The settlement clears the way for Chabad to keep and use the property as a center that will provide educational and outreach activities for the entire Jewish community. Among the terms of the settlement, Atlantic Beach will forego use of its eminent domain powers to acquire the property from Chabad, pay Chabad $950,000, and ensure that Chabad receives specified permits and variances…"
Rabbi Eli Goodman said, "This marks the beginning of a happy new chapter in the Chabad-Atlantic Beach relationship. We look forward to being a part of this community, and serving our friends and neighbors for years to come."
The fight had developed between Chabad Lubavitch of the Beaches and Atlantic Beach, its zoning board, Mayor George Pappas, and other officials.
The U.S. District Court in New York did maintain jurisdiction to enforce the consent decree it issued, based on the settlement agreement.
In addition to giving up its fight for the property, the city agreed to pay the Chabad $700,000 within 90 days, and another $250,000 on the first anniversary of entry of the consent decree.
And the town and its officials are "permanently enjoined from taking an action to acquire" the property.
The settlement from two years earlier had forced the Chabad back into court when officials refused to follow its terms.
Further, WND reported that it was revealed in private messages, Pappas responded, "Very true," when a fellow town official said, "Most people don't want the Chabad and just don't want to say it. Any secular Jew doesn't want them."
The private messaging deteriorated further, with comments like that Jews "procreate" too much, "don't tip" and "are "buying the world."
The town had claimed that it wanted to condemn the property, an old bank, and take it for municipal use, as soon as the Jewish group bought it.
The original lawsuit noted that the property had been for sale for years, and the town never made any effort to acquire it until after the Chabad purchased it.
The second legal fight focused on how, "In private communications produced in this case, Village officials freely and frequently engaged in open anti-Chabad and anti-Orthodox sentiment and trafficked in vile antisemitic tropes, including that Jews are 'buying the world,' 'procreate' too much, and 'don't tip.'"
It continued, "These messages reveal that the Village's proffered reason for seizing Chabad's property is and always has been pretextual."
The first case ruled the village was not allowed to take the property, the second was for punitive damages.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Actually convicted of abducting girl, bashing her head, stuffing her in car and hauling her away to rape her
An Islamic Center in Minnesota has written to a judge handling the case of a man convicted of child rape seeking leniency for him over "this situation," when he "abducted the 12-year-old girl from her backyard, bashed her over the head, and transported her in his car, where he raped her before she was able to escape."
It is the Post-Millennial that described the advocacy by the Al-Ihsan Islamic Center of St. Paul, Minn., on behalf of Qulinle Dirie, who is "member" of that community.
The 42-year-old Dirie was sentenced to 12 years in prison after being found guilty by a jury of first-degree sexual conduct, which was the minimum sentence guidelines allowed, the report said.
After his conviction, the Islamic Center contacted the judge, Michael Burns, asking for leniency.
"The situation [Dirie] is currently facing comes as a deep shock to all of us," the letter states. "It does not reflect the man we know – a man whose actions have consistently reflected family and community.
"We respectfully ask that this letter be considered as a sincere reflection of who Qalinle Dirie truly is."
The Islamists in the center said he was "an active volunteer in our mosque." He was there regularly for prayers, Ramadan and community events.
He helped "elders find rides home" and even helped clean up.
Further, it counseled that Dirie was born in Somalia and lived in refugee camps in Kenya.
With that, the center said he has faced "the challenge of starting over in a new culture."
The center said, "His service has never been about recognition — just a quiet commitment to supporting the spaces that hold our community together."
Explained the report, "For the Islamic center, that's a good enough reason to support a child rapist. "
Accompanying the center's letter was a letter where the convict's family explained that Dirie "is a deeply good man whose presence enriches the lives of those around him."
Alpha News reported, "According to criminal charges, the victim had contact information for a 'Mohamed Muuse' in her phone. When asked about that person, the victim said 'Mohamed Muuse' was the man who assaulted her. Using that cellphone contact, a sting operation was set up by the victim's family several weeks after the assault. Dirie arrived at the victim's home and was taken into police custody."
Prosecutors said for the court record that he continues to deny that he committed the assault.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two of Barack Obama's appointees, John Brennan, who was at the CIA, and James Clapper, who was for a time the director of national intelligence, have gone public defending themselves against accusations they engaged in a "treasonous conspiracy" against then-candidate and now-President Donald Trump.
They have faced a barrage of accusations since current DNI Tulsi Gabbard and other officials in the current administration began releasing the previously secret documentation of the scheme that Democrats assembled and implemented against Trump.
It reportedly was triggered by Hillary Clinton's concern that voters knew about her scandalous behavior in putting government secrets on a private computer server in her home. Evidence shows she organized a campaign to try, falsely, to link Trump to Russia.
Documents released only this week confirm that the FBI and CIA aided in the scheme, and there's evidence that the highest officials in the country, from Obama's Oval Office on down, likely were involved.
Now Brennan and Clapper have claimed in statements they submitted to the New York Times that they rejected that they engaged in a "treasonous conspiracy" to undermine Trump.
A report at the Washington Examiner said, "While the pair admitted that some critics say the investigation could have been handled better," they claim years-long reviews have confirmed their perspective on the story.
However, there has been advice to the participants of the scheme to "lawyer up," as multiple individuals from Obama down are under congressional and Department of Justice investigation, and some already have been making arrangements with defense counsel.
The two claimed, in the Times, "That is patently false. In making those allegations, they seek to rewrite history. We want to set the record straight and, in doing so, sound a warning."
However, the reams of documents that already have been released confirm that that anti-Trump campaign was created, was implemented, and actually was intended to undermine the duly elected president of the United States.
"Clapper and Brennan also misleadingly claimed that Justice Department special counsel John Durham, who was appointed during Trump's first term, found no evidence of an 'Obama administration conspiracy against Mr. Trump.' Durham found significant wrongdoing at the start of the Russia investigation," the report charged.
They claim, still, that every "serious" review of the situation found the Russians "conducted an influence campaign intended to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election." Actually, newly revealed documents show that the intel community found such Russian influence to be negligible and have no impact, until Obama ordered the reports rewritten, apparently using Clinton campaign propaganda, to insist that Trump was benefited.
"Clapper and Brennan also sought to defend themselves on three issues: the discredited Steele dossier, whether their intelligence assessment on Russia made a judgment about Russian interference in the election, and alleged 'collusion' between the Trump campaign and Russia," the report said.
Their written statements also ran head-first into other issues, the report said.
They claimed the Steele dossier, assembled by a former British agent, played no significant role in the intelligence assessments at the time. But the fact is documents released by CIA chief John Ratcliff and Gabbard confirm Brennan insisted that the false statements be presented with any intel assessment.
Further, they claimed there was no mention of collusion in the intel report.
However, reports at the time did "conclude that Russia aspired to help Trump win, and Gabbard and Ratcliffe have declassified records that suggest Brennan and Clapper did not have credible evidence to support that conclusion."
They claim that it now is the Trump administration that is doing a "calculated distortion of intelligence."
Ratcliffe has confirmed Brennan and Clapper could face charges.
"We're gonna continue to share the intelligence that would support the ability of our Department of Justice to make fair and just, bring fair and justice claims against those who have perpetrated this hoax against the American people and this stain on our country," he explained.
Gabbard has referred Obama and others to the DOJ for investigation and possible prosecution.
"There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Barack Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew that was false. The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact," she charged.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
At some point, as artificial intelligence expands across the world, there's going to be a point when AI turns into genuine stupidity. This might be that point:
A judge is suspected of refusing to do the job for which he is paid, and utilizing artificial intelligence instead of legal analysis, to write a court opinion.
According to a report and Law and Crime, the lawyers in the case were "bewildered" by the statements from Henry Wingate.
He's a federal judge in Mississippi.
His order, from just a week ago, granted a request for a temporary restraining order from education groups, such as the Mississippi Association of Educators, that stops the state government from using several pats of a new law to remove "diversity, equity and inclusion" ideologies.
But the ruling contained "apparent indisputable factual inaccuracies."
The report suggested the judge may have been using artificial intelligence to write the comments.
A report at Not the Bee explained that the order later was corrected because it had "multiple errors, which the defendants noted in an unopposed motion to clarify."
For example, the judge got the names of the plaintiffs wrong. And he got the names of the defendants wrong. And he recited "allegations" that do not appear in the complaint at issue. And they are not supported by evidence. And he inserted language in the disputed law that does not appear in the original. And he included testimony from four people whose statements were not in the record.
The defendants "respectfully request the court take appropriate steps to clarify or correct the following apparent and indisputable factual inaccuracies."
Not the Bee commented, "This isn't the first time this has happened, and it definitely won't be the last: To put this in plain English, a black federal judge (likely) had AI help write an order that temporarily stopped laws passed by the state legislature and governor that would get rid of DEI programs."
The report continued, "I know legalese is boring and nerdy, but think about the implications here. The residents of a state elected politicians to represent them in the legislature. Those politicians enacted the will of the people by writing a bill that defunds and removes race-based 'equity' programs meant to discriminate against residents with European heritage as payback for past injustices against non-Europeans. That bill was then signed and passed into law by the governor.
"Then, at the finish line, a federal judge (a Reagan appointee, no less!) temporarily stops the bill from being implemented. This could very well be in his constitutional authority, but he (or more likely his clerks) decided they can't be bothered to do their jobs and explain themselves. Instead, they (allegedly) had a computer language model make-up fake rulings out of thin air. Are you starting to see how damaging this could be?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A report at Colorado Politics has documented the state's long history of work toward the agenda that was only over the last few years actually put into an organized plan when Joe Biden pushed his "abortion-for-all-at-any-time" ideologies.
Of course that would be at taxpayer expense.
The state, now turned entirely leftist with Democrats running the governor's office, the state House and Senate, and an all-Democrat state Supreme Court that wildly tried to ban President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot, only to be put in their place by the U.S. Supreme Court, recently adopted a law claiming that abortion now is a right in the state Constitution.
"It's well known that Colorado was the first state in the nation to enact a law that allowed a woman to obtain an abortion," the report explains. That was in 1967, about the time state Rep. Dick Lamm, a Denver Democrat and later governor, opined publicly that seniors have a "duty to die."
He sponsored the bill, which ironically triggered the creation by opponents of Colorado Right to Life, and shortly later, the National Right to Life.
Voters there, not always in alignment with the pro-abortion political campaigns, then voted to ban public funding of abortions. Multiple attempts to stop the abortion ideologues fell by the wayside, but lawmakers did, in 2003, adopt a parental notification.
But alongside was a "bubble" law suppressing First Amendment rights in zones around abortion industry members.
Now a lawsuit pending in the state is demanding a vast new standard that pro-life interests warn could go national: A ruling that parents have no role in a minor child's abortion.
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that said, "If this lawsuit succeeds, it won't just impact Colorado families. It will open the door for minors to cross state lines for secret abortions – without their parents ever knowing. It will rob parents of the chance to protect their daughters in one of the most vulnerable and life-altering moments of their lives. That's not just dangerous – it's a heartbreaking betrayal of parental rights.
"The complaint proudly describes Colorado as a 'haven for abortion seekers' – even a state intentionally open to out-of-state minors seeking abortions without parental involvement. While the complaint presents this as a virtue, it opens the door to serious risks," the ACLJ reported. "When a girl crosses state lines for a secret abortion, and no one notifies her parents, who's looking out for her safety? What if she's being abused, trafficked, or pressured?
"The ACLJ has raised these concerns in court before. We've shown that abortion – especially when done in secret – is often used to cover up abuse: Traffickers and predators use abortion to erase evidence and keep victims under control. Abortion clinics have been caught failing to report clear signs of abuse. And minors impregnated by abusers may be forced into silence and secrecy.
"By advertising itself as a no-questions-asked abortion hub, Colorado creates a blind spot that predators can exploit. What's marketed as 'safe access' quickly becomes a shield for exploitation. The infuriating irony is that the very arguments framed as 'pro-woman' are enabling some of the worst abuses of women and girls."
The lawsuit is by abortionist Rebecca Cohen, who is demanding the state strike down its own parental notification law.
"She overlooks a critical fact: In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. That decision returned abortion policymaking to the states. Meanwhile, the federal constitutional right of parents to direct their children's upbringing – including decisions about medical care – remains fully intact. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this right in landmark cases, such as Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Wisconsin v. Yoder," the ACLJ said.
President Trump is in the early stages of recruiting a Supreme Court nominee, just in case a slot opens up during his second term, according to TIME magazine.
Trump appointed three of the current justices during his first term, shifting the balance of the court rightwards.
The conservative majority has handed Trump some major victories in recent weeks, exasperating his critics, including the members of the outnumbered liberal wing on the court.
A White House official told TIME that the administration wants candidates “in the mold of” Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and the late Antonin Scalia.
Thomas and Alito are the staunchest conservatives on the court, and also the oldest members serving: Thomas is 77, and Alito is 75.
By contrast, Trump’s own appointees, particularly Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, have proven to be surprisingly moderate, earning them praise from the left-wing media.
According to Time, conservative lawyers who are advising Trump are “burned by a handful of recent decisions in which Barrett joined liberal members of the court and want to ensure the next nominee is someone who won’t veer from the conservative bloc.”
Supreme Court retirements have become political footballs in a deeply polarized America, as reflected in the bare-knuckled fight over Kavanaugh’s nomination during Trump’s first term and the rapid confirmation of Barrett, who was approved by Senate Republicans just days before the 2020 election.
The oldest liberal on the bench, Sonia Sotomayor, faced retirement pressure last year as leftists feared the possibility of Trump naming her replacement. Democrats have been haunted by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death in 2020, which enabled Trump to choose Barrett as a successor for the liberal icon.
Replacing Thomas or Alito with conservatives cut from the same cloth would not shift the ideological balance of the court, but it would help solidify Trump’s influence for years to come.
The shortlist for Trump's next pick includes several Trump appointees on the federal courts, including Andrew Oldham and James Ho, who sit on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Neomi Rao, of the D.C. Circuit, and Amal Thapar, of the Sixth Circuit. Oldham clerked for Alito in the past, and Rao was a clerk for Thomas.
If a vacancy opens before the 2026 midterm elections, Trump could expect the Senate's narrow Republican majority to confirm his choice.
Republicans in the Senate have long prioritized court appointments, even during Trump's first term, when they were often less than cooperative about advancing his agenda. The Senate GOP is more pliable when it comes to meeting Trump’s demands, these days.
The GOP showed deference to Trump again this week by confirming his former defense lawyer, Emil Bove, to be an appellate judge, over the objections of Democrats who said he was not fit for the role.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has asked the federal Office of Special Counsel for an investigation of special counsel Jack Smith, the leftist who was assigned to orchestrate a large part of the Democrats' lawfare against President Donald Trump.
His cases went away when Trump was elected to his second term, but they involved a wild range of accusations including the J6 protests at the Capitol, election actions and more.
Cotton wrote, "I write requesting the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether Jack Smith, Special Counsel for Attorney General Merrick Garland, unlawfully took political actions to influence the 2024 election to harm then-candidate President Donald Trump. As the Office of the Special Counsel is tasked with ensuring federal employees aren't conducting partisan political activity under the guise of their federal employment, you're well situated to determine whether Smith broke the law."
His letter is to Acting Special Counsel Jamieson Greer in the United States Office of Special Counsel, where he added, "Many of Smith's legal actions seem to have no rationale except for an attempt to affect the 2024 election results—actions that would violate federal law."
A report at TownHall explained that Smith "did his best to throw President Donald Trump in federal prison during the 2024 presidential election."
He's also the man "behind the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago."
The report warned he "may soon get a taste of his own medicine."
Smith, of course, is just one of many officials from the Barack Obama and Joe Biden administrations who now is coming under investigation, by the DOJ, Congress and more, for things like the Russiagate conspiracy that apparently was sparked by Hillary Clinton and carried out on the orders of Barack Obama.
Smith left the Department of Justice in January, just days before Trump took office again.
"Special Counsel Smith pushed for an out-of-the-ordinary, rushed trial for President Trump, with jury selection to begin just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses. No other case of this magnitude and complexity would come to trial this quickly," Cotton pointed out. "Special Counsel Smith tried to bypass the normal process and go right to the Supreme Court, but gave no reason why his abnormal request should be granted. The real reason was to get a quick ruling to damage Trump before the election—a partisan, unlawful action."
Cotton pointed out Smith was not at fault alone, as one of his procedural moves came just before the election, a brief of 165 pages, four times longer than the normal limit.
"This was breathlessly covered by the press in a way to damage Trump," he said. "Why? To help Kamala and hurt Trump. There is no other reason. These actions were not standard, necessary, or justified. They were the actions of a political actor masquerading as a public official. That's why I've asked this unprecedented interference in the 2024 election be immediately investigated by OSC."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge who personally took two innocent children from a hallway outside his courtroom and escorted them to a nearby jail, where they "were forced to remove some of their clothing and sit in separate jail cells" now wants to escape liability for the apparent violation of their constitutional rights.
Judge Eric Eighmy, of Taney County court in Missouri, already has lost once at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when he demanded to be held faultless for his personal attack on Kadan and Brooklyn Rockett. The judges there first ruled he was not qualified for judicial immunity "because judges have no authority to moonlight as jailers."
Back in the courtroom where the children were seeking damages from him personally, he now insists that he has "qualified immunity," a doctrine that protects government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations as long as the right was not "clearly established."
It is the Institute for Justice that has filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the appeals panel now on behalf of the children.
"The last time this case came up on appeal, Judge Eighmy asked the court to expand judicial immunity to completely shield him from accountability for violating the constitutional rights of two children, Kadan and Brooklyn Rockett. The court declined that invitation," the brief explains. "Now, Judge Eighmy asks the court to expand a different immunity doctrine—qualified immunity—to invalidate a jury verdict in the Rocketts' favor.
"Again, the court should decline. Cases like this one highlight the practical and jurisprudential perils of qualified immunity. Time and time again, defendants invoke the doctrine to escape accountability for egregious constitutional violations, so long as no identical case exists in a binding jurisdiction. Some courts allow this gambit to work. Others rightly see through it, finding instead that obvious constitutional abuses can be remedied without carbon-copy precedent presaging the exact violation at issue.
"This second approach—the one this court should follow—is more consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance that qualified immunity is inappropriate in the face of 'particularly egregious facts[,].'"
The institute explains qualified immunity does not protect an officer "where the constitutional violation was so obvious under general well-established constitutional principles that any reasonable officer would have known the conduct was unconstitutional."
Those are the circumstances in this case, the IJ reported.
The case already has had a jury verdict, in favor of the children, but Eighmy insists on overturning that ruling.
"Every reasonable American knows that it's unconstitutional for a sitting judge to take off his robe, descend from the bench, and throw innocent children in prison," said IJ Attorney Dylan Moore.
"Qualified immunity shouldn't exist to begin with, but it certainly shouldn't protect such obvious violations of the Fourth Amendment."
The case dates to 2019 when the family was in court for a custody hearing.
The parents decided, in court, "that the kids would go home with their mother that day."
Outside the courtroom, the children argued, expressing a desire to go home with their father.
"Eighmy injected himself into the children's disagreement with their mother. When the kids stood their ground, Judge Eighmy escorted them to a nearby detention center. There, at Judge Eighmy's direction, the Rocketts were forced to remove some of their clothing and sit in separate jail cells for about an hour. Judge Eighmy eventually returned, and the children agreed to leave with their mom—but only after the judge threatened to throw them in foster care, where they would never see their family again," the institute explained.
The father then sued Eighmy for violating the Fourth Amendment.
First Eighmy tried the judicial immunity claim, and lost.
The next step was a jury trial, where a jury ruled the kids were entitled to $5,000 each in damages, from the judge personally.
So Eighmy now is claiming qualified immunity protections.
"Immunity doctrines should not shield government officials from accountability when they clearly violate people's constitutional rights, as Judge Eighmy did here," said IJ lawyer Anya Bidwell. "For years, Judge Eighmy has been trying to hide behind different immunity doctrines, despite the fact that this court has already ruled he isn't protected by judicial immunity."
The filing notes the Supreme Court repeatedly has admonished against the expansion of protections for officials "whose actions were plainly incompetent, knowingly illegal, or obviously unconstitutional."
The judge's claims apparently rest on the fact that no judge before ever had intervened in a family argument, taken two children into custody and jailed them, meaning there was no "precedent" that such actions were obviously wrong.
"The children were never suspected of committing a crime. Judge Eighmy never initiated contempt proceedings against them. And the children were not free to leave their jail cells until they agreed to Judge Eighmy's terms. Instead, Judge Eighmy leveraged his position of state authority to circumvent the very legal process he was charged with administering, detaining two innocent minors because he was unhappy with their reaction to being stuck in the middle of an acrimonious custody dispute," the filing points out.
President Donald Trump's Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg for allegedly trying to "improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts," Fox News reported. Attorney General Pam Bondi filed the complaint Monday, which was signed by Chad Mizelle, her chief of staff.
Boasberg has long been a thorn in Trump's side as he and other judges have thwarted the president's agenda with nationwide injunctions. However, it was Boasberg's conduct during the meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States in March that initiated the legal action from the Justice Department.
The complaint said that Boasberg reached out to Roberts and others, claiming that Trump and his administration "disregard rulings of federal courts," which risks triggering "a constitutional crisis." They believe this was an attempt to "improperly prejudice or influence" Roberts and that it "undermined the integrity and impartiality of the federal judiciary."
The remedy suggested in the complaint was to take Boasberg off the J.G.G. v. Trump case, which involves the deportation of hundreds of illegal immigrants to El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison. Trump used the 1798 wartime immigration law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify it, and the ACLU and others sued the administration over it.
Just days after Boasberg allegedly made those remarks to Roberts, the judge imposed a temporary restraining order on Trump's use of the law to send Venezuelan nationals deported from the U.S. to El Salvador. Planes set to take off for the prison were ordered to "immediately" return to the U.S.
Despite the order, it reportedly did not happen exactly as Boasberg commanded, and an investigation was launched to determine whether the Trump administration flouted those orders. In April, Boasberg also allowed a contempt charge to proceed based on the fact that the order wasn't followed directly, though a higher appeals court eventually stayed that action.
The judge's actions opened the door to a slew of other challenges to deportations, and the Supreme Court ruled against Trump on two of them, finding that such expedited removals violated the constitutional rights of the illegal immigrants. This continued a pattern of lower courts blocking Trump's policies nationwide in these matters.
The Trump administration excoriated Boasberg and others whom White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called "radical left-wing judge," though Boasberg was appointed by then-President George W. Bush as associate judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court in 2002. Still, Trump maintains that "troublemaker and agitator" Boasberg should be impeached for his actions.
Roberts publicly chided the president for making this call, which is an unusual move for the justice. It also comes as Boasberg continues to push back on the CECOT deportations, with the judge expecting the ACLU and Justice Department to meet for a status hearing every two weeks, beginning on Thursday, Aug. 7.
Although Boasberg is the target of this latest complaint, Trump has had to push back against him and several judges who have attempted to stop his agenda by nationwide injunctions for his policies in lower courts. The president received a win on this matter on June 27 after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in his favor to narrow the power of the lower courts, Fox News reported.
"Americans are finally getting what they voted for. No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation. No longer. Today in the 6-3 opinion, Justice [Amy Coney] Barrett correctly holds that the district court lacks authority to enter nationwide or universal injunctions," Trump said at the time.
"These lawless injunctions gave relief to everyone in the world instead of the parties before the court. As the Supreme Court held today, they turned district courts into the imperial judiciary. Active liberal justices, judges have used these injunctions to block virtually all of President Trump's policies," the president continued.
"I was elected on a historic mandate, but in recent months, we've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers," Trump said. Somehow, Boasberg was one of the judges who kept getting assigned to these cases, a fact which has piqued the interest of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Bondi's decision to file a complaint against Boasberg is a step in the right direction, as his actions may point to a vendetta against Trump's agenda. The U.S. system of checks and balances between the executive and judicial branches is what it was designed to do, and Trump has every right to push back when he believes it's not.
The Supreme Court in the state of Alaska has boiled its decision on the campaign of a convicted felon down to just one word, according to the Alaska Beacon.
Last year, the state supreme court issued a headline-grabbing 4-1 decision, saying that Alaska’s U.S. House ballots would allow the felon to attempt to obtain the seat.
Eric Hafner, also known as Inmate 00932-005, campaigned from the Otisville Federal Correctional Institution in New York, which is about 4,000 miles from Alaska.
The 33-year-old candidate is serving 20 years for threatening a public official in New Jersey, where he is from. But in a shocking turn of events, he launched a campaign to be the very thing he threatened: a public official.
According to the state’s high court, their decision came down to the word “fifth.”
A 22-page opinion that explained the court’s decision cited Alaska residents’ approval of 2020’s Ballot Measure 2, in which primary elections were opened to ranked choice voting.
The top four vote-getters would be allowed to be in the primary, regardless of party, and if one of those candidates were to withdraw between the primary and general election, they would be replaced.
The measure said that the Alaska Division of Elections was tasked with replacing the candidate who dropped out “with the candidate who received the fifth most votes in the primary election.”
In the 2024 election, it turned out that two Republican candidates withdrew their candidacy after the primary, and attempted to throw their support behind fellow Republican Republican Nick Begich III, who went on to win the election.
Because of that switch-up, the candidate who got sixth place, which just so happened to be Hafner, or Inmate 00932-005 if you prefer, was put on the ballot in 2024.
Hafner had never lived in Alaska at the time he was a candidate, and if he were elected, he would have been ineligible to take on the office because of his lack of residency.
The case took an interesting turn because, despite the fact that Hafner is a Democrat and running as such, Democrats sued to remove him from the ballot.
The party feared splitting the vote between Hafner and then-incumbent Rep. Mary Peltola, and argued that the measure allowed the Division of Elections to promote the fifth finisher to the ballot, but did not offer any further allowance for the would-be candidate.
Last year, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that an imprisoned felon in New York could remain on Alaska’s U.S. House ballot despite a lawsuit challenging his eligibility. Last week, the court issued an opinion explaining its decision. via @AlaskaBeacon https://t.co/BPnQKuzLd8
— Anchorage Daily News (@adndotcom) July 28, 2025