Legal proceedings initiated by former President Donald Trump against the Pulitzer Prize Board have reached a significant milestone with a recent court decision in his favor.
Trump's defamation lawsuit challenges the 2018 Pulitzer Prizes awarded to the New York Times and the Washington Post over their reporting on alleged Russia collusion ahead of the 2016 election, which Trump asserts to be false, as Breitbart reports, with the president just notching a key win.
Trump persistently criticized the media coverage surrounding the Russia collusion narrative, especially after the Mueller Report, released in 2019, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge him. In 2019, Trump strongly stated that if the Pulitzer Prize was endorsing what he viewed as inaccurate political reporting, the Pulitzer Board should openly acknowledge it.
Despite the findings of the Mueller Report, the Pulitzer Board initially stood by its decision to honor the New York Times and the Washington Post. In response to this, Trump publicly requested in October 2021 that the Pulitzer Board retract the awards, which he characterized as "running cover for the biggest reporting failure in modern history."
In addition to asking for the revocation of the awards, Trump called on the two newspapers to return their prizes the following year. Trump asserted through social media that such actions would be the "honorable thing to do" should they recognize their reporting as flawed.
The lawsuit encountered several legal hurdles over time. A motion to dismiss Trump's case was presented but ultimately denied in July 2024. This denial allowed the lawsuit to proceed within the judicial system.
Further legal maneuvering by the defendants occurred when a motion was filed seeking to postpone the lawsuit until after Trump's current tenure in office. This attempt, aiming for a delay until 2028, was also recently denied, adding momentum to Trump's case against the Pulitzer Board.
Confident in his chances in the case, Trump shared his reaction to the legal victory on Truth Social, a new media platform he frequently uses. He expressed satisfaction with the appellate court's decision, which he considered a crucial win in the ongoing proceedings.
The rhetoric used by Trump in response to this legal breakthrough included a sharp critique of the original reporting outlets. He labeled the awarded stories from the New York Times and the Washington Post as "fake" and "malicious," referring to them as products of failed journalism.
Furthermore, Trump went on to challenge the legitimacy of the reports, upholding that the awarded publications should be returned. He contended that accepting accolades for what he described as "false" reporting could not be permitted in the United States.
This ongoing legal experience underscores the complex relationship between media organizations and high-profile political figures. The Pulitzer Board's awards have been central to this dispute, igniting fervent reactions from Trump amid broader discussions on media integrity and accountability.
As Trump continues to push forward with his legal challenge, the case's developments draw intense public and legal scrutiny. The court's rejection of motions for dismissal and delay marks a significant moment in Trump's efforts to hold the Pulitzer Board accountable.
Looking forward, the repercussions of this case may impact future awards and the credibility perceived by both media entities and award-granting bodies. Whether the litigation will lead to amendments in the evaluation process of media contributions remains to be seen.
The comprehensive analysis of this case and its impact reflects broader societal discussions on media dynamics and political considerations. As the saga unfolds, it is poised to become a substantial focal point in ongoing dialogues about the intersection of journalism and politics.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A ruling from the state Supreme Court in Missouri is allowing, at least for now, a shutdown of abortion business that do not meet minimum medical facility requirements.
"We're going to take a moment to celebrate, because this effectively shuts down abortion clinics in the state of Missouri for the time being," said Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, during an interview with Tony Perkins on "Washington Watch."
The dispute is over the business operations meeting the state requirements for medical facilities.
"What the Supreme Court said was that the lower court did not apply the proper standard: The lower court said any likelihood, any chance of success on the merits, is sufficient. And that is not legally accurate," Bailey said.
A report from the Washington Stand said the result is that the case is being returned to the lower court for a re-evaluation of the issues based on the correct standard.
"Planned Parenthood at this point is starting to look more like a criminal enterprise than any kind of legitimate health care entity," Bailey charged.
"We said all along that Amendment 3 was bad, because it was not only going to result in the death of innocent children, but potentially harm to women, as well. And as soon as Amendment 3 passed, Planned Parenthood marched to court and said that they shouldn't have to have ultrasounds anymore. … They didn't have to have any plan to prevent hemorrhaging or sepsis of their 'patients,' that their facilities didn't have to be licensed, that they didn't need to sterilize their equipment, and that they didn't have to get informed consent voluntarily from the women before they performed these abortions," Bailey said.
"These are pernicious and dangerous positions that Planned Parenthood has taken in court. And they convinced a judge in Kansas City that they were correct that Amendment 3 wiped all of that out."
The amendment was the vote through which state voter allowed abortion in their state constitution.
The abortion cartel, with that amendment, had argued it no longer needed to meet state health and safety rules, no longer needed to assure the mother had not been coerced into abortion and had no reason to make preparations for the event of a botched abortion, the report explained.
It was Jerri Zhang, a circuit court judge in Jackson County, who claimed the state no longer could enforce health and safety rules such as a requirement abortionists have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles of their business.
Zhang even, in an extreme move, blocked the state from requiring abortion businesses be licensed by the state.
The report noted that during a 2018 inspection of a Planned Parenthood business, state inspectors found "abortionists used an abortion suction machine clogged with 'blackish gray residue' that inspectors later identified as black mold. Planned Parenthood techs used the potentially infection-transmitting machine, although the replacement hose lay unused in a nearby cabinet. They documented that other equipment contained 'rusted areas, old peeling tape, dried adhesive residue' and 'uncleanable surfaces,' as well as the potential presence of mold or human blood during the unannounced September 26 inspection of Planned Parenthood's Columbia Health Center in Columbia, Missouri."
Abortionists have conceded in court filings that they don't even track complications and injuries that may result.
The amendment narrowly adopted by voters confirmed a woman's right "to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives."
It allows voters to protect the lives of the unborn after a baby reaches the age of viability.
Critics of the plan charged with it deliberately was vague so that it could be used to trash health and safety standards.
Bailey noted the voters were "defrauded" by amendment promoters.
"They sold people on this idea that you have a constitutional right to kill innocent children and that there should be no limitations on it. What they didn't explain is that it would eliminate all health and safety regulations," he said.
The report noted, however, that Zhang, a "liberal judicial activist," probably will side with the pro-abortion regime "under any legal standard."
Any such ruling likely will end up at the state Supreme Court again.
A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's administration from abolishing a parole program for illegal immigrants on Wednesday, Fox News reported. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a similar ruling on the issue Friday, which could signal another future win for the administration on this issue.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts ruled against abolishing the parole program created under then-President Joe Biden. Migrants from Ukraine, Latin America, and Afghanistan, along with their immediate family members, were given two years to reside in the U.S.
The program stipulated that parolees and their families must have an American sponsor to participate. Some were also granted access to the program after working as translators for the American military.
Abolishing the program immediately suspended the application for hundreds of thousands of migrants wishing to renew their legal status or apply for work permits. Trump targeted this as one of the many ways to crack down on illegal immigration.
Talwani ruled against the Trump administration's assertion that it had broad powers over the immigration system. The judge, an Obama appointee, said that it was within the purview of the Department of Homeland Security and granted class-action status to the migrants.
According to Talwani, it's "not in the public interest to manufacture a circumstance in which hundreds of thousands of individuals will, over the course of several months, become unlawfully present in the country, such that these individuals cannot legally work in their communities or provide for themselves and their families," she wrote. The decision also extended to humanitarian parolee cases.
"Nor is it in the public interest for individuals who enlisted and are currently serving in the United States military to face family separation, particularly where some of these individuals joined the military in part to help their loved ones obtain lawful status," the judge added. One of the plaintiff attorneys, Anwen Hughes from Human Rights First, championed Talwani's decision in a statement.
"This ruling reaffirms what we have always known to be true: our government has a legal obligation to respect the rights of all humanitarian parole beneficiaries and the Americans who have welcomed them into their communities. We share the judge’s hope that the government will adhere to this order and immediately resume adjudicating our clients’ applications for relief," Hughes wrote.
This decision is in line with Talwani's ruling last month for migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Haiti. In that case, the judge found that status determinations must be made on an individual basis, though it has since been overturned.
According to NBC News, the Supreme Court overturned Talwani's earlier ruling because she was not authorized to decide such matters. The high court weighed in after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem filed an emergency petition, which was granted Friday.
This impacts some 532,000 migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Haiti who have now seen their status become immediately illegal. However, the affected individuals still have the option to apply for asylum, which many have already done.
Predictably, left-leaning Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the opinion. Jackson claimed that the court's short opinion ignored "the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending."
Justice Action Center attorney Karen Tumlin cited the same concerns. "I cannot overstate how devastating this is: The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump Administration to unleash widespread chaos, not just for our clients and class members, but for their families, their workplaces, and their communities," Tumlin claimed.
With Talwani's initial block already overturned, it seems any subsequent decision could meet the same fate. This is good news for the Trump administration and all who value a tighter, more secure immigration system.
A federal court has struck down much of President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs in a ruling Wednesday, the Washington Examiner reported. The U.S. Court of International Trade determined that it is not within the president's powers, but the administration immediately appealed.
This court's decision immediately nullified the flat 10% rate Trump imposed on most imported goods on April 2. However, the 25% tariff on steel, aluminium, automobiles, and their components was left untouched as it was enacted under a different law.
Democrats were happy about the development as New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took to X, formerly Twitter, to rejoice. "BREAKING: We sued the Trump Administration over their ridiculous tariff policy — and we WON! A tariff is just a backdoor tax. New York is fighting to stop these tariffs and put money back in your pocket," Hochul said.
BREAKING: We sued the Trump Administration over their ridiculous tariff policy — and we WON!
A tariff is just a backdoor tax. New York is fighting to stop these tariffs and put money back in your pocket. https://t.co/jJtF61BuFM
— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) May 28, 2025
Wednesday's decision came from a three-judge panel including a Trump appointee, a Reagan appointee, and an Obama appointee. They examined the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 and whether it "delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world," they wrote.
"The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the decision noted. Of course, the White House objected to such a standard that hinders the president's powers.
"Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the United States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficit. These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute," White House spokesman Kush Desai said.
"It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness," Desai added.
The challenge came from New York, Arizona, and Oregon, which sued over the implementation of these tariffs. However, the administration was quick to appeal the decision.
The Trump administration filed an appeal on Wednesday evening, almost immediately after the judges' ruling, CNN reported. The subsequent reversal from the United States Court of Appeals allows Trump to continue to impose tariffs.
Trump had used emergency powers to push through the tariffs, and the appeal will allow that to continue for now. In the meantime, the administration and the states objecting will have to file court documents arguing their positions.
Despite the setback, Trump's lead trade adviser, Peter Navarro, is undeterred and said "all strategic options" will be employed. "We will hear, within the next day or two, at a minimum, from the United States Trade Representative on how we will respond to all of this," Navarro said.
"We will respond forcefully, and we think we have a very good case with respect to this. I can assure the American people that the Trump tariff agenda is alive, well, healthy, and will be implemented to protect you, to save your jobs and your factories and to stop shipping foreign wealth, our wealth, into foreign hands," Navarro said about the future of the tariffs.
Although this was undoubtedly a setback for the Trump administration, the push and pull is part of what keeps power in check on both sides. Trump has many more tricks up his sleeve when it comes to his innovative economic policies, and it's unlikely this will stop here.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a case that has law enforcement investigators in Indianapolis at work, there is a mother who reportedly shot and injured a convicted child molester who was in the process of attacking her daughter.
The New York Post reported what details are known: That the mother walked in on Bruce Pierce, of Indianapolis, who allegedly was on top of her 12-year-old daughter as the preteen protested "no" at the Baymont Inn.
Citing court documents, the report said there are details missing, but the young victim's grandmother told police that Pierce previously has been talking with the 12-year-old online and by phone, trying to persuade her to leave town with him.
The situation is at a turning point now, with Pierce under arrest and charged with attempted rape and attempted child molestation.
The report said on the day of the shooting, the victim and her sister woke up their grandmother with concern their mother hadn't come home. "They went to the inn, where they found the mom and Pierce in the lobby."
What hasn't been explained is how Pierce and the victim ended up in a room, but, the report said, "Pierce took the opportunity to allegedly pin her arms to the bed and start ripping some of her clothes before the mother burst in."
The victim was able to escape Pierce, and mom fired, the report said. The mother and daughter then called police.
A warrant has been issued for Pierce's arrest.
He previously pleaded guilty to a child molestation charge in 2016.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Initial injunction 'unilaterally disarms the United States' but now is on hold
In order to "avoid the irreparable national security and economic harms" being threatened by a federal appeals court ruling, the Trump administration suggested it would appeal to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis the decision overturning most of the president's tariff plans if needed.
A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of International Trade has claimed, in its permanent injunction, that the tariff plans President Donald Trump has announced for China, Mexico, Canada and many more nations aren't valid.
Trump has been using tariff policies to push foreign nations into negotiating trade deals that are fair for American businesses and consumers. Over the past, many tariff agendas have had American consumers paying more and American businesses getting less than their overseas counterparts.
The case moved immediately to an appeals court, where the lower panel's decision was stayed for now, and Department of Justice lawyer Sosun Bae said it was damaging, as being "unprecedented and legally indefensible."
He warned, in fact, it could damage or destroy many of the trade deals and negotiations already underway.
The DOJ explained, "The injunction unilaterally disarms the United States. The political branches, not courts, make foreign policy and chart economic policy."
The move is just one of dozens taken by federal courts since Trump took office for his second term in which they have taken over the decision-making process of the executive branch on issues ranging from the deportation of illegal alien criminals to economic policy to the hiring and firing of executive branch staff members.
According to a report in the Washington Examiner, the Trump administration signaled it would ask the Supreme Court to intervene on an emergency basis until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit acts immediately, which it did.
Bae warned, "The judicial coup is out of control."
Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro said in the report the court's decision reeks of "globalist" bias and he charged the judges with favoring importers.
The judges on the panel were Jane Restani, Timothy Reif and Gary Katzmann.
They claimed Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs exceeded presidential authority.
But, the report explained, "On page 35 of the decision, the judges noted that the administration would have been within its rights to impose the sweeping tariffs if it had relied on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974."
Analysts, however, pointed out that provides only "150 days" of implementation.
Trump's goal always has been a longer term solution for the economic imbalance now embedded in the world economy.
Fox News said in a separate report that another judge ruled in favor of a Chicago company by blocking five specific orders from the president regarding tariffs on China.
It was Rudolph Contreras, the Chicago judge, who said the International Economic Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't authorize the president to impose the tariffs involved in the dispute.
The ruling was suspended for two weeks, also to allow for an appeal.
Trump announced a long list of tariffs in April, including a baseline 10% tariff for all countries.
Rick Woldenberg is chief of Learning Resources, the company that brought the Chicago dispute. He claimed its $2.3 million tariff bill for 2024 would jump to $100.2 million in 2025.
Administrative officials have argued unelected judges do not have the authority to decide how to properly address a national emergency.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A scandal that has sullied, perhaps forever, the reputations of the Pulitzer prizes, the New York Times and the Washington Post, is going to be further explored, after a ruling from the Florida Appellate Court that rejected the defendants' attempt to have the case brought by President Donald Trump dismissed.
The scenario that triggered the legal defamation case is that the Pultizer board awarded a prize for reporting to the Times and Post on their work "exposing" the Russian collusion conspiracy about Trump's campaign in 2016.
The problem is that the conspiracy theory was based on fabrications, and the reporting portrayed those ideologies as fact. And then when the truth was revealed, Pulitzer officials didn't recall, and the publications didn't reject, their prizes.
It was Trump himself who went to social media to note the decision to allow the case, filed in Okeechobee County, Florida, to continue. He charges that the Pulitzer decision to refuse to rescind the awards which essentially honored "fake news" constituted defamation.
"A large swath of Americans had a tremendous misunderstanding of the truth at the time the Times' and the Post's propagation of the Russia Collusion Hoax dominated the media," according to the complaint. "Remarkably, they were rewarded for lying to the American public."
President Trump made the announcement on TRUTH Social.
Pulitzer officials said they were "evaluating" their next step. It's one of a multitude of cases brought by Trump against media and other organizations, some of which already have been settled with huge payments to him.
It was ex-FBI chief Robert Mueller who investigated, for years, those claims. And found no evidence to support the allegations.
Pulitzer officials claimed the publications' reports were "deeply sourced" and "relentlessly reported," even though the claims were based on lies and fabrications.
Trump, on social media, responded to the attacks by the publications and the new court decision.
"BREAKING! In a major WIN in our powerful lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board regarding the illegal and defamatory 'Award' of their once highly respected 'Prize,' to fake, malicious stories on the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, by the Failing New York Times and the Washington Compost, the Florida Appellate Court viciously rejected the Defendants' corrupt attempt to halt the case. They won a Pulitzer Prize for totally incorrect reporting about the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax. Now they admit it was a SCAM, never happened, and their reporting was totally wrong, in fact, the exact opposite of the TRUTH. They'll have to give back their 'Award.' They were awarded for false reporting, and we can't let that happen in the United States of America. We are holding the Fake News Media responsible for their LIES to the American People, so we can, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
As explained by the Gateway Pundit, Trump's case "challenges the legitimacy of the 2018 Pulitzer Prizes awarded to fake news, The New York Times and The Washington Post, for their coverage of the debunked Trump-Russia collusion hoax."
It was documentation from the Senate Judiciary Committee that confirmed the reports by the publications were "not only dishonest but also as an early attempt to fuel the baseless Russiagate narrative," the report said.
Eventually, evidence showed failed Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton's' campaign "orchestrated the Trump-Russia collusion hoax."
Despite the evidence the stories were fraudulent, the Pulitzer officials refused to retract the honors.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Dozens of federal judges, since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, have insisted that they can make decisions for the executive branch, on issues ranging from deporting illegal alien criminals to firing executive branch employees to altering programs that were, in fact, set up on nothing more than a president's executive order.
Now it appears the move to grab power is spreading, to local judges.
That's according to a commentary at the Federalist which explains that in just recent weeks, three judges in Wisconsin have been caught "abusing the powers of the third branch."
"It's the latest exhibit of power-grabbing local judges perhaps learning some dangerous lessons from rogue members of the federal judiciary," the analysis from Matt Kittle, an award-winning investigative reporter and former chief of Empower Wisconsin, said.
The latest case involves the "punishment" from the liberal-led state Supreme Court of a one-week suspension for Ellen Berz, a Dane County judge who "threatened to arrest a defendant in a drunk driving case after she learned the accused had failed to show up to court because he was in the hospital."
Records show that the judge, stunningly demanded her bailiff go and "apprehend" the absent defendant and since he was required to remain in the courtroom for security, Berz "told those in the courtroom that she would retrieve the missing defendant herself."
She actually was en route to the hospital when she "decided against going through with her plan."
Even the leftists on the state's highest court had to conclude she treated the defendant disrespectfully and failed to act in a way that "promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
Of course just weeks ago Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested, jailed, and then indicted on charges of obstructing a U.S. agency and concealing an individual from arrest.
Evidence shows she misdirected federal agents who were trying to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruis, who was appearing in Dugan's court.
Then when the Customs Enforcement agents and others went away from her courtroom, a "visibly angry" Dugan led the fugitive out of her courtroom through a "jury door" and he was only caught again after a chase by federal agents.
That escapade, the analysis revealed, then triggered another leftist, Judge Monica Isham in Sawyer County, threatened to stop holding court.
She emailed other judges that she has "no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by [ICE agents] and sent to a concentration camp."
She demanded, "Should I start raising bail money?" and threatened, "I will not put myself or my staff who may feel compelled to help me or my community in harms [sic] way."
All three cases arguably detail actions that violate the state's code of conduct for judges, which provides that "a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
The Federalist commentary points out: "Children of the 1980s likely recall an anti-drug public service announcement in which a father confronts his teenage son after finding a box of joints in the boy's closet. 'Who taught you how to do this stuff?' the concerned dad demands. 'You, alright! I learned it by watching you?' the kid fires back. Ouch. The truth hits stoner dad like a $50 Pink Floyd concert ticket."
It continues, "Local judges in Wisconsin and elsewhere certainly have been watching rogue federal jurists who have routinely overstepped their authority in a judicial resistance against Trump's policies. Leftist judges have issued suspect national injunctions on everything from President Donald Trump's efforts to deport illegal immigrants with violent criminal records to cutting funding for civil rights-abusing universities and DEI-pushing NGOs."
Kittle pointed out the observations that came recently from U.S. Fifth Circuit Appellate Court Judge James C. Ho regarding the "power grab" by the district judges, who occupy the entry level into the federal court system.
"Our founders didn't fight a Revolutionary War to replace one king in royal garb with hundreds of kings in judicial robes," Ho charged, "If a district judge abuses the legal process in a hurried effort to thwart the lawful political choices of the electorate, appellate courts are well within their right to intervene and grant emergency relief."
President Trump pardoned an ex-Virginia sheriff who was convicted of taking bribes in exchange for badges.
Trump issued the shock pardon just one day before Scott Jenkins, the 53-year-old former sheriff of Culpeper County, Virginia, was due to report to prison.
Jenkins was accused of appointing businessmen as auxiliary deputy sheriffs in exchange for money. But in a social media post, Trump decried Jenkins' prosecution as an example of politically motivated "weaponization" of justice.
"In fact, during his trial, when Sheriff Jenkins tried to offer exculpatory evidence to support himself, the Biden Judge, Robert Ballou, refused to allow it, shut him down, and then went on a tirade," Trump wrote. "As we have seen, in Federal, City, and State Courts, Radical Left or Liberal Judges allow into evidence what they feel like, not what is mandated under the Constitution and Rules of Evidence."
Prosecutors said Jenkins accepted a combination of cash and campaign contributions, totaling over $60,000, from wealthy clients who were seeking to exercise special privileges, like get out of traffic tickets and carry concealed firearms without a permit. Two undercover FBI agents also paid Jenkins $15,000.
One co-defendant, Rick Rahim, testified that he paid Jenkins, and also gave him a loan that was never repaid, in exchange for a badge and the restoration of his gun rights.
At his trial, Jenkins testified that the payments were simply campaign donations, and he denied there was any connection between the payments and the badges.
His lawyer similarly denied there was any quid pro quo, claiming Jenkins deputized untrained civilians as a "creative" way to circumvent gun control laws in Virginia.
A jury in December convicted Jenkins of one count of conspiracy, four counts of honest services fraud, and seven counts of bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds.
The former sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison in March, and was set to begin his prison stay on Tuesday before Trump intervened at the 11th hour.
"This Sheriff is a victim of an overzealous Biden Department of Justice, and doesn’t deserve to spend a single day in jail," he added.
"He is a wonderful person, who was persecuted by the Radical Left ‘monsters,’ and ‘left for dead.’ This is why I, as President of the United States, see fit to end his unfair sentence, and grant Sheriff Jenkins a FULL and Unconditional Pardon."
Jenkins was first elected in 2011 and won re-election twice before losing his office in the wake of the indictment.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An Illinois man is fighting a subpoena from officials in Riverview, Missouri, who have demanded he appear before them and answer questions on their claims of "inciting violence" and "cyber bullying" after he went online and posted a joke about the town mayor, Michael Cornell.
And now the Institute for Justice, which has successfully fought similar battles, has written to the mayor and the town board warning them it appears as if they are retaliating against the man, James Carroll, based on his speech in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The legal team explained it has written to Riverview officials with the message, "The First Amendment is a bulwark against thin-skinned government officials abusing their authority to punish their critics."
It was IJ lawyer Ben Field who added, "You can understand why an elected official would be tempted to retaliate against somebody making a joke at their expense, which is why the Constitution stands in their way."
The IJ is calling for officials to rescind their subpoena and halt their retaliation.
"Joking about elected officials is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, making Riverview's attempt to punish James a flagrant violation of his constitutional rights and an affront to a core tenet of American democracy," the IJ noted.
"James wrote his joke poking fun at Cornell on the website Nextdoor in early April. Days later, on April 15, and again on April 16, James found a subpoena on his door from the city of Riverview. The subpoena demanded James appear at a Riverview meeting to testify on several allegations, including that he cyber bullied Riverview residents, threatened a city official, and that he defamed someone's character," the organization revealed.
James sued the city to quash the subpoena, and a hearing is scheduled soon.
"The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring protected speech. That includes retaliating against the speaker. The courts have been clear about this issue. In a very similar case to this—one which IJ argued—the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a joke published online was fully protected by the First Amendment," the IJ said.
In that case, the court said, "[t]he First Amendment's protections apply to jokes, parodies, satire, and the like, whether clever or poor taste."
Field explained to city officials: "It appears that Mayor Cornell issued this subpoena in response to Mr. Carroll's online joke—putatively to investigate the joke, but also with the (likely intended) side effect of inconveniencing Mr. Carroll by compelling him to travel to Riverview to attend a hearing where he would be confronted by City officials about his joke. If that is correct, and the subpoena was indeed retaliation against a joke about a public official, then it is plainly a violation of the First Amendment."
The letter said, "The subpoena hints at some categories of speech that are not constitutionally protected, but it is obvious that none of them applies to an innocuous joke like Mr. Carroll's. For instance, the subpoena mentions '[s]lander and [d]efamation.' But when it comes to public figures like an elected mayor, there can be no defamation without 'actual malice—that is, with knowledge that [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' Here, Mr. Carroll's joke made no statement of fact at all—at most, it implied an opinion based on prior allegations against Mayor Cornell. The subpoena also hints that Mr. Carroll's joke was somehow responsible for '[i]nciting violence.' But, as for defamation of a public official, the constitutional standard for incitement is demanding. It is satisfied only when 'advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.' A (rather mild) online joke comes nowhere near meeting that high bar."