Tag: government overreach

Supreme Court Upholds Marijuana Users’ Gun Rights, Rejecting Trump DOJ Arguments In Major Second Amendment Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously sided with a man who was prosecuted for possessing a gun while being a regular consumer of marijuana, ruling that the government’s actions violate the Second Amendment.

The opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch is narrow in scope and does not entirely strike down the federal law known as 922(g)(3) that prohibits people who illegally consume controlled substances from possessing or purchasing firearms.

But it does say that as applied to the man in the current case, Ali Danial Hemani, it is unconstitutional to automatically bar people from lawful gun ownership just because they happen to use marijuana occasionally.

It also says that the broad ban and the government’s effort to defend it are “at odds with” the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis.

The government “asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing,” the opinion says. “All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. And affording the government that kind of ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment.”

The court’s opinion in U.S. vs. Hemani does not address “efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm,” it says. “We do not address other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms. We do not address 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies (often including drug-related ones).”

“We do not even address whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others. Or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous because of its potency or for some other reason. None of those issues is before us and we do not pass on them either way.”

“All that is before us is one, if surely ambitious, theory. The government maintains that it may automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm because he uses marijuana a few times a week,” Gorsuch wrote. “More than that, because he possessed a gun despite this prohibition, the government insists it may imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life.”

“According to the government, none of this turns on how much marijuana Mr. Hemani uses or what effect it has on him. It makes no difference either if he keeps a firearm only in his home for selfdefense, never misuses a gun while intoxicated, and never poses a danger to himself or others as a result of his marijuana use. The only thing the government must show, it says, is that an individual like Mr. Hemani regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance.”

The court’s opinion details recent large-scale federal policy changes concerning marijuana, and how they undermine the broad statute seeking to strip cannabis consumers of their Second Amendment rights.

Keep reading

UK’s Renewed Ban on Palestine Action Confirms Legal Overreach in the Designation of Terrorism

In a dispiriting ruling yesterday, the Court of Appeal in London overturned a ruling in February, by the High Court, that the government’s proscription of the direct action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, which was passed by Parliament last July, was unlawful.

The High Court’s ruling, in response to a judicial review submitted by Huda Ammori, one of Palestine Action’s two co-founders, repudiated the two counts on which the High Court had ruled the proscription unlawful.

Garden Court Chambers, whose barristers represented Huda Ammori at the judicial review in February, explained that these two counts were, firstly, that the Court “upheld the Claimant’s challenge that the Home Secretary failed to comply with her own policy when making the decision to proscribe Palestine Action”, and, secondly, that “proscription breached the rights of Freedom of Expression and Assembly as protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The Court of Appeal shamefully reinstates the terrorism proscription

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal overturned both. The repudiation of the first was a long and detailed analysis of the home secretary’s powers regarding proscription, in which it was noticeable that, in dismissing it, the Court of Appeal not only poured scorn on the High Court, declaring that they had “adopted an excessively analytical approach to the interpretation of the Proscription Policy”, but also showed repeated and obsequious deference to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary at the time of the proscription, and her “expert” advisers from the police and the intelligence services.

At one point, for instance, the judges described how they were “required to attach special weight to the judgments and assessments of a primary decision-maker with special institutional competence” — yes, that really is a fawning description of Yvette Cooper! — and elsewhere, in deference to the executive branch of government, they noted that “The Proscription Decision lies in the area of national security which, before the Human Rights Act 1998, would have been regarded as unsuitable for judicial scrutiny at all.”

On the ECHR issues, described by the Court of Appeal as “questions of proportionality and the fair balance between the rights of individuals (free speech and freedom of assembly) and the rights of the community (national security and the rights of others)”, the Court acknowledged difficulties involving “the rights of the many law-abiding citizens wishing peacefully to protest, hold placards and otherwise support Palestine Action”, over 3,500 of whom have now been arrested — although they did also note that all of them ought to have been aware that doing so had become a “criminal act.” They also acknowledged “the ‘chilling effect’ that proscription may have upon those wishing to support the Palestinian cause, but who may be dissuaded from doing so by fear of committing offenses under the 2000 Act.”

Keep reading

Thomas and Alito Take a Regrettable Position in a Qualified Immunity Case

Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine that routinely shields bad cops from facing civil lawsuits over their abusive and unconstitutional behavior. All too often, a federal judge will hear a case in which a clear constitutional violation occurred, only to then shield the offending officer anyway from facing civil liability over the blatant misconduct. It’s a legal doctrine that deserves to be abolished.

Occasionally, however, the officer will lose one of these cases, and qualified immunity will be denied. That’s what happened last year in Hart v. Grand Rapids, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit actually let a federal civil rights lawsuit proceed against a Michigan police officer whose use of deadly force against a protester was officially reprimanded by his own superiors because of how the officer’s actions violated the department’s training and procedures.

That officer subsequently appealed his loss to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally turned him down earlier this week, thereby leaving the 6th Circuit’s denial of qualified immunity undisturbed. The civil rights suit against the officer will now move forward in federal court, a welcome result. To be clear, the officer may still prevail in the end, but at least his alleged victim will now get the chance to seek redress for a credible constitutional rights violation.

What makes this case especially notable, in addition to the all-too-rare denial of qualified immunity, is the fact that two members of the Supreme Court went out of their way to let us know just how eager they were to rule in the offending officer’s favor.

In the view of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the officer in this case was fully entitled to receive qualified immunity and to be shielded from facing civil suit. If it were up to Thomas and Alito, the 6th Circuit’s judgment against the officer would have been summarily reversed.

I am sometimes asked which members of the Supreme Court are the most reliably libertarian on various legal matters, such as criminal justice. After clarifying that nobody on the current Supreme Court is a truly consistent legal libertarian on anything, I typically say something to the effect that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch usually tend to give libertarians the most reasons to cheer on matters of criminal justice.

This case presents us with the flip side of that coin. When viewed from a libertarian legal perspective, Thomas and Alito tend to stand out as the worst on criminal justice issues. In far too many cases, Thomas and Alito have exhibited a kind of overriding deference to law enforcement that undermines the Bill of Rights and thwarts government accountability. Their actions this week continue that unfortunate trend.

Keep reading

Fighting for Food Freedom: A Georgia Farmer’s Stand Against Bureaucratic Overreach

“I never set out to battle county government. I simply wanted to sell the food I grow—healthy, local produce and value-added goods—to my neighbors,” Georgia farmer Stephanie Jones shared with The Gateway Pundit.

Recently, The Gateway Pundit spoke with Stephanie Jones, owner of Jones Creek Farm, a small family farm in Liberty County, Georgia.

In an era when Americans are increasingly demanding transparency and control over what ends up on their plates, the farm-to-table movement has emerged as a powerful counter to our industrialized food system.

By supporting small farmers and cottage food businesses, communities gain access to fresher, more nutritious food while strengthening local economies and preserving agricultural traditions.

These direct connections between growers and consumers are vital—not only for economic resilience, but for restoring personal agency over the food we eat.

This push for greater food sovereignty sits at the heart of the growing MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement, which seeks to reduce chronic disease by reforming agricultural policy, empowering small producers, and challenging the dominance of ultra-processed foods.

In this interview, this dedicated Georgia farmer shares her firsthand battle with local bureaucracy and her vision for a more resilient, community-centered food system.

Keep reading

Secret Grand Jury Convened to Unmask Anonymous Government Critic on Reddit

Federal prosecutors have ordered Reddit to appear before a grand jury in Washington, D.C., and hand over the personal data of an anonymous user who posted criticism of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The company has until April 14 to comply. Reddit has declined to say whether it plans to fight the order.

The user, identified in court filings as John Doe, is a US citizen in the Pacific Northwest. Doe’s attorneys reviewed the account’s post history and found nothing resembling criminal activity.

The most aggressive posts they could locate: sharing already-public biographical details about Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who killed Renee Good in Minneapolis in January; suggesting “Urine speaks louder than words” as an anti-ICE protest sign (a reference to a song); and writing “TSA sucks and we all know it.”

Keep reading

Democrats Turn to Unconstitutional Exit Taxes After Their Policies Drove the Wealthy Out of Blue States

Democrats believe all our money belongs to them. They believe they have the moral and legal authority to take the money we earn and redistribute it to their preferred constituencies, while ignoring (or even facilitating) massive fraud and enriching themselves in the process. 

With the news of massive fraud scandals in Minnesota and California, it’s clear we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a fraud problem, and we’d bet the majority of our deficit could be erased if we eliminated fraud. But Democrats don’t have any interest in doing that. They just keep taxing people more and more to make up for their fiscal mismanagement. 

And when they raise taxes, the people who can afford to move from those blue states to tax-friendlier red states. That leaves the blue states with even more self-inflicted budget woes.

Rather than roll back wealth taxes, Democrats have decided to tax the people even more in the form of an exit tax, and that concept is gaining traction in blue states.

Keep reading

‘Arctic Frost’ called overreach of monumental proportions and consequence

Recent disclosures about special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation raise a deeply troubling question for the American people: Did federal law enforcement cross the line from pursuing justice into wielding government power for political ends?

Documents released by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley describe investigative actions by the Biden-era Department of Justice and FBI that were not merely aggressive but aggressively partisan in focus and sweeping in scope. It is increasingly clear this was an overreach of monumental proportions and consequence, using law enforcement authority in a manner that transformed the justice system into a political weapon.

That is the very definition of lawfare.

Arctic Frost itself may have been partisan in its execution, but the response to it cannot be. Accountability must be rooted in principle, not party.

According to materials released by Senate investigators, Arctic Frost was the internal codename used for a broad federal inquiry into efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. Under Smith, the investigation issued at least 197 grand jury subpoenas and sought information from more than 400 individuals, organizations and lawmakers connected to post-election activities.

That scale is not a minor detail. It reflects an investigation that moved beyond specific alleged crimes and into a systematic mapping of political actors and associations. One of the most consequential disclosures involves an intrusive investigation into Kash Patel, the current FBI director, who at that time was a private citizen.

According to Senate materials, investigators subpoenaed Verizon, Patel’s phone carrier, for his phone records spanning multiple years, between 2020 and 2023. These demands included not just basic call and text message logs (whom he contacted, when and for how long — metadata that paints an intimate portrait of personal and professional associations), but also residential and mailing addresses, email addresses, IP addresses, usernames, screen names and, crucially, payment information, including credit card numbers and bank details tied to his phone account.

These subpoenas came with court-authorized gag orders lasting up to a year, meaning Verizon was legally barred from telling Patel he was being spied on. As a result, he had no chance to challenge the requests in court. So here we have raw, unaccountable surveillance of an American citizen that went unimpeded for years.

The issue is not whether the government has authority to investigate. It does. The issue is whether that authority was exercised with appropriate limits, neutrality and respect for constitutional protections.

Keep reading

Carney Liberals push Bill C-16 that could criminalize normal family conversations

Mark Carney’s Liberal government wants to control everything. With Bill C-9, they seek to remove the religious exemption for prosecutable hate speech; MP Marc Miller specifically cited Bible passages as examples. With Bill C-16, they could open the door to criminalizing conversations between family members after the fact.

The new Bill C-16 (not the 2017 bill of the same name, which prohibited “hate speech” on the grounds of “gender identity and expression” and made Dr. Jordan Peterson famous) has been titled the “Protecting Victims Act,” and was introduced by the Liberals in the 45th Parliament. It has not attracted much attention, but as MP Leslyn Lewis recently highlighted, it may have far-reaching effects.

Bill C-16 creates a new offense under Criminal Code Section 264.1 for patterns of “coercive or controlling conduct” in relationships but goes far beyond abuse and lists non-violent behaviors that are subject to after-the-fact interpretation.

“Do you think the government should criminalize everyday interactions in your home with your family? If not, you should read Bill C-16,” Lewis wrote on X. “The bill creates new offences (Criminal Code Section 264.01), which are deeply concerning for normal, loving family interactions, based on a ‘pattern of coercive or controlling conduct,’ even when no violence, threats, or illegal acts occur.”

“It criminalizes a pattern of otherwise lawful and often common behaviour that may later be perceived as threatening by an intimate partner,” Lewis continued. “That means ordinary family interactions could be re-interpreted as criminal after the fact.” She cited a series of examples that should make Canadians sit up straight:

  • Asking a spouse where they are after they said they’d be home,
  • Expressing concern about excessive drinking,
  • Disagreeing about finances or spending,
  • Asking a partner not to give children junk food,
  • Raising concerns about time away from family,
  • Setting household boundaries or expectations,

Obviously, many of these cited examples, which could be interpreted as “criminal” under the Liberals’ new crime bill, are common discussions and arguments in the family context.

Keep reading

Canadian Govt to Kill 400 Ostriches to Prevent COVID Research

The owners of Universal Ostrich Farm in B.C., Canada, has a contract signed with a Japanese research firm to study treatments for COVID-19. Biomedical research of this nature would ruin the plan-demic powers Canada enjoyed, and as such, the government plans to kill all 400 ostriches at this farm after an extensive legal battle.

Those outside Canada likely do not understand the national outrage. This is more than a case of animal cruelty or government overreach. The Canadian government is blatantly attempting to prevent researchers from finding an alternative cure to the very virus that was used as a premise to shut down the world. A Universal Ostrich Farm spokesperson, Katie Pasitney, has explained “inoculating ostriches by injecting them with antigens or particles of a dead virus” created an immune response to create egg antibodies.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency ordered to cull the entire flock due to two ostriches dying of the H5N1 virus. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) maintains that all birds among an infected flock must be killed to prevent health issues. Yet, these birds were not for meat or simply pets. These birds potentially contained the capacity to product antibodies to COVID-19. Remember when the government cared about nothing aside from COVID? The headlines touted that the world would suffer a medieval plague unless everyone stayed home, masked up, and willingly accepted an experimental mRNA unstudied vaccine. The government can simply do anything under the pretext of “public health.”

Keep reading

Vicious FBI Agents Accused of Terrorizing Innocent J6 Families and Harassing Children Sue to Keep Their Identities Hidden

In 2023 The Gateway Pundit published the shocking story of Chris and In Annette Kuehne.

Chris Kuehne is a 22-year veteran who received numerous medals and awards, including the Purple Heart, a Navy Commendation Medal with Valor, and a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with Valor for actions in combat.

On January 6, 2021, Chris went inside the Capitol but did not cause any harm or damage – in fact he cleaned trash off the floor, helped to stop theft of government property, asked people to leave the building, and went up to Capitol Police Officers to ask how he could help. Chris was also set-up by an FBI operative that day. Chris committed no violence and did nothing wrong.

One month later, in the early morning of February 11, 2021 Chris, his four-year-old child, and his wife Annette, who was pregnant at the time were awakened to sirens, cell phone rings, and bursts of colorful lights reflecting through our windows.

Annette later went public about the raid, “The FBI instructed Chris to come outside immediately. Our 4-year-old was awakened from the chaos, and I picked him up and ran downstairs to open the front door. Our house, street and neighboring streets were completely surrounded by armed FBI and law enforcement. It was a scene that we see so many times in the movies, but now it was here at my house! There were three large armored tactical vehicles parked on my front, side and back yard, and police vehicles that extended throughout the entire community. I open the door, and for a second, I didn’t realize that there were about twenty FBI SWAT Team members with semi-automatic rifles pointed at my son and I. We were covered by the bright red lasers pointed at our faces, chests, and various points on our bodies.”

Keep reading