Tag: judges

Of Course: Cannibal Axe Murderer Released Back Into Society Despite Sick Crimes

A Connecticut man who hacked a homeless victim to death with an axe and devoured parts of his brain and eyeball is now being unleashed back into the community, thanks to a psychiatric board’s twisted notion of “progress.” 

Tyree Smith’s release exposes the glaring failures in a criminal justice apparatus that’s more concerned with coddling the criminally insane than protecting everyday Americans from repeat horrors.

Smith was arrested in 2012 after murdering Angel Gonzalez in a vacant Bridgeport apartment. Prosecutors said he used an axe to mutilate the victim, then consumed portions of the body. 

Found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity due to schizophrenia and substance abuse issues, he was committed to a maximum-security psychiatric hospital for 60 years.

But now, after just over a decade, the Connecticut Psychiatric Security Review Board has granted him conditional release. Officials claim a “careful review of his clinical progress” shows stability through medication and treatment. He’s already been enjoying temporary leaves, including overnight passes into the community.

This move has sparked outrage, with state GOP leaders slamming it as “outrageous and mind-boggling.” They point out the victim’s family vehemently objected, arguing it endangers public safety and mocks victims of violent crime.

Keep reading

Clinton Judge Orders Trump Admin to Refund $130 Billion in Tariffs

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump Administration to refund $130 billion in tariffs.

The US Supreme Court recently struck down President Trump’s tariffs in a 6-3 decision.

The Supreme Court said President Trump does not have the authority to impose the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The high court’s decision only invalidates Trump’s tariffs under the IEEPA.

Chief Justices Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch sided with the three liberal justices.

Conservative Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh sided with President Trump.

In his dissent, Kavanaugh warned that refunding the tariffs would be a ‘mess.’

The Trump Administration asked for a 90-day delay in refunding the tariffs, but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request on Monday.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday rejected the Trump Administration’s request to delay the Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs.

On Wednesday, Judge Richard Eaton, a Clinton appointee, said the Trump Administration to begin refunding $130 billion in tariffs.

Fox News reported:

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Wednesday to begin the drawn-out task of refunding billions of dollars to companies that paid tariffs the Supreme Court recently invalidated.

Judge Richard Eaton, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, laid out the estimated $130 billion refund process in a three-page order, saying it would begin with U.S. Customs and Border Protection calculating what importers would have paid without the now-invalid tariffs. Eaton also made clear he had sole jurisdiction over the refunds, which more than 1,000 companies have sued over in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

“The Chief Judge has indicated that I am the only judge who will hear cases pertaining to the refund of [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] duties,” Eaton wrote. “So there is no danger that another Judge, even one in this Court, will reach any contrary conclusions.”

The case in question was brought by Atmus Filtration, Inc., a company that paid President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which Trump imposed on nearly every country on an emergency basis under IEEPA last year.

Last week FedEx filed a lawsuit seeking a refund.

Keep reading

Judge Blocks Virginia’s One-Hour Social Media Limit for Minors as Unconstitutional

A federal judge has blocked Virginia’s attempt to limit minors to one hour of social media per day, ruling the law violates the First Amendment. The decision is a significant check on a growing wave of state legislation that treats time spent reading, watching, and communicating online as something the government can ration.

Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles issued the preliminary injunction Friday, finding that Virginia “does not have the legal authority to block minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech until their parents give their consent by overriding a government-imposed default limit.”

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

The ruling halts enforcement of Senate Bill 854, which carried fines of $7,500 per violation and required platforms to use “commercially reasonable methods” to verify user ages.

The law’s problem wasn’t just the one-hour cap. It was how the cap worked. The state set the default, and parents could ask to change it. That structure puts the government, not families, in control of baseline access to speech. Parental consent here overrides a government restriction that shouldn’t exist in the first place.

Giles found the law over-inclusive in a way that illustrates exactly how blunt these restrictions are. “A minor would be barred from watching an online church service if it exceeded an hour on YouTube,” she wrote, “yet, that same minor is allowed to watch provider-selected religious programming exceeding an hour in length on a streaming platform.”

The law doesn’t regulate harm. It regulates platforms, which means it catches protected speech indiscriminately.

NetChoice, the trade association whose members include Meta, YouTube, Snap, Reddit, and TikTok, sued to stop the law. In November, NetChoice argued that “Virginia has with one broad stroke restricted access to valuable sources for speaking and listening, learning about current events and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.” The judge agreed they had standing to pursue a permanent block and found they were likely to succeed on the merits.

Virginia’s attorney general is defending the law alongside 29 other states from both parties. A spokesperson said: “We look forward to continuing to enforce laws that empower parents to protect their children from the proven harms that can come through social media.” The new Democratic attorney-general Jay Jones, who took office in January, had announced he intended to fully enforce the law signed by his Republican predecessor, Glenn Youngkin.

Keep reading

Trump administration drops effort against law firms after judges find president’s orders unconstitutional

The Justice Department on Monday dropped the fight over President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting firms he disliked, conceding to unanimous rulings from federal judges that found the orders violated the fundamental tenets of the Constitution.

The targeted firms included Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey and Jenner & Block. They had fought back against executive orders by Trump that took aim at their security clearances, government contracts and access to government buildings due to their clientele and hiring.

Perkins Coie has represented high-profile Democrats, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; WilmerHale employed former special counsel Robert Mueller after he investigated Trump; and Jenner & Block hired Andrew Weissmann, who was a part of Mueller’s team.

The firms, which stood up to the administration at a time when many other major law firms caved, welcomed the administration’s capitulation.

“As we said from the outset, our challenge to the unlawful Executive Order was about defending our clients’ constitutional right to retain the counsel of their choosing and defending the rule of law. We are pleased these foundational principles were vindicated,” a WilmerHale spokesperson said in a statement Monday.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Allows ICE to Access Taxpayer Data

A federal appeals court has allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to access taxpayer information.

In a 3–0 decision on Feb. 24, the court unanimously disagreed with several nonprofit organizations’ argument that ICE violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs how federal agencies develop regulations.

U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, who wrote the opinion for the court, said ICE did not engage in the type of final action subject to the Act and that the agency otherwise followed federal restrictions on data sharing.

“Furthermore, if we find, as we do, that the ‘best reading’ of the statute does not support Appellants’ position, then no agency action may countermand the court’s judgment,” the judge wrote in the ruling.

The court also cited a “straightforward” and “crystal clear” statute that outlines when it is acceptable for the IRS to disclose tax return information.

“[The statute’s] text unambiguously authorizes IRS to disclose taxpayer address information,” Edwards wrote.

Keep reading

 Biden Judge Rules Trump’s Policy of Deporting Illegal Aliens to ‘Third-Party Countries’ is Unconstitutional

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that President Trump’s policy of deporting illegal aliens to ‘third-party countries’ is unconstitutional.

The Trump Administration has been deporting illegal aliens to countries where they are not citizens.

US District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, sided with a group of illegal aliens who filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration and said that the Trump Administration cannot deport illegals to ‘third countries.’

Judge Murphy halted his decision for 15 days so the Trump Administration can appeal.

CBS News reported:

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a Department of Homeland Security policy that allows immigration authorities to deport migrants to “third countries” that are not their own, without first giving them notice or the opportunity to object, is unlawful.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts sided with a group of noncitizens who filed a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security last year. He ruled that the Trump administration’s policy regarding third-country removals must be set aside.

Murphy paused his ruling for 15 days to give the Trump administration time to appeal.

Under the policy issued last March and reaffirmed last July, immigration officers did not need to give notice or an opportunity for migrants to contest their removal to third countries, so long as the government had received word from that country that deportees would not be persecuted or tortured.

Third countries are those other than the ones designated on an immigrant’s order of removal.

Keep reading

Judge Rejects DOJ’s Request to Search Washington Post Reporter’s Electronic Devices in Leak Investigation

A judge on Tuesday denied the Justice Department’s request to search a Washington Post reporter’s electronics for sensitive documents as part of its investigation into national security leaks.

As previously reported, the FBI raided the home of a Washington Post reporter who obtained classified and illegally leaked information from a Pentagon contractor.

Feds executed a search warrant at the Alexandria, Virginia, home of WaPo reporter Hannah Natanson last month as part of an investigation into a Maryland system administrator who has a top security clearance.

The contractor who stashed the classified documents at his home, Aurelio Perez-Lugones, is currently in jail.

FBI agents reportedly found classified intelligence reports in Perez-Lugones’ lunchbox and basement.

Rubio said the Pentagon contractor leaked the Maduro capture plans.

The US Army’s Delta Force captured Maduro last month. The leaked plans could have put the special operators in harm’s way.

On Tuesday, a federal magistrate judge rejected the Justice Department’s request to search Natanson’s electronics.

“Accordingly, the Court rejects the government’s request to conduct an unsupervised, wholesale search of all Movants’ seized data using a government filter team. To gather the information the government needs to prosecute its criminal case without authorizing an unrestrained search and violating Movants’ First Amendment and attorney-client privileges, the Court will conduct the review itself,” judge William Porter wrote.

“No easy remedy exists here. Movants’ First Amendment rights have been restrained. The government seized all of Ms. Natanson’s work product, documentary material, and devices, terminating her access to the confidential sources she developed and to all the tools she needs as a working journalist. The government’s proposed remedy—that she simply buy a new phone and laptop, set up new accounts, and start from scratch—is unjust and unreasonable,” the judge wrote.

Keep reading

Judge Denies Tyler Robinson’s Request to Disqualify Utah Prosecutors from Kirk Murder Case

Judge Tony Graf on Tuesday denied Tyler Robinson’s request to disqualify Utah prosecutors in the Charlie Kirk murder case.

Last month Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson sought to disqualify Utah prosecutors on the case over a conflict of interest.

Robinson fatally shot TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025 during an event at Utah Valley University.

A child of one of the Utah County Attorney’s Office prosecutors was 85 feet away from Charlie Kirk and police rushed in to protect her.

Robinson was charged with:

– Count 1: Aggravated murder (capital offense)
– Count 2: Felony reckless discharge of a firearm causing bodily injury
– Count 3: Felony obstruction of justice for hiding the firearm
– Count 4: Felony obstruction of justice for discarding the clothing he wore during the shooting
– Count 5: Witness tampering for asking roommate to delete incriminating messages
– Count 6: Witness tampering for demanding trans roommate stay silent, and not speak to police
– Count 7: Commission of a violent offense in the presence of a child

Utah prosecutors are also seeking the death penalty.

Robinson, 22, has three public defenders: Kathy Nester, Michael Burt, and Richard Novak.

On Tuesday, Judge Graf denied Robinson’s motion to disqualify the Utah County prosecutors office.

“Because the defendant has not established a factual basis for a finding of a conflict of interest or an objective appearance of impropriety rising to a constitutional concern, his motion is respectfully denied,” Judge Graf said.

Keep reading

Judge Cannon Permanently Blocks Release of Jack Smith’s Report, TORCHES Former Special Counsel in Latest Ruling

Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday permanently blocked the release of Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case against President Trump.

Cannon, a Trump appointee, slammed Jack Smith for compiling the Trump report after she dismissed the case.

“Special Counsel Smith and his team went ahead for months, undeterred, preparing [the classified documents report] using discovery collected in connection with this proceeding and expending government funds in the process,” Judge Cannon wrote in a 15-page ruling.

“To say this chronology represents, at a minimum, a concerning breach of the spirit of the Dismissal Order is an understatement, if not an outright violation of it.”

“While it is true that former special counsels have released final reports at the conclusion of their work, it appears they have done so either after electing not to bring charges at all or after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial. The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt,” Cannon wrote.

Keep reading

Trump DOJ Axes NY Immigration Judge Who Rubber-Stamped an Absurd 97 Percent of Asylum Claims

The Trump administration has fired New York immigration Judge Vivienne Gordon-Uruakpa, who boasted the highest asylum approval rate in the state at a staggering 97%.

The 66-year-old judge, known for her soft-on-asylum rulings, was terminated in September without fanfare, as part of a broader purge of lenient judges under Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Gordon-Uruakpa’s ousting came to light after she vanished from the downtown Manhattan courthouse website, where she had presided over cases.

A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed the site is up to date but declined to elaborate on the specific reasons for her firing, though an unnamed government official speaking to the New York Post pointed to her prolific record of granting asylum as the key factor.

Unlike lifetime-appointed federal judges, immigration court judges serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General and can be hired or fired, a power the Trump team is using as another tool to restore order.

Gordon-Uruakpa graduated from Fordham University and Howard University School of Law. Her courtroom became a virtual rubber stamp for asylum seekers, approving claims at a rate far exceeding her colleagues and contributing to the backlog of cases that critics say enabled illegal immigration under previous administrations.

This firing is not an isolated incident.

The Trump administration has axed more than 100 overly permissive immigration judges during his term.

Meanwhile, tougher judges like John Burns, known for denying asylum at high rates, have been promoted. He was named Acting Assistant Chief Judge in January.

The results are undeniable. Deportation rates are soaring, with nearly 80% of migrants seeking asylum being deported in the last quarter, according to Syracuse University’s TRAC program.

Illegal border crossings have also plummeted under Trump’s renewed enforcement policies.

Keep reading