Tag: judges

Ohio judge could face further consequences over Charlie Kirk comments

Judge Ted Berry, a municipal judge for Hamilton County, is closer to being removed from the bench for social media posts celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, thanks to a resolution filed by state representatives.

Among his other comments, Berry declared, with a clown emoji, “Rest in Hatred & Division!” He also claimed that Kirk “spewed hate & division.” Another post asked, “How’s he feel about gun violence and gun control in Hell, now?”

State Rep. Adam Mathews, one of the Republicans who introduced the resolution to remove Berry, has shared screenshots of the judge’s remarks from his own Facebook page.

Mathews spoke with The Daily Signal about his resolution, which he initiated with state Rep. D.J. Swearingen, a fellow Republican. “We have given the judge more than a month,” Mathews reminded, having called for Berry to resign Sept. 12. “And now to defend the courts and the trust that the people must have in them with an unbiased judiciary, we are moving forward with the process to remove the judge as outlined by the Ohio constitution.”

The removal process is laid out in Article IV, Section 17 of the state constitution. “Judges may be removed from office, by concurrent resolution of both houses of the general assembly, if two-thirds of the members, elected to each house, concur therein; but, no such removal shall be made, except upon complaint, the substance of which shall be entered on the journal, nor, until the party charged shall have had notice thereof, and an opportunity to be heard,” the section reads.

Keep reading

New York High Court Blocks Race-Grifters From Using Courts To Indoctrinate Children

our years ago, a group of race-grifter activists in New York City tried to sue their way into government-enforced racial quotas and race-centric curricula. But New York state’s highest court just decided they are not allowed to use the judicial system to mandate the indoctrination of children.

According to Defending Education (DE), which intervened in the case in 2021, far-left group IntegrateNYC’s attempt to abuse courts to create racial quotas for students and blame the racial make-up of school staff and a “white and Eurocentric curriculum” for poor education outcomes among the city’s black and Latino populations was put to an end Friday when the New York Court of Appeals dismissed the case.

The Education Article in the New York state constitution “does not permit judges to micromanage matters of educational policy, which are broadly entrusted to local control,” wrote Judge Michael J. Garcia, an appointee of former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y.

As laid out by Garcia, IntegrateNYC alleged that the city’s public education system “discriminates against and disproportionately affects Black and Latino students, leading to unequal educational opportunities and negative outcomes for those students” because of its systems for admissions and screening, the content of curricula, and the purported lack of diversity among teachers.

They claimed further that the school system was segregated because black and Latino students underperform on admissions exams because of “discriminatory standardized testing policies,” shuttling them to “inferior schools that are deficient in terms of physical facilities and instrumentalities of learning, resulting in poor educational outcomes.”

As DE put it, activists “sought to use the courts to inject race into all aspects of the city’s education system. … Plaintiffs claimed that the city’s school system is discriminatory because, in their eyes, not enough students from their preferred races are admitted to the city’s selective academic programs.”

Sarah Parshall Perry, DE’s vice president and legal fellow, noted that “the challengers to New York’s gifted and talented program had demanded consideration of race in order to prevent race discrimination.”

However, suing into existence a wide variety of political and policy preferences is a tried and true left-wing political tactic used in places where their political movement is incapable of getting their candidates elected to bodies — like legislatures or city councils — that should actually be responsible for dealing with these issues.

The fact that New York City, and more broadly the state of New York, is run by people who largely agree with IntegrateNYC’s premise means that the high court’s ruling against them is at the very least a credit to the state’s ability to maintain separation of powers (in this instance) — but also a testament to how weak the group’s claims were.

IntegrateNYC could not prove any kind of systematic racism or injustice, and they could not point to an operational law or ordinance that blocked black or Latino students from attending the schools they wanted to “integrate.” Rather, they essentially tried to blame poor student outcomes on racism.

Those students are also apparently negatively affected because they are apparently subjected to a “white and Eurocentric curriculum.”

Keep reading

Biden Judge Gives Letitia James Her First Win

A Biden-appointed judge gave Letitia James her first win on Friday.

Corrupt New York Attorney General Letitia James was arraigned in court in Norfolk, Virginia, on Friday morning.

Letitia James’ federal criminal case was assigned to US District Judge Jamar Walker, a Biden appointee.

Jamar Walker was appointed by Joe Biden in 2023.

James was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia earlier this month.

According to the DOJ, Letitia James was charged with two crimes: Bank Fraud under 18 U.S.C. Section 1344 and False Statements to a Financial Institution under 18 U.S.C. Section 1014.

The charges are related to a mortgage loan on a property James owns in Norfolk, Virginia, referred to as “the Perrone Property.”

According to the indictment, James was to use the property as her secondary residence and prohibited its use as a timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or agreement that requires her either to rent the property or give any other person any control over the occupancy or use of the property.

Letitia James treated her Perrone property like an investment property on her Schedule E form and paid taxes on the rental income, further contradicting her claims of secondary residence.

“If convicted, Letitia James faces penalties including up to 30 years in prison per count, up to a $1 million fine on each count, and forfeiture,” the DOJ said.

On Friday Letitia James filed a motion to dismiss the federal indictment arguing that US Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US Attorney is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.

“Attorney General Letitia A. James, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b) moves this Court to dismiss the Government’s indictment because purported interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan had no authority to bring the charges in this case. As explained further below, Ms. Halligan’s purported appointment as interim U.S. Attorney was invalid under 28 U.S.C § 546 and in violation of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,” James’s attorney argued in a motion reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.

James also asked Judge Jamar Walker to consolidate her motion challenging the appointment of Halligan with James Comey’s motion in a separate case.

Recall that fired FBI Director James Comey also filed a motion to disqualify Lindsey Halligan after he was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia.

On Tuesday, the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Comey’s motion challenging Halligan to be transferred to Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee.

On Friday, Judge Jamar Walker granted Letitia James’ request to consolidate her motion with Comey’s similar motion so the Clinton judge can decide whether Lindsey Halligan will be disqualified in both cases.

The fix is in.

Keep reading

Federal Judge to Extend Block on Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Chicago

A federal judge in Chicago on Oct. 22  said she would extend her order blocking President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops in the Windy City while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling on the dispute.

The plaintiffs—the state of Illinois and city of Chicago—filed a lawsuit on Oct. 6 after Secretary of War Pete Hegseth invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to federalize up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard and up to 400 members of the Texas National Guard for deployment in Chicago.

A president may take over, or federalize, state National Guard troops under certain emergency circumstances. The Trump administration argues the deployment is needed to help the federal government enforce federal immigration laws in Chicago.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said on Oct. 5 that Trump’s deployment of the troops was an “invasion.”

“There is no reason a president should send military troops into a sovereign state without their knowledge, consent, or cooperation,” Pritzker said.

On Oct. 9, U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order blocking the “federalization and deployment of the National Guard of the United States within Illinois.” The order was set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on Oct. 23.

Keep reading

Northwestern University Can Toss Students Who Refuse To Complete Anti-Semitism Training, Judge Rules

Northwestern University can strip students’ financial aid, access to on-campus housing, and even their student status for refusing to complete a mandatory anti-Semitism training, a federal judge ruled Monday.

The ruling represents an early blow to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the lawsuit it filed against Northwestern on behalf of the school’s Graduate Workers for Palestine, alleging the training violates federal civil rights law and bans “expressions of Palestinian identity.” The plaintiffs had asked the court for a temporary restraining order to stop the school from punishing students who boycotted the training while the case played out, but Judge Georgia Alexakis rejected that request.

“Because the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in this threshold inquiry, we do not move on to conduct a balancing of the harms,” Alexakis said, according to the student paper, the Daily Northwestern. “For that reason, I have to deny the motion.”

CAIR’s suit focuses on a training video produced by the Jewish United Fund that shows quotes from Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke alongside those from anti-Israel activists to make the point that “you can’t tell the difference.” CAIR, a terror-tied pro-Hamas group, argued the video “equates critical engagement with Zionism with anti-Jewish statements by the Ku Klux Klan” and discriminates against “the University’s Palestinian and other Arab students by branding their ethnic and religious identities, cultures, and advocacy for the rights of their national group as antisemitic and subject to discipline.”

Northwestern barred students who didn’t complete the training from registering for classes and gave them until Monday to view the video. After that, they would face escalating penalties, including the loss of financial aid, access to on-campus housing, and even the revocation of their student status, effectively booting them from the university and forcing them to reapply. Northwestern attorneys have identified 16 students who have not completed the training, the Daily Northwestern reported.

While rejecting CAIR’s request for a temporary restraining order, Alexakis cast doubt on the plaintiffs’ claims that Northwestern discriminated against them on the basis of race, essentially questioning whether they could win the case.

“I find that the plaintiffs have established irreparable harm, but I also find that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the likelihood of success on the merits of the claims that they advance,” Alexakis said. She noted students aren’t required to endorse the video to complete the training, let alone watch it—they could simply allow it to play until the end.

Elsewhere in the suit, CAIR alleges the “training course is replete with political commentary which restricts Northwestern students from advocating for Palestinian liberation, equal rights, an end to apartheid in Palestine, and for the rights of Palestine’s indigenous people (Jewish and non-Jewish).” The plaintiffs also described the spring 2024 Deering Meadow encampment as home to “nonviolent protest, display of signs, speeches, dancing, prayer and other overtly Jewish religious activities, and community building.”

Keep reading

Judge Orders Tech CEOs to Testify in Case Using Algorithmic Design Rules as a New Avenue for Indirect Online Censorship Pressure

Three of the tech industry’s most recognizable leaders, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Evan Spiegel of Snap, and Adam Mosseri of Instagram, will be required to testify in court early next year.

The order came from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who ruled that their participation is essential in a lawsuit alleging that social media platforms were deliberately designed to harm young users’ mental health.

Attorneys for the companies had tried to prevent the CEOs from appearing, arguing that earlier depositions and other executive testimonies already provided sufficient information.

Judge Kuhl disagreed, stating, “The testimony of a CEO is uniquely relevant, as that officer’s knowledge of harms, and failure to take available steps to avoid such harms could establish negligence or ratification of negligent conduct.”

She also noted that their testimony would be “unique,” since the claims center on design features built to “be addictive” and “drive compulsive” use among minors.

Meta argued that compelling both Zuckerberg and Mosseri to testify would disrupt their ability to manage the business and “set a precedent” for future cases. Snap’s lawyers said the decision to call Spiegel to the stand was an “abuse of discretion.”

Judge Kuhl rejected both arguments, saying that those in charge must directly answer questions about their companies’ conduct instead of delegating that responsibility.

After the ruling, Meta declined to comment.

Keep reading

SHOCK: Biden Judge Orders ICE Agent Arrests at Courthouses

Judicial tyranny continues.

A federal judge recently ordered ICE agent arrests at courthouses.

US District Judge Jeffrey Cummings, a Biden appointee, barred ICE agents from arresting illegal aliens at Cook County, Illinois, courthouses if they don’t have a warrant.

Judge Cummings said the ICE agents can be arrested if they violate his court order.

The judge barred ICE agents from making “collateral arrests” – a term that describes the arrest of illegal aliens who happen to be discovered during the arrest of another alien for whom they have a warrant to take into custody.

Breitbart reported:

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings ordered that ICE officers are barred from arresting migrants at courthouses if they don’t have a warrant. He also ordered that federal law enforcement can be arrested if they violate his orders.

The judge’s order aimed to prevent what are called “collateral arrests” of people whom ICE officers discover are illegal on the spot. These are migrants that ICE agents come across by happenstance while looking for someone they have a warrant to apprehend.

Cummings stated that courthouses must be places where witnesses and suspects feel safe.

“The fair administration of justice requires that courts remain open and accessible, and that litigants and witnesses may appear without fear of civil arrest,” he said in his order.

Judge Cummings also cited in his ruling arrests that have been made recently outside county courthouses where ICE has taken “collateral” migrants into custody in the Chicago area.

“One thing seems clear: ICE rousted American citizens from their apartments during the middle of the night and detained them — in zip ties no less — for far longer than the ‘brief’ period authorized by the operative regulation,” the judge wrote.

The DHS defended its practice of arresting illegal aliens at courthouses.

“We aren’t some medieval kingdom; there are no legal sanctuaries where you can hide and avoid the consequences for breaking the law,” DHS said in a statement to CBS News. “Nothing in the Constitution prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”

Keep reading

Federal Judge Blocks Push to Remove Gender Ideology From Sex Ed Curricula

A federal judge in Oregon said during a hearing on Monday that she plans to issue an injunction stopping the Trump administration from requiring several Democratic-led states to remove references to gender ideology from their sexual health education curricula as a condition of receiving federal grant funding.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, based in Eugene, made the comments in reference to a lawsuit filed by 16 states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia. The states of Oregon, Washington, and Minnesota are leading the group.

The lawsuit centers on an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on Jan. 20—the first day of his second term.

The order called for federal agencies to recognize two sexes, male and female, and to ensure that grant funds do not support “gender ideology.”

The Department of Health and Human Services published notices in August that recipients of grants from the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) and the Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education programs must not include content teaching that gender identity is separate from biological sex.

The department also sent 46 states and territories letters in which it mandated the removal of any such references from federally funded materials within 60 days. Non-compliance led to actions including the termination of California’s PREP grant after the state did not change its educational content.

Keep reading

Illegal Immigrant Who Was Living With Judge Pleads Guilty to Gun Possession

An illegal immigrant suspected of being a Tren de Aragua gang member and living with a judge in New Mexico has pleaded guilty to “illegally possessing firearms and conspiracy to destroy evidence,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in an Oct. 17 statement.

Cristhian Ortega-Lopez entered the United States illegally in 2023 under the Biden administration and was released into the country, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. Authorities allege that Magistrate Judge Jose Cano and his wife initially hired Ortega-Lopez for home repairs, later allowing him to live at their guesthouse.

Ortega-Lopez “posted numerous photos and videos of himself on social media accounts with weapons including an AR-15 style rifle, a semi-automatic handgun, and ammunition,” the DHS stated.

Tren de Aragua was designated as a foreign terrorist organization and a specially designated global terrorist group by the State Department in February.

In January, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) received an anonymous tip about Ortega-Lopez living in New Mexico while possessing firearms, which culminated in his arrest at the judge’s house the following month.

After Ortega-Lopez was arrested, Cano allegedly smashed a cellphone belonging to Ortega-Lopez with a hammer and discarded the remains, “believing it contained incriminating photos and videos,” according to the DHS.

Keep reading

Judge approves class action against California ‘gender secrecy’ amid debate on transgenderism

As debate rages on the frequency of transgender identification in youth, California’s pressure on public schools to hide students’ gender identity at odds with sex from their parents is facing a mortal blow.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez certified a class and four subclasses Wednesday to challenge The Golden State’s so-called gender secrecy practices, two and a half years after teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West sued Escondido Unified School District to stop muzzling them so they could inform parents about their children’s in-school identities. 

The class covers all individuals who are “participating or will participate in California’s public education system, whether as employees or parents/guardians of students, without having to subject themselves to Parental Exclusion Policies.” 

The subclasses – “appropriate where class members have separate and discrete legal claims” – cover employees who object to the policies or “submit a request for a religious exemption or opt-out to complying” with them, and parents or guardians with children in school who object or seek an exemption or opt-out.

It’s the first such class certification on the subject in the nation, the plaintiffs’ lawyers at the Thomas More Society told Just the News.

The order comes a month before a summary judgment hearing where Benitez could rule, without a trial, against the practices as a violation of parents’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights “to direct their children’s upbringing” and teachers’ free speech and religious freedom rights, the public interest law firm said.

Keep reading