This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A unanimous Supreme Court has taken the side of a family whose home was negligently and violently invaded, without any cause, by an FBI SWAT team.
The decision in the Martin v. U.S. case sends the dispute back to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for an evaluation of the legitimate issues.
The raid, in suburban Atlanta, happened, Oct. 18, 2017.
"Officers meant to execute search and arrest warrants at a suspected gang hideout at 3741 Landau Lane but instead stormed 3756 Denville Trace, a quiet family home occupied by petitioners Hilliard Toi Cliatt, his partner Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son," the court said.
"A six member SWAT team breached the front door, detonated a flash-bang grenade, and assaulted the innocent occupants before realizing their mistake. The cause of the error was Special Agent Guerra's reliance on a personal GPS device, combined with the team's failure to notice the street sign for 'Denville Trace' and the house number visible on the mailbox."
The government then refused to pay for the personal injuries and property damage inflicted by the armed agents, so the residents brought a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The opinion noted that the complicated law waives sovereign immunity in lawsuits "as to certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment," but there are multiple statutory exceptions.
"The first is the intentional-tort exception in §2680(h), which bars claims against the government for 11 enumerated intentional torts. The second is the discretionary-function exception in §2680(a), which bars claims against the government that are based on an official's exercise of discretionary functions."
The unanimous ruling said the law does allow for lawsuits for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest to proceed against the United States when the torts are committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers."
The 11th Circuit earlier had taken a novel approach, claiming the government "can escape liability when an officer's actions have 'some nexus with furthering federal policy' and reasonably 'comply with the full range of federal law.'"
Reading the law as Congress wrote it, the opinion said, "The statute generally makes the government liable under state law on the same terms as a private individual would be liable under the law of the place where the tortious conduct occurred. Because the FTCA incorporates state law as the liability standard, there is typically no conflict between federal and state law for the Supremacy Clause to resolve. While federal law may sometimes displace state law in FTCA suits where a constitutional text or federal statute supplies controlling liability rules, the Eleventh Circuit identified no such federal statute or constitutional provision displacing Georgia tort law in this case."
One of the issues was that the agent who set up the raid threw away his GPS unit, so no evidence could be obtained from that.
WND previously has reported that according to the Institute for Justice, when given a chance, Toi told the agents the address, and they realized they raided the wrong home. There was a warrant, but the address on it was not that of the family's home. The agents then fled, heading to the correct target.
"When police—including the FBI—raid the wrong house, they must be held responsible for the damages," said IJ lawyer Anya Bidwell."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For months, Tesla and SpaceX billionaire Elon Musk and President Donald Trump together used the Department of Government Efficiency to seek out and destroy corruption, criminality, fraud, and waste in government spending.
Reports suggest that about $170 billion was saved, and work continues even after Musk's time as a temporary special government employee expired.
But a war of words erupted between the two last week as Congress was considering a plan to put into law the cuts. Musk was furious that there weren't more cuts, while Trump was working within the reality of a divided Congress, where even his own GOP party had fractures.
Accusations went back and forth, with the Epstein files mentioned. Threats of impeachment, contract cancellation, and more erupted.
But the two intense government and industry leaders now may be heading toward a reconciliation.
Musk has apologized, conceding some of his comments went too far.
And Trump has confirmed he could work through his reactions, and come to "no hard feelings."
A report from Fox News revealed that Trump said in a new interview he's open to reconciliation.
"Look, I have no hard feelings," he told "Pod Force One with Miranda Devine. "I was really surprised that that happened. He went after a bill that's phenomenal. He just — I think he feels very badly that he said that, actually."
The report noted the two "traded fierce social media barbs" after Musk called the congressional cost-cutter a "massive, outrageous, pork-filled" plan.
The bill has been adopted by the House and is pending in the Senate. It is meant to extend Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well as provide new funding for the border and defense.
Trump said he is open to mending fences. "I guess I could, but we have to straighten out the country. And my sole function now is getting this country back to a level higher than it's ever been. And I think we can do that."
Musk, meanwhile, said, "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Prosecutors in Wisconsin have just filed an unusual document with a court: They explained that just because a person is a judge, that doesn't mean she gets a free pass to break the law.
That earlier was the stunning claim from Hannah Dugan, a now-suspended judge, arguing that prosecutors weren't even allowed to bring a case against her after evidence showed she distracted federal agents, then let an illegal alien criminal walk out of the courthouse.
Dugan's claim was that she has absolutely immunity for whatever she does in her courtroom – even in the courthouse building.
A report at Fox News now explains that prosecutors disagree.
Prosecutors now have responded to her claim, explaining "the Supreme Court has made clear that judges are not immune from criminal liability."
Their filing said, "In the end, Dugan asks for this Court to develop a novel doctrine of judicial immunity from criminal prosecution, and to apply it to the facts alleged in the indictment, all without reasonable basis—directly or indirectly—in the Constitution, statutes, or case law. … In her lengthy memorandum, Dugan concedes that '[j]udges, like legislators and executive officials, are not above the law.' Dugan's desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are 'above the law,' and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement."
Prosecutors have accused the Milwaukee Circuit Court judge of personally escorting Mexican illegal immigrant and domestic battery suspect Eduardo Flores-Ruiz out of the courthouse. That was after Dugan directed ICE agents to go consult with the chief judge and they left the hallway in front of the courtroom.
The 65-year-old Dugan has been indicted on federal charges of obstruction of proceedings before a U.S. agency and the unlawful concealment of an individual subject to arrest.
Prosecutors said, "Put simply, nothing in the indictment or the anticipated evidence at trial supports Dugan's assertion that agents 'disrupted' the court's docket; instead, all events arose from Dugan's unilateral, non-judicial, and unofficial actions in obstructing a federal immigration matter over which she, as a Wisconsin state judge, had no authority. At the very least, for purposes of deciding this motion, Dugan's claims to the contrary find no support in the indictment and should be rejected."
WND reported when a video surfaced showing the episode.
In an interview on "American Reports," Attorney General Pam Bondi explained how the Trump administration will handle judges who obstruct and block federal efforts to secure the border and remove illegal aliens.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Cars burned. Buildings attacked. Federal officers threatened. And to one network, it's a "bunch of people having fun…"
Networks were ridiculed during earlier riots in Wisconsin for having a reporter, standing in front of blocks of burning buildings, describe how the violence was "mostly peaceful."
That wild claim already has been matched in the Los Angeles riots, triggered by a violent reaction to federal officers performing their duties in arresting illegal alien criminals, some accused of murder and hurting children.
That network claim was that the events were a "bunch of people having fun…"
A report at the Gateway Pundit noted the ABC claim was as "record absurdity."
"It's the new 'fiery but mostly peaceful protests,'" the report said. That would be a local ABC 7 anchor describing the anti-ICE insurrection burning down the city and attacking federal officers as "just a bunch of people having fun, watching cars burn."
The report said the anchor, "reported to be ABC7 Eyewitness News co-anchor Marc Brown," charged that it was the Trump administration that could "a massive confrontation and altercation between officers and demonstrators" by bringing in law enforcement.
He pointed out, "It could turn very volatile if you move law enforcement in there."
The report cited history: "It can be recalled that CNN once described the riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, as 'fiery but mostly peaceful protests' in the days after sex offender and police attacker Jacob Blake was shot by police in what was later found to be a justified shooting."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
CatholicVote calls for removal of 'blasphemous episode from Apple TV+'
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple and long a leftist advocating for leftist ideals and ideologies, has been called out by a Catholic organization for his "mean-spirited attempt to mock Catholicism."
It happens in an episode of an Apple TV+ program, a scenario caught and criticized by CatholicVote.
Vice President Josh Mercer has written to Cook calling for a removal of the episode as well as a meeting "to discuss how Apple can foster true diversity and tolerance by ensuring its content is respectful of the religious practices of Catholics."
"Is promoting content which mocks and degrades the faith of Catholics compatible with this 'culture of dignity, respect, and opportunity for everyone?'" the letter asks, pointedly demanding, "Would you permit an equivalent mockery of the Islamic faith or the Jewish faith? We think not."
The letter said, "Why is it acceptable to Apple to disrespect Catholicism in this way."
The letter explains is is Episode 6 of "Your Friends and Neighbors" that is unacceptable.
The characters break into a church.
"The male character steals Eucharistic hosts from the tabernacle, which they eat as a snack. The man flippantly remarks about how they are eating the Body of Christ. The man feeds a host to the female character and feigns blessing her. Then they begin engaging in romantic activity in the pews…"
The letter explains that, "As Catholics, we have believed for 2,000 years that the Eucharist is not simply a piece of bread. It is the body, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. The practice of taking communion was institute by Christ himself at the Last Supper. Receiving the Eucharist at Mass is, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, 'the source and summit of the Christian life.'"
The letter notes the segment has little relevance to the plot, so "it is clearly little more than a mean-spirited effort to mock Catholicism."
The organization said it speaks on behalf of the outrage of "millions of Catholics across the country and the world."
CatholicVote describes itself as the largest lay Catholic advocacy organization.
CatholicVote has also begun a petition effort that already has nearly 200,000 signatures from those telling Apple leaders they "won't stand for blasphemy."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court has called out many of America's "prestigious employers" for discrimination against the "majority."
The comments came in a unanimous decision that concluded Marlean Ames was the victim of unconstitutional discrimination because she is part of the majority, heterosexuals, but was denied a promotion and then demoted while two gays were given those positions.
She sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, following the ruling, her case will return to the lower courts for a resolution.
The precedent, oddly, had been that members of a majority group such as heterosexuals were required to take an additional step in discrimination cases and document a "background" supporting the claim.
Thomas pointed out how ridiculous that was.
"The 'background circumstances' rule is nonsensical for an additional reason: It requires courts to assume that only an 'unusual employer' would discriminate against those it perceives to be in the majority. But, a number of this Nation's largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups," he charged.
Then he identified the discriminatory agenda being used.
"American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans… Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority," he said.
He blasted the lower court ruling that tossed Ames' case because of that "background" requirement.
"Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts. The 'background circumstances' rule—correctly rejected by the Court today—is one example of this phenomenon."
He said requirement forced "a majority-group plaintiff to prove, in addition to the standard elements of a Title VII claim, that background circumstances 'support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' This additional requirement is a paradigmatic example of how judge-made doctrines can distort the underlying statutory text."
He noted that nothing in Title VII actually creates such a requirement.
The ruling is considered a huge precedent for reverse-discrimination cases.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Western standards for free speech repeatedly have come under attack in recent years in a number of court cases, and now the conviction of one protester in the United Kingdom has highlighted how close that nation has come to the full restoration of blasphemy prosecutions, which were abandoned in 2008.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University and counselor to Congress on constitutional issues, is warning about "how the United Kingdom has continued its erosion of free speech by pushing an effective blasphemy law."
The most recent development was the conviction of a London man of a "religiously aggravated public order offence" for burning a Quran.
It was Hamit Coskun, 50, a Turkish-born Armenian-Kurdish atheist, who was arrested for protesting the Islamic rule of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara.
For his statements, he was slashed by a Muslim man with a knife, and because he was attacked, a judge, John McGarva, claimed his actions were "provocative" and were "motivated at least in party by a hatred of Muslims."
"Judge McGarva made clear that his views of Islam would not be tolerated in the United Kingdom," Turley explained, noting the judge claimed: "After considering the evidence, I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. That's based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family. It's not possible to separate your views about the religion to your views about the followers. I do accept that the choice of location was in part that you wanted to protest what you see as the Islamification of Turkey. But you were also motivated by the hatred of Muslims and knew some would be at the location."
Turley said there's "fear" that such laws attacking "hate" and that outlaw criticism of Islam will "constructively restore" blasphemy prosecutions in the U.K.
The Free Speech Union, representing Coskun, promised an appeal.
"A Turkish political refugee has been convicted of a criminal offence in Britain for burning a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish Consulate in London. The Free Speech Union (FSU) funded his defence. Now we need your help to fund his appeal. Hamit Coskun, who spent nearly 10 years in prison in Turkey for his political activism, was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence. The case turned on a deeply troubling point: one of the Crown's main arguments was that because a bystander attacked him with a knife, he must have caused 'harassment, alarm or distress'. This is a dangerous precedent. It effectively creates a heckler's veto by violence, and opens the door to the return of blasphemy law in all but name. We're supporting Hamit not because we're anti-Islam, but because no one should be compelled to observe the blasphemy codes of a faith they do not share. Free speech includes the freedom to criticise religion. We will take this case to appeal. With your support, we can defend a fundamental principle of liberal democracy: no religion is beyond criticism."
Conservative politician Kemi Badenoch joined with a comment that "de facto blasphemy laws will set this country on the road to ruin."
The The Gateway Pundit reported that man who slashed Coskun, Moussa Kadri, later pleaded guilty to the assault.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Computer tech is advancing in a lot of ways these days, what with multiple artificial intelligence programs now ready and able to enhance, and change reality.
One example is a new video with President Donald Trump explaining a plan to use dinosaurs to protect America's border.
Velociraptors on the ground, carrying mounted Border Patrol agents.
And pterodactyls in the sky.
Twitchy monitors comments on X, and said, "Imagine if we had our own Jurassic Park spanning the length of the border. We could have guard towers and towering Tyrannosaurus Rexes patrolling the border. Those T. Rexes would be known as the 'short arms of the law.'"
Trump is shown talking about the biotech company that "resurrected" dire wolves.
"If they can bring back wolves, they can bring back dinosaurs. Terrible lizard. That's what dinosaur means if you break it down," he said, citing the benefits of velociraptors on the ground: "They'll tear your head clear off."
Other social media reactions:
"You can't just fake something like this. Don't try to gaslight me … it won't work."
"Brilliant."
"Finally … weaponozed (sic) T. rex."
"grok, this is fake, right?"
"I'm sad that this is satire. I want CBD on mpunted Dinos."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'Not a single child should continue to suffer because of the previous administration's failures'
The administration of Democrat Joe Biden failed to investigate 65,000 cases of children flagged for "concern" when they arrived at the southern U.S. border and tried to enter, according to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
A report in the Washington Examiner said the cases were noted by the government workers and contractors who addressed the situations of unaccompanied immigrant children in government custody after they crossed the border.
Grassley, chief of the Senate Judiciary Committee, shared with the Examiner documents he obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services.
They confirmed the administration of President Donald Trump has identified a backlog of 65,000 reports filed by workers about children in custody or their sponsors who "warranted concern."
Instead of investigating, the report said, the Biden administration prioritized the "expeditious release of children to sponsors."
"The 65,000 flagged cases were not addressed before children were released to adults in the United States between 2021 and 2024," the report said, and now Grassley wants the Trump administration to work on the problem.
"Not a single child should continue to suffer because of the previous administration's failures," Grassley told HHS chief Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The report noted more than 500,000 children crossed the border unaccompanied under Biden's regime.
Often they encountered Border Patrol, then were turned over to HHS.
"As they interviewed children and looked into applications of adult sponsors, HHS workers and contractors flagged countless cases as being of concern," the report said, noting the 65,000 cases included 56,591 as triggering concern, 7,346 raising questions about human trafficking and 1,688 showing evidence of fraud "in terms of an adult posing as a related family member."
Grassley previously has raised evidence, and concerns, about the poor results of the HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is supposed to vet sponsors who take children.
His work has revealed records showing children were placed with suspicious sponsors, leading to concerns about trafficking and smuggling.
The report noted that during the Biden regime, two-thirds of the subpoenas issued for oversight were ignored.
In fact, Biden officials at the time ordered employees to refuse to answer questions.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new media narrative has emerged claiming the president's speech patterns show that he likely is suffering "cognitive decline" – but the president with the supposed problem is the 47th, not the 46th.
Amid increasing agreement in establishment media that Joe Biden was not serving with a full deck in the White House, now the Daily Beast is hoping to shift that diagnosis to President Donald Trump.
Writes the site's chief national correspondent, David Gardner: "Donald Trump's rambling speeches and stream-of-consciousness press briefings could be symptoms of his 'cognitive decline,' according to one of America's top rhetoric experts."
Noting Trump's age when he began his second term, 78, Gardner notes, "His father, Fred, was reportedly diagnosed with dementia in the early 1990s and died of pneumonia and Alzheimer's disease at age 93 in 1999."
The Daily Beast quotes Jennifer R. Mercieca, professor of Communication and Journalism at Texas A&M University:
"His lack of focus makes it seem as though he's experiencing cognitive decline, that his brain is not well-disciplined, and he's unable to maintain a thought and carry it through to a logical conclusion," she said.
Mercieca, the author of "Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump," added: "Trump sees himself as someone who is unscripted and not teleprompted. He likes to brand himself as a 'truthteller' who can and will say anything that comes to mind.
"Unfortunately, that makes his speeches difficult to follow as he digresses from thought to thought – seemingly connecting ideas at random."
The irony of Mercieca's analysis was not lost on X users. On posted: "Daily Beast From 2021-2025: The President is doing back flips and differential calculus just out of sight … we can barely keep up with him. Daily Beast Today: Forget what we just said."
X user Rusty Rockefeller addressed the premise of the report, saying, "You wouldn't know cognitive decline if it was shoehorned through a primary, and was in the White House for 3 and a half years only to be tossed on the curb after crumbling for a woman without any accomplishments."
Another user referenced an oft-mentioned excuse for Biden's speech difficulties: "It's just a stutter."
Meanwhile, the Daily Caller reported Wednesday that Trump has already become one of the "most accessible" presidents in modern history, with 111 media appearances in 138 days as president.
Reports the site, "The president's easy accessibility is a stark contrast from Biden, who held the fewest number of press conferences in modern times and had been hidden from the press by his aides to hide his cognitive decline, according to 'Original Sin,' a book written by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson."
Trump responded to 1,009 questions from journalists in his first month in office, which was seven times the amount of questions answered by Biden in that same period.
Notably, the 47th president does not use note cards with the names, photos and affiliations of reporters as a tool in press conferences, as did his predecessor.
The Daily Beast insists, however, "Trump has shocked audiences with sudden changes of subject and repeated topics and claims," specifically citing his weekend address to the graduating class at West Point.