This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A ruling from the Michigan Court of Appeals means that a prosecutor in Wayne County now must face a court case that charges him with retaliation against a resident for challenging the county's money-making car forfeiture scheme.
It is the Institute for Justice that explained Robert Reeves sued the county and prosecutor Dennis Doherty.
The decision clears the way for Reeves's First Amendment and malicious prosecution claims to proceed through the court system.
"Today's decision sends a powerful message: When government officials abuse their authority to silence critics, they don't get a free pass," explained Kirby Thomas West, a lawyer with IJ. "Robert stood up to Wayne County's unconstitutional forfeiture program, and today the court has confirmed that he has a right to hold the prosecutor accountable for retaliating against him for taking that stand."
Reeves charged that Doherty twice dragged him into baseless criminal proceedings "to punish him for challenging the county's civil forfeiture machine," the IJ explained.
And the court rejected the prosecutor's claim of absolute immunity, concluding "the assistant prosecutor can be sued for using the criminal process as a tool of retaliation."
The appeals court explained what had happened.
"After Robert Reeves challenged Wayne County's controversial civil forfeiture program in federal court, he says the County retaliated—reviving a dormant criminal case and selectively prosecuting him for bringing that suit. The charges against Reeves were ultimately dismissed (twice) for lack of evidence. This appeal asks whether Reeves's claims of retaliatory prosecution can survive governmental immunity and pleading challenges."
It said, "Doherty's immunity turns on the legal character of the conduct alleged—an issue that can be resolved on the face of the original pleadings. Plaintiff alleged that Doherty contacted the new officer in charge of the task force to seek clarification, recommended submission of the warrant request, and directed the officer in charge to file that request. Those allegations suggest that Doherty's conduct was aimed at reviving a dormant prosecution and falls within the category of investigative or administrative acts, not quasi-judicial ones. Because the alleged conduct is not protected by absolute immunity, the trial court erred in dismissing the claims against Doherty on that basis."
The fight developed when Javone Williams—an associate with whom plaintiff had previously worked—asked him to meet at a job site, where plaintiff demonstrated that he knew how to operate a skid-steer loader.
"Plaintiff then drove to a nearby gas station, where he was stopped by officers assigned to a Michigan State Police task force investigating thefts of rental equipment from Home Depot. Officers questioned plaintiff about the skid-steer loader, detained him briefly in a local jail, and then released him without filing charges."
They also grabbed his 1991 Chevrolet Camaro and $2,280 in cash, which were retained as part of "omnibus forfeiture proceedings" submitted to the Wayne County Prosecutor.
Later in 2019 police sought arrest warrants for several individuals, including plaintiff and Williams, but did not follow through with them.
The next year, plaintiff helped lead a federal class action challenging the constitutionality of Wayne County's forfeiture program, the ruling said.
The day after the case was filed, the county directed state police to release the assets seized from him.
And that same day, Doherty "instigated" a filing for which Doherty again was arrested, leading to a district court to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence.
A second filing also was dismissed sometime later.
The IJ explained the forfeiture scheme was a "controversial legal tool called civil forfeiture" because it let the county confiscate private property without charging any crime.
The IJ said, "While today's ruling does not end the litigation, it breathes new life into Reeves's quest to expose the county's vendetta and to secure damages for the years-long cloud that wrongful felony charges cast over his life and his landmark effort to reform forfeiture in Detroit."
Former Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court Gordon R. Hall passed away on June 1, according to an announcement from the Utah Judiciary on Wednesday.
The late justice, known for his contributions in supporting the independence of the Utah court system, was 98 at the time of his death, as the Salt Lake Tribune reported.
According to his obituary, he was born on Dec. 14, 1926, and "enjoyed a lengthy and distinguished legal career.
"He was Tooele County attorney, 3rd District Judge, Justice, and the longest-serving Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court." the tribute went on.
Hall was appointed to the Utah Supreme Court in 1977 and served as chief justice from 1981 to 1993. Serving as part of the state's high court, Hall had the opportunity to leave a lasting mark on the state's rule of law, going forward.
He also served as the President of the Conference of Chief Justices, and led Utah’s Judicial Council, as well as sitting chair for the National Center for State Courts.
Additionally, Hall had the distinction of receiving the Distinguished Jurist Award in 1988, due to his contributions to the judiciary during his time on the bench.
Like many who sit on the bench, he had the opportunity to learn what it means to represent the people of his state prior to taking the Supreme Court position, thanks to Hall's career beginnings in private practice.
Current Chief Justice Matthew Durrant spoke out about his fellow jurist, talking about his respect for the late judge's dedication to their guiding principles:
“Chief Justice Gordon R. Hall was a visionary leader whose commitment to fairness, judicial integrity, and the rule of law shaped our courts for generations.
"His legacy endures in the independence of Utah’s judiciary and the many lives he influenced,” current Chief Justice Matthew Durrant said.
Hall also served as the Tooele County Attorney and a Third District Court judge in his time before the Supreme Court, working his way through the state court system, winning the respect of many.
Hall's obituary described a personal life full of family who loved the late judge, saying, "He was married to his true soulmate and love of his life, Doris Gillespie, in 1947.
"He is survived by his children, Rick and Craig Hall, grandson Brian Hall, as well as numerous accomplished nieces and nephews who are the enduring legacy of his now deceased siblings Ella Rae and D'Aure 'Buck.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A unanimous Supreme Court has taken the side of a family whose home was negligently and violently invaded, without any cause, by an FBI SWAT team.
The decision in the Martin v. U.S. case sends the dispute back to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for an evaluation of the legitimate issues.
The raid, in suburban Atlanta, happened, Oct. 18, 2017.
"Officers meant to execute search and arrest warrants at a suspected gang hideout at 3741 Landau Lane but instead stormed 3756 Denville Trace, a quiet family home occupied by petitioners Hilliard Toi Cliatt, his partner Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son," the court said.
"A six member SWAT team breached the front door, detonated a flash-bang grenade, and assaulted the innocent occupants before realizing their mistake. The cause of the error was Special Agent Guerra's reliance on a personal GPS device, combined with the team's failure to notice the street sign for 'Denville Trace' and the house number visible on the mailbox."
The government then refused to pay for the personal injuries and property damage inflicted by the armed agents, so the residents brought a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The opinion noted that the complicated law waives sovereign immunity in lawsuits "as to certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment," but there are multiple statutory exceptions.
"The first is the intentional-tort exception in §2680(h), which bars claims against the government for 11 enumerated intentional torts. The second is the discretionary-function exception in §2680(a), which bars claims against the government that are based on an official's exercise of discretionary functions."
The unanimous ruling said the law does allow for lawsuits for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest to proceed against the United States when the torts are committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers."
The 11th Circuit earlier had taken a novel approach, claiming the government "can escape liability when an officer's actions have 'some nexus with furthering federal policy' and reasonably 'comply with the full range of federal law.'"
Reading the law as Congress wrote it, the opinion said, "The statute generally makes the government liable under state law on the same terms as a private individual would be liable under the law of the place where the tortious conduct occurred. Because the FTCA incorporates state law as the liability standard, there is typically no conflict between federal and state law for the Supremacy Clause to resolve. While federal law may sometimes displace state law in FTCA suits where a constitutional text or federal statute supplies controlling liability rules, the Eleventh Circuit identified no such federal statute or constitutional provision displacing Georgia tort law in this case."
One of the issues was that the agent who set up the raid threw away his GPS unit, so no evidence could be obtained from that.
WND previously has reported that according to the Institute for Justice, when given a chance, Toi told the agents the address, and they realized they raided the wrong home. There was a warrant, but the address on it was not that of the family's home. The agents then fled, heading to the correct target.
"When police—including the FBI—raid the wrong house, they must be held responsible for the damages," said IJ lawyer Anya Bidwell."
A federal judge has denied California governor Gavin Newsom's (D) attempt to immediately block President Trump from federalizing the National Guard to put down the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles.
The judge in the case, Charles Breyer, denied Newsom's emergency request Tuesday and granted the Trump administration more time to respond.
“The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion in open court at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 12, 2025,” Breyer continued.
Newsom has downplayed days of chaos in America's second biggest city, accusing Trump of fanning the flames and creating a "manufactured crisis" by sending in 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines.
Trump deployed the National Guard last weekend after anti-ICE rioters began setting fires, vandalizing federal property and throwing deadly objects at law enforcement.
Trump has said he intervened to restore order after the state's "incompetent" Democratic leaders lost control of the streets.
"All I want is safety. I just want a safe area," he told reporters Tuesday. "Los Angeles was under siege until we got there. The police were unable to handle it."
Newsom's emergency request sought to block Trump from using National Guard troops and active-duty Marines to police the streets of LA.
“Defendants intend to use unlawfully federalized National Guard troops and Marines to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles,” the request reads. “They will work in active concert with law enforcement, in support of a law enforcement mission, and will physically interact with or detain civilians.”
The Trump administration had asked for 24 hours to respond, calling Newsom's request "meritless", unusual, and dangerous.
"If entered, Plaintiffs’ proposed order would jeopardize the safety of Department of Homeland Security personnel and interfere with the Federal Government’s ability to carry out operations," the Trump administration said.
"Plaintiffs’ request that this Court supervise the President and Secretary of Defense’s management of military forces is itself highly unusual and indeed non-justiciable under constitutional principle."
In a lawsuit Monday, Newsom claimed Trump had illegally federalized the National Guard without the governor's consent. The governor cast Trump's action as a tyrannical overreach that threatens state sovereignty and the rule of law. The military can only be used for domestic law enforcement in the most extreme circumstances, "none of which is present here," Newsom claimed.
"Indeed, nothing about the scale of the protests or acts of violence set these events apart from other recent periods of significant social unrest," he said.
New Jersey Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver was indicted by a federal grand jury for her role in a violent scuffle outside an ICE facility last month.
The lawmaker is facing 17 years in prison if convicted on the charges of "forcibly impeding and interfering" with ICE agents.
The Democrat has denied all wrongdoing. She claims she was conducting legitimate oversight, and her party has claimed the charges are politically motivated.
McIver was one in a group of three House Democrats who were present during a chaotic confrontation at Delaney Hall in Newark on May 9.
The indictment says McIver and Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) were performing congressional oversight that coincided with an immigration protest.
The charges against McIver revolve around her alleged efforts to forcefully block the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D), who was told to leave the facility but refused, and who later had trespassing charges dropped. McIver made two separate attempts to block the mayor's arrest, the indictment says.
"After the Mayor was escorted outside the secured area, law enforcement officers made a second attempt to arrest him. At this time, someone in the crowd yelled 'circle the mayor.' McIver then faced the Mayor and placed her arms around him in an effort to prevent HSI from completing the arrest," the DOJ said.
"During her continued attempts to thwart the arrest, McIver slammed her forearm into the body of one law enforcement officer and also reached out and tried to restrain that officer by forcibly grabbing him. McIver also used each of her forearms to forcibly strike a second officer."
The interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Alina Habba, issued a statement on the charges.
"As I have stated in the past, it is my Constitutional obligation as the Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer for New Jersey to ensure that our federal partners are protected when executing their duties,” Habba said in a statement.
“While people are free to express their views for or against particular policies, they must not do so in a manner that endangers law enforcement and the communities those officers serve,” Habba said.
McIver has insisted she did nothing wrong, casting blame on ICE for instigating the confrontation. She dismissed the case as "an effort by Trump's administration to dodge accountability for the chaos ICE caused".
"The facts will prove I was simply doing my job", she added.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A resolution has been adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant group in America, that seeks the reversal of the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in which a single-vote majority created without a link to the U.S. Constitution the "right" to same-sex marriage across the nation.
A resolution, "On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family," calls for the overturning of "laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family."
It seeks "laws that affirm marriage between one man and one woman, recognize the biological reality of male and female, protect children's innocence against sexual predation, affirm and strengthen parental rights in education and healthcare, incentivize family formation in life-affirming ways, and ensure safety and fairness in athletic competition."
The Supreme Court, at the time it unleashed the stunning creation of rights not mentioned in the Constitution, admitted it was unrelated to America's founding document. The minority on the court, taking a more conservative position, warned, too, that the ruling, even though it "recognized" the rights of Americans to not support the alternative sexual lifestyle choice, would be used to attack Christians in America, which it has.
For example, officials in just one state, Colorado, have gone to the Supreme Court twice already trying to impose a state-adopted religious belief, which is anti-Christian, on its residents.
Officials there, led by homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, first tried to punish a Christian baker for declining to promote anti-Christian beliefs with his work. The state lost at the Supreme Court, and got scolded for its "hostility" to Christianity. The same thing happened when Colorado officials tried to force a Christian web designer to promote anti-Christian religious beliefs with her work.
Incredibly, officials in that state, after costing taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees for their ideological warfare, have gone to the Supreme Court yet a third time, this time trying to impose their religious beliefs on every counselor in the state.
The support for overturning Obergefell has been developing every since it was released, and, in fact, there's a court fight already in the pipeline that justices on the bench, now far more conservative than in 2015 when radicals like Ruth Ginsburg were in control, could use to overturn it.
That case involves former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis.
She refrained from issuing any marriage licenses under her name for a short time after the Obergefell opinion, as the ruling infringed on her religious beliefs. She asked for and eventually got an accommodation, but not before a biased federal judge excoriated her for having her Christian faith and sent her to jail.
She later was sued by two same-sex duos for "damages" when she didn't immediately grant them licenses. One jury awarded $50,000 in damages to both David Ermold and David Moore for "emotional distress" based on "hurt feelings," while the other jury considering the same facts announced there was no evidence of damages.
While Davis' case now is being presented to the Supreme Court, a ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already has confirmed it is "a case of 'first impression,' where a question regarding an interpretation of the law that has never arisen before is first presented to the court."
Liberty Counsel is representing Davis, and said, "The 6th Circuit affirmed the jury verdict against her, but did so in a way that provides Davis with excellent grounds to appeal the decision to the full 6th Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States.
"On appeal, Davis argued that she was entitled to First Amendment protections in her position as county clerk, and that the jury was prohibited from issuing any damage award against her. According to legal precedent, the First Amendment prohibits imposing liability on an individual for the exercise of their sincerely held religious beliefs. While most of the cases … establishing this position were based on the Free Speech Clause, there is no reason to make a distinction between the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses for this purpose," the legal team explained.
The court claimed, "Writing on this blank slate, we are wise to tread lightly. To that end, the fact-specific nature of our holding again bears emphasis: a government employee, acting in the scope of that employment, does not have a unilateral free exercise right to use an arm of the state to infringe on a clearly established equal protection right of the public. Change the factual setting, and a free exercise defense to a civil rights lawsuit may have more traction. It is always the case that '[a] later court assessing a past decision must . . . appreciate the possibility that different facts and different legal arguments may dictate a different outcome.'"
That decision, now on appeal, threatened that government officials lose their conscience protections when they are government officials.
Liberty Counsel explained, "The court found that the 2015 Obergefell 5-4 opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday, June 26, 2015, 'clearly established' that Davis as the Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky must issue licenses to same sex couples when she commenced work on Monday, June 29. The problem with this ruling, however, is that Davis' function is totally defined by state law. To issue a license to someone not authorized to receive one under state law could subject Davis to criminal prosecution."
At the time of the Obergefell ruling, same-sex marriage was illegal in many states.
Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chief, said the reason Obergefell must fall is that the decision "threatens the religious liberty of many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. The First Amendment precludes making the choice between your faith and your livelihood."
The legal team previously has noted the path to overturning Obergefell could follow the same path as that was used to overturn Roe: that the Constitution does not even mention same-sex marriage and thus, under the Constitution, the issue must be left to states.
The pro-marriage Mass Resistance organization said, "The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices. It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex 'marriage' – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment."
The problem with that ruling?
"The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex 'marriage' on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights," the group reported.
"In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional 'right' to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to 'two people who love each other,'" the group reported.
But the 14th Amendment actually states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and does not mention marriage.
The Obergefell promoters at the time also cited "substantive due process," which is not in the Constitution, a maneuver that was caught by Justice Clarence Thomas, who said that use in Obergefell, like Roe, "is faulty, and a basis for revisiting those cases."
He said, "We should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
The decision was biased because two justices, Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, who joined in creating the new right, already had officiated at same-sex weddings, indicating they had a clear bias in favor.
In fact, WND later reported that the Davis case got a "Told you so," from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after the high court declined to review one issue of the attacks on Davis.
In a statement then, Thomas said Davis "may have been one of the first victims" of the Supreme Court's "cavalier treatment of religion" when it issued its same-sex marriage ruling, "but she will not be the last."
Thomas called Davis a "devout Christian" who "found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job."
"Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws," Thomas wrote. "Moreover, Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."
Thomas said, "Several members of the court noted that the court's decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the states had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs. The court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often 'decent and honorable' … the court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview…"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court hearing has been scheduled on Juan Merchan's lawfare case against President Donald Trump.
Merchan was the judge in so-called "hush money" case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg against Trump over some contractual agreements and payments he made, and provided the appearance of so much bias against Trump that one constitutional expert described the judge as a "tyrant."
The one-sided jury instructions resulted in 34 convictions against the president, and Merchan then, during sentencing, spent seven minutes complaining about how he was restricted in his sentencing options.
Merchan imposed an "unconditional discharge" on Trump, providing for no fines, jail or probation time while formalizing his status as a convicted felon.
Merchan, whose daughter is a consultant who was making money off of her father's multiple rulings against Trump, claimed "extraordinary" legal protections handed to the president of the United States required him to hand down a minor sentence that Trump would allegedly not have received without being reelected.
"While one can argue that the trial itself was in many respects somewhat ordinary, the same cannot be said about the circumstances surrounding this sentencing and that is because of the office [Trump] once occupied, and which you will soon occupy again," Merchan told the president-elect. "To be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to the office of the president of the United States that are extraordinary, not the occupant of the office. The legal protections, especially within the context of a criminal prosecution, afforded to the office of the president have been laid out by our founders, the Constitution and most recently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Trump versus the United States, which was decided on July 1, 2024.
"As with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to consider any and all aggravating and mitigating factors to inform my decision … The considerable, indeed, extraordinary legal protections afforded by the office of the chief executive, is a factor that overrides all others," the judge continued.
Merchan, in extraordinary fashion, allowed a wide range of inflammatory testimony to come into his courtroom against Trump. The substance of the complaint was that Bragg claimed a $130,000 non-disclosure agreement with former porn actress Stormy Daniels, paid through Trump's then-lawyer as legal fees, were not legal fees. Bragg claimed that calling legal fees legal fees was "falsifying business records."
A long list of legal experts charged that the case never should have been created by Bragg. Merchan, in fact, inexplicably told the jurors their verdict didn't have to be unanimous.
A report from the Washington Examiner reports now that a hearing is scheduled before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan.
Trump's lawyers are seeking to have the claims moved into a federal court, rather than state, and have explained to the appeals court the prosecution was not only politically motivated, but also constitutionally flawed.
Previously, Alvin Hellerstein, a federal judge, twice rejected similar requests, but Trump's team has explained those rulings are outdated in light of the Supreme Court's decision granting Trump presumptive immunity for official acts.
Leading the charge this time is Jeff Wall, a former acting solicitor general and Supreme Court advocate with Sullivan & Cromwell, said is pointing out that "the case should have been removed from state court under the federal officer removal statute." He cited Supremacy Clause concerns and said Trump was targeted by 'hostile local officials,'" to include Bragg and Merchan.
Trump's lawyers also cite Merchan's aggressive bias, including his gag order, his contempt claims, and his donation to a Democrat cause.
The payment was for Daniels' silence about an alleged affair, which Trump has confirmed never happened.
Trump said the payments were part of a standard legal retainer and denied knowing of any unlawful scheme.
The "offenses" actually were misdemeanors until Bragg theorized they were part of the furtherance of another, unidentified, crime, and that made them felonies.
Experts called Bragg's machinations "legally creative."
Other parts of the Democrats' lawfare against Trump, indictments over the Jan. 6, riot and a dispute over classified documents, were dropped when he was re-elected.
And an organized crime case against him, created by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, collapsed when she was removed from the case over her conflicts and behaviors.
Yet another case, a wild civil claim from New York Attorney General Letitia James, which resulted in a penalty from a leftist New York judge of hundreds of millions of dollars, also remains on appeal.
James claimed Trump committed fraud in his business dealings with lenders. Those lenders testified in court they were happy doing business with Trump, didn't lose any money, and wanted to do additional business, but Arthur Engoron, the judge, handed down the massive penalty anyway.
Ironically, James herself now is facing the possibility of criminal trial, conviction and sentencing for committing fraud on mortgage documents.
Trump has not been silent about the lawfare:
Trump continued, "….I am the only Political Opponent in American History not allowed to defend myself – A despicable First Amendment Violation! Merchan took the Manhattan D.A.'s Witch Hunt, that, according to all Legal Scholars, including Jonathan Turley, Elie Honig, Andy McCarthy, Alan Dershowitz, Gregg Jarrett, David Rivkin, Elizabeth Price Foley, Katie and Andy Cherkasky, Paul Ingrassia, and many others, is a nonexistent case, barred by the Statute of Limitations, and should have never been brought and, through his fraud and misconduct, gave it a semblance of 'life.' While Deranged Jack Smith was sent packing back to The Hague after losing all of his politically manufactured cases against me, Merchan, who is far worse and even more corrupt than Smith in his fight for my hopeless political opponents, just cannot let go of this charade. Is it because of his conflicts and relations that he keeps breaking the Law? This has to stop! It is time to end the Lawfare once and for all, so we can come together as one Nation and, Make America Great Again."
Experts have noted the trial itself was "replete with layers of reversible error."
A report at Fox News said Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus, "called out" Merchan for "outrageous" rulings against Trump.
He told "The Brian Kilmeade Show" host Brian Kilmeade that Merchan is a "tyrant" for threatening to strike the testimony of defense witness Bob Costello, who expressed disbelief at some of Merchan's anti-Trump rulings.
Dershowitz charged, "I've been in courthouses in every part of the world and in China, in Russia, in Ukraine, in Israel. I've been all over. I've never seen a spectacle like this. And that's why it should have been on television, so the American public could see how outrageous this judge is. And CNN just does his bidding. CNN lies, lies through their teeth about what happened in court yesterday between Judge Merchan and Bob Costello. Bob Costello testifies, Merchan rules against him at every point, keeps out his testimony, makes outrageous rulings that any first-year student taking evidence would know was wrong."
He continued, "And Bob Costello does what I did: He rolled his eyes. And I rolled my eyes, I said, I couldn't believe the judge was making these rulings. And the judge, thinking he's a tyrant, clears the courtroom, throws out everybody from the media. For some reason, they allowed me to stay, and I watched as the judge berated him. And the judge said something I have never seen in a courtroom in my history, 60 years. He threatened to strike the testimony of the main witness for the defendant because of punishment of the witness for staring at the judge. Can you imagine the violation of the Sixth Amendment? The Sixth Amendment allows any defendant to confront witnesses and to present evidence in his defense. Can you imagine if this judge had actually struck the testimony of Bob Costello? It would result in an automatic mistrial, new trial, and a verdict against the prosecution. The judge was bluffing. He ought to be disciplined for making that threat because the threat was an idle threat. He obviously didn't act on it. …":
Elon Musk now says he regrets his barrage of social media posts slamming President Donald Trump, Fox News reported. The former Department of Government Efficiency head launched a series of personal attacks on the president on social media.
The feud between Musk and Trump erupted over the president's "big beautiful" bill that came with a huge price tag. The Tesla billionaire was incensed that he worked to slash spending while Trump's legislation would add to the deficit.
Musk lashed out at Trump, saying the Department of Justice had evidence that Trump was tied to accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Musk deleted the posts and later shared to X, "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far."
I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 11, 2025
Things got ugly as Musk very publicly made the claim about Trump and Epstein. "Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files," Musk wrote in a since-deleted post to X.
"That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!"
Musk also accused Trump of "ingratitude" as he claimed that it was he who helped push Trump over the finish line to win the 2024 presidential election. Musk went so far as to say Trump should be impeached and Vice President J.D. Vance installed as president.
Surprisingly, Trump was mostly subdued in his criticisms of Musk, which is a far cry from how the president handled such situations in the past. Trump did say that "Elon's totally lost it" during a Fox News interview, but otherwise, Trump's response was measured.
Still, Trump couldn't help but take a jab on social media. "Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump wrote.
Trump would later share kind words for his former associate, signaling that he had moved on from the feud. "We had a great relationship and I wish him well—very well, actually," Trump said Monday.
Besides his quasi-apology, Musk subtly reasserted his support for Trump by sharing one of his posts about the riots happening in Los Angeles. "Governor Gavin Newscum and ‘Mayor’ Bass should apologize to the people of Los Angeles for the absolutely horrible job that they’ve done, and this now includes the ongoing L.A. riots," Trump's post shared by Musk said.
"These are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists," Trump added in the post. On another post by Vance that also shared Trump's words, Musk replied with two American flag emojis.
The post voiced Vance's support for Trump's position on the riot while also including a screenshot of Trump's post."This moment calls for decisive leadership. The president will not tolerate rioting and violence," Vance captioned the screenshot.
This situation had the potential to become a drawn-out feud between these two powerhouses of American politics and culture. While the internet had fun with it for a few days, it seems cooler heads have prevailed as both men have gone back to their respective corners.
A federal judge refused California Gov. Gavin Newsom's petition to stop President Donald Trump from deploying troops to break up riots in the Golden State, the Daily Caller reported. Trump has been forced to call on the Marines and National Guard as protests against immigration enforcement have turned violent in recent days.
Trump is attempting to restore law and order to Los Angeles while California resists such intervention. A violent mob has been rioting over enforcement measures from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as Los Angeles officials stand by.
California sued in what the Department of Justice called a "legally meritless" case because Trump tried to clean it up. The DOJ contended that denying military intervention would be dangerous to federal law enforcement and Homeland Security.
Tuesday's decision is not final as U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer scheduled a hearing for Thursday to further examine the matter. Bryer refused to grant an emergency block but will hear more testimony from both sides before rendering a verdict, while the chaos continues in Los Angeles.
Rather than containing the riots in Los Angeles, Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the Trump administration. The president deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to attempt to quell the violent uprising in the city.
The administration was prepared to send an additional 4,000 troops, including U.S. Marines, to address the issue. Newsom and Bonta worry that this is an overreach of the federal government and of Trump's authority.
Trump maintains that Newsom left him no choice. He slammed Newsom in a post to Truth Social Monday, calling him "incompetent" because he was "unable to provide protection" against the "out of control mob of agitators, troublemakers, and/or insurrectionists."
While Newsom complains about Trump's action, the president said he had called Newsom and urged him to "do a better job" to get a handle on the situation. Newsom denies he ever spoke to Trump, claiming, "There was no call. Not even a voicemail."
According to Fox News, the riots began because ICE agents launched raids on illegal immigrants in the sanctuary city. It has sparked off days of looting, rioting, and vandalism that often include anti-American sentiments.
Predictably, Newsom is siding with the criminals. "Instead of focusing on undocumented immigrants with serious criminal records and people with final deportation orders, a strategy that both parties have long supported, this administration is pushing mass deportations, indiscriminately targeting hardworking immigrant families regardless of their roots or risk," the governor had claimed.
The governor blames the use of the American military for the escalation. "If some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant, based only on suspicion or skin color, then none of us are safe," Newsom claimed.
However, as Vice President J.D. Vance pointed out, it's Newsom's support for illegal immigration that "allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone." In a post to X, Vance charged that Gavin and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass share the goal "to promote mass migration into our country."
These riots have persisted because the leftists in California support the cause of illegal immigrants and don't seem to mind mass destruction. Trump has tried to stop the madness by invoking his power as president, but all the Democrats can do is cry foul.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Prosecutors in Wisconsin have just filed an unusual document with a court: They explained that just because a person is a judge, that doesn't mean she gets a free pass to break the law.
That earlier was the stunning claim from Hannah Dugan, a now-suspended judge, arguing that prosecutors weren't even allowed to bring a case against her after evidence showed she distracted federal agents, then let an illegal alien criminal walk out of the courthouse.
Dugan's claim was that she has absolutely immunity for whatever she does in her courtroom – even in the courthouse building.
A report at Fox News now explains that prosecutors disagree.
Prosecutors now have responded to her claim, explaining "the Supreme Court has made clear that judges are not immune from criminal liability."
Their filing said, "In the end, Dugan asks for this Court to develop a novel doctrine of judicial immunity from criminal prosecution, and to apply it to the facts alleged in the indictment, all without reasonable basis—directly or indirectly—in the Constitution, statutes, or case law. … In her lengthy memorandum, Dugan concedes that '[j]udges, like legislators and executive officials, are not above the law.' Dugan's desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are 'above the law,' and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement."
Prosecutors have accused the Milwaukee Circuit Court judge of personally escorting Mexican illegal immigrant and domestic battery suspect Eduardo Flores-Ruiz out of the courthouse. That was after Dugan directed ICE agents to go consult with the chief judge and they left the hallway in front of the courtroom.
The 65-year-old Dugan has been indicted on federal charges of obstruction of proceedings before a U.S. agency and the unlawful concealment of an individual subject to arrest.
Prosecutors said, "Put simply, nothing in the indictment or the anticipated evidence at trial supports Dugan's assertion that agents 'disrupted' the court's docket; instead, all events arose from Dugan's unilateral, non-judicial, and unofficial actions in obstructing a federal immigration matter over which she, as a Wisconsin state judge, had no authority. At the very least, for purposes of deciding this motion, Dugan's claims to the contrary find no support in the indictment and should be rejected."
WND reported when a video surfaced showing the episode.
In an interview on "American Reports," Attorney General Pam Bondi explained how the Trump administration will handle judges who obstruct and block federal efforts to secure the border and remove illegal aliens.