President Donald Trump said the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity in his favor last year could now benefit former President Barack Obama, Fox News reported. Trump told reporters Friday that Obama "owes me big" as it comes to light that the former president was the "ringleader" of Russiagate.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently declassified a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report that was compiled in 2020. It discussed the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017 about supposed Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The conclusion was that the since-debunked Steele dossier was unreliable and that the entire scandal was an "internet rumor." Nevertheless, Obama encouraged the intelligence community to proceed with their investigation based on that false information just weeks before Trump was sworn into office.
These new revelations could potentially lead to criminal charges against Obama. However, his position as president at the time means that he will likely escape any ramifications, and it's all thanks to Trump's fight at the high court.
According to The Hill, the Supreme Court ruled in July 2024 that the office of the president confers broad immunities from criminal prosecution. When asked by the press about presidential immunity, Trump didn't hesitate in acknowledging that it would be greatly beneficial for Obama. "It probably helps him a lot," Trump told reporters.
"Probably helps a lot. The immunity ruling, but it doesn't help the people around him at all. But it probably helps him a lot," Trump added.
"He's done criminal acts, there’s no question about it. But he has immunity, and it probably helps him a lot... he owes me big, Obama owes me big." Trump said.
Reporter Eric Daughtry shared a video with a biting caption against Obama. "JUST IN: President Trump on if Barack Hussein Obama can be criminally prosecuted for the Trump-Russia Treasonous Conspiracy hoax," Daughtry wrote on his post to X, formerly Twitter, on Friday.
🚨 JUST IN: President Trump on if Barack Hussein Obama can be criminally prosecuted for the Trump-Russia Treasonous Conspiracy hoax
"He has immunity, it probably helps him a lot. He OWES ME BIG. Obama owes me big."
"But it DOESN'T help the people around him AT ALL." pic.twitter.com/WE8nRQkoT3
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 25, 2025
In a statement released by the former president on Tuesday, Obama said that calling him the "ringleader" of Russiagate was among Trump's "bizarre allegations," which he firmly denies. "Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response," Obama said in a statement through spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush.
"But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction," Rodenbush added.
"Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," the spokesperson claimed. Meanwhile, Gabbard stated that "deep state obstacles" had been put in place, hindering the release of the information.
"There are a lot of deep state actors still here within Washington. President Trump wants us to find the truth," Gabbard said Wednesday on Fox News' Jesse Watters Primetime. "I want to find that truth. The American people deserve the truth, and they deserve accountability," she added.
The Russigate investigation should never have been allowed to go on with such questionable evidence. Obama may not face criminal prosecution in this case, but as Trump said, there are plenty around him who were in on this and don't have the same benefit who may now face justice.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed multiple lawsuits aiming to stop President Donald Trump's move to tear down USAID.
The Trump administration is tearing down USAID, or the U.S. Agency for International Development, as a result of decades of corruption and financial waste of taxpayer dollars.
Furthermore, the Trump administration is moving all of USAID's more valuable functions under the control of the State Department, putting an end to the unaccountable pseudo-independence that USAID has enjoyed since its inception.
Judge Carl Nichols of the US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed one lawsuit brought by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Foreign Service Association, Personal Services Contractor Association, and Oxfam America.
Those organizations all represented workers affected by the layoffs resulting from USAID's destruction. They argued that the move by the Trump administration was unconstitutional, but this argument was quickly shot down.
USAID has been a source of corruption for decades, wasting American taxpayer dollars on leftist pet projects and funneling money to organizations that are closely connected to powerful politicians.
The organization that is supposed to provide humanitarian aid and help develop third-world countries has likely served as a vehicle to funnel taxpayer dollars to the rich and powerful, which explains the outrage from many rich and powerful Democrats when Trump decided to kill USAID.
However, the fight is far from over, as Judge Nichols's decision doesn't necessarily rule on the merits of the lawsuit but rather invalidates the filing status of the organizations that brought the lawsuit.
Judge Nichols found that three organizations lacked standing to challenge the many discrete actions involved in dismantling USAID.
The Trump administration's actions are complex, and this operation isn't as simple as simply declaring that USAID is no longer, especially considering the State Department is working to absorb parts of USAID.
While another organization could bring a lawsuit on the same merits, this dismissal will likely kill any chance of further litigation stopping USAID's dismantling.
Tearing down USAID is a massive win for the Trump administration, as it destroys a key piece of Washington, D.C.'s corruption as well as a vehicle for the export of the leftist agenda.
USAID has spent billions on insane and corrupt ideas. In one instance, USAID under the Biden administration spent $15 million providing condoms for the Taliban. They also provided $14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at the southern border.
There are countless examples of USAID spending taxpayer dollars promoting LGBTQ initiatives in foreign countries to the tune of millions.
It was long past time for this corrupt organization to be shut down and investigated ,as there is a strong chance that significant sums of cash were distributed to NGO's which then directed funds to the politicians who allowed all of this to happen in the first place.
While the Trump administration -- specifically Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard -- has released bombshell evidence implicating former President Barack Obama in the "Russia hoax," there may not be anything they can do about it.
According to the Daily Mail, President Trump recently admitted that his own massive Supreme Court victory that provided him immunity after his presidency could also apply to Obama.
That would mean Obama could argue that he's not able to be charged for any alleged "treasonous" activities related to the Russia hoax that nearly crippled Trump's first presidency.
That didn't stop Trump from previously accusing Obama of treason. Obama has already responded and strongly denied the allegations.
Trump was asked by reporters if the landmark Supreme Court ruling that protected him would also apply to Obama, and President Trump didn't deny the strong possiblity that it would.
President Trump went as far as saying that he did his predecessor a favor by securing the Supreme Court victory that offers an enhanced level of immunity for former presidents.
"He has done criminal acts, no question about it. But he has immunity and it probably helps him a lot. He owes me big. Obama owes me big," Trump said.
The Daily Mail noted:
The ex-president's team argued in late 2023 that Trump, and any president, must have absolute immunity from prosecution over actions taken while in office or it could impair important decision-making.
Meanwhile, DNI Gabbard made a number of explosive claims regarding Obama's involvement in the Russia hoax, even making several referrals to AG Bondi's office for further review.
Obama has vehemently denied the allegations and responded to the accusations publicly last week.
A spokesperson for the former president responded and said that Gabbard's report doesn't "undercut" what was claimed regarding Russia's alleged involvement in the 2016 presidential campaign.
"Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," the spokesperson said.
Trump, when asked about the referrals to Bondi's office made by Gabbard, held nothing back.
“It’s Obama. His orders are on the paper. The papers are signed. The papers came right out of their office,” he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Alina Habba, President Donald Trump's pick to be the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, is staying in that position despite a scheme launched by a Democrat in Congress to remove her, and a failed attempt by Democrat judges in the district to do just that.
Habba, named by Trump to be the interim U.S. attorney while her nomination to take the post permanently was pending, had a limited time to remain in that status.
Democrats have been obstructing Trump's nominees in Congress, so the time period was elapsing, and she could remain if approved by the judges in the district.
But they succumbed to a lobbying campaign from Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, and decided not to authorize Habba's continuation. So she resigned that post, Trump withdrew her permanent nomination, and she was then named acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey.
She explained on social media: "Donald J. Trump is the 47th President. Pam Bondi is the Attorney General. And I am now the Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey. I don't cower to pressure. I don't answer to politics…"
WND has reported when Jeffries found himself facing accusations he's been interfering with a federal criminal case over his political agenda against Habba.
It is Jeffries who is the target of requests by multiple legal activists to the Ethics Committee for an investigation.
The development came about because he actively lobbied federal judges in the district to remove Habba from her post.
Jeffries was enraged at Habba because she charged Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., with obstructing Homeland Security agents during an altercation at an immigration facility in Newark on May 9.
McIver is heading for trial in November.
A report from Fox News explains Jeffries has made claims that Habba isn't qualified because she indicted McIver "for doing her job."
It was the Article III Project that wrote to the House Ethics committee with the explanation that Jeffries "improperly insert[ed] himself into a criminal proceeding."
"This is clear corruption by House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries," the charge said.
Fifteen of the 17 judges in the district owe their jobs to Democrats, and they voted, unsuccessfully, not to have Habba stay in her post.
The complaint against Jeffries said, "A House member – particularly the House Democratic leader – who disagrees with the merits of a pending criminal case abuses his official position when he attempts to strong-arm federal judges to corruptly prejudice the ongoing criminal proceeding by firing the U.S. attorney for the purely political reason of protecting a partisan House colleague."
McIver and two other members of Congress claimed to be doing "oversight" when they physically clashed with federal law enforcement officers.
WND reported McIver physically handled a federal agent at the time.
The judges also now are accused of violating the code of conduct for federal judges.
Ghislaine Maxwell continues to generate headlines, especially after she spent several days being interrogated by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
According to the New York Post, Blanche reportedly gave Maxwell, a convicted sex criminal currently serving a 20-year sentence, "limited immunity" to give the Justice Department information regarding “100 different people” linked to late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
At least that's what Maxwell's attorney claimed after his client spent days at the Justice Department providing information in what some believe could be some kind of secret deal.
Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, told reporters that his client was "asked about every possible thing you could imagine – everything."
What's going on?
The attorney explained that it was essentially the "first time" that his client has had the ability to tell her side of the story.
"This was the first opportunity she’s ever been given to answer questions about what happened,” Markus explained. “The truth will come out about what happened with Mr. Epstein and she’s the person who’s answering those questions.”
The Post noted:
Blanche had “every single question” answered during the sitdown, Maxwell’s attorney also said, with the British-born convict declining to plead the Fifth Amendment.
He explained that she has no incentive to lie at this point, because all it would do is open the door for the DOJ to charge her with lying, which is the last things she needs on top of her current 20-year sentence.
The outlet added:
Maxwell, 63, is appealing her conviction and sentencing, and legal observers have speculated her willingness to answer questions is tied to a potential clemency grant by President Trump.
Markus pushed for the possibility of a Trump-granted clemency, praising his dealmaking ability and hoping "he exercises that power in a right and just way."
Trump's take
President Donald Trump weighed in on the conversation Blanche and Maxwell had, claiming he wasn't in the loop.
"I don’t know anything about the conversation” between Blanche and Maxwell because “I haven’t really been following it," he explained.
The Post noted:
“This is no time to be talking about pardons,” the president added after saying hours earlier while leaving the White House that “I haven’t thought” about the idea.
Only time will tell what comes of the conversation that Maxwell had with the top DOJ brass.
The Trump administration has found a way to keep MAGA star Alina Habba as the top prosecutor in New Jersey after she was nearly forced out of the role by "rogue" judges in the blue state.
The dramatic reversal came just a day before Habba's term as interim U.S. attorney was set to expire. The state's judges tried to replace her with their own pick, career prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace.
“Donald J. Trump is the 47th President. Pam Bondi is the Attorney General. And I am now the Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey,” Habba wrote on X Thursday.
“I don’t cower to pressure. I don’t answer to politics,” Habba said. "This is a fight for justice. And I’m all in."
President Trump had initially picked Habba as interim U.S. attorney in March, giving her 120 days to serve without Senate confirmation. Her appointment was left in limbo as Democrats in Congress refused to support her.
When New Jersey's federal judges declined to extend Habba's tenure and instead chose Grace, Habba's assistant, the Trump administration responded with defiance.
The Justice Department quickly fired Grace -- as Attorney General Pam Bondi accused "rogue" courts of stepping on Trump's authority over the DOJ.
"This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges -- especially when they threaten the President’s core Article II powers," Bondi wrote.
Despite being fired, Grace had vowed to take on the role, but the administration found a way to block her.
The White House withdrew Habba's nomination and had her appointed as acting U.S. attorney, effectively rewinding the clock on her appointment.
According to DOJ officials, Habba technically replaced Grace as first assistant U.S. attorney, which automatically makes Habba the top prosecutor, since the U.S. attorney position is vacant. Habba now has at least 210 days to serve in the role.
Democrats made their preference in prosecutor clear, defending Grace, a Republican, as a "career public servant" who would faithfully uphold the law.
Habba became known as an attorney for Trump during the Democrats' "lawfare" campaign that sought to derail his 2024 presidential bid. She has no prior prosecutorial experience.
A staunch supporter of the president and his agenda, Habba has used her tenure in New Jersey to pursue Democrat politicians who obstructed immigration enforcement at a Newark detention facility.
"President Trump continues to have full confidence in Alina Habba and her commitment to serve the people of New Jersey," the White House said in a statement.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump won a huge precedent at the Supreme Court only months ago, establishing immunity for the occupant of the president's office on a number of issues.
Now, he candidly has admitted, his victory probably is helping Barack Obama.
Obama, along with his henchmen James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, possibly even Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, are under several investigations for misleading the American public, suppressing an intel community conclusion that Russia was no big deal during the 2016 election, and instead rewriting reports to make it look bad for Trump.
That was the election the conspirators fabricated a Trump campaign-Russia collusion conspiracy theory for which there was no evidence.
Now that government records are being declassified that confirm it was made up, there's rampant speculation about charges, including perjury, lying to Congress and more.
A reporter asked Trump about that immunity ruling.
He said, "It probably helps him a lot, probably helps him a lot, the immunity ruling. But it doesn't help the people around him at all. But it probably helps him a lot. He's done criminal acts, there's no question about it, but he has immunity, and it probably helped him a lot. He owes me big. Obama owes me big!"
The Supreme Court ruled that a president as total immunity for exercising "core" constitutional powers, and presumptive immunity for actions they took as president. The ruling gave no immunity for private actions.
That immunity is required, the opinion said, to protect an "energetic," and "independent executive," willing to take "bold" actions and make unpopular decisions when needed.
All of the cases brought against Trump between his first and second terms eventually died.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has released evidence that Obama fabricated and led the Russia Collusion hoax to harm Trump as candidate and then president-elect.
Among the documents Gabbard declassified was a December 2016 presidential briefing confirming Obama knew the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a hoax.
Trump, at that time, ripped Obama, Clinton, Biden, Clapper, Comey and others, and called Obama the "ringleader."
"Barack Hussein Obama is the ringleader. Hillary Clinton was right there with him, and so was Sleepy Joe Biden, and so were the rest of them: Comey, Clapper, the whole group," Trump charged.
Gabbard has confirmed those actions, by those people, are under DOJ review now.
Trump charged Obama with leading a "coup."
The Supreme Court has cleared President Trump to fire three Biden appointees on the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The court granted the Trump administration's request on an emergency basis, allowing Trump to move ahead with removing the three Democrats on the agency, who have pushed their own agenda against Trump's wishes.
The Supreme Court's liberals, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.
The Trump administration has decried what it calls a judicial assault on the president's powers, which includes the authority to hire and fire executive branch employees as the president sees fit.
The Supreme Court has been generally sympathetic to the White House's view on executive branch control of independent agencies, previously ruling in Trump v. Wilcox that Trump could fire members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board "without cause."
In its brief, unsigned opinion on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Supreme Court quoted its opinion in Trump v. Wilcox. In that case, the justices held that the wrongful removal of a federal officer is less concerning than "allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power."
The Supreme Court agreed with the Trump administration's argument that Trump v. Wilcox "squarely controls" the dispute with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which, the court said, "exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board."
A Biden-appointed district judge in June had ordered Trump to reinstate three Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission after Trump fired them. The commission has five members who serve staggered terms.
The district court's order put the agency under the control of a Democratic majority, which then "immediately moved to undo actions that the Commission had taken since their removal," the Trump administration noted in its early July appeal.
"That plain-as-day affront to the President’s fundamental Article II powers warrants intervention now just as much as in Wilcox," Solicitor General John D. Sauer wrote.
The Trump administration's battles with the federal bureaucracy could be building toward a major Supreme Court ruling on the scope of executive power.
A 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey's Executor, backstops the independence of federal agencies with "quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial" functions.
But the White House argues, and the Supreme Court seems to tentatively agree, that Humphrey's has allowed agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission to arrogate executive power in a way that threatens the Constitution.
In a dissent from the court's ruling, the liberal wing fretted that the justices have "all but overturned" Humphrey’s Executor.
"By allowing the president to remove commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence,” they wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A court ruling has declared class action status for all the victims of a government cash confiscation scheme that has been operating in Indianapolis.
It is the Institute for Justice that confirmed a ruling from Marion County Superior Court established the new ground rules for the dispute.
Magistrate Judge Anne Flannelly confirmed that there were several issues at stake, including that the state was confiscating cash at a FedEx transit location where parcels "have no link to Indiana beyond the parcel's temporary en route presence."
Further, she said, the state's lawsuits to confiscate cash use "boilerplate forfeiture complaints that give property owners no notice of the factual and legal basis on which the state claims forfeiture."
The IJ confirmed that last year, Henry and Minh Cheng sued the Marion County prosecutor over that office's practice of forfeiting cash routed through the busy FedEx processing center at the Indianapolis airport. Prosecutors tried to forfeit the $42,000 inside the Chengs' package, and did so without alleging any specific crime.
That money was returned, but they have gone to court seeking a permanent end to the "unconstitutional" practices.
Now it's a class action case.
"No one should have their money handed over to the government when the government cannot say what they did wrong, but this was happening routinely for years in Indianapolis," said Marie Miller, an attorney with the Institute for Justice. "With the court approving the Chengs' suit as a class action, we get to seek justice for many people who find themselves fighting to get their money back simply because it happened to be mailed through Indianapolis."
The IJ pointed out that for years, "police have seized cash at the busy FedEx processing center, and the Marion County prosecutor has filed civil forfeiture actions on behalf of the state of Indiana to keep the seized money."
That leaves innocent people like the Chengs having to fight in court for their own money – sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles away from their homes.
The Chengs live in California.
"It's a profitable practice. Since 2022 alone, Indiana has sued to forfeit more than $2.5 million from in-transit FedEx parcels, and the state has already raked in approximately $1 million from those parcels. To get their money back and to end these predatory practices, Henry and Minh teamed up with the Institute for Justice," the organization said.
The Chengs' experience is typical: "Henry and Minh's experience is typical of many people who find themselves caught up in Indianapolis' FedEx forfeiture regime. The couple started their wholesale jewelry business about 30 years ago. They travel across the country serving retail shops. And last year, they made a bulk sale to a retailer in Virginia, who was slow to submit payment. A few months after the sale, in April, the retailer informed the couple that she could pay promptly with cash. Henry and Minh agreed to accept that form of payment."
The retailer shipped the money using FedEx, and it went through Indianapolis, where police jumped on it.
A K-9 had alerted to the cash, allowing police to get a warrant.
Police then found the cash, and no contraband. The county prosecutor then went to court to keep the money, claiming without evidence that it was the result of a violation of a criminal statute.
IJ also is suing the DEA and TSA for seizing money at airports.
The magistrate noted that a class action resolution will provide "relief" to each member of the class.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A legal fight in Kentucky that erupted when same-sex marriage activists demanded a Christian clerk violate state law and grant them a "marriage" license just hours after the Supreme Court created that status in America, now has returned to the Supreme Court.
The case is asking the justices to reverse their decision from 10 years ago, and it uses the same arguments used several years back to successfully overturn Roe v. Wade, that longstanding, and error-loaded, ruling from 1973 that created an abortion right.
The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also could be used against "same-sex marriage." Neither abortion nor marriage actually is in the U.S. Constitution, so justices over the years have manufactured reasons to support both "rights."
The analysis, from several years ago, cited the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe for being based on "substantive due process," a doctrine adopted by some justices over the years to create "implied fundamental rights."
"Through various opinions, the Court has recognized a right of personal privacy, which has been extended to other activities such as inter-racial marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing," the analysis said.
To manufacture same-sex "marriages," the court relied on "substantive due process" to claim same-sex "marriage" is constitutionally protected.
And the analysis said, "The aftermath of the Dobbs decision spans beyond abortion by calling into question other decisions that were decided on similar grounds to Roe — Obergefell (same-sex marriage), Lawrence (same-sex sexual conduct), and Griswold (contraceptives)—and whether the overturning of Roe presents a similar fate for these decisions."
Specifically, Justice Clarence Thomas stated at the time, "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous'…we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
Now Liberty Counsel has revealed that that case, challenging the existence of the Obergefell decision, the same-sex "marriage" case, is before the court.
It involves multiple attacks on Kim Davis, a former Rowan County clerk in Kentucky.
She was the first victim "jailed, sued, and held personally liable post-Obergefell for her sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage. Believing marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Davis ceased issuing any marriage licenses while she sought an accommodation for her religious beliefs. The courts then used Obergefell, which legalized 'same-sex marriage' nationwide, to deny her a religious accommodation that unconstitutionally forced her to choose between her religious beliefs and her livelihood," Liberty Counsel explained.
"This case began Friday, June 26, 2015, when 'five lawyers' on the U.S. Supreme Court released the Obergefell opinion that declared same-sex couples have the right to be 'married,'" the Liberty Counsel reported.
The dissent at that time pointed out the creation of same-sex "marriage" was, in fact, unrelated to the U.S. Constitution.
Davis under state law had no authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples without specific direction from the state statutes. And doing so would violate her religious beliefs. Despite that Democrat Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear ordered all clerks to violate state law.
"The Kentucky Senate President sided with Davis and made clear that every action pertaining to marriage is highly regulated by the state. Therefore, any clerk that issued marriage licenses without the sanction of Kentucky law could be held liable for criminal charges. Clerks like Davis were paralyzed. If she followed the governor's order, she could have been charged with a misdemeanor. If she waited until the legislature acted, she would be sued," the report said.
Further, Davis, a Christian, could not violate her faith by doing what clearly was barred by biblical teachings.
She asked lawmakers to address the conflict, but meanwhile, a leftist, Judge David L. Bunning, put her in jail.
When a new governor, Matt Bevins, a Republican, took office in Kentucky, he issued an executive order granting clerks of faith a religious accommodation and the state legislature followed by establishing that in state law.
However, several duos who had demanded Davis violate her faith and state law sued her, personally, for not giving them what they demanded.
That their moves were targeted at Davis was documented by the fact they could have gone to multiple other locations for their "licenses" but refused to do so.
And they shared their videos on social media in a campaign of public harassment "to shame and humiliate Davis."
Two duos eventually sued her for "hurt feelings" and one jury found no damages. The other returned a total judgement of $100,000, to which a judge added $260,000 in lawyers' fees.
"According to the Eleventh Amendment, a government official acting in an official capacity has "immunity" and cannot be held personally liable. However, the court stripped Davis of this government shield. But even in her personal capacity, Davis (like any person) has an absolute First Amendment defense against a claim solely based on emotional damages, yet the court stripped this away as well," the legal team said.
Now Liberty Counsel is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to "(1) overturn this unjust judgement against Davis by finding that she has an affirmative First Amendment Defense, and (2) overturn Obergefell v. Hodges."
The questions being delivered to the Supreme Court include:
1. Whether the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause provides an affirmative defense to tort liability based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages in the same manner as the Free Speech Clause under Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).
2. Whether a government official stripped of Eleventh Amendment immunity and sued in her individual capacity based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages is entitled to assert individual capacity and personal First Amendment defenses in the same or similar manner as any other individual defendant like in Synder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), or does she stand before this Court with no constitutional defenses or immunity whatsoever.
3. Whether Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), and the legal fiction of substantive due process, should be overturned.
Liberty Counsel's petition opens by citing several dissenting justices from the 5-4 Obergefell opinion who predicted it would threaten the religious liberty of those who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas said that Obergefell would have 'potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"
The filing explains, "That is what happened here. Davis was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported emotional distress."
The filing warned, "A decision like that where government defendants are stripped of their immunity and stand before a court as an individual without any personal First Amendment defenses 'would mean government officials shed their constitutional rights upon election, appointment, or other entrance of government service. That cannot be right.'"
Cited is the 2022 Dobbs decision, which declared the Due Process Clause "does not secure any substantive rights," including abortion.
Liberty Counsel said that means "it does not secure a right to 'same-sex marriage' either, and 'especially not a right to receive a 'same-sex marriage' license from a specific government official, regardless of that individual's religious convictions."
"If ever there were a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it," said Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
"Kim Davis' case underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the wrongly decided Obergefell v. Hodges opinion because it threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman."
Notable is the fact that several of the far-left activists who were on the Supreme Court 10 years ago, whose votes all were required to release the Obergefell opinion, now are not, having been replaced by justices nominated by President Donald Trump.