A federal judge in Colorado has limited Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents' authority to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant to only those who pose an obvious flight risk, Fox News reported. The lawsuit is yet another attempt to limit what President Donald Trump's administration can do in its crackdown on illegal immigration.
The ruling from U.S. District Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson came on Tuesday. The judge said that current federal law stipulates that immigration officials must have reason to believe that a person is in the U.S. illegally and that the suspect is likely to flee before a warrant can be issued.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. The activist group joined attorneys representing four people who were arrested by ICE despite having no warrant issued against them when they were detained during a sweeping immigration crackdown.
Some of those were allegedly asylum seekers, and the lawsuit claims that the agents targeted Latinos without regard for their immigration status. The judge claimed that the plaintiffs in the case each had strong ties to their communities and were well-established, and therefore could not be deemed flight risks.
As Trump tries to get the illegal immigration problem under control, leftist forces are stacked against him and his administration. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said Jackson engaged in an "activist ruling" against the agency.
"Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in 'racial profiling' are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE," McLaughlin said in a statement. This is not the first time for such a ruling, as another case in California was similarly decided against the administration.
That court ruled that agents were not allowed to target people based on language, race, location, job, or other factors, after agents had been conducting random stops. In September, the Supreme Court rolled back that restraining order imposed in California, and McLaughlin sees the same happening.
"The Supreme Court recently vindicated us on this question elsewhere, and we look forward to further vindication in this case as well," McLaughlin said. There has been no formal announcement that the administration will appeal, but DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has never been one to back down.
While the left attacks ICE's mission in the courts, the rhetoric thrown against the men and women who do the job has become increasingly more hostile. Noem believes this has led to an increase in violence against the agents, and she's not about to leave any stone unturned in making sure they stay safe.
In a post to X on Monday, Noem shared the dire statistics about the impact of those who smear ICE agents and make accusations against them. "Over the past 10 months, Democrat politicians have compared ICE to Nazis, the Gestapo, and slave patrols, fueling a 1,153% increase in assaults," Noem wrote.
"From January 21, 2025, through November 21, 2025, there have been 238 reported assaults against ICE law enforcement. There were only 19 during the same period last year. President Trump and I will always stand with the men and women of @ICEgov who risk their lives every single day to arrest the worst of the worst," Noem pledged.
Over the past 10 months, Democrat politicians have compared ICE to Nazis, the Gestapo, and slave patrols, fueling a 1,153% increase in assaults.
From January 21, 2025, through November 21, 2025, there have been 238 reported assaults against ICE law enforcement. There were only…
— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) November 24, 2025
On Wednesday, it became clear that it was more than just the ICE agents who were putting their lives at risk to make America safer while the left actively works against them. According to the Associated Press, two National Guard soldiers were shot in Washington, D.C., steps from the White House, where they have been sent to clean up crime. Trump pledged 500 more troops to help.
Government agents must balance the rights of the accused with the need to do their jobs. However, these attacks against law enforcement and especially ICE agents, whether in the form of several court cases and even physical violence, jeopardize their mission and make Americans less safe.
The Ohio House has passed a bill called the "Charlie Kirk Act" to allow schools to teach about the positive contributions of Christianity to the U.S. in history classes.
The bill passed along party lines, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against it.
It was intended to remind teachers that teaching about different religions including Christianity from a historical and cultural perspective is not a violation of the First Amendment.
“It’s essential that we highlight the positive influence religion has had throughout our history – uniting communities, enriching our shared values, and safeguarding our First Amendment rights as Americans to speak and worship freely,” bill co-sponsor Michael Dovilla said after its passage.
Not all religious leaders and clergy support the bill, with some thinking church and state should be completely separated.
Some also feared that the bill would encourage teachers to ignore potential negative effects of religion, such as the way Christianity was used in the South to uphold slavery for a time.
In addition, the Ohio Council for the Social Studies said the bill was redundant and narrow, but Dovilla disagreed.
“It’s essential that we highlight the positive influence religion has had throughout our history,” he said. “Uniting communities, enriching our shared values, and safeguarding our First Amendment rights as Americans to speak and worship freely.”
The bill does not prevent teachers from covering topics that show the negatives of religion, it only encourages the positive to also be included.
“This bill does not impose a belief system, it simply allows teachers and professors to include historical truths that have too often been neglected,” Gabe Guidarini, chairman of the Ohio College Republican Federation, said.
Students should learn “how faith shaped the resolve of the pilgrims, guided our Founders’ convictions, inspired movements that provided us the liberties we enjoy today, and informed the moral fabric that has bound our republic together since its birth,” he added.
It's clear that the left wants only the negative parts of religion, if any, to be highlighted in schools.
They think we should worship at the altar of the federal government, which they think provides everything that people need.
In truth, taking religion out of schools and the public square has done nothing but make it worse. Hopefully, this bill will help Ohioans realize the positive impact of Christianity and how important faith was to building America.
Special counsel Jack Smith continued to seek phone records of GOP lawmakers even after the Justice Department warned of a "litigation risk" to proceeding, the Daily Caller reported. Smith ordered the information on nearly a dozen lawmakers in his "Operation Arctic Frost" investigation.
The investigation stemmed from so-called fake electors in the 2020 presidential election and was yet another way to target President Donald Trump. However, Smith was warned that digging into the phone records of nearly a dozen Republican lawmakers could have constitutional implications.
Smith issued subpoenas requesting "detailed records for inbound and outbound calls, text messages, direct connect, and voicemail messages" for the time between Jan. 4 and Jan. 7, 2021. The lawmakers were to be kept in the dark, thanks to an Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg, who allowed it.
Emails sent in May 2023 from the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section John Kelly laid out the problems with it while giving his approval to go ahead. "As you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a Member’s legislative calls violates the Speech or Debate Clause in the D.C. Circuit," Keller told prosecutors.
The request wasn't just digging into the time around the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Prosecutors also sought two years' worth of records from House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan in a grand jury subpoena issued by the Biden Justice Department.
This action was noted in Keller's advice to Smith, though it seemed like a risk they were willing to take. "Even putting aside the government’s potentially meritorious argument that the calls over the relevant period–especially unsolicited incoming calls–would not constitute protected legislative acts, given my understanding of the low likelihood that any of the Members listed below would be charged, the litigation risk should be minimal here," Keller warned.
This information about foreknowledge of possible rights violations came to light on Tuesday when Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Chuck Grassley of Iowa released the emails. This was after Grassley called this revelation "WORSE THAN WATERGATE" just last month in a post to X.
"This document shows the Biden FBI spied on 8 of my Republican Senate colleagues during its Arctic Frost investigation into 'election conspiracy' Arctic Frost later became Jack Smith's elector case against Trump. BIDEN FBI WEAPONIZATION = WORSE THAN WATERGATE," Grassley wrote.
This document shows the Biden FBI spied on 8 of my Republican Senate colleagues during its Arctic Frost investigation into "election conspiracy" Arctic Frost later became Jack Smith's elector case against Trump
BIDEN FBI WEAPONIZATION = WORSE THAN WATERGATE pic.twitter.com/V2JyiVlX48
— Chuck Grassley (@ChuckGrassley) October 6, 2025
This request came even as the Justice Department had access to some of these records from another case involving Trump's former attorney Rudy Giuliani. However, it seemed they figured that seeking more of them "would allow us to understand who else may have called these Members," prosecutors said to justify their actions.
"The closer you look, the more brazen Jack Smith’s actions become. These records show Smith and his merry band of partisans operating on a legally weak foundation by intruding on Members of Congress who were involved in core constitutional functions," Grassley said in a statement.
"Ultimately, the Biden DOJ threw the Constitution to the wind in seeking information about my colleagues," he added. However, retribution may be coming after the deal to end the government shutdown, signed in the Senate, allows those who were affected by having their phone records examined to sue for up to $500,000 per violation.
While the House of Representatives voted to repeal that provision in a unanimous vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune held fast to that provision on behalf of the agreived lawmakers. At least it would give them some recourse after their rights have been potentially violated, possibly even knowingly at that.
This is just another example of how people in President Joe Biden's administration were willing to do whatever it took to ensare Trump in some sort of scandal that would wreck his political future. None of that worked, and now it's time to make sure the people perpetuating this are held accountable.
Imagine dining with family on Easter, only to have a prized possession snatched from under your nose—literally. That’s the unsettling reality Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem faced, according to Fox News, when her Gucci bag vanished from a Washington, D.C., restaurant.
Secretary Noem’s bag was stolen by Mario Bustamante-Leiva, a 49-year-old Chilean national, who has now pleaded guilty to a spree of thefts across the capital, including this high-profile incident, with potential deportation looming after sentencing.
This wasn’t just a petty grab-and-go. The theft happened while Noem enjoyed a family meal at The Capital Burger on Easter, with her bag sitting innocently on the floor beside her table. Security footage captured a man in an N95 mask, dark pants, and a baseball cap slipping out with the goods.
What was inside that Gucci bag? A staggering $3,000 in cash, Noem’s driver’s license, passport, medication, makeup, blank checks, DHS badge, apartment keys, and even a Louis Vuitton wallet. Talk about hitting the jackpot for a thief with sticky fingers.
Bustamante-Leiva didn’t stop at Noem’s belongings, though. Between April 12 and April 20, he allegedly targeted multiple victims at restaurants across Washington, D.C., snatching purses from chair backs and fleeing before anyone could blink. It’s a pattern that paints a picture of calculated opportunism, not a one-off mistake.
After each theft, he reportedly used stolen credit cards for fraudulent purchases. This isn’t just theft; it’s a full-on identity hijack, leaving victims to clean up the financial mess. How many hardworking folks had their trust violated in those few days?
Authorities arrested Bustamante-Leiva on April 26, thanks to a joint effort by the Metropolitan Police Department and the U.S. Secret Service. It’s a small comfort to know law enforcement can still nab someone with such audacity. But why was someone with this track record even here?
Federal authorities revealed a troubling past: eight prior convictions abroad and seven separate jail terms in Chile and the United Kingdom. This isn’t a first-time offender learning a hard lesson; it’s a seasoned criminal playing the same old game on new soil. One has to wonder about the vetting process that allowed this to slip through.
Bustamante-Leiva agreed to plead guilty to wire fraud, aiding and abetting, and first-degree theft on a recent Friday. The charges aren’t light—wire fraud alone could mean up to 20 years in prison and $250,000 in fines, while first-degree theft carries a potential 10 years and $25,000 penalty. Sentencing guidelines also suggest a fine up to $9,500, forfeitures around $3,174, and restitution to be decided by the judge.
Court filings paint a clear picture of what’s next for Bustamante-Leiva. “I am removable from the United States upon the completion of the sentence imposed in this case,” he acknowledged, per the documents. It’s a rare moment of accountability, though one wonders if it’s driven by genuine remorse or just legal inevitability.
That statement deserves a hard look. Deportation might sound like a tidy solution to some, but it also raises questions about why repeat offenders are able to enter and operate with such ease before facing consequences. Shouldn’t border security—ironically under Noem’s purview—catch these risks sooner?
Let’s not forget the human cost here. Secretary Noem, despite her powerful position, was a victim of a deeply personal violation, losing items that aren’t just valuable but critical to her daily life and security. It’s a humbling lesson that crime doesn’t care about titles or status.
For conservatives, this incident is a glaring neon sign pointing to broader failures in immigration enforcement and public safety. While progressive agendas often push for leniency, stories like this fuel the argument for stricter controls and accountability at our borders. It’s not about hostility—it’s about protecting citizens from preventable harm.
Still, there’s room for empathy even in frustration. Bustamante-Leiva’s actions are indefensible, but the system that allowed a man with such a record to roam free in our capital needs a serious overhaul. Let’s hope this case sparks real dialogue, not just soundbites.
In the end, this isn’t just about a stolen Gucci bag—it’s about trust, security, and the rule of law. As sentencing approaches, the nation watches to see if justice will be served and if lessons will be learned. One thing is certain: Washington, D.C., diners might think twice before leaving their belongings unguarded.
Brace yourselves—leaked text messages allegedly from Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., show a Democrat unleashing a scathing critique of his own party with a rawness you’d expect over beers, not in private chats, Breitbart reported.
Human Events, a conservative news outlet, published these explosive messages, claiming they reveal Gallego’s frustration with the Democratic Party for drifting far from the concerns of everyday Americans.
The texts paint a picture of a party bogged down by elitism and cultural overreach, sparking a firestorm of reactions from right-leaning commentators who see truth in the senator’s blunt words.
The exchange reportedly begins with an unnamed source telling Gallego that the chaos in Democratic ranks calls for a leader with clarity and vision to step up.
“Been watching all the insanity up there I think it’s time that somebody with a cool head and a solid plan could rise to the top of your party,” the source texted, according to Human Events.
Gallego allegedly fired back with exasperation, implying he’s been raising red flags about the party’s missteps for quite some time.
The conversation took a crude turn when the source shared a vulgar meme about Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., with a caption mocking dysfunction, paired with a jab at how the public perceives many Democrats.
Gallego’s supposed response—“They aren’t wrong!”—hints at his agreement with the harsh public image, even if the delivery stings.
Things got even stranger when the source playfully offered to become Gallego’s “Republican consultant” to help him climb the Democratic ladder—a curious alliance indeed.
In the texts, Gallego allegedly slams his party for projecting a humorless, controlling image that alienates rather than attracts.
He’s said to have griped, “Not allowing no men to men,” or “women to be hot,” suggesting the party stifles natural expressions of gender in favor of rigid norms.
It’s a pointed jab at progressive cultural policies, contrasting sharply with what he claims was once a freer, more rebellious Democratic spirit.
Conservative commentators couldn’t resist weighing in, with Collin Rugg declaring it the “most accurate thing” Gallego has ever said about his own camp.
Carmine Sabia echoed the sentiment, praising the senator for finally speaking unvarnished truth, while Blake Neff of the Charlie Kirk Show offered a sly “…Based?” as a sign of respect.
These reactions underscore a broader conservative frustration with the left’s trajectory, finding an unexpected ally in Gallego’s alleged candor—whether he meant for the world to see it or not.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Turning Point USA might just be gearing up to crown Vice President JD Vance as the Republican torchbearer for 2028.
Erika Kirk, widow of the late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, dropped a bombshell on a recent podcast, suggesting the influential conservative group is laying groundwork to support Vance as the next GOP presidential contender.
Turning Point USA has long been a powerhouse in conservative circles, credited with playing a key role in Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency.
Before his tragic assassination in September, Charlie Kirk had a clear vision for the future, and according to Erika, it centered on JD Vance.
“That was the thing that my husband was very direct about, it was, interestingly enough, one of the last few conversations we had was how intentional he was about supporting JD for '28,” Erika shared during an interview on The Megyn Kelly Show released Monday.
Well, if Charlie’s last wish was to see Vance take the reins, that’s a legacy worth fighting for—though one wonders if the progressive crowd will cry “dynasty” before the first campaign ad even airs.
Since her husband’s untimely death, Erika Kirk has refused to step back, maintaining a strong public presence amid uncertainty over TPUSA’s direction without its founder.
She’s been seen alongside President Trump, who spoke at Charlie’s funeral, and has repeatedly named Vance as the top pick to follow in Trump’s footsteps.
Her close bond with Vance and his wife, second lady Usha Vance, has only deepened, especially after the couple traveled to Utah to support her in the wake of her loss—images of Usha comforting Erika went viral, showing a human side to politics often buried under partisan noise.
JD Vance hasn’t been a bystander in this unfolding story, hosting an episode of the Charlie Kirk Podcast and joining Erika at a TPUSA event last month at the University of Mississippi to honor her late husband.
Yet, Vance himself remains coy about a potential 2028 bid, admitting in a recent Fox News interview that he’s pondered the idea but is focused on his current role as vice president.
Call it refreshing restraint or clever politicking—either way, Vance isn’t jumping the gun, and that’s a rare sight in a world obsessed with the next big headline.
Erika Kirk echoed Vance’s measured approach on Monday, stressing that TPUSA’s immediate focus is on the 2026 midterm elections before diving into 2028 speculation.
“Let’s start with the midterms before we start jumping to ’28. And let’s enjoy the fact that we do have Donald Trump in office, and we worked really hard to make that happen, my husband did,” she said on The Megyn Kelly Show.
Smart move—after all, why build castles in the air when there’s real ground to gain in Arizona’s upcoming governor’s race and beyond, especially after TPUSA’s recent success in leading the recall of a Mesa City Council member?
Imagine losing your spouse to a preventable tragedy, only to be told the government can’t be held accountable because of an outdated rule. That’s the heartbreaking reality for the widow of Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck, whose case was just denied a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, prompting a sharp dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas.
This story boils down to a grieving widow’s fight for justice after her husband’s tragic death in 2021, blocked by a legal doctrine that Justice Thomas argues needs a serious rethink.
Back in 2021, Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was leaving a Missouri military base on his motorcycle, heading to meet his wife and young daughter for lunch. A civilian government employee, distracted by her cell phone, struck him. Beck died at the scene, leaving behind a devastated family.
The employee later admitted fault in a plea deal, confirming her negligence caused the fatal accident. Yet, when Beck’s widow sought to sue the federal government for wrongful death, she hit a brick wall. Lower courts shut her down, citing a precedent that shields the government from such claims when the victim is in the military.
This precedent, known as the Feres doctrine, has long been a thorn in the side of military families seeking accountability. It’s a rule that essentially says, “Sorry, no lawsuits allowed,” even when the government’s negligence is clear as day. For conservatives who value personal responsibility, this feels like a bureaucratic dodge of epic proportions.
Beck’s case climbed the legal ladder, but both a federal court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal. Their reasoning? The Feres doctrine, applied with a broad brush, left no room for exceptions, even for a servicemember off duty at the time of the incident.
Enter Justice Clarence Thomas, who didn’t hold back in his dissent when the Supreme Court declined to take up the case on Monday. “We should have granted certiorari,” Thomas declared, pushing for clarity on a doctrine that lower courts have stretched beyond reason. His point is simple: if the Court won’t scrap bad precedent, at least enforce it as written.
Thomas went further, highlighting the absurdity of applying Feres here. “[Beck] was not ordered on a military mission to go home for lunch with his family,” he argued, making it clear this should have been a straightforward wrongful death claim. For those of us tired of government overreach, this is a zinger—why should a family’s grief be dismissed over a technicality?
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn’t have the votes to hear the case. It takes four justices to agree, and that threshold wasn’t met. So, the widow’s plea for justice remains unanswered, stuck in a legal limbo that feels more like a slap in the face.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, while agreeing with the decision to deny the case, couldn’t ignore the unfairness baked into the system. She urged Congress to step in and fix a precedent that keeps producing harsh outcomes for families like Beck’s. It’s a rare bipartisan nudge—maybe lawmakers can actually agree on something for once.
But let’s not hold our breath for Congress to act swiftly on anything, especially when military families are caught in the crosshairs of outdated policy. The Feres doctrine, as Thomas pointed out, is often wielded as a shield for government negligence, not a protector of national security. For conservatives, this reeks of big government dodging accountability while regular folks pay the price.
Think about Beck’s widow for a moment—she’s not just fighting for herself, but for her seven-year-old daughter who lost a father. This isn’t about handouts; it’s about holding the government to the same standards we expect from any employer. If a private company’s employee caused this tragedy, there’d be no question of a lawsuit.
The broader issue here is a legal system that seems to prioritize bureaucratic immunity over basic fairness. Thomas’s dissent isn’t just a legal opinion; it’s a call to stop letting the government hide behind precedents that don’t fit the facts. Isn’t it time for a little common sense in how we treat our military families?
For those of us who champion individual rights over government excuses, this case is a rallying cry. The progressive agenda often pushes for more federal control, but when it comes to accountability, the system suddenly clams up. Beck’s story shows why we need reforms that put people before paperwork.
Justice Thomas and even Sotomayor have spotlighted a glaring flaw in how military families are treated under the law. If Congress won’t act, and the Court won’t revisit Feres, then stories like this will keep piling up—grieving families denied justice while the government shrugs. Let’s hope this dissent sparks a movement to finally right this wrong.
Resurfaced video of Democratic Tennessee state representative Aftyn Behn's 2019 freakout is one of many such incidents that could sink her candidacy for U.S. Congress, the Daily Caller reported. The footage shows Behn ranting and loudly calling for the resignation of former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and then-Republican Tennessee state Rep. David Byrd.
"I’m here today on behalf of communities that you have silenced today in this legislative session," Behn shouted in the chambers of the Tennessee state House at the time. "You have been violent to our various communities this entire legislative session," Behn claimed from the balcony.
"You have stopped any accountability! You have been taken out! You have been violent and extreme towards people of color, towards women, towards minorities! You have failed! This is unacceptable behavior!" Behn continued to shout.
"You shouldn’t do this! This is the worst administration! You have to resign," she screamed before being hustled out by security. The video was shared on The Tennessee Holler's Facebook page on May 3, 2019, but it has recently been rediscovered as her embarrassing antics continue while Democrats attempt to flip the district to blue.
The outrage supposedly behind that stunt came from allegations against Byrd made by two women who claimed he inappropriately touched them while he was their basketball coach. A third woman also accused him of attempting to do so, but he was never formally charged with the crime and maintained his innocence.
At the time, Behn was acting on behalf of the Enough is Enough group, which agitated for Byrd's resignation over the allegations. Now Behn is running against GOP candidate Matt Van Epps, who was Lee's commissioner, in a special election to fill the seat for Tennessee’s 7th District in the U.S. Congress.
She hasn't stopped her outlandish antics, as Tennessee Rep. Andy Ogles shared on X last May, "This is Nashville State Representative Aftyn Behn," he wrote. "She just posted a 15-minute video of her and a friend stalking the Tennessee Highway Patrol as they carried out official duties—openly admitting they were trying to stall law enforcement from stopping illegal aliens," Ogles captioned the video of Behn bragging about her behavior.
"Let’s be clear: Freddie O'Connell is enabling Nashville liberals to actively obstruct ICE and law enforcement operations. This isn’t just reckless—it’s aiding and abetting," he wrote.
This is Nashville State Representative Aftyn Behn.
She just posted a 15-minute video of her and a friend stalking the Tennessee Highway Patrol as they carried out official duties—openly admitting they were trying to stall law enforcement from stopping illegal aliens.
Let’s be… pic.twitter.com/NEBYp9j2ic
— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) May 20, 2025
These crazy moments are not just few and far between for Behn, who will face off against Van Epps in the Dec. 2 special election. She seems to relish agitating and lacks self-awareness about how abrasive her opinions are to normal people. In a recent podcast episode of The Weekend, host Catherine Rampell asked Behn about some comments she made that were "very critical of police" and other inflammatory statements on social media, according to Fox News.
"You said in those since-deleted tweets that the Metropolitan Nashville police department should be dissolved. Another cheered on a teachers union saying that defund the police should be a requirement for schools reopening, and another saying ‘Good morning, especially to the 54% of Americans that believe burning down a police station is justified,'" Rampell reminded Behn before allowing her to disavow them.
"I'm not going to engage in cable news talking points, but what I will say is that, you know, our communities need solutions," Behn shot back. "We need local people deciding, solving local problems with local solutions. And that’s not the overreach of a federal government or state government of which we are dealing with in Nashville and our cities across the state of Tennessee," she added.
Meanwhile, another 2020 rant has resurfaced in which Behn, who wants to represent the district that includes Nashville, bashed Music City. "I hate the city, I hate the bachelorettes. I hate the pedal taverns, I hate country music, I hate all of the things that make Nashville apparently an 'it' city to the rest of the country. But I hate it," she said in the podcast.
Behn seems like more of a lunatic than the usual leftists who run for government as Democrats, and that could hurt her in next week's election. She's guilty of jeopardizing her party's chances in this special election, but lucky for her, Democrats vote for crazy people all of the time.
A federal judge has dismissed the cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, The Hill reported. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ruled that President Donald Trump unlawfully appointed U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who was prosecuting the cases, thereby invalidating the cases.
Two of Trump's main enemies are safe for now, according to the judge's ruling. Still, the decision says nothing of the substance of the cases against Comey and James, but rather about the way the Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed the replacement instead of the judges as required after the interim appointment expired.
"In light of these principles, I conclude that all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside," Currie wrote. She said the same thing in her ruling for James.
Because both cases were dismissed without prejudice, the Justice Department is free to refile the exact charges with a different prosecutor. It's unknown what the Trump administration will do, but the fact remains that Trump has a right to justice after what they did to him.
Trump has been having difficulty getting his judicial picks through, so he has attempted to sidestep the usual process. Nevertheless, Bondi has made it clear that she will not give up on pursuing those she and many others believe unlawfully pursued Trump.
"We’ll be taking all available legal action, including an immediate appeal, to hold Letitia James and James Comey accountable for their unlawful conduct. I’m not worried about someone who has been charged with a very serious crime," Bondi said, according to Fox News.
"His alleged actions were a betrayal of public trust," she added. Comey was accused of obstructing a congressional inquiry and making false statements to Congress stemming from his 2018 testimony. The former FBI head was asked about the evidence used in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation that allowed the government to spy on Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
The claim that Trump was colluding with Russia to help get him elected dogged him for his entire presidency, and it appeared to some as an attempt to take down Trump. Meanwhile, Comey claims that the September 2025 indictment against him was "a political hit job, not a pursuit of justice."
Comey claims he answered Congress's questions in a way that was "truthful to be the best of my recollection" and claims he is innocent. Letitia James, who was being prosecuted for mortgage fraud, has similarly claimed her innocence and was pleased at the judge's decision.
James was accused of lying about the use of the homes she purchased, allegedly declaring two different homes as her primary residences to obtain more favorable interest rates. Prosecutors claim that James benefited from an additional $19,000 over the entirety of the loans.
After her case was dismissed, James celebrated on her official government page with an official statement. "I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country. I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day," she claimed.
She is also claiming to be the victim of exactly what she did to Trump. According to the New York Post, James went after Trump for allegedly inflating the value of his business assets to obtain loans, and he was fined a whopping $500 million.
However, that judgment was eventually appealed, and Trump was vindicated in his assertion that this was a "fake case" against him. "I had a victory today. You know, they stole $550 million from me with a fake case, and it was overturned," Trump said in October 2024 when he won his appeal.
Comey and James seemingly tried to destroy Trump's political life and perhaps even ruin him financially, but Trump was vindicated in the end. Now they're off the hook again for their alleged crimes, but it's unlikely that Trump will back off after they did so much in an effort to ruin him.
President Donald Trump's Department of Homeland Security has ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for citizens of Burma as part of its overall immigration strategy to restrict both legal and illegal immigration.
Nearly 10,000 Burmese nationals will be impacted by the move, which set a date of January 26, 2026 for TPS to end.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement that the administration believes the conditions in Burma are improved enough for the nationals to return home.
She said,
The situation in Burma has improved enough that it is safe for Burmese citizens to return home, so we are terminating the Temporary Protected Status. Burma has made notable progress in governance and stability, including the end of its state of emergency, plans for free and fair elections, successful ceasefire agreements, and improved local governance contributing to enhanced public service delivery and national reconciliation.
“This decision restores TPS to its original status as temporary,” Noem added.
It has been a complaint of the Trump administration that previous administrations (Obama and Biden) treated TPS as a more permanent status and were reluctant to ever end it.
Former President Joe Biden alone allowed more than a million migrants to come into the U.S. under TPS, as of early 2025.
TPS, which started in 1990 under then-President Bill Clinton, was intended to prevent deportation of migrants who are designated as experiencing famine, war, or natural disasters in their countries of origin.
Trump has ended the program for migrants from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Syria, and Venezuela, but legal challenges have blocked the action for some countries, at least for now.
Just about any country in the world could claim that conditions there are worse than in the U.S., but that's not the measuring stick TPS was made to use.
It's not a bad thing to be compassionate and take on some refugees when a country is clearly having a bad moment, but taking on millions of refugees and then vaguely making it permanent is not a thing we should be doing as a country.
Trump has set an ambitious goal to deport a million illegal immigrants each year he is in office, and the people whose TPS has been revoked could be some of those if they refuse to leave the country.
The DHS said in September that more than 2 million illegal immigrants have already been deported or left on their own, with the majority of them having self-deported to avoid detention and deportation at the hands of the government.
"The era of open borders is over," a statement from DHS said. And it seems that the open arms that have greeted so many refugees are also a thing of the past.