Biden Judge Holds DOJ Lawyer in Civil Contempt Over Immigration Case, Fines Him $500 Per Day

A Minnesota-based federal judge on Wednesday held a Justice Department attorney in civil contempt over an immigration case and fined him $500 per day for violating her order.

US District Judge Laura Provinzino, a Biden appointee, said the DOJ lawyer violated her orders in a habeas case related to the release of an ICE detainee’s papers.

DOJ lawyers in Minnesota are buried in immigration cases as leftist organizations fight to keep illegal aliens from being deported.

A JAG lawyer from the Department of War is assisting in immigration cases in the US Attorney’s Office due to case overload.

The judge held him in contempt after one of the habeas cases ‘fell through the cracks.’

According to Fox 9: Judge Provinzino had ordered a detained immigrant held by ICE in El Paso, Texas, be released in Minnesota with all of his identification papers. ICE released the man in Texas with none of his papers, forcing his attorney to find him a shelter for the night and flight back to Minnesota.

Keep reading

NYT Accidentally Confesses There’s A Left-Wing Judicial Coup Against Trump

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has never been one to show good judgement. When he’s not getting caught conducting “personal business” on a staff Zoom call, he’s accidentally admitting that there’s an ongoing leftist-led judicial coup designed to stymie President Trump’s agenda.

The serial self-pleasurer let the proverbial cat out of the bag in his Monday opinion column for The New York Times. Titled, “The Plan for a Radically Different Supreme Court Is Here,” the article purports to roll out a blueprint for countering conservative appointments of originalist judges to the bench but inadvertently discloses the existence of leftists’ efforts to weaponize the judicial system against Trump.

The admission comes in the piece’s opening paragraphs, in which Toobin discusses the American Constitution Society and its new president, Phil Brest. The ACS has often been described as the less successful and left-wing alternative to the conservative Federalist Society, which has become an influential force in getting originalists appointed to the Supreme Court and other federal judgeships.

Toobin notes how Brest — who worked in the Biden White House’s counsel office — “helped the president nominate and win confirmation of 235 federal judges, which is more than Mr. Trump’s total in his first term.” In the very next sentence, however, the CNN legal analyst let it slip that these judicial appointments have become the left’s primary tool in grinding Trump and his voters’ agenda to a halt.

“Those [Biden] judges — and others appointed by Democratic presidents — have proved that the most effective resistance to Mr. Trump has come not from Democratic politicians but rather from federal judges,” wrote Toobin, who subsequently listed off a series of overreaching orders issued by “these judges, many of them Biden appointees,” against the 47th president.

Toobin goes on to lament how the ACS has not boasted the same level of success as groups like The Federalist Society and has failed to advance an alternative style of judicial interpretation to originalism, which emphasizes the interpretation of the Constitution as written at the time of its adoption. Once again, the CNN legal analyst openly admits that — contrary to the article’s headline — the ACS doesn’t actually have a different philosophy or “plan” in mind, and that the group’s only strategy at the moment is appointing activist judges who will abuse their authority to stonewall Republican presidents.

“For now, under Mr. Brest, the A.C.S. seems headed for an approach that looks like the one that Democratic politicians have so far adopted: aimed more at opposition to Mr. Trump’s record rather than on a specific, alternative vision for the Constitution. In his opening message to the group, Mr. Brest described the A.C.S. as building ‘a bulwark against overreach by the Trump administration and the Roberts court,’” Toobin wrote. “Mr. Brest has pledged that A.C.S. will continue its Biden-era focus on judicial appointments … As for what those judges will stand for — as opposed to what they stand against — Mr. Brest has no clear answer.”

What Toobin’s article encapsulates is the left’s ongoing struggle session about how best to lie to the American people about the kinds of legal minds they want to appoint to the bench and their blatant disregard for proper separation of powers.

The entire reason for the modern originalist movement’s foundation and ultimate success is because of past Supreme Courts’ embrace of living constitutionalism, a style of judicial interpretation in which judges treat the Constitution as a “living” document that magically evolves with the times. It is through this philosophy that judges take it upon themselves to act as legislators and effectively rewrite America’s founding document as they see fit.

Keep reading

Leftist Lawyer Causes Day One Mistrial at the First Federal Antifa Terrorism Trial

A mistrial has been declared on the first day of the historic first federal Antifa terrorism trial after a woke lawyer for one of the defendants engaged in misconduct.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman halted the jury selection process after noticing that MarQuetta Clayton, a BLM-activist attorney for one of the defendants, was wearing a politically-charged t-shirt with images of Martin Luther King, Jr. and messaging about civil rights.

Judge Pittman found her clothing could prejudice jurors. His ruling came on the first day of jury selection in Fort Worth, weeks after nine federal defendants were indicted on charges stemming from a July 4, 2025 shooting ambush on the Prairieland ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas. A local police officer responding to the riot was shot in the neck. One of the defendants escaped from the scene, leading to a Texas-most-wanted manhunt for almost two weeks.

Keep reading

Obama-Appointed Judge Rules ICE Can’t Re-Detain Illegal Alien Kilmar Abrego-Garcia

Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cannot re-detain Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, an illegal alien from El Salvador facing human smuggling charges.

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, has long been on the radar of U.S. law enforcement for his affiliations with the notorious MS-13 gang, also known as Mara Salvatrucha.

Breitbart News reports:

The government “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success,” U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, in Maryland, wrote in her Tuesday order. “From this, the Court easily concludes that there is no ‘good reason to believe’ removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.”

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and child and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager. In 2019, an immigration judge ruled that he could not be deported to El Salvador because he faced danger there from a gang that had threatened his family. By mistake, he was deported there anyway last year.

Facing public pressure and a court order, President Donald Trump’s administration brought him back in June, but only after securing an indictment charging him with human smuggling in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty. Meanwhile, Trump officials have said he cannot stay in the U.S. In court filings, officials have said they intended to deport him to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia.

MS-13 is infamous for its involvement in violent crimes, including murder, extortion, and human trafficking.

Keep reading

This Federal Judge’s Ruling Against Trump Oozes With Hypocrisy

Yet another activist judge has made the choice to subvert the will of the people by penning a pompous opinion targeting a completely reasonable action of the Trump administration. This time around, it’s a woman complaining that the removal of exhibits that overly emphasize the slave-ownership of George Washington is “Orwellian” while also arguing that the Trump administration is guilty of wrong-think.

Judge Cynthia Rufe, an appointee of George W. Bush, claimed that Trump “had attacked the concept of truth itself as it sought to erase details of America’s legacy of slavery,” according to Politico.

She also suggested that the Trump administration had declared war on the truth.

“The government here likewise asserts truth is no longer self-evident, but rather the property of the elected chief magistrate and his appointees and delegees,” Rufe argued. “And why? Solely because, as Defendants state, it has the power.”

While she might claim that the truth might not be the property of any politician, Rufe sure seems to believe that it is her property. An unelected judge suddenly gets to decide which signs the government is and isn’t allowed to have posted, and somehow the Trump administration are the Orwellian ones? It seems the only one who has the power to assert what is and isn’t true are the countless members of the judiciary that subvert the Trump administration at every possible turn.

Keep reading

Prosecutor Accused Of Misconduct, Judges Step Aside, Evidence Suppressed And Yet The Government Still Convicted Single Mom Shana Gaviola

One of the most enduring principles of American justice is the right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers. It is a safeguard embedded in the Constitution, born from a deep distrust of concentrated government power. The Founders believed ordinary citizens—not government officials—should ultimately decide guilt or innocence.

Yet in courtrooms across the country today, that principle is increasingly hollowed out. Not because juries are failing, but because they are often prevented from hearing the full truth.

The federal prosecution of Shana Gaviola illustrates this troubling reality. The Gateway Pundit has written numerous articles about Shana’s case. A case where Shana has been fighting a liberal California government that was trying to transition her son without her permission. 

Before Shana’s early December 2025 trial, her attorney, George Pallas, fought for her case to be dismissed based on obvious misconduct perpetrated by the prosecution and others. His motion was denied, and her case was shuffled around California courthouses.

When we reached out to Shana’s attorney, George Pallas, he responded,  “This prosecution is an abomination.”

“Shana Gaviola’s child was stolen from her through systematic psychological manipulation, and when she fought to save him, the federal government decided to destroy her life. This isn’t law enforcement, it’s state-sanctioned child abuse.”

He continued, “What we’re seeing here is the criminalization of motherhood. Ms. Gaviola’s only ‘crime’ was refusing to stand by while her child was groomed and manipulated by those who wanted to replace her as his parent.”

Without mincing words, he then went on to say, “Make no mistake, Ms. Gaviola’s son was groomed and brainwashed to hate his own mother. Those responsible should be in the defendant’s chair, not her. Instead, the government has chosen to prosecute the victim while protecting the perpetrators of parental alienation.”

Keep reading

Judge Weighs Whether To Block Vaccines Changes From CDC, RFK Jr.

A federal judge weighing whether to block changes to U.S. vaccine guidance and an advisory panel did not immediately rule Feb. 13 after hearing from attorneys representing medical groups and the government.

Lawyers for the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and other groups told U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Boston that recent changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine schedule and the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel violate federal law and will reduce vaccination rates.

“This is a clear and present danger to public health,” said James Oh, a lawyer for the groups.

Oh said the schedule update, which removed the broad recommendation for six childhood vaccines for diseases including rotavirus, influenza and hepatitis A, “set off alarms” in the medical community and occurred without any rational explanation from the agency.

The CDC on Jan. 5, with backing from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., narrowed the number of vaccines routinely recommended by the childhood schedule.

Government officials said in filings that the the reasoning behind the change was in part due to an assessment carried out by senior health officials that analyzed the U.S. childhood schedule against schedules from other countries.

“The U.S. is a global outlier among peer nations in the number of target diseases included in its childhood vaccination schedule and in the total number of recommended vaccine doses,” the officials, Drs. Tracy Beth Hoeg and Martin Kulldorff, concluded.

The plaintiffs, which also include several women who say changes under Kennedy have prevented them from receiving vaccines, are challenging a series of actions. They focused on arguments for and against imposing an injunction blocking that update and the health secretary’s remaking of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

Oh said that the committee is not fairly balanced because it is dominated by people who oppose vaccines, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and urged Murphy to block the committee’s upcoming Feb. 26–27 meeting.

Government lawyers said in a recent brief that the advisory committee members have a variety of employment histories and that the accusation they are anti-vaccine “does not accurately represent the members’ complex and nuanced perspectives and their committee voting records.”

Murphy asked during the hearing whether he could consider the “broader public health impacts” of the changes in vaccine recommendations while weighing the case.

Department of Justice lawyer Isaac Belfer told him health officials were not pursuing an anti-vaccine agenda and welcomed “spirited debate about vaccine policy.”

But he said the Department of Health and Human Services had broad authority to change policy to address a decline in public trust in vaccines following the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The court cannot substitute its judgment in place of the agency,” Belfer said.

Murphy did not immediately rule.

With the meeting upcoming, he said he “must make a decision in this case on an uncomfortably tight timeline.”

Keep reading

Judge Blasts DA Over AI ‘Hallucinations’ in Filing

A Wisconsin prosecutor just got a real-world lesson in what happens when AI “hallucinations” enter a courtroom. Kenosha County District Attorney Xavier Solis was sanctioned after a judge tossed out one of his filings for relying on undisclosed artificial intelligence and bogus legal citations, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. Circuit Court Judge David Hughes said Solis’ written response in a case involving two defendants used AI tools without telling the court and cited cases that simply didn’t exist. The court record says Solis acknowledged he hadn’t revealed his use of AI.

Court records show that Hughes slammed Solis for using “hallucinated and false citations,” WPR reports. Kenosha County court policy calls for anybody using AI to prepare documents to submit a disclosure detailing the AI tool and its “limitations or potential biases.” The policy says the person making the filing needs to ensure they have “verified the accuracy and appropriateness of any AI-generated content in the filed document.”

The Feb. 6 hearing involved brothers Christain Garrett, 26, and Cornelius Garrett, 32, who had faced a combined 74 charges, including dozens of felonies tied to alleged break-ins of trucks and trailers. The case had dragged on for nearly two years when defense attorneys moved to dismiss in August 2025, arguing prosecutors hadn’t produced enough evidence. Hughes dismissed all charges against both men without prejudice, meaning they could be brought again. Defense lawyer Michael Cicchini said the dismissal was rooted in the judge’s review of the earlier evidence, not the AI-tainted brief, adding that Hughes found no probable cause the crime had been committed.

Solis, a former defense attorney who took office as DA in January 2025 with no prior prosecutorial experience, stressed in a statement that the dismissal “was based on the court’s independent review of the preliminary hearing records, not on AI.” He said the judge dealt with his AI use separately from the probable-cause ruling. Solis added that his office has now “reviewed and reinforced” its internal practices, including checking future citations for accuracy.

Keep reading

Trump Pushes To End Senate ‘Blue Slips’ As GOP Confirms Judges At Record Pace

In just the past week, the Senate confirmed half a dozen of Trump’s judicial nominees, continuing a streak that’s left Democrats visibly frustrated.

Since the start of Trump’s second term, 33 judges have sailed through confirmation — already eclipsing his entire first-term total. By comparison, during Trump’s first year in office, the Senate confirmed 19 Article III judges, including Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. 

While Senate Republicans are moving fast and confirming judges at a blistering pace, there are mounting calls to scrap one of the Senate’s oldest customs — the “blue slip.” 

The century-old practice has long allowed home-state senators to weigh in on judicial nominations before they advance, but Democrats have been abusing it, turning it into a de facto veto on nominees they don’t like.

Trump has wanted the tradition gone because of the way Democrats have abused it.

Last year, he reportedly told Senate Republicans to “get rid of blue slips, because, as a Republican President, I am unable to put anybody in office having to do with U.S. attorneys or having to do with judges.”

Some Republicans sympathize with Trump’s view, seeing the blue slip as an outdated relic that slows confirmations.

But others see danger in dismantling another institutional guardrail.

“Nuking the blue slip would be a huge mistake,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told Fox News Digital, joining several colleagues warning that a short-term rules victory could backfire the next time Democrats control the Senate.

For them, the issue isn’t about speed — it’s about reciprocity.

They argue the GOP will one day need the same courtesy they’re now being pressured to destroy.

While that is certainly true, like the filibuster, it is likely to be nuked by Democrats the next time they’re in power if they feel this guardrail hampers their ability to get what they want. In fact, that’s exactly why the blue slip started to get abused in the first place. In 2017, Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley was forced to reshape the practice after Democrats used it as a veto on Trump’s judicial nominees during his first term. 

Grassley noted at the time that the blue slip began as a “courtesy to get insights on federal court nominees from home-state senators in an era when such information was hard to come by.” It was never, he argued, meant to give senators “veto power over the president’s judicial nominations.” Grassley also reminded Democrats that their predicament was self-inflicted. “Democratic senators’ recent calls for an ahistorical interpretation of the blue slip courtesy stem from a decision they made in 2013 to end the 60-vote filibuster for lower court nominees. This move, often referred to as the ‘nuclear option,’ effectively silenced half of the Senate during confirmation votes.

At the time, many Democratic senators argued it was unfair for a minority of senators to block nominees with majority support.” he wrote.

“Now that they are in the minority, Democrats are scrambling to cope with the fallout from their decision.”

That history lesson seems lost on much of Washington. For now, the tension within the GOP shows no signs of easing, and despite his earlier move, Grassley remains a proponent of blue slips in theory.

“Because it’s a question of 110 years, and everybody in the Senate wants to maintain the blue slip,” Grassley said.

Keep reading

Serial squatter’s lawyer says client used ‘squatter rights’ to take over $2.3 million Bethesda home—she’s back in the house after prison release

The lawyer of a convicted squatter said that his client was able to enter and “assume the property” of a $2.3 million home under so-called “squatters’ rights” in Maryland. The squatter, after being released from jail, was able to take over the home again.

Tamieka Goode as well as her partner Corey Pollard unlawfully took over a bank-owned mansion in Bethesda, Maryland, according to neighbors. Court records from last July show that Goode and Pollard were charged with trespassing and fourth-degree burglary. The charges were made in response to a filing from a 19-year-old who lives with his parents next door to the $2.3 million mansion, per Fox 5.

Videos that Goode has also posted online show her flaunting her lavish lifestyle in the home. “Less than two weeks of being incarcerated, Tamieka Goode is back in the house,” neighbor Ian Chen said, the same neighbor who reported Goode in the first place.

Goode spent 11 days in prison after she was convicted for squatting, posting a cash bail of $5,000. She also retained attorney Alex J. Webster, III, with Maronick Law to have him represent her in other court appearances.

After she was released, security footage showed she was back at the house squatting again. Goode’s lawyer, who thought he could ask reporters to “cut” the video when asked about her activities, said, “Well, Miss Goode did her research. She found out that a certain property was under the control of a certain group – there was a title issue.”

“Due to the title issue, she was able to assume the property under squatter’s rights,” he added.

After being asked about so-called “squatter rights” in Maryland, he said, “It’s not a particular squatter right, but there are rights known as squatter’s rights.”

He said that there are “loopholes” that “people do take advantage of, but loopholes are loopholes” and that Goode followed the “order of events” to exploit them and obtain residency in the property.

A neighbor in the area, who went by Mi, but did not share her full name, fears that the situation could “erupt into violence,” as others around Goode have been pushing her to get out of the home.

Keep reading