This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
GRANTS PASS, Oregon – Two Oregon educators who were fired for expressing their opinions about gender-identity issues on their own time have won a victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The two women, Rachel Sager (previously Damiano), a former assistant principal, and Katie Medart, a teacher, had sued the Grants Pass School District after being fired over their production of a 2021 video, called "I Resolve," that presented ideas about how the district could handle issues surrounding the use of pronouns and restrooms amid the growing popularity of students identifying as genders counter to their biological sex. The two hoped the district would establish policies that protected student privacy, respected parental rights and labeled restrooms and changing areas based on "anatomical gender presentation."
A three-judge panel ruled Monday that the women can move forward with their lawsuit.
As reported by the Oregon Eagle, Judge Jennifer Sung wrote that there are real disputes over what the pair did and whether it disrupted the district enough to justify their firings, meaning a jury of the educators' peers may now decide whether their speech was wrongly punished by the district.
Sager and Medart's video was made at a local church during spring break on their own time, but allegations arose that they used some work time and school email accounts, and that Medart mentioned an actual student's situation in the film. As WND reported, after initially being fired, the district reinstated them but in different positions.
The educators sued the school district for violating their free speech, equal protection, Title VII rights and the Oregon Constitution. A lower court threw out their claims, but the 9th Circuit decision brings key parts of the suit back to life.
Matthew Hoffmann, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been working on the case, told the Oregon Eagle the ruling affirms vital rights for teachers.
"The 9th Circuit recognized that teachers don't give up their free speech and religious rights when they step onto campus. Government employers can't silence speech just because they disagree with it," Hoffmann said.
"Rachel and Katie spoke up for what they believed was best for everyone: parents, students and staff alike. They didn't break the law. They didn't harm anyone. They offered ideas. The district fired them for it, and that's flatly unconstitutional."
Hoffmann says the message is clear: "Public schools can't play favorites in the culture war. They can't protect one side and punish the other. This decision defends freedom for every teacher to speak up and stand with families."
The lawsuit now goes back to the trial court, and based on the result there, either side could appeal again, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
A federal judge found Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in civil contempt of court Tuesday after he ignored a temporary restraining order on a state immigration law, Fox News reported. Uthmeier defied the order in support of President Donald Trump's border security agenda.
On April 29, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams had demanded Uthmeier demonstrate "why he should not be held in contempt or sanctioned" for violating the restraining order. She was unmoved by Uthmeier's reasoning and handed down this week's ruling.
Meanwhile, Uthmeier held it up as a badge of honor. "If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump's agenda on illegal immigration, so be it," he posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday.
If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump's agenda on illegal immigration, so be it. https://t.co/PPrFEapaKv
— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) June 17, 2025
In February, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the state law to make it a criminal offence for illegal immigrants to enter the Sunshine State. Predictably, the Florida Immigrant Coalition and other pro-illegal immigrant groups sued the state.
The judge ordered a 14-day temporary restraining order on April 4 and extended it for an additional 11 days after the Florida Highway Patrol made several arrests under the law, including one American citizen. In all, about a dozen arrests were made under the new law.
Beginning April 18, Florida law enforcement officials were bound under the temporary restraining order to halt additional arrests. It was up to Uthmeier to notify law enforcement throughout the state, which he did at first.
However, the attorney general apparently had a change of heart and sent a follow-up on April 23 advising officers "no judicial order…properly restrains you from" making arrests under the state's immigration law. Utmeier insisted that "no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce" the state statute.
This move led the court to demand that Uthmeier defend his violation and prevent a contempt charge, which he clearly was unable to do. Uthmeier has never wavered from his assertion that the temporary restraining order is unjust and that he doesn't need to follow it.
When faced with Williams' order, Uthmeier doubled down on his reject ion f Williams' order, NBC News reported. "This judge is considering whether or not to hold me in contempt," Uthmeier said in a May 6 interview, Williams recounted to implicate him.
"But I am not going to rubber-stamp her order. I’m not going to direct law enforcement to stand down on enforcing the Trump agenda and carrying out Florida’s law," Williams quoted Uthmeier as saying.
"I'm not going to bow down," he added. Uthmeier said in a separate interview that Williams is "issuing this order and saying you gotta tell them all to stand down. I’m not gonna do that."
This sealed the deal for Uthmeier's contempt charge. Williams noted that he was "free to broadcast his continued appeal of the Court’s injunction and his view that the Court’s rulings are erroneous," but that when it came to law enforcement officials under his authority, he wasn't allowed to "tell them otherwise."
The states are suffering from the federal government's failure to enforce immigration laws, and have responded accordingly with legislation. The judge's temporary restraining order put Florida at a disadvantage, and Utmeier's defiance is an attempt to stand up for Floridians and for Trump's immigration crackdown.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Not sure exactly where the Constitution has confirmed a government freedom to censor, but that's apparently what a federal judge has discovered, in order to rule that the organization formerly named the Global Engagement Center and assigned to censor Americans must stay alive.
It is the Federalist confirming that while U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the Center Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub, formerly known as the GEC, was dead, a judge said otherwise.
It is Susan Illston, a judge in the leftist enclave of San Francisco, who has, "through the miraculous powers of an activist judge," has said no, the report said.
The organization must remain, she is claiming.
The report described GEC, or R-FIMI under its new name, as "the creepy censorship arm within the Department of State that curtails free speech."
The focal point of the argument, the report said, is "whether the president has the authority to reorganize the federal workplace and trim excess employees or if only unelected local judges have that authority for the entire nation."
Illston also claimed, in taking over responsibilities of the Executive Branch, "If the State Department has any question about whether planned actions fall within the scope of the court's injunction, the court orders the department to first raise those questions with the court before taking action."
Illston's rant comes because of the president's agenda to find and eliminate waste, fraud, corruption and criminal activity in the government's spending programs. He created the Department of Government Efficiency to address the problems.
Illston earlier had used a legal filing from the American Federation of Government Employees and the AFL-CIO to try to destroy Trump plans to save money.
"Rubio made the case that the State Department is not subject to the injunction and planned to move forward with cutting employees and sunsetting R-FIMI, until Illston's order put that on pause," the report said.
The ex-GEC organization was assembled by Barack Obama in 2016 and funded with $50 million a year.
The federal tax dollars it got, "helped grease the wheels of the Russian election interference hoax that marred Trump' first term. The agency was used instead to pressure tech companies to meddle in the 2020 election," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has shot down a lower court's "bully tactics" that allowed state officials in New York to force religious objectors to pay for abortion.
The decision comes in Diocese of Albany v. Harris, and cited the high court's own earlier decision in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.
The issue is leftists in various states keep trying to force religious organizations and others to pay for abortion, which violates the religious rights of people in those groups.
The court's announcement Monday about its decision was brief: "The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the court of appeals for New York for further consideration in light of Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry."
Becket, the organization that was fighting the case on behalf of the religious group members, explained further: "The Supreme Court has ordered New York courts to reconsider Diocese of Albany v. Harris, a case challenging New York's abortion mandate, in light of Becket's unanimous victory in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. In 2017, a group of Catholic and Anglican nuns, Catholic dioceses, Christian churches, and faith-based social ministries challenged New York's mandate forcing them to pay for employees' abortions. After New York courts declined to protect the faith groups, Becket and Jones Day asked the Supreme Court to step in."
It's not the first trip to the high court for the case, Becket noted, "In 2021, the justices reversed the lower courts' rulings and told them to reconsider the case, but the courts ignored that instruction. Now the Supreme Court has ordered the New York courts to go back to the drawing board."
It was the New York State Department of Financial Services that had demanded an abortion mandate for health care plans. At that time, it promised to exempt all employers with religious objections.
"But after facing pressure from abortion activists, New York narrowed the exemption to cover only religious groups that primarily teach religion and primarily serve and hire those who share their faith. This exception does not apply to many religious ministries—including the ministries challenging the mandate here—because they serve all people, regardless of faith," Becket explained.
"For example, the exemption doesn't extend to the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm and their Teresian Nursing Home because they serve the elderly and dying regardless of religious affiliation."
Becket spokesman Eric Baxter noted, "New York wants to browbeat nuns into paying for abortions for the great crime of serving all those in need. For the second time in four years, the Supreme Court has made clear that bully tactics like these have no place in our nation or our law. We are confident that these religious groups will finally be able to care for the most vulnerable, consistent with their beliefs."
"Religious groups in the Empire State should not be forced to provide insurance coverage that violates their deeply held religious beliefs," explained Noel J. Francisco, of Jones Day, which also worked on the case.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday said the United States knows where Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is hiding, calling him an "easy target," but adds he's not looking to kill him for the time being.
"We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding," Trump said on Truth Social.
"He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.
"But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers.
"Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
"UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!" the president added.
Trump also Tuesday expressed confidence in American-made weaponry being used in the Israel-Iran war, saying "Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA."
"We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran," Trump said.
"Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured 'stuff.'
"Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA."
In an another post early Tuesday, Trump stated: "I have not reached out to Iran for 'Peace Talks' in any way, shape, or form. This is just more HIGHLY FABRICATED, FAKE NEWS! If they want to talk, they know how to reach me. They should have taken the deal that was on the table – Would have saved a lot of lives!!!"
Trump is getting mixed reaction online, including:
"FAFO. It's the American way. We don't play games with terrorists. We blow them up before they blow us up."
"Control of the skies reflects technological superiority, but true success lies in its ability to promote peace."
"If Iran fires rockets at Israel from now on, America will be disgraced in front of the world."
"WE? What's with this WE sh**? Not our war!"
"You said no new wars and now you're getting us into a endless ones. American lives are now going to be on the line and you are going to have blood on their hands. You said America first not Israel first. This is going to end terribly. Stop now and focus on AMERICA."
"Well technically, according to Israel, this war has been going on for 30 years. So technically it isn't a new war. But I agree. I did not vote for this."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A dedicated pro-life activist has gone to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge San Diego's decision to make speech in some parts of the city conditional on the viewpoint expressed.
The situation is that in some "no-speech zones" in the city, abortion business workers, agents and volunteers can say anything they want in support of abortion, but pro-lifers are banned from expressing their perspective in opposition.
It is the Thomas More Society that is working on the case on behalf of Roger Lopez.
He objects to the district court ruling that has created a "constitutional double standard outside abortion businesses."
"San Diego has created a constitutional travesty where Planned Parenthood employees can freely harass and pressure vulnerable women right up to the clinic door, but peaceful sidewalk counselors offering help and hope face criminal prosecution for normal conversation," explained Peter Breen, of the society.
"The city has made sidewalk counseling virtually impossible, which violates both the rights of pro-life advocates to speak and women's rights to receive life-saving information. We will continue to defend Roger and pro-life advocates like him, protecting their right to serve pregnant women in need, and to put a permanent end to the 'abortion distortion' that has stripped so many Americans of their First Amendment rights in front of abortion facilities."
The city is accused of setting up a censorship scheme that violates both the First and the 14th Amendments.
"Courts have repeatedly upheld the rights of pro-life individuals to offer information on life-affirming alternatives to pregnant women in need, and San Diego's ordinance runs roughshod over those precedents," the society lawyers explained.
They have argued to the appeals court how the ordinance "creates an egregious double standard: abortion facility employees, agents, and volunteers are completely exempt from all speech restrictions and can freely approach and harass anyone within the 8-foot 'bubble zone,' while peaceful pro-life sidewalk counselors like Roger Lopez risk six months in jail for merely offering a leaflet or holding a sign that city officials deem harassing."
The restrictive pro-abortion law was adopted last year and creates a host of burdens to speech for those who disagree with the abortion-for-all agenda, prompted across the country in recent years by Joe Biden.
It forbids them from coming near to a passerby, restricts the volume they can use by prohibiting noise that is 'disturbing, excessive, or offensive … which causes discomfort or annoyance,' and prohibits signage or speech that is claimed to 'aggravate' or 'cause substantial distress.'"
"Sidewalk counselors like Roger empower tens of thousands of expecting moms to choose life by connecting them with free pregnancy and parenting resources that local abortion businesses try to hide from them," said Christopher Galiardo, staff lawyer at the Thomas More Society.
"The ordinance was drafted to suppress pro-life views and approved by an openly hostile city council. I look forward to the Ninth Circuit, long a champion of free speech, vindicating Roger's right to offer women in need help and hope."
Ever since she made the ill-fated decision to criminally pursue Donald Trump, Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis has encountered nothing but trouble.
Now, the Georgia Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments regarding whether the Republican-led state Senate has the power to subpoena Willis regarding her prosecution of the now-president, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The state's high court revealed last week that it would entertain an appeal of a lower court decision made in December, which determined that Willis could indeed be subpoenaed by the state Senate Special Committee on investigations.
Willis has disputed the notion that the panel can subpoena her for testimony and document production related to her case against Trump.
According to Willis, the committee lacks the necessary authority to enforce such a subpoena against her, and she also claimed that the panel's requests were impermissibly broad.
Unfortunately for the beleaguered D.A., Fulton County Superior Court Judge Shukura Ingram determined late last year that the committee did indeed possess the authority to demand her compliance.
The Georgia high court is slated to hear oral arguments from the parties in October, with a decision to follow at a later date.
Her lower court loss on the subpoena issue is far from the only serious setback Willis has suffered in recent months.
It was also late last year that an appeals court in the state disqualified her from further involvement in the case against Trump due to her previously undisclosed ties to the lead prosecutor she hand-picked to handle the matter.
The high court is still considering whether to accept Willis' appeal of the disqualification, but as of now, the case against Trump is likely going nowhere, given that another county D.A. would have to begin the prosecution from scratch -- a tall order few are likely to accept.
As the Associated Press reported, a judge back in March ordered Willis to pay over $54,000 in attorneys' fees and also to produce a host of requested documents amid a finding that her office ran afoul of the Georgia Open Records Act in connection with the Trump case.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause labeled Willis' conduct “intentional, not done in good faith, and...substantially groundless and vexatious.”
Though Willis was re-elected to her role in November, her conduct with regard to Trump has yielded no end of trouble for her, both personally and professionally, with some advocates going so far as to demand her disbarment.
Regardless of how the Georgia Supreme Court rules in her latest controversy, it is far from certain that Willis' career will ever fully recover from her ill-fated “get-Trump” caper.
An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump may keep National Guard troops in Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE riots, the BBC reported. California Governor Gavin Newsom had sued over Trump's intervention.
As part of Trump's enforcement efforts, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have been rounding up suspected illegal aliens. This has led to widespread protests in Los Angeles and elsewhere.
The president activated the California National Guard after protests against ICE turned disruptive and violent. Trump sent 4,000 guardsmen and 700 Marines to the affected area over Newsom's opposition.
The governor and others sued the administration, and a federal judge initially blocked the use of the troops. However, Thursday's decision will allow the administration to continue for the time being.
When Newsom got his way in the federal court, he took to X, formerly Twitter, for a victory lap. "BREAKING: The court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets," Newsom wrote.
"This win is not just for California, but the nation. It’s a check on a man whose authoritarian tendencies are increasing by the day," the Democratic governor who locked people in their homes during COVID-19 said.
"End the illegal militarization of Los Angeles now, @realDonaldTrump. History is watching," Newsom warned. He shared a copy of the legal notice to rub it in.
BREAKING: The court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets.
This win is not just for California, but the nation.
It’s a check on a man whose authoritarian tendencies are increasing by the day.
End the illegal… pic.twitter.com/0YMqvZSN6u
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 13, 2025
Unfortunately for Newsom, it was a short-lived victory as the judge allowed Trump's team time to put together an appeal. The order for the troops will stay in place during the legal battle, at least for now, and Newsom once again looks petty and ridiculous.
The left is losing its mind because Trump activated the National Guard and Marines without consulting Congress. However, Trump invoked the law that allows the federal government to do so when a "rebellion" is taking place and needs to be addressed.
Years after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, Democrats tried to paint Trump as an insurrectionist because a group of his supporters rioted at the U.S. Capitol, according to Fox News. Now they're trying to say that the violence, property damage, and anarchy on Los Angeles city streets do not meet the definition.
For nearly a week, rioters have been shutting down the freeway with demonstrations and committing acts of vandalism. More than 400 arrests have occurred with no signs that the riots are slowing down.
Still, the state's lawsuit objected to Trump's characterization. "At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years," the legal filing claimed.
It's utter madness that the Democrats will fight Trump on his attempts to stop these riots. It's clear that they serve a purpose for Democrats who seem to celebrate destruction and mayhem, as long as it's their side that's doing it.
The number of former powerful Illinois politicians who end up in prison is an anomaly, as it seems to be a far more frequent occurrence in that state compared to all others.
That was evidenced again this week, as the New York Post reported that former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison after a corruption trial that lasted for months.
The former Illinois speaker, who was also the longest-serving legislative leader in U.S. history, was slapped with a $2.5 million fine on top of his prison sentence.
Madigan was ultimately convicted of trading legislation for the enrichment of his friends and allies -- not necessarily an uncommon outcome in Illinois politics.
The 83-year-old former lawmaker was sentenced this week in a Chicago courtroom by U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey .
Madian was convicted back in February on 10 of the 23 counts he faced. The case, which lasted four months and involved more than 60 witnesses included "mountains of documents, photographs and taped conversations."
Ex-Illinois House speaker Michael Madigan — the longest-serving legislative leader in US history — sentenced in corruption case https://t.co/Z4oWB2cxrt pic.twitter.com/EE4SUGlNx7
— New York Post (@nypost) June 14, 2025
The Post noted:
Madigan’s attorneys wanted five years’ probation, saying he is a good man who tried to do right by taxpayers and needs to be home to care for his ailing wife, Shirley, who submitted a videotaped statement to the court requesting her husband be able to come home.
The judge pointed out that he witnessed a "nauseating display" of perjury and evasion when Madigan took the stand in his own defense.
"You lied. You did not have to. You had a right to sit there and exercise your right to silence," Blakey said. "But you took the stand and you took the law into your own hands."
Users across social media reacted to the news of Madigan's sentence, with many applauding the judge, even though it's been some time since he's been in office.
"Well, better late than never, I suppose," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "There you have a major component of Illinois corruption over 50 years in nutshell called Michael Madigan.
It'll be interesting to see who the next current or former Illinois politican is to be convicted and sentenced -- it's definitely coming.
The radical leftists who support illegal aliens so hard that they're willing to riot across cities to take a stand for them are going to be especially upset when they find out who is not being released from ICE custody.
According to Breitbart, Hamas supporter Mahmoud Khalil, who led pro-Hamas protests at Columbia University, who also happens to be a green card holder, will not be released from ICE custody.
The bombshell ruling came down at the hands of a New Jersey District Judge on Friday.
Khalil requested that the judge approve his release, but New Jersey District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz rejected the request.
The judge held nothing back when explaining why he denied the Hamas supporter's request to be released from custody.
The judge said Khalil "did not put forward factual evidence as to why it might be unlawful to detain him” on a second charge, and “failed to make meaningful legal arguments."
UPDATE: Mahmoud Khalil will not be released from ICE custody.
Today, an NJ District judge ruled that the anti-Israel agitator failed to "put forward factual evidence as to why it might be unlawful to detain him" on the charge of omitting key information on his green card… pic.twitter.com/EhXP6lbVXZ
— Jessica Schwalb (@jessicaschwalb7) June 13, 2025
"The Court preliminary enjoined the Respondents from detaining the Petitioner on a particular charge," Judge Farbiarz wrote, noting, “It would be plainly be unlawful to detain the Petitioner on a charge the Court preliminarily enjoined."
Judge Farbiarz then spoke about the second charge.
“As the Court noted at some length on May 28, the Petitioner did not put forward factual evidence as to why it might be unlawful to detain him on the second charge, and the Petitioner failed to make meaningful legal arguments as to that second charge,” the judge said.
Users across social media had plenty to say about the judge's ruling.
"Oh there is an actual judge out there still following the law?" one X user wrote.
Another X user expressed their anger at taxpayer dollars being used to prosecute him, writing, "It took him a moment to lie on his visa application, but will cost us millions of $ and societal angst to remove him. Is he really due this much process?"
Only time will tell what will ultimately happen to him.