Tag: judges

‘Grotesque abuse’: Judge orders homeschooling parents to JAIL for failing to teach daughters government ‘gender’ lessons

In a stunning illustration of what happens when politically correct and biased judges, driven by leftist social agendas, are put behind the bench, one jurist has ordered two homeschooling parents to jail for 50 days for failing to teach their daughters the judge’s version of “gender” education.

The parents now have convictions for “intellectual neglect,” issued by the unidentified Brazilian judge, according to a report from ADF International.

The legal team reported the judge issued his wild opinion that was opposite of even recommendations from prosecutors, who listened to witnesses and results of the social and academic development of the girls, both accomplished pianists who speak multiple languages, and then said the parents should be acquitted.

The judge was accepting no evidence, however, and said the parents were “using their daughters as pawns in an ideological struggle, subjecting them to a form of unregulated education, the effectiveness and quality of which lack adequate metrics within the Brazilian legal system, while completely excluding the State’s involvement.”

The report identified the parents as Audato and Ieda Denardi, and their sentences are suspended while they appeal to a higher court.

The judge also ranted against the parents because he thought the girls, ages 11 and 15, didn’t like Brazilian folk music, leading him to assume that they weren’t educated properly in “diversity.”

Keep reading

Biden Judge Blocks Idaho Law Criminalizing Transgender Bathroom Use

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked Idaho’s law that criminalized transgender bathroom use.

US District Judge Amanda Brailsford, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction blocking Idaho’s H.B. 752, which banned transgender people from using restrooms that did not match their biological gender.

Idaho’s law, which was set to go into effect on July 1, threatened to jail transgender people for five years if they broke the law.

The ghouls at the ACLU celebrated the judge’s ruling.

“This ruling means trans folks in Idaho can continue participating in public life without the threat of being arrested for using the bathroom,” said Paul Carlos Southwick, ACLU of Idaho Legal Director. “Trans Idahoans have been understandably anxious about the disruption this unconstitutional law would cause in their daily lives. This ruling will relieve that anxiety for our trans friends and neighbors.”

“This decision provides significant protections for transgender people in Idaho from the efforts of state politicians to force them out of public life altogether,” said Barbara Schwabauer, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “No one should be forced to choose between the threat of arrest for being themselves in public or the threat of harassment and violence for acting the way the state wants them to be. The preliminary injunction is a vital first step as we continue to challenge this gross violation of privacy and fundamental equality until the law is blocked for good.”

“Our Constitution provides critical protections against laws that are unclear and that call on officers to make arbitrary judgments about how to enforce them, especially when the law threatens imprisonment,” said Kell Olson, Counsel with Lambda Legal. “The court recognized that threat in providing relief to plaintiffs today. This ruling will allow transgender people throughout Idaho to find and use a public restroom, without the fear of arrest looming over them, while we continue the longer fight to permanently defeat this discriminatory law in court.”

Keep reading

Federal Court Strikes Down Landmark Fluoride Ruling on Technicality — ‘Not the Science’

Citing a procedural question, a federal appeals court has vacated a landmark decision that found fluoridated drinking water poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health. The court sent the case back to the district judge and ordered him to ignore any scientific evidence uncovered after 2020. Attorney Michael Connett told The Defender the court instructed the judge “to travel back in time to 2020 and make this ruling based on a stale factual record.”

A federal appeals court has vacated a landmark decision that found fluoridated drinking water poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not challenge the substance of the lower court’s findings — that fluoride is toxic to children and ought to be regulated. Instead, the court based its decision on procedural issues related to the lower court’s handling of the litigation.

The case will now go back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where District Judge Edward Chen will be required to exclude all scientific evidence that became available after 2020.

Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Defender the court “instructed Judge Chen to travel back in time to 2020 and make this ruling based on a stale factual record.”

Connett said the directive to ignore years’ worth of evidence on fluoride’s dangers runs counter to the intent of the TSCA — which is to protect hundreds of millions of Americans from substances that are harmful to human health.

The federal appeals court ruling, handed down late Thursday, stemmed from a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought by consumer advocacy groups including Food & Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and Moms Against Fluoridation.

The groups sued after the EPA refused to consider their 2016 citizens’ petition asking the agency to regulate fluoride.

After two bench trials, Chen ruled that fluoride at the federally recommended concentration of 0.7 milligrams/liter (mg/L) posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and ordered the EPA to regulate it accordingly.

However, the 9th Circuit panel said the lower court violated the “party presentation principle” — a legal doctrine requiring courts to act as neutral arbiters rather than taking control of a case’s factual development.

Connett said the decision was “a very expansive and unprecedented application of the party presentation principle.” He said that to date, “this principle has really only been applied to situations where judges raise new legal issues, not where judges use procedural mechanisms to resolve the issues presented.”

Under the TSCA, if the EPA denies a citizen petition, petitioners have the right to sue the agency. The law is unique because it specifies that the court then evaluates whether the chemical in question presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment in a “de novo” proceeding, during which it evaluates evidence presented by both sides and gives no deference to the agency.

Rather than ruling after the first trial in 2020, Chen put the trial on hold, pending the release of a multiyear government study into fluoride’s neurotoxic effects, so he could base his decision on all available evidence.

Keep reading

Judge in Karmelo Anthony Case Calls the Murderer a ‘Nice Kid’

Collin County District Judge John Roach defended his decision to bar cameras and livestreaming from Karmelo Anthony’s high-profile murder trial, calling it “an easy decision” made to protect the fairness of the proceedings, but raised many eyebrows when he called the killer a “nice kid.”

In a post-verdict interview with WFAA, Roach described the now-convicted 19-year-old Anthony as “a nice young man who committed a crime and he understands today more than any day before the consequences of committing a crime like he did.”

Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in prison last week for the first-degree murder of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf during a Frisco high school track meet in April 2025.

The stabbing occurred at Kuykendall Stadium in Frisco, Texas, when Anthony, who was on school suspension and not supposed to be at the event, approached the tent area belonging to rival Memorial High School.

Witnesses said Metcalf told Anthony to leave, and a confrontation ensued.

Anthony then pulled out a knife he had brought and stabbed Metcalf in the chest, piercing his heart.

Metcalf died in the arms of his twin brother.

Anthony admitted to the stabbing but claimed self-defense. A jury rejected that claim.

Judge Roach explained his camera ban during the interview.

“Yes, it was an easy decision. I’ll tell you why. My primary goal in every case is to make sure the defendant and the prosecution get a fair trial. Period.”

The judge acknowledged that the decision angered some people but emphasized he was not there to make anyone happy. Roach said he had to balance the media’s right to know what was happening with the need to prevent outside commentary or public pressure from influencing the jury or proceedings.

“I know I made people mad, but I’m not here to make them happy either,” he stated. “As long as I follow the law, I sleep well at night.”

Roach pushed back against suggestions of any personal connection to the Metcalf family, saying he would not have recognized Jeff Metcalf, Austin’s father, before the trial.

He defended the jury’s verdict, noting that jurors were selected in accordance with the law, heard the facts presented in court, and rendered their decision.

Keep reading

Biden Judge Orders Trump Administration to Restore Slavery, Climate Change Displays at National Parks

A left-wing activist federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to restore propagandistic signs and exhibits related to slavery, climate change, and other contentious historical topics at America’s national parks and monuments across the country.

U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley, a Joe Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Interior Department to reinstall the displays within 21 days after ruling that the removals likely violated federal law.

The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of conservation, historical, and scientific organizations, including the National Parks Conservation Association and the American Association for State and Local History.

In her ruling, Kelley said the administration had removed materials that “do not align with its preferred narrative,” and claimed that doing so undermined the integrity of the national park system.

“Removing these signs not only undermines the integrity of the National Parks; it sets a dangerous precedent of censorship and sanitization,” Kelley wrote.

The dispute stems from a March 2025 executive order signed by President Donald Trump directing federal agencies to eliminate what the administration described as “false revision of history” in parks, monuments, and memorials.

The White House pointed out that the exhibits portrayed the United States as “inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed” and ordered a review of educational materials displayed at federal sites.

Keep reading

Meet The Left-Wing Organization Influencing Federal Judges On Science Litigation

he Federal Judicial Center (FJC) has had its fair share of controversies throughout the past year.

The taxpayer-funded agency was caught stuffing citations to left-wing climate activists into its most recent Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which offers guidance to federal judges on science-related cases. Subsequent Federalist investigations also revealed the radical left-wing partisanship of the authors tasked with writing manual’s climate and forensics sections.

The FJC is intended to serve as the unbiased educational and research arm of the judiciary. Although it doesn’t have any “policy-making or enforcement authority,” these findings have raised concerns about its objectivity and central role in providing “accurate, objective information and education” to judges across America’s federal court system.

But the deeper The Federalist digs into the FJC, the further removed the agency seems to be from its stated mission.

A new inquiry into the FJC unearthed that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — a left-wing advocacy group masquerading as an objective science organization — influenced the FJC’s aforementioned science manual. In line with The Federalist’s prior reporting, this investigation also uncovered that several of the AAAS fellows who worked on the manual have a history of supporting left-wing ideology.

Origins and Leadership

Before fleshing out the AAAS’s influence on the judiciary and FJC, it’s worth exploring the group’s left-wing background.

According to the Capital Research Center (CRC), the AAAS’s origins can be traced back to the mid-19th century, when it was created to “unify all scientific fields across the United States” and “rais[e] further resources for scientific inquiry.” The group later shifted its focus in the decades that followed from solely pursuing research funding to “general policy lobbying.”

During this step into activism, the AAAS “began to tilt towards socialism and the Soviet Union” in the late 1930s, according to CRC. The nonprofit watchdog noted the left-wing science group’s annual president at the time, Walter Bradford Cannon, “expressed his sympathies for socialism as a model of the scientific economy and society of the future, a position many of his fellow ‘science-activists’ in the AAAS shared.”

The AAAS has carried its partisan agenda forward by increasing its involvement in left-wing “‘science-activism,’ ideological activism performed in the guise of promoting science.” The group was notably involved in the 2017 “March for Science” that protested the first Trump administration’s pro-energy policies.

This left-wing activism is perhaps unsurprising when considering the partisanship displayed by the AAAS’s leadership. The group’s current CEO, Sudip Parikh, has regularly criticized the Trump administration and its policy agenda, including the president’s 2020 move to withdraw America from the World Health Organization over its mishandling of Covid. He also attacked a 2022 Supreme Court decision (West Virginia v. EPA) limiting the EPA’s regulatory authority over “greenhouse gas emissions.”

Parikh’s predecessor, former Rep. Rush D. Holt, Jr., D-N.J., appears to be cut from the same cloth. According to CRC, he criticized President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords and “signed the AAAS as a supporter of an open letter” urging the president to revoke his travel ban during his tenure as CEO.

The AAAS is also bankrolled by numerous left-wing organizations and has inked contracts with the federal government, according to CRC. Its funders have reportedly included the left-wing John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and others.

Keep reading

Conviction of Jackson Co. man tied to Whitmer kidnap plot gets vacated

The Michigan Court of Appeals on Tuesday vacated the conviction of a Jackson County man alleged to have provided aid to a 2020 plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Joseph Morrison was convicted in 2022 of gang membership felonies, felony firearm and providing material support for terrorist acts in relation to his alleged role in support of a kidnapping plot of the Democratic governor that prosecutors said was led by Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. during the COVID-19 pandemic. Morrison was sentenced to four to 20 years in prison on the gang and terrorism support convictions and two years on felony firearm.

But the three-judge appellate panel on Tuesday ruled that kidnapping, under the letter of Michigan law, is not considered a “violent felony” and therefore cannot be presented to a jury to establish a terrorism-related charge.

The panel ― made up of Judges Thomas Cameron, Mark Boonstra and Brock Swartzle ― vacated Morrison’s conviction and remanded the case back to Jackson County Circuit Court for a new trial. All three judges are appointees of Republican former Gov. Rick Snyder.

“Given that the trial court specifically instructed the jury to consider kidnapping as a violent felony and that the jury heard considerable testimony about the plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer, the likelihood that defendant was actually convicted, at least in part, on an invalid basis tainted the jury’s verdict,” according to the unanimous decision.

Michael Faraone, an appellate attorney for Morrison, said he was happy with the decisions and added, “It’s always a great day when a court delivers justice.”

“In over 30 years of practicing law, I have never reviewed a trial more violative of due process than this one,” Faraone said.

Keep reading

Obama Judge Blocks Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee

A federal judge on Monday blocked President Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa fine.

US District Judge Leo Sorokin, an Obama appointee, said the $100,000 fee is an unauthorized tax.

CNBC reported:

A federal judge on Monday vacated President Donald Trump’s policy imposing a $100,000 fee for employers’ H-1B visa applications.

The visa payment policy violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution, Judge Leo Sorokin declared in the ruling in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.

Sorokin agreed with the plaintiffs in finding “the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax,” and that Congress had not delegated that power to the executive branch.

The H-1B policy was created in 1990 and is heavily used by U.S. tech giants to bring in high-skilled workers from overseas. The program allows U.S. employers to seek government permission to hire a nonimmigrant workers in specialty occupations for up to six years.

Last September, President Trump announced new restrictions of certain nonimmigrant workers.

“American IT workers have reported they were forced to train the foreign workers who were taking their jobs and to sign nondisclosure agreements about this indignity as a condition of receiving any form of severance. This suggests H-1B visas are not being used to fill occupational shortages or obtain highly skilled workers who are unavailable in the United States,” the White House previously said.

“The abuse of the H-1B program is also a national security threat. Domestic law enforcement agencies have identified and investigated H-1B-reliant outsourcing companies for engaging in visa fraud, conspiracy to launder money, conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and other illicit activities to encourage foreign workers to come to the United States,” the White House said.

“Further, abuses of the H-1B program present a national security threat by discouraging Americans from pursuing careers in science and technology, risking American leadership in these fields. A 2017 study showed that wages for American computer scientists would have been 2.6 percent to 5.1 percent higher and employment in computer science for American workers would have been 6.1 percent to 10.8 percent higher in 2001 absent the importation of foreign workers into the computer science field,” the White House said.

President Trump required a $100,000 payment to accompany new H-1B Visa petitions.

Keep reading

Biden-Appointed Judge Dismisses Kennedy Center Lawsuit Against Jazz Musician Who Canceled Christmas Eve Show in Hatred for Trump Name – Orders Center to Pay All Legal Fees

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Tanya Jones Bosier, a Biden appointee, on Friday tossed out a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed by the Kennedy Center against jazz musician Chuck Redd.

The judge ordered the Kennedy Center to pay all of Redd’s legal fees and court costs after ruling there was no signed contract and that the case qualified as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) under D.C. law.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported in December 2025, Redd abruptly canceled his long-running free Christmas Eve Jazz Jam after the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees voted unanimously to rename the facility the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.

The board acted to honor President Donald Trump’s transformative work in saving and revitalizing the once-troubled national performing arts center.

Former Kennedy Center President Ric Grenell called the cancellation exactly what it was: a “political stunt.” He sent Redd a letter giving “official notice that we will seek $1 million in damages from you for this political stunt” that harmed the nonprofit and the families who counted on the free Millennium Stage holiday tradition.

Now Judge Bosier has ruled the lawsuit itself was improper political retribution.

Keep reading

Girl Kept from Church, Bible, and Christian Friends by Portland Judge Awaits Appeals Court Ruling

Despite her love of Christianity, a young Maine girl has been prevented since 2024 from going to church, attending religious holidays, being “exposed” to the Bible or other scriptural literature, and even having Christian friends — all because of a judge’s order in a parental rights case.

The draconian restrictions have been in place for some 18 months as Emily Bickford and her daughter Ava, 13, wait for a decision on an appeal to the state’s Supreme Court eight months ago after Portland District Judge Jennifer Nofsinger issued the shocking ruling in late 2024 as part of a dispute between the girl’s parents.

Not only has the ruling impacted the lifestyle and pursuit of happiness by both mother and daughter, on its face it appears incompatible with the founding principles of the United States.

The right to worship granted by the First Amendment is not in the grip of any judge to grant or abolish, the Portland mother told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview this week.

“That is not theirs to take away,” Bickford said. “It’s in our Declaration of Independence. Our forefathers knew we had inalienable rights given by God. God gave us the freedom to worship him, and there’s no government that can take that away from us.”

Keep reading