This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

When the numbers came in from the 2020 election and gave the White House to Joe Biden, there was an "insurrection," according to Democrats, in Washington.

It actually was a protest by a few thousand people who distrusted the handling of the election results and frankly doubted their accuracy. There were a few hundred who rioted, inflicting vandalism on Capitol.

Democrats have claimed ever since, in the media, in the public and in court, it was an attempt to overthrow the government, take over its economy, its military, its foreign relations and much, much more.

Their plans haven't been specific but they have been adamant about the goal.

So what is the expectation, in that Washington businesses already are boarding up their windows in advance of next weeks' vote?

Commentator Mike Benz has explained, "If Trump wins the electoral college next week, get ready for 2 months of street riots, a media onslaught the vote was illegitimate, crisis gov't pressure on social platforms, followed at the end by an attempt by Congress to nullify the election on January 6, 2025."

Pollsters say the race is too close to call definitively, while gamblers and Wall Street appear to be expecting a Trump victory.

But the impact of schemes, already uncovered – including Democrat plans to let overseas residents vote in states where they've never lived, and to keep noncitizens on voter rolls across the states – is still to be determined.

A report at ZeroHedge explained, "Washington, D.C., authorities are hardening security for potential social unrest after next week's presidential election. With four days remaining, workers have been busy boarding up government buildings and retail stores with plywood."

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said, "We do expect the Capitol complex to be much more hardened." And she said residents will need to be flexible because of the possibility of demonstrations.

The report pointed out, "The ultra-hardening of security around and near the White House might be preparation for a possible Trump victory. With far-left corporate media outlets pushing 'Trump Nazi,' 'Trump Hitler,' and 'Trump fascist' rhetoric nonstop ahead of the election, this hate speech propaganda could certainly fuel leftist radicals to become violently unhinged if Trump wins next week."

Polling shows many Americans are worried about the possibility of such unrest after the vote Tuesday.

Already, one member of Congress has confirmed he will claim that even if elected President Trump is unqualified to take office, and he says then everybody will need bodyguards, a clear expectation of violence.

If Trump in fact does win, violence would be expected, as his critics, hecklers and looters, "wreaked havoc" on business when he was being inaugurated in 2017.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Incoming Hezbollah leader threatens Netanyahu, leaves door ajar for ceasefire

Hezbollah's new leader Naim Qassem threatened Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's life on Wednesday, but also appeared to open the door to a ceasefire with Israel, in his first speech since his appointment was announced on Monday.

Israeli couple arrested on suspicion of spying for Iran

The Shin Bet and the Israel Police arrested a couple from Lod who carried out intelligence gathering tasks on national infrastructures, security sites, allegedly including Mossad HQ, and surveillance of a female academic on behalf of the Islamic Republic.

CENTCOM conducts several airstrikes against ISIS camps in Syria

The U.S. military carried out a series of airstrikes on Islamic State (ISIS) camps in Syria this week, killing up to 35 terrorists from the group, according to a statement from US Central Command on Wednesday.

Antisemite Albanese speaks at Columbia event, defends Oct. 7 attacks

United Nations special rapporteur for the so-called Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, who has a history of extreme antisemitic rhetoric, appeared at an event at Barnard College where she reportedly shrugged when asked if all Israelis were legitimate targets.

WATCH: IDF destroys Hezbollah command center

Report: Iran to attack Israel before U.S. election

A senior source in the Islamic Republic in Tehran claims to CNN that Iran will attack Israel in a "definitive and painful" response even before the US presidential elections; White House warns it'll support Israel in reprisal strike.

IDF to strengthen Jordanian border with new division

Increasingly concerned about a significant uptick in violence – and the appearance of more powerful and modern weaponry from Iran in Judea and Samaria, the IDF announced the establishment of a new division to defend the country's long eastern border.

Poll: 60% of Democrats blame Israel 'a lot' for Middle East conflict

A new poll reveals deep partisan divisions among American voters regarding responsibility for the escalation of the Middle East conflict, with about half expressing serious concerns about potential regional war. Meanwhile, approximately 6 in 10 Democrats said the Israeli government bore "a lot" of responsibility, compared to only about one-quarter of Republicans sharing this view.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Officials in a South Carolina city are claiming they have the right to decide when and how Christians can talk about their faith on public sidewalks.

And their agenda has drawn a terse letter from a legal organization warning that the town's prior restraint restrictions on signs are unconstitutional.

The fight against the town of Chapin, South Carolina, is being handled by First Liberty Institute on behalf Ernest Guardino.

For months, he's held small signs while he's on public walkways in the town to share his faith.

He recently held a 20×24 inch sign that said, "Trust Christ He paid the price" on one side and "He Saved Others—Jesus—He'll Save You" on the other side.

He was at the intersection of Old Lexington Road and Chapin Road, but had held similar signs with like-minded messages over the previous eight months without incident.

However, in June of this year, a Chapin police officer informed him he had to have town permission to share his faith, the institute reported.

"No one needs the government's permission to express their faith in public," said First Liberty lawyer Nate Kellum. "The First Amendment is his permit. Like any citizen in any city in America, Mr. Giardino is free to peacefully share his religious beliefs on a public sidewalk. Chapin's ordinance is overbroad, unconstitutional, and must be repealed or enjoined."

The legal team explained the town followed up with messages from a code enforcement officer and police official, who gave him a permit application that said his sign-holding was limited to 30 minutes, and during that time he would have to move to another corner every 15 minutes.

First Liberty has responded with a letter to town officials, including Mayor Al Koon and Police Chief Thomas W. Griffin.

The team told the town, "Permit schemes, like the one found in Chapin, have the effect of freezing speech before it is uttered. Permit schemes are thus viewed skeptically, being 'the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.' A prior restraint like Chapin's ordinance can survive challenge only if it does not delegate overly broad licensing discretion to government officials. Chapin's permit scheme falls short of this standard, in multiple ways."

The letter explained, "A government entity bears the burden of justifying a restriction on speech. … Chapin is unable to meet this burden. The propriety of a speech infringement is assessed through the lens of forum analysis, contemplating the protection afforded the speech, the suitability of the venue for the speech, and the scrutiny applied to the restriction."

Further, "This analysis reveals Chapin's permit scheme is unconstitutional. The First Amendment Protects Mr. Giardino's desired speech … Religious expression is entitled to the same level of protection as other kinds of speech. … To be sure, '[r]eligious expression holds a place at the core of the type of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect.'"

Further, "Signs, in particular, garner constitutional safeguarding. The protection is sure, even if others happen to find the signs offensive."

The letter condemns the city's ideology as not being content-neutral, and not being "narrowly tailored."

The town is being asked to provide, in writing, confirmation that the town "will no longer ban his expression on public sidewalks through the aforementioned permit scheme."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A lawsuit has been filed that accuses Norfolk, Virginia, officials of using a network of 170 cameras to impose a warrantless surveillance scheme on residents, and visitors.

The Institute for Justice case charges that the actions violate the Fourth Amendment rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The system allows police "to monitor the comings and goings of all drivers in the city," the legal team said.

Lee Schmidt, a plaintiff, said, "I don't like the government following my every movement and treating me like a criminal suspect, when they have no reason to believe I've done anything wrong."

And another, Crystal Arrington, charged, "My work requires me to drive around Norfolk very often, and it's incredibly disturbing to know the city can track my every move during that time."

The institute explained that in 2023, Norfolk police partnered with a company called Flock Safety, Inc. to install 172 automatic license plate reading cameras across town.

The locations were chosen to provide a "curtain of technology" which would allow police to watch anyone "drive anywhere" without being observed.

"Unlike traditional traffic cameras—which capture an image only when they sense speeding or someone running a red light—Flock's cameras capture images of every car driving by, which it retains for at least 30 days. Artificial intelligence then uses those images to create a 'Vehicle Fingerprint' that enables any Flock subscriber to both track where that vehicle has gone and identify what other vehicles it has been seen nearby," the institute noted.

"Norfolk has created a dragnet that allows the government to monitor everyone's day-to-day movements without a warrant or probable cause. This type of mass surveillance is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment," said IJ lawyer Michael Soyfer.

Making the violation worse, the institute noted, is that since Flock "pools its data in a centralized database, police across the entire country can access over 1 billion monthly datapoints. That means not just tracking drivers within a particular jurisdiction, but potentially across the entire nation."

"Following someone's every move can tell you some incredibly intimate details about them, such as where they work, who they associate with, whether or not they're religious, what hobbies they have, and any medical conditions they may have," said IJ lawyer Robert Frommer. "This type of intrusive, ongoing monitoring of someone's life is not just creepy, it's unconstitutional."

The scheme gives police the ability to spy on people without any judicial oversight, either.

And abuse already has been documented, the IJ said.

'In Kansas, officials were caught using Flock to stalk their exes, including one police chief who used Flock 228 times over four months to track his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend's vehicles. In California, several police departments violated California law by sharing data from their license plate reader database with other departments across the country. And as is the case with other databases, these can be susceptible to hacking, which can reveal private data," the institute said.

Similar agendas already have been condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

U.S. Rep. Eric Burlinson, R-Mo., has slammed the Kamala Harris/Tim Walz campaign for being more left-wing than Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and suggested Walz was groomed by the People's Republic of China during his tenure as a teacher.

Burlinson is a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, which released a report Thursday detailing how the Chinese Communist Party is carrying out political warfare against the U.S., and the actions needed to be taken by federal agencies to address the growing threat.

In the report's executive summary, it states the CCP are engaging in warfare tactics against the U.S. with "increasing efficacy," including poisoning Americans with fentanyl, and will do anything to weaken or destroy its enemy to maintain power, noting this is a "war without weapons."

The report states these tactics are an "extraordinary and intentional danger to the American way of life," however, the Biden administration and other federal agencies are doing little to engage the matter with any urgency.

During an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Mornings with Maria Friday, Burlinson said the attacks are coming from several different fronts.

"It's coming at us from all fronts, they're infiltrating our universities…they're performing corporate espionage in the United States, in the agricultural system, you know, while the United States prided itself as an exporter to China, they have integrated into the supply chain," Burlinson said.

During his short time in congress, Burlinson stated he has been surprised by the sheer number of incidents regarding Chinese espionage and how interwoven into the U.S. the Chinese Communist Party has become, adding the Biden administration has done little to fix it.

"They need to address this, this needs to be a system-wide global-wide policy with all of the federal agencies, to make sure that they have a posture that recognizes the reality which is that we are entering a cold war with China," Burlinson said.

Burlinson noted the hostility directed toward the U.S. from China needs to be taken seriously and there needs to be a systematic change.

"The Treasury Department, you know, they want to sell to China but they don't want to recognize that the Belt and Road initiative is a direct economic attack on the infrastructure of the United States," Burlinson said.

In terms of Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and his relationship with China, Burlinson said the relationship Walz maintained with China after becoming an elected official is disturbing.

"I think the most disturbing thing is his involvement with the Macao Polytechnic University, you know, a Chinese university. I think that while he was an educator, they were grooming him for the 30 trips that he took and he organized students to go to China. But the fact that he became a fellow with a Chinese university after becoming a member of Congress, that's the most deeply disturbing part of his background with China," Burlinson said.

The congressman stated he believes China paid for the dozens of trips that Walz made, and added it is something that needs further scrutiny.

"I don't think Tim Walz with a teacher's salary paid for those 30 trips … I don't know what the arrangement was, that's something we need to look into. I understand that he created a business and was receiving funds to pay for these trips … we need to determine exactly how that money flowed," Burlinson said.

Atlas Organization founder Jonathan D.T. Ward also spoke with Bartiromo, and said the Chinese are pushing boundaries, which will eventually come to a head with the U.S.

"I think this is all coming to a head, Maria, I mean we're in the moment now where, you know, some of our top national security leaders, including the former head of Indo Pacific Command told us that by 2027, the PRC is going to be ready and prepared to use force in the Pacific to potentially go after Taiwan," Ward said.

China has recently been escalating tensions in the South China Sea, which includes attacking U.S. allies the Philippines, and carrying out blockade drills around Taiwan, which China claims as its own. China has further attacked American infrastructure through hacking, used Chinese nationals as spies in the U.S., including within U.S. political offices, and undermined the U.S. presidential election by sowing seeds of division between American voters on social media platforms.

"So we're in that window, I mean this is finally coming to a head. The clock really has run out this time to continue to admire the problem, and the CCP is pushing forward on every front … But then they're also executing a giant military buildup," Ward said.

Ward noted polls show the American people are very much aware of the growing threat from China, and the majority say they want the U.S. government to actively work towards constraining the rise of China's power.

"The people get the problem, and the people get that we have to shut them down and prevent them from surpassing us. So let's get busy doing that. There's a whole lot we can do," Ward said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

You can follow thread talking about the fame, celebrity, and life of the famous "trans" boy who was on the cover of National Geographic.

Not the Bee confirms it's tragic.

The report explains, "Avery Jackson was a poster child for gender transition. Now, the group Restore Childhood has caught up with him to see where he is at age 17. … Tragically, he was starting to grow out of his 'girl' phase, but his mother had already chemically altered his body and castrated him. Now he's been sterilized for life and there's no going back."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden's many decades as a Washington insider, a politician playing to the power brokers, already is established.

So is his obvious physical and mental decline during his presidency, to the point his own party threw him under the bus and hand-picked Kamala Harris to take over, even though he had won some 14 million primary votes and she got none.

He's being ostracized by his own party now, avoided by Harris and her campaign power brokers, and ignored by historians who probably ultimately will determine his presidency failed.

All that's according to a new commentary at Revolver.news, one that offers him a single move that could make him an icon in Democrat politics.

The commentary explains, "It's not much fun being old Joe Biden these days. The 'most powerful man in the world' is languishing in obscurity. He is ignored by the press, forgotten by the public, shunned by his party, and avoided by his own supposedly handpicked successor. Whatever happens two weeks from now, Biden will be quickly shunted off into the wastebin of history, joining John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, and various other 19th-century trivia answers on the embarrassing list of U.S. presidents to be toppled by their own party before even getting to run for reelection. He will, beyond doubt, be remembered as a failed president."

But, it suggested, "Joe Biden has exactly one outside-the-box way to flip the script and head into the sunset, if not triumphant, then at least with some dignity intact: Officially endorse Donald Trump for president."

The reputation-saving recommendation continued, "Imagine if Biden publicly admitted his party had gone astray—that it had become far too focused on racial grievance, identity politics, and waging war against the historic American nation—and that this was now undercutting all the reasons he originally became a Democrat. Imagine if Biden said America needed a border and he was tired of his own party making it impossible. Imagine if Biden said the Democrat Party was better 30 years ago. Overnight, Biden's role would change. He would be the man who ignited a centrist Democratic rebirth, rather than the confused old man watching confused as his party marches off a cliff."

The commentary openly admitted some of its goal was to put Donald Trump in the White House.

And while improbable, it said, such a move by Biden would not be a "bad shot."

"Joe Biden didn't step aside of his own accord. Instead, he was betrayed and ripped apart by the members of his own party, who stabbed him in the back and destroyed him when he was at his most vulnerable. Biden's own party looked at the man who led them to victory against Donald Trump and decided to put him down like a sick family dog (Nancy Pelosi playing the role of Kristi Noem in this scenario). Biden insisted for weeks that he would not be leaving, but his allies refused to listen, only responding with ever-stronger escalations and pressure tactics," the commentary said.

His actual withdrawal from the race, it explained, "was nasty, brutal, and unpleasant. It was humiliating. But worst of all, it's what Joe Biden will be remembered for most, absent any change."

That's why Biden should consider "what a change he could make."

"Kamala's polls are sagging. Her early vote advantage is disappearing. Prediction markets have shifted from 50/50 to a nearly 2:1 advantage for Donald Trump. Driven by some hidden desperation, her campaign has abruptly pivoted from avoiding all interviews to granting as many as possible, with expected results," it said.

Already, the report noted some are saying the Democrats should have stuck with Joe.

It noted the possibility that Joe Biden eventually could die while son Hunter Biden, already convicted on felonies and facing more at trial, is behind bars.

However, "Trump is magnanimous and prefers finding reasons to bury the hatchet. Just look at how he has turned former rivals like RFK Jr. and Ted Cruz into allies, just to take a couple prominent examples."

"Donald Trump is the exact kind of person who might reward an unexpected gesture of unity from Joe Biden by commuting the sentence of Biden's son—let the country move on from bitter criminal prosecutions of presidential candidates and their family members."

By endorsing Trump, it said, Joe Biden "instead of feebly leaving office in embarrassed defeat" would be "taking a parting shot at the people who disgraced him."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Democrats' lawfare war against President Donald Trump has been waged by multiple attackers.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who attacked Trump's business operations and got a leftist judge to fine him nearly half a billion dollars for what expert witnesses described during trial as ordinary business practices, was part.

It's on appeal, but evidence shows James spoke openly about her scheme to attack Trump before she took office.

Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who took business misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations already had expired and called them felonies because they were in pursuit of some other, unspecified, counts, got a leftist jury to deliver guilty verdicts to 34 charges.

It's on appeal, but the evidence shows Bragg had publicly speculated about his plans to prosecute Trump before he took office.

Now there's confirmation from a congressional report that Fani Willis, the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney who created a list of organized crime charges against Trump and a dozen others, was another.

She also talked about prosecuting Trump before she took office, and presumably before there was evidence to support her eventual charges.

It is a report in the Washington Examiner that explains the testimony about Willis comes from her paramour, Nathan Wade.

He was hired by Willis to orchestrate her campaign against Trump, but took himself off the case when one of the defendants challenged the legitimacy of the prosecution based on the personal, and very, very close, relationship Willis and Wade developed during that time period.

He told Congress, in a closed-door hearing, that Willis "began preparing to prosecute former President Donald Trump before she took office in January 2021."

The report documented that "Wade said Willis began outreach for a Trump-related search committee 'sometime after the [2020] election, but prior to her taking office.' Willis took office on Jan. 1, 2021, after winning her district attorney race the previous August."

Her case is in tatters right now, on appeal after a lower court judge said her actions reeked of bias but still allowed her to stay on the case.

Wade confirmed Willis "absolutely" reached out to him before the day she took office "to mobilize him and others to prosecute Trump for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election, a sign that Trump was a top target and priority for her," the report explained.

Willis has admitted the conflict that appeared, that she had a "personal relationship" with Wade as she hired him with $650,000 of tax funds.

He said he was pushed by a "search committee" assigned to "identify someone who would serve as lead counsel on the election interference investigation," to accept the leadership role.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo on Sunday hammered the national news media for twisting remarks by former President Trump regarding potentially dangerous actions by the "enemy from within" on Election Day, wrongly insinuating that Trump would deploy the U.S. military against his political enemies.

"No surprise this week to see the media critique and misread my exclusive interview with President Trump last weekend when he responded to my question about whether outside agitators would emerge to create chaos on Election Day, should it appear that Trump was winning," Bartiromo said on her "Sunday Morning Futures" broadcast.

"Instead, most media outlets cut out my question entirely to suggest Trump wanted the military to take down his political enemies."

As WND reported last week, Bartiromo asked the ex-commander-in-chief if he expected chaos on Election Day this Nov. 5.

"No, not from the side that votes for Trump," the Republican presidential nominee responded at the time.

Bartiromo continued: "But I'm just wondering if these outside agitators will start the up on Election Day. Let's say you win. Let's remember, you've got 50,000 Chinese nationals in this country in the last couple of years. There are people on the terrorist watch list, 350 in the last couple of years. Like you said, 13,000 murderers and 15,000 rapists. What are you expecting? Joe Biden said he doesn't think it's going to be a peaceful Election Day."

Trump explained: "Well, he doesn't have any idea what's happening, he spends most of his day sleeping.

"I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. Not even the people that have come in and are destroying our country. By the way, totally destroying our country, the towns, the villages, they're being inundated.

"But I don't think they're the problem in terms of Election Day. I think the bigger problem are the the people from within.

"We have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical-left lunatics, and I think they're … and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military. Because they can't let that happen."

Now, Bartiromo is slamming those who took Trump's comments out of context.

"Following my interview," she explained, "Democrats and many mainstream media outlets constructed their own political narrative without including the full context of the Q&A about outside agitators on Election Day. Among the media outlets that ran misleading headlines, NPR, Vanity Fair, the Guardian, many others."

She then aired a montage of left-leaning TV news outlets who perverted the president's remarks:

• "In a Fox News interview, the former president also suggested using the military to go after what he called the enemy from within on Election Day."
• "It comes as former President Trump is employs increasingly inflammatory rhetoric and suggesting using the military against what he describe asked as domestic enemies."
• "We're at the point where he's saying I'm going to use the National Guard and the military to take my political enemies out of the country."
• "I'm talking about Donald Trump saying that he wants to use the National Guard and the military to go after the left. That's what he's saying."
• "On the campaign trail, Trump this weekend stepping up his anti-immigrant rhetoric and suggesting he might use the military against, quote, radical left lunatics on Election Day."

An astonished Bartiromo noted: "Here I was specifically asking him about the idea of outside agitators coming out, creating chaos on Election Day should it appear that he was winning. And here, I mean, the media the did not even include my question.

"It was amazing. Outlet after outlet, they took out my question on outside agitators entirely and they just ran him talking about Adam Schiff or the enemy within and getting the National Guard. That's what I was referring to and that was just really so incredible to me. They all did it. Every one of them."

Joining Bartiromo for analysis was Eric Trump, son of the former president, who said, "I've lived this for 10 years.

"It started with the dirty dossier where they made us the most unthinkable things about my father. Then they went to the Russia hoax, and that hung over my father's presidency for a three-year period of time.

"They they tried to to impeach him the first time. Then they went after Brett Kavanaugh, then they tried to impeach him the second time. Then they raided his home, they raided Melania's closet, they raided Barron's room.

"Then they tried to take him off the ballot in Colorado. Then they tried to take him off the ballot in Maine. then they weaponized every A.G. and D.A. in Atlanta, in New York, in Washington, D.C., to go after my father. Then you had Paige and Strzok and Comey. You had me getting 111 subpoenas.

"You had them ban him from Twitter, ban him from Facebook, ban him from Instagram. I mean, where do you want me to stop? That's exactly what my father's talking about, that's the enemy within. You see ABC, '60 Minutes,' they literally take Kamala Harris interviews and they edit them. They edit them to make her sound intelligent, to make her sound smart when she totally botches the questions.

"I mean, between the censorship and the legal lawfare and the political lawfare and the corruption and the weaponization of every political institution, there are tremendous enemies within. And there's not a single person, Maria, watching this right now, there's not a single people who haven't felt the degradation of our government and our system and our country under these people."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The U.S. Supreme Court has resurrected a fight against a Texas police department that jailed a journalist for asking questions.

According to a report from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is representing journalist Priscilla Villarreal, the high court ordered the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to deal again with the case – taking into consideration the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Gonzalez v. Trevino.

That decision authorized a lawsuit by Sylvia Gonzalez, a former councilwoman in Castle Hills, Texas, a critic of the city manager, who was arrested for misplacing a petition to oust that manager.

She was convicted, but the high court said that the lower court's ruling was too rigid and the case must be reviewed again, considering that, court submissions argued, "when an arrest is a premeditated attempt to punish someone for speech protected by the First Amendment, then the arrest is an unconstitutional 'retaliation.'"

The new ruling involves Villarreal, who left local officials enraged because of her reporting.

"The district attorney even took her behind closed doors to chastise her for her reporting," FIRE confirmed.

Described by The New York Times as 'arguably the most influential journalist in Laredo,'" she covers crime, traffic and other topics for 200,000 Facebook followers.

"Like all good journalists, she's not shy about criticizing government officials. That's why she's been repeatedly targeted by them," FIRE explained.

"In 2017, police dusted off a decades-old statute local officials had never used before to criminalize Priscilla's journalism. The alleged crime? She asked a Laredo police officer to confirm facts about a high-profile suicide and a fatal car accident, facts the officer freely shared and Villarreal published to her hundreds of thousands of readers," the report revealed.

She sued the police and prosecutors after her arrest for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments.

A 5th Circuit panel ruled in her favor but then was reversed by the full court.

The organization reported, "Villarreal's case has deep implications for free speech, a free press, and government accountability. Americans shouldn't be jailed for asking public officials a question, and government officials shouldn't get a free pass when they violate our fundamental rights."

"It has been a challenging seven years since Laredo officials attempted to silence me, and this marks a significant step toward rectifying the wrongs I have faced," she said.

The Supreme Court's decision vacated the 5th Circuit's ruling against her and sent the case back for the lower court to reconsider her claims in light of the Gonzalez ruling.

"We're thrilled over today's decision, and look forward to helping Priscilla continue her fight," said FIRE attorney JT Morris. "This case is vital for free speech, a free press, and ensuring officials are accountable when they trample the First Amendment."

The never-before-used law made it a crime to ask for "non-public" information "if the person asking could benefit from that.

Officials claimed she benefited from reporting on a high-profile suicide and a fatal car accident because she would "gain popularity on Facebook."