Tag: judges

Supreme Court Declines to Stop $800 Per Day Fine For Catherine Herridge After Obama Judge Holds Her in Contempt For Refusing to Give Up Her Sources

The US Supreme Court on Thursday declined to halt the $800 a day fine for former Catherine Herridge after a judge held her in contempt for refusing to give up her confidential sources.

Justice Kavanaugh dissented.

In 2024, Catherine Herridge, an Emmy-winning and nominated reporter known for her work on national security and intelligence, was held in civil contempt by an Obama-appointed federal judge for her refusal to unmask her confidential sources related to a blockbuster story on how there is an infiltration from China in US universities.

In August 2024, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Christopher Cooper, ordered Herridge to sit down for a sworn deposition regarding a confidential source she used for a 2017 story she covered on a Department of Defense-funded school that was at the center of federal investigations over Chinese military ties while she was at Fox News.

The judge ordered Herridge to turn over her source(s) in response to a lawsuit that was filed by Chinese-American scientist Yanping Chen against the FBI. Chen subpoenaed Herridge in an effort to find out who her sources were.

Herridge argued she should not be forced to disclose her source because of her First Amendment rights.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration from Firing 19 Intelligence Officials Assigned to DEI Jobs

A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked the Trump Administration from firing 19 intelligence officers assigned to DEI jobs.

The Virginia-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court judge’s injunction requiring the intelligence agencies to provide the officials with an opportunity to be reassigned.

A group of anonymous intelligence officers, who had been temporarily reassigned to roles implementing controversial Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) programs, previously filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the CIA.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, names ODNI, the CIA, and leadership — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—as defendants.

The plaintiffs, identified as “John Does 1-6” and “Jane Does 1-5,” claim they were unfairly targeted simply for their prior assignments to DEIA programs.

US Circuit Judge Nicole Berner, a Biden appointee, wrote the majority opinion.

Judge Berner said the CIA officials who were fired were deprived of due process.

Keep reading

Judge Blocks USPS Ballot Rule Tied To Trump’s Election Integrity Order

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing a Trump administration proposal to boost election integrity by enhancing ballot tracking and verification, finding it conflicted with a 2021 settlement requiring the agency to prioritize the timely delivery of election mail.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled on July 1 that USPS could not move forward with the proposed rule, which would have required states using the mail for federal absentee and mail-in voting to adopt standardized ballot envelopes with trackable barcodes and provide USPS with voter participation lists to make ballot verification easier. Ballot mailings that failed to comply would have been rejected.

One day after the proposed rule was published in early June, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) returned to court in a long-running lawsuit originally filed during the 2020 election, asking Sullivan to enforce a 2021 settlement that requires USPS to prioritize the monitoring and timely delivery of election mail through the 2028 election cycle.

The proposed rule stems from President Donald Trump’s March executive order directing USPS to develop new standards for handling federal ballot mail as part of a broader thrust to bolster election integrity.

The Justice Department, which represented USPS in the case, did not respond to a request for comment before publication.

Rule Boosts Election Integrity, DOJ Says

In opposing the NAACP’s motion, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argued in a court brief that the proposed rule was designed to improve—not hinder—the handling of election mail.

Attorneys representing the Trump administration wrote that requiring standardized Election Mail logos and Intelligent Mail barcodes would make ballots easier to identify throughout the postal network. They argued this would allow USPS to better monitor the movement of mail-in ballots and help implement the “extraordinary measures” USPS has traditionally used to expedite election mail before federal elections.

“Such requirements promote the ’monitoring and timely delivery of Election Mail’; they do not frustrate it,” they wrote in the brief. “And while the Postal Service has proposed requiring state and local election officials to identify the names and addresses of the persons to whom they send ballots and to provide the barcodes for the ballot envelopes, requiring this information—which officials already, by definition, have—would not compromise the lawful delivery of any mail.”

The administration stated in the proposal that the new rule would strengthen election integrity by creating a uniform ballot-tracking system while leaving decisions about voter eligibility entirely to the states.

Election officials—not USPS—would determine who is eligible to vote by mail and would submit lists of voters receiving mail ballots, together with unique barcode information, through a federal portal. The Postal Service would use that information only to verify ballot mailings and improve tracking, not to decide who could vote.

“State and local election officials would maintain full control over who they send ballots to,” government attorneys said in the brief.

“There are no plausible concerns, certainly at this stage, that the Proposed Rule would negatively impact USPS’s ability to timely and reliably deliver Election Mail. Rather, this provision would, again, assist USPS in better being able to track (and thus deliver) such important mail.”

Keep reading

Appeals Court Upholds New York ‘Gas Stove Ban’ That Chuck Schumer Insisted Wasn’t Even Happening

A federal appeals court just upheld a New York state ban on gas stoves, which is very strange, considering the fact that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York insisted that the ban on gas stoves wasn’t even happening.

This has all been unfolding quietly in the background for about two years now.

Groups which are part of the gas industry challenged the ban but a federal court just sided with the state.

Just the News reports:

Federal appeals court upholds New York’s ‘gas stove ban’ amid legal challenge

New York could be moving ahead with a first-in-the-nation ban on natural gas hookups in new buildings after a federal appeals court rejected a challenge from industry groups.

The ruling issued Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit rejected a lawsuit by natural gas industry groups challenging a provision of New York’s All-Electric Buildings Act, which would ban gas hookups in new buildings under seven stories, among other restrictions.

A coalition of construction and trade groups sued to block the 2023 law, saying it conflicts with federal law under the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act and would drive up costs for businesses and energy consumers.

But the appeals court upheld lower court rulings that had determined federal law “does not preempt ” the state’s regulations on natural gas hook ups, and on Tuesday dismissed the industry lawsuit.

In 2023, when people started complaining about this, Chuck Schumer treated it like a conspiracy theory and condescendingly claimed no one is coming after gas stoves.

Keep reading

Antifa Now Threatening Judges Who Sentenced Terrorists Who Attacked Texas ICE Facility

Last week, two Texas judges sentenced a group of terrorists to 30, 50, and even 100 years in federal prison over their attack on a Texas ICE facility that resulted in the shooting of a law enforcement officer.

The media desperately tried to reframe the attack as a protest gone bad, but it didn’t work and the story quietly fell off the radar.

Now, members of Antifa are openly threatening the judges on social media. Do they want to join their friends in prison?

Andy Ngo reports:

Far-left extremists are making violent death threats against two federal Texas judges after they handed down long prison sentences to convicted members of a North Texas Antifa terror cell.

The threats followed last week’s first batch of sentencing where eight convicts received prison terms ranging from 30 years to 100 years after becoming the first defendants convicted in a federal Antifa terrorism case in U.S. history.

The threats are being directed at U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman and Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor.

Many of the threats were responses to updates on social media platform Bluesky from the DFW Support Committee, the far-left group that has been organizing support and cash donations for the defendants.

“So, when are we burning it all down?” asked one user under an alias. “He has an address,” referring to Judge O’Connor.

Keep reading

Colorado Supreme Court Blocks Democrat Redistricting Effort

The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday blocked the Democrats’ effort to redraw its congressional map.

The proposed map would have added three more Democrat seats in the US House of Representatives.

Colorado’s high court unanimously struck down two attempts at redistricting.

Colorado’s Congressional map will remain at 4D and 4R.

Politico reported:

Democrats just suffered a major setback in their plans to counter Republican redistricting gains before the 2028 elections.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that all five proposed redistricting ballot measures in the state — three led by Democrats and two led by Republicans — violated the state’s constitution, preventing either party from implementing new maps by undoing the independent commission that currently controls the process.

Colorado’s eight House seats are currently split evenly between both parties, and one of Democrats’ most ambitious redraw efforts would have created a map where seven of the districts favor the party.

Because Democrats would have needed a measure on the ballot this fall in order to redraw for 2028, the timing of the ruling makes it all but impossible to redraw.

The court issued two opinions on the redistricting measures Monday, and both were unanimous decisions against proposed remapping efforts.

Meanwhile, Republican-led states have successfully eliminated racially gerrymandered districts going into the midterm elections.

Keep reading

Texas Supreme Court Blocks Harris County from Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Illegal Immigrants’ Deportation Defense

The Texas Supreme Court has temporarily blocked Harris County from spending taxpayer dollars on legal services for individuals facing federal deportation proceedings, marking a significant victory for state officials seeking to curb what they view as the misuse of public funds.

The order, issued Friday, halts further spending from Harris County’s Immigrant Legal Services Fund while litigation continues over whether the program violates the Texas Constitution. Although the court has not issued a final ruling on the merits, it concluded there is “serious doubt” about the program’s constitutionality and ordered the county to suspend additional disbursements until further notice.

The decision sends a clear message that local governments cannot use taxpayer money to advance politically driven immigration policies without constitutional scrutiny.

Harris County’s Deportation Defense Fund

Harris County established the Immigrant Legal Services Fund in 2020 with an initial $2 million appropriation to provide free legal representation for individuals in federal immigration proceedings. Since then, county leaders have continued funding the program, including a recent $1.34 million allocation to nonprofit organizations representing individuals facing deportation.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenged the latest expenditure, arguing that using public funds for this purpose violates the Texas Constitution’s prohibition against granting public money for private purposes. The Texas Supreme Court agreed that the constitutional questions raised are substantial enough to justify immediately halting the spending while the lawsuit proceeds.

Keep reading

Obama Judge Permanently Blocks Trump’s Proof of Citizenship Requirement to Vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently banned Trump from implementing his executive order that required proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

Boston-based US District Judge Denise Casper, an Obama appointee, said the Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

The DOJ will immediately appeal.

“A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote. The judge agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers,” the Associated Press reported.

In March 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14248: Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.

“Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic. The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is vital to determining the rightful winner of an election,” the executive order said.

Keep reading

UNREAL! Biden and Clinton Appointed Judges Block DOJ’s Ability To See Michigan’s Dirty Voter Rolls – Decision Makes It Easier For SOS Benson To Steal Her Own Governor’s Race

In a 2-1 decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, President Trump’s Department of Justice was told it lacked the legal authority to demand Michigan’s entire voter file from America’s dirtiest Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson.

The request for the full voter rolls was a central part of the ongoing UOCAVA lawsuit filed by Harmeet Dhillon on behalf of the Republican National Committee and the Michigan GOP. The goal was to examine Michigan’s voter registration system for potential irregularities, particularly the presence of non-citizens — including illegal aliens — on the voter rolls.

Michigan’s registration policies under Jocelyn Benson have made it ridiculously easy for ineligible voters to be added to the rolls, while at the same time, impossible to determine if non-citizens are on the voter rolls because of privacy laws that protect the status of non-citizens, something that election integrity advocates have been sounding the alarm about for years. Recently, in an exclusive report, the Gateway Pundit revealed 6 of the DHS’s “Worst of the Worst” non-citizens in Michigan are not only present on Jocelyn Benson’s voter rolls, but two of them have voted in more than one election.

The majority opinion was written by Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., appointed by President Bill Clinton, and Judge Mathis, appointed by President Biden. Judge John B. Nalbandian, while a strong dissent was written by the President Trump-appointed judge.

Keep reading

California-Based Biden Judge Issues Nationwide Block on ICE’s Policy of Arresting Illegals at Courthouses

A federal judge on Tuesday issued a nationwide block on ICE’s policy of arresting illegal aliens at courthouses.

California-based US District Judge Casey Pitts, a Biden appointee, ruled that ICE cannot detain illegal aliens at immigration courts.

The Supreme Court previously ruled that federal district courts lack the statutory authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

However, Judge Pitts says he was able to issue a nationwide injunction in this case because the plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for class certification.

In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order called “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.”

“It is the policy of the United States to faithfully execute the immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable aliens, particularly those aliens who threaten the safety or security of the American people. Further, it is the policy of the United States to achieve the total and efficient enforcement of those laws, including through lawful incentives and detention capabilities,” Trump said in his executive order.

Judge Pitts vacated the Trump Administration’s policy targeting illegal aliens at courthouses.

“For 80 years, Congress has commanded federal agencies to think before they act,” Judge Pitts wrote in a 70-page opinion. “That instruction—codified in the Administrative Procedures Act—does not require an agency to make the choice that a reviewing court might deem preferable.”

“Because the record before the Court demonstrates that ICE and EOIR failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions, the Court concludes that each of the challenged policies is arbitrary and capricious in contravention of the APA,” the judge said.

This is the second time Judge Pitts has blocked the Trump Administration from making arrests at immigration courthouses.

Earlier this year, Judge Pitts blocked ICE from making arrests in his district in the Northern District of California.

Keep reading