Community activist Gabriel Thompson on Monday sued Mount Vernon, New York Mayor Shawyn Patterson-Howard over accusations that Patterson-Howard tipped off her "close associate," basketball coach Dwayne Murray, that he was about to be charged with molesting a 12-year-old girl.
Patterson-Howard allegedly summoned Murray to her office in late April to tell him about the forthcoming charges.
“I just see lawlessness,” Thompson told the New York Post. “She needs to resign. Are you kidding me? The mayor of a city reached out to someone … who she assumed was a pedophile, to warn them.
“That person cannot be given a position of public trust,” he said. “I have no political interest. I’m not running for office. This isn’t about that at all, period, full stop. This is just someone who’s disgusted, disgusted with people in power using their office like this.”
Court documents showed that Murray admitted Patterson-Howard showed him a text message she allegedly got from a supporter about Murray's actions (though it didn't name him directly).
Murray also posted denials on social media before he was charged with inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor on May 15, suggesting he knew what was about to happen.
“I want to make it crystal clear, I’ve never, ever done anything inappropriate with the players on my team, or any team for that matter,” he said in a video clip.
“This whole thing is a smear campaign to silence me, pure and simple,” he added.
Murray was executive director of the well-known Mount Vernon Junior Knights youth basketball program.
He also worked on Patterson-Howard's campaigns and previously lived with Mount Vernon School Board member Erica Peterson, for whom Patterson-Howard had campaigned.
The alleged unethical conduct is only one of several allegations in the lawsuit.
Thompson also said that Patterson-Howard campaigned for Peterson and other candidates on city time and had a taxpayer-funded police detail go everywhere with her.
Both of these accusations say that she misused taxpayer funds.
The mayor said in a statement that the lawsuit is “politically motivated and frivolous."
Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't often make public comments on the state of the high court, but he did recently at a judicial conference in North Carolina, where he made his thoughts clear on those who have criticized the court's decisions.
According to The Hill, Chief Justice Roberts said that some of the criticism leveled at the high court is "not terribly helpful," adding that he believes much of it can be chalked up to "venting" by the side that loses.
While he wasn't speaking about any particular case, the comments came shortly after the high court handed the Trump administration a significant victory regarding the federal judiciary's ability to rule against the president's orders.
Federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions was significantly narrowed by the Supreme Court this week, and it was a stunning victory for the Trump administration.
At the conference, Roberts spoke with Albert Diaz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit’s chief judge, and made his thoughts clear.
"It would be good if people appreciated it’s not the judge’s fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don’t get to do this," Roberts said.
"And it may be an incorrect interpretation," he added. "But if that’s their criticism, then, of course, they can explain that, and maybe the court of appeals will take a different view."
Roberts went on to imply that some of the criticism can be classifed as "venting" when a decision doesn't go the way a group or person wanted it to go.
"But if it’s just venting because you lost, then that’s not terribly helpful," he said.
WATCH: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sounds the alarm on heated rhetoric aimed at judges from politicians on "both sides." pic.twitter.com/Aqt3NZg8Af
— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 29, 2025
Users across social media had their own idea as to why the rhetoric involving the federal judiciary is heated these days.
"I think the rhetoric is mainly caused by judges overstepping their authority... as clearly pointed out by SCOTUS," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Roberts is responsible for some rhetoric of his own."
Roberts has made several statements defending the judiciary in recent months, especially as the heated rhetoric continues.
The U.S. Supreme Court last week issued its final -- and for some, controversial -- opinions of the current term, and not long after, the topic of threats to the judiciary reared its head in public debate once more.
As Breitbart reports, Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday cautioned politicians and others to remain mindful of the fact that incendiary words about judges and their rulings can lead to serious threats of violence that, in a worst-case scenario, may even be acted upon.
Speaking at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judicial conference over the weekend, Roberts echoed familiar themes about the risk to judges of heated discourse regarding the exercise of their duties.
Though he refrained from singling out any political figures by name, it was clear to most that many of Roberts’ comments referenced President Donald Trump as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), both of whom have caught his attention in recent years due to their criticism of the judiciary.
Roberts lamented, “It becomes wrapped up in the political dispute that a judge who’s doing his or her job is part of the problem. And the danger, of course, is somebody might pick up on that.”
He continued, “And we have had, of course, serious threats of violence and murder of judges simply for doing their work.”
The chief justice added, “So I think the political people on both sides of the aisle need to keep that in mind."
Roberts, on more than one occasion in recent years, has seen fit to speak out against comments made by Trump critical of particular judges and rulings.
In 2018, Roberts reacted harshly to Trump’s characterization of a jurist who ruled against him as an “Obama judge,” and just this year, he took issue with the president’s suggestion of impeachment for a judge who issued a decision unfavorable to the administration's deportation plans.
It is not just Trump who has drawn Roberts’ ire, however, as the chief justice also took note when Schumer seemed to threaten consequences for any justice who sided with pro-life arguments in a then-pending case before the high court, suggesting that they would “pay the price” for such an outcome.
Likely underpinning Roberts’ position on threats to members of the judiciary is the 2022 arrest of an armed man who traveled to the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh with plans to assassinate him due to reports that the abortion precedent of Roe v. Wade was poised for reversal.
In light of recent developments at the high court, it seems unlikely that the political rhetoric -- and potentially dangerous language -- will abate anytime soon.
Last week, the majority opinion in a case dealing with the validity of nationwide injunctions, Justice Amy Coney Barrett laid bare her -- and perhaps other justices’ -- skepticism about Joe Biden-nominated Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s ability to do her job, as the Daily Wire noted, suggesting that her colleague’s dissent was startlingly unmoored to any consideration of statute, precedent, or “to any doctrine whatsoever.”
As valid as those concerns may well be, in an environment where there is already speculation that Jackson’s ascent to the court could potentially be negated if it was the product of Biden’s allegedly hijacked autopen, the potential for new -- and possibly -- dangerous political battles to open up appears limitless.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) isn't having a great year, and his legal issues have continued to mount, except this time he's the one on the complaining end.
According to Breitbart, the California governor is now suing Fox News for a staggering $787 million over what he claims was "deceptive editing" of a phone call he reportedly made during the Los Angeles anti-ICE immigration riots.
The lawsuit, which was just filed on Friday, reportedly involves Fox News host Jesse Watters, who Newsom said lied about his phone calls with President Trump during the protests.
What's most notable about the lawsuit is that it's rare for a politician or public figure to sue a major news outlet as it's a very high bar to prove defamation or slander for high-profile public figures.
Newsom released a statement on the lawsuit, explaining why he decided to file it.
"If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump’s behalf, it should face consequences — just like it did in the Dominion case," Newsom said in a statement to TheWrap.
He added, "I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine."
The California governor held nothing back in announcing the lawsuit on social media, captioning a screenshot of the news article with, "no more lies."
No more lies.
I’m suing Fox News for $787 million.https://t.co/L73VUsPsuB pic.twitter.com/qKoRaxHRDW
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 27, 2025
Breitbart noted:
According to the lawsuit, Newsom last spoke to the president on June 7 for about 16 minutes in a call that came a day after President Trump sent 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to counter protesters amid the anti-ICE demonstrations.
TheWrap wrote, "On June 10, the suit alleges, Trump said he spoke to Newsom 'a day ago,' which Newsom pushed back against. Watters reportedly then asked on air, 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' while flashing a screenshot of Trump’s June 7 call with Newsom on the screen, which had been obtained by Fox News reporter John Roberts."
Users across social media reacted to the news of Newsom's lawsuit against Fox News.
"When does California get to sue you for the 37 billion taxpayer dollars meant for homelessness you can’t account for?" one X user wrote.
Another X usedr wrote, "Trump should sue Gavin Newsom for the deaths he caused by aiding and abetting criminal illegals and for defamation of course."
Only time will tell if Newsom prevails in the lawsuit.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Genteel. Restrained.
Those descriptives often are applicable in Supreme Court opinions when factions, a majority and a dissent, disagree.
It sometimes moves toward the critical, such as when Chief Justice John Roberts and others, disagreeing with the leftist majority at that time that fabricated out of nothing a "right" to same-sex marriage pointed out that there was nothing in the Constitution supporting that scheme.
But all of a sudden, the rantings of Ketanji Jackson, the leftist nominated by Joe Biden who confirmed her lack of ability by assuring senators at her confirmation hearing that she was unable even to define "woman," are generating a reaction.
Among the paragraphs in the majority opinion on Friday that said entry-level court judges in the federal judiciary have been exercising powers they are not given by the Constitution through their nationwide injunctions, giving President Donald Trump a court victory that could reverberate for presidencies, were the following:
"We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."
And, "JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.' … That goes for judges too."
It is in a commentary at the Federalist that the writings of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion, were cited as taking "a flamethrower to KBJ's reality-challenged dissent."
A fight over birthright citizen prompted the court case, as the president challenged the multiple lower-court nationwide injunctions issued, but the justices did not comment on the birthright dispute, which now will return to its progression in the court system.
"Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has never been one to shy away from engaging in left-wing political activism while on the bench. And now, it appears some of her Supreme Court colleagues are growing tired of it," the commentary said.
It took literally no time at all for those doing satire online to walk through the door that had been opened. From the satire site the Babylon Bee:
President Donald Trump celebrated the Supreme Court's decision barring lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions, the Washington Examiner reported. Trump championed the ruling in remarks during a news conference held shortly after the decision was released.
District courts have been thwarting Trump's agenda on many fronts by issuing sweeping injunctions against his policies. This particular case before the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of birthright citizenship.
In one of Trump's first executive orders, he sought to limit the practice that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. While the high court didn't rule on the underlying issue, it concluded that lower courts may not impose nationwide injunctions, a move that is sure to rock Washington, D.C., leftists who tried to stop him.
Trump hailed Friday's decision as a significant win for his presidency during the White House news briefing. "This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law," Trump began.
"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 went on.
"It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly," Trump added. "And instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump said of the lower courts.
"In practice, this meant that if any one of the nearly 700 federal judges disagreed with the policy of a duly elected president of the United States, he or she could block that policy from going into effect, or at least delay it for many years, tied up in the court system. This was a colossal abuse of power, which never occurred in American history prior to recent decades," Trump charged.
"And we've been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century together...I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem. And they've made it very simple," Trump said.
As part of the crackdown on immigration, Trump has sought to close the birthright citizenship loophole. This allows for chain migration of other family members who would become eligible for citizenship based on one baby born in the U.S., even if to illegal immigrant parents, NBC News reported.
Trump noted that the provision was originally "meant for the babies of slaves" and not "for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation." Although the Supreme Court left the underlying issue alone, Trump acknowledged that the decision has far-reaching implications.
The president said he can now focus on "ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people." Trump went on to thank the Supreme Court justices.
"It's a giant," he said of the win they handed him. "It's a giant. And they should be very proud, and our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today," Trump concluded his remarks.
The Supreme Court did the right thing in acknowledging the role of district courts and the limits of their power. Trump has notched quite a win, and it is only just beginning.
Newly released documents have confirmed that the Department of Justice under former President Joe Biden let Hunter Biden off the hook by not forcing him to register as a foreign agent.
The Oversight Project, a government watchdog, obtained the release of the files under a Freedom of Information Act request that the Trump administration was likely eager to comply with.
The Oversight Project president, Mike Howell, sat down for an exclusive interview with The Daily Mail, where he accused the DOJ of "refusing to look at the obvious, that Hunter was a foreign agent" due to his ties to a Ukrainian energy company.
Hunter Biden has been under scrutiny for years due to his position on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, despite his lack of qualifications. The former First Son has wiggled his way into multiple foreign companies, sparking suspicion that he was leveraging his family name.
These suspicions have since been confirmed as the entire Biden family made a profession out of selling access to the White House. However, we now know that the Biden DOJ was complicit in protecting the Biden family business.
The Oversight Project discovered that the Biden DOJ did not require Hunter Biden to register as a foreign agent even as they required other individuals undertaking similar ventures to register as foreign agents.
Documents show that in 2022, the DOJ determined that Burisma's former US lawyer, John Buretta of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, should have registered as a foreign agent when lobbying for Burisma in meetings with government officials in 2016.
Buretta should have registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which is designed to keep government officials and the American public informed about individuals acting on behalf of foreign governments or organizations.
All of this led to Howell stating, "Special Counsel David Weiss tried to basically pardon Hunter by a plea deal, refusing to look at the obvious, that Hunter was a foreign agent. The government, to include the intelligence community, federal law enforcement, prosecutors and the White House, twisted itself into pretzels over a long period of time to avoid the obvious with the Biden family."
It was obvious that Joe Biden, his brothers, and Hunter Biden were all selling access to the White House beginning when Joe Biden was former President Barack Obama's Vice President.
President Donald Trump pointed all of this out during the 2020 presidential election, but thanks to censorship by social media platforms in collusion with the intelligence community, it took years for the truth to become settled.
The corruption of the Biden family has gone unpunished despite the fact that the Bidens enriched themselves to the tune of millions by selling out the U.S. to foreign interests, most notably China.
While Hunter Biden's activities in Ukraine received the most scrutiny, there is also extensive documentation on the Biden family's ties to Chinese companies that are owned by the Chinese Communist Party.
The Trump administration is looking into the Biden family's activities, but the preemptive pardon given to Hunter Biden by Joe Biden in the last month of his term has complicated that investigation.
In a significant legal decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina can exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid funding, as Breitbart reports. The decision, split at 6-3, overturns a prior decision and supports the state's stance against Planned Parenthood's claim of federal law violations.
The ruling stems from a 2018 executive order signed by South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. This prompted legal action from Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a Medicaid patient, who argued that the order infringed upon federal law by restricting patients' rights to select qualified healthcare providers.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, dismissed Planned Parenthood's argument regarding Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. He asserted that this section allows private plaintiffs to sue only in "atypical" circumstances where a statutory right is "clearly" and "unambiguously" designated for individuals.
In contrast, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented against the ruling. Justice Jackson argued that Section 1983 traditionally enables any citizen to seek redress for violations of constitutional or federal statutory rights.
South Carolina's efforts to sever Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood align with the state's legislation to prohibit abortions after six weeks with certain exceptions. Proponents of the Supreme Court's decision frame it as a successful push against taxpayer funding for abortion facilities.
Planned Parenthood maintained that the conflict revolves around broader healthcare access issues, rather than exclusively targeting abortion services. The organization expressed concerns for the precedent set by the ruling, fearing similar actions by other states might harm Medicaid coverage.
The reversal of the previous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has drawn public and organizational reactions. Conservative and pro-life organizations have praised the decision, viewing it as a triumph for unborn lives and the reduction of abortion funding.
Katie Daniel of Alliance Defending Freedom conveyed satisfaction with the ruling. She highlighted the protection of Medicaid from potential lawsuits over unqualified providers, framing the decision as beneficial for public policy.
Kelsey Reinhardt, another pro-life advocate, emphasized the ethical implications of taxpayer funds supporting what she termed as an industry founded upon the termination of innocent lives.
Beyond South Carolina, efforts persist at a national level to defund Planned Parenthood. Congress is reportedly working on legislation aimed at barring Planned Parenthood from accessing federal funding throughout the United States.
This landmark legal case, titled Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, No. 23-1275, has garnered substantial attention due to its broader implications on healthcare policy and state-federal balancing concerning Medicaid operations.
Justice Gorsuch further elucidated that permitting private individuals to enforce new statutory rights can pose significant public policy challenges. He suggested that such matters require careful legislative consideration rather than judicial determination.
The ruling signals potential shifts in the Medicaid landscape in South Carolina, where conservative groups point to the availability of 200 alternative publicly funded health clinics. They argue that these facilities can accommodate Medicaid patients needing non-abortion-related services.
Planned Parenthood's South Atlantic region has vocalized apprehension about the decision's impact on healthcare service accessibility for Medicaid recipients. The organization underscores the importance of inclusivity in healthcare provider choices under Medicaid coverage.
While the Supreme Court's decision marks a pivotal moment in Planned Parenthood's funding battles, it also highlights ongoing debates around legal interpretations of individual rights under federally supported programs.
Former first lady Jill Biden has been left exposed by her loyal White House "work husband" after he tried to avoid giving testimony to Congress.
Anthony Bernal was Jill's closest ally in the Biden administration, making him a key witness in the probe of her actual husband's cognitive decline.
Now no longer in power, Bernal is helping the family obstruct a congressional inquiry into Joe Biden's health, but Bernal's efforts have already backfired.
After he refused to sit for an interview, Republicans responded to Bernal's insolence with a subpoena requiring him to testify on July 16.
Bernal had been scheduled to talk on Thursday, but backed out after President Trump waived executive privilege, leaving the Biden confidant exposed to potentially sharing confidential secrets.
"Now that the White House has waived executive privilege, it's abundantly clear that Anthony Bernal -- Jill Biden's so-called 'work husband' -- never intended to be transparent about Joe Biden's cognitive decline and the ensuing cover-up," said House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer (R-KY)
Bernal enjoyed intimate access to the Biden family and stayed loyal during the chaotic weeks that led to Joe Biden suspending his re-election campaign last summer.
His role in the Biden administration has come into focus after a sudden awakening of journalists regarding Biden's cognitive decline, an issue that the liberal media ignored for most of his presidency.
Republicans have already heard from former White House official Neera Tanden, who voluntarily testified about her role in using an autopen to sign orders on Biden's behalf. She notably said that she had limited contact with Biden himself.
It is now widely believed that Biden was not fully in charge during his four years in power.
While Democrats have dismissed the congressional probe, Republicans have said that a complete understanding of what transpired serves the public interest, given the troubling likelihood that Americans lived under a shadow presidency that they did not elect.
"Given your close connection with both former President Biden and former First Lady Jill Biden, the Committee sought to understand if you contributed to an effort to hide former President Biden’s fitness to serve from the American people," Comer wrote to Bernal. "You have refused the Committee’s request. However, to advance the Committee’s oversight and legislative responsibilities and interests, your testimony is critical."
Bernal is not the only member of Biden's circle who has tried to avoid appearing before Congress.
Kevin O'Connor, Biden's longtime physician, was subpoenaed after he tried to weasel out of an interview, citing, in part, patient confidentiality.
Wisconsin's liberal Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge from Democrats against the state's "gerrymandered" congressional map.
The ruling preserves the current GOP-drawn lines for the 2026 midterm elections, a setback for Democrats who have long sought to redraw the lines in the swing state.
This is the second time in as many years that the Supreme Court turned away Democrats' requests to overturn the current map, which was adopted with the approval of the Supreme Court's former conservative majority.
Two years after the court struck down a GOP state legislative map, this latest ruling suggests there are limits to the favors Democrats can expect to receive from the liberal majority that has dominated the court since 2023.
Control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped when liberal Janet Protasiewicz won what was then the most expensive U.S. judicial race ever. Liberals in Wisconsin won another pivotal Supreme Court race this year, preserving the 4-3 liberal majority.
The day after Protasiewicz was seated, Democrats filed a lawsuit challenging Wisconsin's state legislative map, and months later, it was struck down by the new liberal majority. Controversially, Protasiewicz declined to recuse herself despite calling Wisconsin's map "rigged" while campaigning for the court.
Democrats have had less luck overturning the current congressional map, which was approved by the Supreme Court's former conservative majority. The map was drawn by Democrat Gov. Tony Evers and largely reflects lines drawn by the GOP in 2010
The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously rejected two lawsuits challenging Wisconsin's current congressional lines, dealing a blow to Democrats' hopes of winning back the House of Representatives.
The decision is also a blow to Marc Elias, a notorious Clinton ally and serial election litigator who brought one of the lawsuits.
This comes after the Supreme Court rejected a similar Democratic challenge in December 2024, also without explaining why.
“It’s good that Wisconsin has fair maps at the state level, but we deserve them at the federal level as well,” Democrat U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (WI) said. “Unfortunately, gerrymandered maps for members of Congress will remain in Wisconsin.”
Republicans control six out of eight of the House districts in Wisconsin, a state that President Donald Trump won by less than a percentage point in 2024.
Democrats had hoped a new congressional map would help them win two seats, which are currently represented by Republican Reps. Derrick Van Orden and Bryan Steil.
“The bipartisan rejection of the radical Democrats’ desperate and politically motivated attempt to redraw the map in their favor offers a strong preview of how Wisconsin voters will reject the Democrats’ out of touch and radical agenda next year at the ballot box,” National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokesman Zach Bannon told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement.