This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A man who insists he is a woman and brought a fight over a state law requiring women who participate in women's sports to be, well, women, all the way to the Supreme Court abruptly has walked away from his case, calling on the justices to drop his fight, and even overrule a lower court decision in his favor.
A statement from the ADF, which has fought many of the nation's battles over the transgender ideology and agenda, said, "Let's be clear: the ACLU picked this fight. In red states throughout America, they've gone on offense, filing lawsuits against commonsense laws meant to protect women's sports. In their five-year litigation against Idaho's law, the ACLU has repeatedly argued that this issue is 'a live controversy' and is 'not moot.' They won at the 9th Circuit, forcing Idahoans to allow men in women's sports against their will. And now that the Supreme Court has taken up the case, they suddenly want to take their ball and go home? That's not right—and SCOTUS has looked unfavorably on this tactic in the past. A 2012 ruling decried such 'maneuvers designed to insulate a decision from review by this Court.'"
A report at Not the Bee explained the case was brought by Lindsay Hecox, a 24-year-old man at Boise State University, who demanded to be allowed in women's sports events despite a state law requirement that women's sports participants be women.
"In this case, Hecox, with representation from the ACLU, was challenging Idaho's ban on men participating in women's sporting leagues. Two lower courts had ruled in his favor, with the state subsequently appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed earlier this year to hear the case.
The ACLU's decision to back out — and to request that the court knock back the earlier favorable rulings — unfortunately doesn't mean that we're out of the woods yet on this. As CNN notes, SCOTUS already 'granted a second case, involving a transgender student from West Virginia, that raises the same issue,'" the report said.
The report noted, "Hecox's unwillingness to challenge the matter at court suggests a number of encouraging things, chief among them that he knows he is very likely to lose — which is another way of saying that the tide is turning on transgender madness."
The newest demand from Hecox insists he is under intense "negative public scrutiny" over the litigation and now wants to pursue 'academic and personal goals."
His lawyers said, in a statement to the court, "Ms. (sic) Hecox has also come under negative public scrutiny from certain quarters because of this litigation, and she (sic) believes that such continued – and likely intensified – attention in the coming school year will distract her (sic) from her (sic) schoolwork and prevent her (sic) from meeting her (sic) academic and personal goals. While playing women's sports is important to Ms. (sic) Hecox, her (sic) top priority is graduating from college and living a healthy and safe life."
Republican Gov. Brad Little signed the Idaho law in 2020, the first of its kind in the nation. Hecox, then a freshman at Boise State, sued days later, saying that he intended to try out for the women's track and cross-country teams and alleging that the law violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court on Monday restored the authority of the administration of President Donald Trump to conduct raids on illegal aliens in Los Angeles.
The court, 6-3, blocked a lower court's claim that restricted federal agents' authority to conduct immigration stops.
The decision came in response to an emergency request from the Trump administration and puts on hold a July ruling from a leftist judge, Maame Ewusi-Mensha Frimpong, who sided with those who want to protect illegal aliens, even illegal alien criminals, in the U.S.
A report at NBC News said the three "liberals" on the high court dissented.
Frimpong had claimed that federal immigration authorities were not allowed to stop people based on their race or ethnicity or the fact they spoke Spanish.
The raids in L.A. had been launched as part of President Trump's ongoing effort to secure the nation's borders, which had been opened wide, admitting millions of illegals including criminals and terrorists, under Joe Biden.
The report said, "Immigrants and related groups that sued claimed the government's approach violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, according to which law enforcement need to have 'reasonable suspicion' before stopping people who may not be lawful residents in the United States."
Frimpong's claims had been allowed to stand by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
There was no explanation from the high court for its reasoning. However, NBC reported Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion concurring with the majority in which he cast doubt on whether a constitutional violation took place.
"Especially in an immigration case like this one, it is also important to stress the proper role of the Judiciary. The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities," he said.
Sonia Sotomayor, one of the extremist voices on the left in the court, said, "We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent."
Solicitor General D. John Sauer had submitted to the court that the plaintiffs demanding protection from the high court did not have legal standing and the lower court's blanket ruling was too broad.
He explained, the report said, "while speaking Spanish or working in construction alone does not automatically create reasonable suspicion, such factors 'can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Internal Revenue Service charged that a company owned by Rep. Ilhan Omar's husband failed to pay taxes.
Omar, the far-left Democrat in Congress representing part of Minnesota's Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan region, repeatedly has advocated against America and for her home nation of Somalia, and allowed multiple scandals to develop about her personal life and multiple marriages, and for now is married to Tim Mynett, a campaign adviser for her.
Now the Free Beacon confirms it has obtained a copy of a tax lien against Mynett's company, EStreetCo, which accumulated "nearly $206,000 in unpaid income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes in 2021."
The paperwork was filed in Sonoma County, California, in January 2023.
"Omar, who introduced legislation in February to 'make corporations pay their fair share,' was married to Mynett when the IRS says the company failed to pay its taxes," the report said.
And in her 2021 financial disclosure, she claimed EStreetCo is a "creative agency" and said Mynett's share of the company was worth no more than $1,000.
Omar, among the most extreme members of Congress, has been in the news most recently in reports, including one from Fox, that charged her net worth "jumps to as much as $30M in new disclosure after claiming 'I am not a millionaire.'"
"The 2025 disclosure, first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, shows that Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, have a net worth ranging from $6 million to $30 million, despite claims earlier this year that she was 'not a millionaire.' The vast majority of the wealth comes from Mynett's two companies, a winery in California and a venture capital firm," the report said.
Disclosures from the end of 2023 showed that those ownership stakes were valued at just $51,000, and they grew little in 2024.
The report noted, "Mynett's firm, Rose Lake Capital, is valued between $5 million and $25 million according to the 2025 disclosure, while the winery, eStCru Wines, is valued between $1 million and $5 million."
The Free Beacon explained EStreetCo provided advertising, design, and public relations services, and boasted a staff of at least 17 people, according to an archived version of its website.
Mynett's business partner, former DNC adviser Will Hailer, formed EStreetCo in October 2020, and business records show the pair owned the firm until its dissolution in June 2022, about seven months before the IRS filed the lien, the report said.
The report explained EStreetCo is not the same company as Mynett's former consulting operation, E Street Group, which was paid $2.9 million by Omar's campaign in the 2020 election.
A spokesman for the company said the IRS had been paid, even though there's no record of the lien being released, the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The illegal alien a Wisconsin judge is charged with helping try to flee ICE agents wanting to arrest him, now has pleaded guilty.
A report in the Washington Examiner confirms that Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was accused of re-entering the United States illegally after already being deported.
He is facing a sentence of up to two years in prison in a deportation agreement with prosecutors.
The Examiner noted he entered the U.S. illegally in 2013, but was deported. Then he returned, and found himself in court because of allegations of domestic battery.
Hannah Dugan was the judge in that case, and now is facing a trial for allegedly helping him try to flee ICE agents waiting at the courthouse to arrest him.,
Dugan "allegedly told him, 'Wait, come with me,' before showing him to a special courtroom door after immigration officials showed up to arrest him," the report said.
Dugan insisted that her actions to help a criminal illegal alien were protected by absolute immunity.
She is facing a trial Dec. 15 and could spent six years in prison if convicted.
A commentary at Twitchy snarkily was headlined, "No One Is Above the Law …"
ABC reported, "Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan's trial on federal charges alleging she tried to help an undocumented immigrant evade arrest has been set for Dec. 15. Jury selection will be on Dec. 11 and 12, Judge Lynn Adelman determined during a scheduling hearing on Wednesday."
Dugan has claimed she didn't do anything wrong, and unsuccessfully argued in court that she holds judicial immunity for anything she does in the courthouse.
WND reported when Adelman had adopted a recommendation from U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph that Dugan's motion to dismiss the criminal case against her because of "immunity" should be denied.
"There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered 'part of a judge's job.' As the magistrate judge noted, the same is true in the bribery prosecutions, concededly valid, where the judges were prosecuted for performing official acts intertwined with bribery," the judge said.
"Even if a more limited version of judicial immunity exists, it does not support dismissal of the instant indictment."
Dugan was on video instructing ICE agents to go elsewhere, then she allowed Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien before her court on charges of attacking other people, out a private back door of her courtroom, leading to a nonpublic area of the courthouse.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley pointed out that Dugan has a "lack of a credible defense."
"Indeed, despite having high-powered lawyers such as Paul Clement, her recent social media posts seem more like a pitch for jury nullification."
He noted the criminal complaint explains "a six-person arrest team (including an ICE officer, a Customs and Border Protection officer, two FBI special agents, and two DEA agents) came to the courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican immigrant facing three misdemeanor battery counts they intended to deport. He is accused of hitting someone 30 times during a fight that erupted over complaints that his music was too loud and assaulting three separate individuals, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported."
Flores-Ruiz had been deported previously and came back illegally again, a felony, so he was issued an order for expedited removal, which means he could be deported with no further court hearings.
Dugan facilitated his escape, then was arrested and charged with obstruction.
"Recently, Dugan went public with an interview that notably lacked any discernible defense, other than stating that she helps defendants use the 'backdoor' when she considers circumstances that 'warrant it,'" the report said.
Turley explained, "The lack of any cognizable claim in Dugan's public pitch suggests that she might be hoping for a juror to simply vote to acquit as a visceral or political statement. This is a liberal jury pool where jury nullification must be a concern for prosecutors even though such an argument cannot be made overtly by the defense to the jurors."
Reports confirm Dugan was "visibly angry" when informed of the ICE officers present.
WND has reported a grand jury accused Dugan of knowingly concealing a person for whose arrest a warrant and process had been issued, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071. She is charged in Count Two with obstruction of the United States Department of Homeland Security's removal proceedings, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It was the 4 p.m. Eastern hour on a Friday, not the time one might find the president in the Oval Office taking questions from reporters in the last administration.
But President Trump used the time to sign his 200th executive order – this one changing the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, its name until the mid-20th century.
Trump, who said the original change to "Department of Defense" was "wokey," was accompanying by his new "secretary of war," Pete Hegseth, who said the change is in keeping with the "warrior ethos" that has come to the for at the Pentagon since January.
The executive order calls for the reference to change, but an official change of the federal department would have to go through Congress.
Just minutes after the change, the War Department posted a promotional video from its new X account:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Even as a number of judges at the entry level of the federal court system, the district courts, have complained in anonymous interviews with NBC that they don't like it when the Supreme Court overturns their politically driven decisions, a member of that high court is warning they are supposed to be playing by the rules that already are established – by voters, through Congress and the president.
It was in a series of interviews with federal judges whose identities were concealed that NBC reported they were unhappy that their decisions were not followed by the Supreme Court.
Some of those district court decisions, however, have clearly pushed political agendas in opposition to the president, on things like national security, international affairs, spending, social ideologies, and more. One radical judge even tried to order jets deporting illegal alien criminals turned around mid-flight to return the criminals to the U.S., without an acknowledgement that those jets could have run out of fuel before completing a return.
Now it is Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett who explained judges' personal beliefs should not enter into the equation when decisions are made. Those decisions should be based on the laws that exist.
Those district judges, she said, are "not kings."
She wrote, in an article for the Free Press, that judges are "referees" who determine, or should be determining, that everyone is following the rules.
"We judges don't dispense justice solely as we see it; instead, we're constrained by law adopted through the democratic process," she said.
She said of the judiciary, "Like Americans more generally, judges hold diverse views about the values by which a just society should live. Yet under the Constitution, the choice between these competing views is made by citizens in the democratic process, not by judges settling disputes.
"On the bench, we must suppress our individual beliefs in deference to those that have prevailed in the enacted law. Our job is to protect the choices that citizens have made, even when we disagree with them…"
Judges should be deciding "whether people have played by the rules rather than what the rules should be."
She cited her own personal objections to the death penalty.
"For me, death penalty cases drive home the collision between the law and my personal beliefs. Long before I was a judge – before I was even a member of the bar – I co-authored an academic article expressing a moral objection to capital punishment," she said. "Because prisoners sentenced to death almost always challenge their sentences on appeal, the tension between my beliefs and the law is not one that I could avoid as a young law clerk, much less now as a judge.
"The people who adopted the Constitution didn't share my view of the death penalty, and neither do all my fellow citizens today," she added "If I distort the law to make it difficult for them to impose the death penalty, I interfere with the voters' right to self-government."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump is appealing the E. Jean Carroll case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The move was confirmed as his lawyers filed an application to the high court asking for a 60-day extension of a deadline to file a petition.
And it comes after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider a panel ruling against Trump.
"President Trump intends to seek review by this court of significant issues arising from the Second Circuit's erroneous decision," his lawyers explained in a filing appearing on the court's public docket.
According to a report in the Washington Examiner, the fight with Carroll, who has exhibited some uniquely odd behavior as she promotes her case, is among the few disputes unresolved after a long list of lawfare cases brought by Democrat activists against Trump have faded into history.
It is a $5 million judgment based on a jury decision that claimed Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll some 30 years ago, and he defamed her by denying the accusation back in 2022.
Trump has repeatedly denied Carroll's claims, explaining that the "encounter" never happened.
The jury did not find Trump liable for rape.
Trump's appeals of the May 2023 judgment at the 2nd Circuit argued that the trial was tainted by allowing evidence that improperly influenced the jury.
The Supreme Court hasn't made an announcement on the deadline extension yet, but if granted, would allow a petition for writ of certiorari to be filed up until November 10.
Another judgment against Trump involving Carroll already is on appeal. That is an $83.3 million verdict for Trump's further statements that he never assaulted Carroll.
There are online videos revealing some of Carroll's antics, videos that the judges reviewing her claims did not allow the jury to see:
And there was the promise from a Trump lawyer that Carroll will see not a dime of the "judgments" as they were initially delivered.
Online resources explain Carroll also has made similar assault claims against other men, including then-CBS CEO Les Moonves, who, like Trump, has denied her allegations.
Carroll since has written a book about her allegations against Trump, and repeatedly has gone on television and other shows to promote her writings, and herself.
The trial judge who heard both cases, Lewis A. Kaplan, was accused of wrongdoing in his decision to allow two other people who accused Trump of sexual abuse to testify on behalf of Carroll. Trump has denied those unproven claims as well.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor Fani Willis, who is suspected of coordinating with Democrats and officials in Joe Biden's leftist administration to assemble what essentially was an organized crime claim against President Trump, now has been ordered to hunt harder for records of her work.
That case turned into a massive embarrassment for her, and the entire Fulton County prosecutor's office, as she was revealed to have had an ongoing affair with a man she hired to assemble the anti-Trump case for her.
Further, appeals court judges threw her, and her office, off the case, and it's been dying in the clerks' offices since.
Now a report at Fox News explains that Willis has been ordered by a court in her state to do a "new search for records related to her criminal case" against Trump.
The court had found that her search methods were inadequate.
It is government watchdog Judicial Watch that has been insisting she come clean on her work, specifically whether and how much she coordinated her case with the January 6 select committee, a partisan panel assembled by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to publicize accusations against Trump over the January 6, 2021, protest turned riot at the Capitol.
Willis also is suspected of coordinating her lawfare against Trump with Jack Smith, a special counsel who was entrusted by Democrats with two lawfare cases against Trump. Both of his failed.
The order is just another in a string of setbacks for Willis, who was ordered a few months ago to pay some $22,000 in legal fees to Judicial Watch after she declined to fully respond to the organization's opening records requests.
Judicial Watch spokesman Tom Fitton, according to the report, said his group has been digging into Willis' communications "because he believes the district attorney improperly coordinated with the federal government to charge Trump over the 2020 election."
"The lawsuit is about any collusion and collaboration with Congress and the Justice Department, Jack Smith, and we haven't seen the documents, but they show that there has been because their very existence shows that they were talking to them," Fitton said.
Fitton said the coordination among the various Democrat operatives would show Willis' indictment was a "political operation," not any "honest" process.
The judge's new order noted Willis failed "to address searches of devices belonging to former Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade and chief investigator Michael Hill, both of whom were integral to the investigation into Trump's alleged subversion of the 2020 election in Georgia."
The judge noted he found "omissions" in Willis' statements.
Willis charged Trump and 18 co-defendants in August 2023 with racketeering and other violations over the 2020 election, but the case fell apart because of plea deals and dismissed charges. Ultimately, the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Willis from the case, finding her private romantic relationship with Wade presented a conflict of interest. The case has been shelved indefinitely since the ruling, the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Rosie O'Donnell is now apologizing for falsely claiming last week's shooter at the Catholic school in Minneapolis was a "Republican, MAGA person" and "white supremacist."
Her original video in the wake of the horror at the Annunciation Catholic Church and School that killed two children and wounded 18 others has the actress stating: "Saw about the Minnesota shooting, and it brought me right back to Columbine in 1999 when I just could not get it through my head that students in America were shooting each other in schools," she asserted on TikTok.
"This was a church inside a Catholic school. And what do you know? This was a white guy, Republican, MAGA person, what do you know? White supremacist."
Now the fierce critic of President Donald Trump is admitting she "messed up" and did not do her "due diligence."
"I know a lot of you were very upset about the video I made before I went away for a few days," O'Donnell began.
"I didn't go online and haven't seen them 'til today, but you are right. I did not do my due diligence before I made that emotional statement, and I said things about the shooter that were incorrect."
"I assumed, like most shooters, they followed a standard M.O. and had standard, you know, feelings of … you know, NRA loving kind of gun people," O'Donnell continued.
"Anyway, the truth is, I messed up, and when you mess up, you fess up. I'm sorry, this is my apology video, and I hope it's enough."
In reality, the shooter has been identified as Robert Westman, a transgender who legally changed his name to Robin Westman in 2017 with the support of his mother.
He was not a Trump-supporting MAGA person, as one of the messages on the magazine of his gun stated, "Kill Donald Trump."
O'Donnell is now living in Ireland, having fled the U.S. due to her loathing of President Trump.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kamala Harris still will be getting special protection from government security officers, even after President Donald Trump canceled a special extension of federal protection by the Secret Service that Joe Biden had ordered.
Former vice presidents get six months of protection, ordinarily, after they leave office, but Biden issued a secret order extending protection for Harris by a year.
Then, just as she was set to launch a book- and self-promoting tour that involves many stops across the country, Trump ordered that extension canceled.
Now, a report in the Washington Examiner explains the California Highway Patrol will take over those special extended protection duties, and they will be funded by California taxpayers.
"Harris's Secret Service had been atypically expanded by former President Joe Biden beyond the six months after leaving office, typically allocated to former vice presidents. After Trump ended the protection in a memorandum on Thursday, California officials scrambled to add new security for Harris," the report said.
There's been no confirmation yet from Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom, who would have to approve.
"Our office does not comment on security arrangements," Newsom spokeswoman Izzy Gordon said.
The report noted there could be complications for Harris regarding "her upcoming" tour. She's promoting a book about how she lost the 2024 presidential election after spending well over a billion dollars in three months.
President Trump's instructions to the Secret Service were: "You are hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by Executive Memorandum, beyond those required by law, for the following individual, effective September 1, 2025: Former Vice President Kamala D. Harris,"