Tag: judges

A Quiet Rewrite That Could Shape a Thousand Climate Cases

An under-the-radar legal switcheroo should concern every business leader, investor, and taxpayer in America. Now, 23 state attorneys general have taken notice and sent a letter  to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts   that bolsters the efforts of three eminent scientists who sounded the alarm.

Climate activists have found a way to get their preferred evidence standards into the hands of roughly 6,000 federal and state judges—before those judges hear more than 1,000 pending climate cases that could reshape the American economy.

They did it through a handbook.

The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) jointly publish the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Likely very few Americans realize Congress established the FJC in 1967 as the research and education arm of the federal courts and made the Chief Justice of the U.S. its chair. For decades, the FJC collaborated with the NAS to give judges objective, apolitical guidance on how to evaluate scientific claims in the courtroom. The motivation is obvious, if often taken for granted by the American public: give judges the tools and standards to admit scientific evidence that is objectively true, and reject quackery and scientifically invalid hypotheses that would bias the judicial proceedings.

The manual is that guidance, and the fourth edition has just been released.

Three eminent scientists who’ve read the manual immediately started ringing alarm bells. According to Richard Lindzen of MIT, William Happer of Princeton, and Steven Koonin of Stanford’s Hoover Institution, its new chapter on “How Science Works” has a problem. In an April 1 letter to Chief Justice John Roberts, the three scientists argue that the chapter—which balloons from 18 pages in the prior edition to 65—quietly swaps out the scientific method for something inherently more political: “scientific consensus.”

In so doing, the new version flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent that has shaped the legal evaluation of scientific evidence since 1993.

Keep reading

Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump Admin from Conditioning Billions in SNAP on Stopping Gender Ideology, Benefits for Illegal Aliens, and Attacks on Girls’ Sports – 20 Democrat States Celebrate Win for Woke Agendas

In yet another blatant example of judicial activism and lawfare against the will of the American people, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun – a Biden appointee with a well-documented history of blocking President Trump’s agenda – sided with 20 Democrat states and the District of Columbia on Friday, granting a preliminary injunction that halted the Trump administration’s efforts to tie federal food assistance funding to basic common-sense conditions.

The ruling stops the U.S. Department of Agriculture from enforcing requirements on states receiving tens of billions in SNAP (food stamps), school lunch, WIC, and other nutrition program dollars.

Among the blocked conditions: restrictions on promoting “gender ideology,” preventing illegal aliens from accessing taxpayer-funded benefits, and ensuring “fair athletic opportunities” for women and girls.

This is the same Judge Myong Joun who previously blocked Trump administration efforts to reform and downsize the Department of Education, as The Gateway Pundit has reported.

The Trump administration, under Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, has been working to clean up these massive federal programs.

As The Gateway Pundit previously detailed, the USDA put ALL programs under review to ensure only American citizens receive food stamps and other benefits. New requirements from Republican-backed legislation had already reduced SNAP rolls by nearly 4.3 million beneficiaries between January 2025 and January 2026 through basic eligibility enforcement.

The new conditions were straightforward America First policy:

  • States had to certify they were not using federal funds to promote gender ideology, including programs that would deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities (i.e., keeping biological males out of girls’ sports).
  • States could not allow illegal aliens to obtain taxpayer-funded benefits or create incentives for illegal immigration.
  • Broader compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws and Trump executive orders on these issues.

In short, the administration was simply saying: if you want billions in federal food aid, you don’t get to use it to push radical transgender ideology or subsidize illegal immigration on the taxpayers’ dime.

Keep reading

Rep. Clay Fuller Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against Radical Obama-Appointed Judge Eleanor Ross for Shocking Sexual Misconduct in Federal Courthouse Chambers and Lying to Investigators

Georgia Congressman, working alongside Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, moves to remove unfit judge who carried on an affair with high-ranking Atlanta PD official during business hours while actively presiding over criminal cases.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that a special committee for the Eleventh Circuit discovered that Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia carried out a two-year sexual affair in her “chambers and during business hours” with a police commander.

According to Bloomberg Law, the incidents all occurred within “earshot” of law clerks. The entire affair created a major conflict of interest and made the judge vulnerable to extortion.

Ross, who is married to a DeKalb County judge and former prosecutor, was also found by the committee to have attended a partisan political event hosted by a district attorney’s campaign and to have lied to judges investigating her conduct.

Despite these damning findings, Ross has refused to resign.

Freshman Rep. Clay Fuller (R-GA) announced Friday that he is dropping articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Eleanor L. Ross of the Northern District of Georgia on Monday.

Rep. Fuller wrote on X:

I am dropping an article of impeachment against Eleanor L. Ross, a Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. I have been working on this alongside [Jim Jordan] since the news broke and will be introducing this on Monday.

Judge Ross is alleged to have engaged in an extramarital affair with a high-ranking official of the Atlanta Police Department inside her federal courthouse chambers during office hours, within earshot of her judicial staff, while actively presiding over criminal cases.

This radical judge has no place in power and is unfit to sit on the federal bench.

Keep reading

Arizona Attorney General Shot Down by AZ Supreme Court in Lawfare Case Against 2020 Trump Electors – Plans to Seek New Grand Jury Indictment

The Arizona Supreme Court has denied Arizona Attorney General’s bid to revive her lawfare against 2020 electors in Arizona after an appeals court dismissed the case, saying Mayes misled and improperly improperly a grand jury. 

In April, 18 individuals, including Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, RNC attorney Christina Bobb, conservative attorney John Eastman, and Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn, were indicted by Kris Mayes’ grand jury for challenging the stolen 2020 election and casting an alternative slate of electors for President Trump.

The charges include nine counts of conspiracy, fraudulent schemes and artifices, fraudulent schemes and practices, and forgery. “Defendants and unindicted coconspirators schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency to keep Unindicted Coconspirator 1 in office against the will of Arizona’s voters,” Mayes’s indictment alleged. President Trump was named “Unindicted Coconspirator 1.”

But her case fell apart after a far-left judge allowed the defendants to argue that the charges were politically motivated. The same judge later recused himself after he was busted bashing white men and making demands that other judges in Arizona support Kamala Harris against her conservative critics.

A judge later ruled that state prosecutors improperly presented the case to a grand jury and failed to inform jurors of the Electoral Count Act, which dictates the rules of electoral vote counting and exonerates the defendants. An appeals court sided with the lower court judge, refusing even to consider the case in September.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that Mayes sought to revive her case by appealing to the state’s high court last November.

Keep reading

Murder charge dropped for Arkansas sheriff nominee who killed teen daughter’s rapist

A judge tossed a murder charge against an Arkansas sheriff nominee who was about to go on trial for killing his 14-year-old daughter’s rapist.

The case against Aaron Spencer was dismissed by a judge on Thursday afternoon after law enforcement lost a dash camera memory card that may have captured the fatal October 2024 shooting of 67-year-old Michael Fosler.

“The court finds that conduct by law enforcement was so egregious that dismissal of this case is warranted,” wrote Special Circuit Court Judge Ralph Wilson Jr.

The development comes just a few weeks before Spencer was slated to go to trial on a second-degree murder charge for allegedly gunning down Fosler on Oct. 8, 2024 after catching him driving off with his daughter — whom the sicko had already been charged with grooming and abusing.

Spencer woke up around 1 a.m. to find his then-13-year-old daughter had vanished. He soon found her in the passenger seat of the car Fosler was driving.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Sides with Crazed Biden Judge, Rules Pentagon Illegally Banned Transgender Troops – Hegseth Responds

A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that the Pentagon illegally banned transgender troops.

In a 2-1 ruling, the DC Circuit Court Appeals sided with crazed Biden judge Ana Reyes and said the Trump Administration’s transgender troop policy violated the Constitution.

The Associated Press reported:

A Trump administration policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, a divided panel of federal appeal court judges ruled on Monday.

The majority opinion by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit largely upholds a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. Reyes concluded that President Donald Trump’s executive order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their constitutional rights.

The administration appealed after Reyes issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys for six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others seeking to join the military. The appeal court’s majority decided that the injunction should be narrowed to the plaintiffs currently serving in the military but not those seeking to join.

In January 2025, President Trump signed the “Restoring America’s Fighting Force” executive order and the “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” executive orders, which direct every element of the U.S. military to “operate free from any preference based on race or sex” and root out gender insanity and made up pronoun usage, respectively.

Last March, Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee from Uruguay, issued a temporary nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s transgender military ban.

Keep reading

Judge Rules New Evidence in Charlie Kirk Assassination to be Made Public Next Month

A judge ruled that new evidence in the Charlie Kirk assassination case will be made public during next month’s hearing.

Judge Tony Graf on Monday ruled that the media is allowed in the courtroom for the July hearing.

Fox News reported:

Judge Tony Graf has denied Tyler Robinson’s efforts to have portions of his upcoming preliminary hearing held behind closed doors and to keep some evidence exhibits hidden from public view.

The preliminary hearing is a routine step where prosecutors will attempt to convince they court they have enough probable cause to bring the case to trial, and they are expected to succeed.

In response to a separate motion to sanction prosecutors for allegedly speaking about the case improperly outside of court, Graf ordered a hearing for both sides to present arguments regarding the defense allegation.

Both sides will have 90 minutes to speak at a June 12 hearing.

That motion stemmed from prosecutors’ attempt to “set the record straight” after an allegedly misleading claim in defense court filings went viral after suggesting ballistics investigators could not match the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk to the suspected murder weapon.

Last month, Judge Tony Graf rejected a request from Tyler Robinson to ban cameras in the courtroom during the duration of the trial.

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

Tyler Robinson allegedly used a Mauser 98 .30-06 rifle to kill Charlie Kirk.

Keep reading

Trump Demands Criminal Charges Against Obama Judge Who Blocked Kennedy Center Renovations — Exposes Radical Wife’s Ties to Eric Holder, Russia Hoax, Jan. 6 Committee, Biden, and E. Jean Carroll Firm

In a fiery Truth Social post on Saturday morning, President Donald Trump unleashed on an activist Obama-appointed federal judge who just blocked the safety renovations and name change at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and demanded he face criminal charges for hiding massive conflicts of interest involving his radical left wife.

The development comes just one day after U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper ruled that Trump’s hand-picked Kennedy Center board illegally added the President’s name to the venue and improperly voted to close it for two years of critical structural repairs.

Cooper sided with a lawsuit from Democrat Rep. Joyce Beatty and ordered Trump’s name stripped from the building, website, and all materials within two weeks. He claimed the renovations could proceed without shutting down the facility, despite expert warnings of imminent danger.

In the lengthy Truth Social post, the President laid out the shocking web of connections proving the judge cannot possibly be impartial and called for him to face justice.

The president began by explaining the needed repairs.

“Can you imagine? A Barack Hussein Obama Judge named Christopher Cooper has stopped a magnificent structural and aesthetic rebuilding of The Trump Kennedy Center where Millions of Dollars of material, marble, furniture, steel, air conditioning, heating, and so much else was ordered, or soon to be ordered, with the end result being a structure that would no longer be in a potential state of collapse, rusted, rotted, and rat and bug infested, to one that would be the Finest anywhere in the World. It was necessary to close the Center in order to get this work done. It is not possible to have a major and very dangerous Construction job, including the replacement of structural beams, with audiences innocently going in to watch a Play. The marble is in terrible shape, the pipes are gone, the air conditioning and heating systems are 65 years old, and no longer functioning. It was all being torn out to be replaced by brand new Carrier Equipment, at the highest standard.”

“Now that won’t happen anymore because a Judge, whose wife is an anti Trump Hater, and he is too, decided, unprecedentedly, to not allow a desperately needed Building Renovation to go forward. On top of that, he said, ‘Rip his name off the Building, he’s got 20 days to do so,’ even though a large Board of some of the most distinguished people in the Country voted unanimously to put the name up. I didn’t do it, the Board did because they thought it would be good for this dying Institution, which was doing Record Low Business and, especially after COVID, only getting worse — True for other such Institutions throughout the Country, but The Trump Kennedy Center was going to be a special one. It would have fully recovered, when none others will. It would have been a New Standard of Excellence, one of my many Gifts to Washington, D.C. The new Building would have been incomparable, beautiful marble, magnificent chandeliers, the finest carpets, rugs, and furniture, designed at the highest level but, perhaps most importantly, replaced steel on many beams, columns, and girders, making the Building structurally sound again. People shouldn’t be allowed to go into that Building until this is fixed, and yet the Trump Hating Judge wants to keep it open because his wife probably told him to do so!”

Trump went on to explain that Cooper’s wife, Amy Jeffress, is a Democrat activist who has been deeply embroiled in efforts to take the president down.

Keep reading

Judge Blocks DOJ Victim Restitution After Leftists Complained The Victims Were Conservatives

Afederal judge blocked the Trump administration’s $1.776 billion anti-weaponization restitution fund Friday after plaintiffs claimed the fund was politically discriminatory because it helped victims of Democrat administrations. The Department of Justice created the fund earlier this month to provide restitution for targets of federal political persecution regardless of political affiliation.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, an appointee of President Bill Clinton with a history of ruling against the Trump administration, temporarily blocked the Justice Department from establishing the fund while Brinkema hears legal arguments.

Andrew Floyd, a fired assistant U.S. attorney and Jan. 6 prosecutor, John Caravello, a professor who was accused and acquitted of assaulting a federal agent, the National Abortion Federation, and far-left nonprofit Common Cause sued the Department of Justice last week to stop the fund.

With seemingly no sense of irony, the plaintiffs’ primary claim is that the fund is politically discriminatory against Democrats, apparently because the lion’s share of potential victims seeking restitution would be conservatives targeted by the Biden and Obama administrations. The plaintiffs’ argument implies that, because Democrat administrations decided to conduct large-scale political persecutions of normal Americans they perceived as their enemies — and there is a much larger number in that victim pool — restitution should not be allowed.

“By its own terms, the Anti-Weaponization Fund is available only to claimants who assert that they were targeted by ‘Democrat’ administrations, even though the current administration has weaponized the awesome power of the federal government against its perceived political opponents like no other administration before it,” the lawsuit states. The suit declines to acknowledge how the Biden administration sent its federal thugs after Americans peacefully praying outside abortion facilities, or parents concerned about their children’s public schools, or Catholics who attend Latin Mass, or Jan. 6 protesters who were wildly overcharged and over-sentenced, and much more. It also does not meaningfully mention the Obama administration’s targeting of the Trump campaign, the Russia collusion hoax, or any other abuse that effectively stripped the American people of proper representation in the White House by kneecapping Trump’s first term.

Vice President J.D. Vance has said that the fund is open to anyone who believes he was unfairly targeted by the federal government, explicitly stating it was open to Democrats as well. Each claim, he said, would be decided on a case-by-case basis. A DOJ overview of the fund explicitly states that “Democrats can submit claims, too.” It also notes that the fund is for victims of “use of government power to target them for ‘improper and unlawful’ reasons,” without mentioning a requirement that a particular party have wielded the power.

Floyd, through public statements, may be inadvertently making the case for the fund, as he has been displaying the zeal with which prosecutors like himself wanted to punish Jan. 6 protesters.

“First, hundreds of people attacked the foundation of an ordered society by trying to stop the results of a free and fair election — committing serious assaults on law enforcement and other crimes as they did so,” he said. “Then, this administration pardoned them — removing the accountability that had been hard earned by victims, witnesses, law enforcement, and prosecutors and imposed by impartial jurors and judges. Now they are asking taxpayers to illegally reward them for their crimes.”

Keep reading

Obama Judge Launches Investigation Into Trump Settlement with IRS

A federal judge on Friday launched an investigation into the Trump Administration’s settlement with the IRS that led to the $1.77 billion anti-weaponization fund.

Earlier this month, President Trump dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns in exchange for a deal.

Trump dropped his blockbuster lawsuit against the agency in exchange for a $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded fund to pay people who were unfairly targeted by the Biden Regime.

In January, President Trump, Eric Trump, Don Jr., and the Trump Org filed a lawsuit against the IRS for leaking their tax returns.

They sought $10 billion in damages.

After Trump agreed to drop his lawsuit in exchange for the anti-weaponization fund, a group of former judges asked a federal judge to launch an inquiry to determine whether the Trump Administration defrauded the court.

On Friday, Miami-based US District Judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama appointee, launched the inquiry.

Politico reported:

A federal judge is demanding answers to allegations that President Donald Trump defrauded her court by filing a lawsuit against the IRS as a pretext to reach a settlement that resulted in a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund to make payouts to his political allies.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams launched the inquiry Friday, after closing the lawsuit on her docket last week. The Miami-based Obama appointee cited a request by 35 former federal judges who urged her to reopen the case to determine whether Trump’s effort amounted to “serious misconduct” and an abuse of the court system.

In September 2023, federal prosecutors charged a former IRS contractor who worked for the agency from 2018 to 2020 with unlawfully obtaining and disseminating the tax details of a high-ranking public official and numerous affluent Americans to media outlets.

Keep reading