Elite Judge Sets Tiny Fine for Elite Judge Who Helped Illegal Immigrant Escape ICE

The Democrat-nominated judge who helped an illegal migrant escape from her Wisconsin courtroom has been given a wet-kiss penalty by a judge who used to be a top Democratic politician in the state.

District Judge Lynn Adelman fined Judge Hannah Dugan just $5,000 as he excused her April 2025 crime: “An otherwise good person, upset by immigration enforcement in this country — a view widely shared — made a bad decision in the moment.”

The slap-on-the-wrist penalty comes amid a wave of murder by illegal migrants, and amid the massive economic dislocation to American families caused by migrants’ willingness to work for very low wages.

The “punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime,” Adelman, the former Democratic Speaker in the state legislature, told the courtroom.

The judge’s statement also rejects the electoral mandate for immigration enforcement earned by populist President Donald Trump from the citizens of the United States in the 2024 general election.

Dugan — a former advocate for more migration — was unapologetic about the crime, saying: “I have been cast as both a scofflaw and as a hero… I am a public servant who was just trying to do my job,” according to the UrbanMilwaukee.com report. The report added:

Dugan told the court that she intends to return to serving the public and her community. She explained her motivation to serve by quoting President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, calling for citizens to take action to preserve and further democracy: “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work.”

“For someone who has dedicated her life to the law, this [trial] amounts to significant punishment regardless of what I do today,” Adelman told Dugan and the court.

Keep reading

Arizona Supreme Court Delivers Crushing Blow to Maricopa Board of Supervisors

The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a crushing blow to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors when it ended a Court of Appeals stay and reinstated a superior court’s injunctions, with modifications, that returned election-administration responsibilities of the county’s elections back to the County Recorder, Justin Heap.

The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals stay from June and reinstated with modifications the “superior court injunctions governing the allocation of election-administration responsibilities between the Maricopa County Recorder and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.”

According to the Supreme Court’s News Release:

The dispute concerns which county office has the authority to perform election duties that Arizona statutes assign to “the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections.” Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap argued that those duties belong to the Recorder or to an officer designated by the Recorder.

The Board of Supervisors argued that its budgetary and administrative authority permitted it to assign those functions to a Board-appointed elections director.

The Court concluded that the Recorder is likely to prevail on the statutory interpretation issue. Relying on Arizona precedent, the Court explained that a county board of supervisors may not use its funding authority to assume or reassign statutory responsibilities entrusted to an independently elected county officer.

The Court reaffirmed that the Board has a nondiscretionary duty to fund the Recorder’s necessary expenses and may not use budgetary control to displace duties assigned by law to the Recorder or to an officer acting under the Recorder’s authority.

The Court also addressed election timing concerns. It recognized that courts should exercise caution before altering election procedures close to an election, particularly while early voting for the 2026 Primary Election is underway. However, it concluded that those concerns do not replace Arizona’s stay analysis or determine which official has legal authority under Arizona law.

To minimize disruption, the Court reinstated the superior court’s injunctions, as modified by the Recorder’s 12-point interim operational protocol.

Those temporary procedures are intended to preserve continuity during the ongoing Primary Election while the appeal proceeds. The Court also stated that either party may seek further interim modifications from the Court of Appeals.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Subpoena 2020 Fulton County Election Workers

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to subpoena 2020 Fulton County election workers.

Earlier this year the FBI raided the Fulton County election office.

The Justice Department also issued subpoenas for information on all 2020 election workers from Fulton County.

The records include those who were performing the following functions and duties:

  • Individuals assigned to review Mail-In Ballots
  • Individuals assigned to the Voter Review Panel/Board
  • Individuals assigned to Mobile Voting Locations
  • Individuals assigned to transfer results to or from media or transport ballots, ballot stock, or media
  • Individuals employed or contracted by the Fulton Board of Registrations and Elections
  • Individuals who worked or volunteered for the Risk Limiting Audit
  • Individuals who worked or volunteered for the Recount
  • Individuals who served as precinct managers and assistant managers

On Tuesday, US District Judge William Ray, a Trump appointee, quashed the subpoenas.

Judge Ray said the grand jury subpoena was unreasonable.

Keep reading

Trump-Appointed Federal Judge SMASHES Ruling by Foreign-Born Activist Judge — REINSTATES Critical Voter System to Root Out Illegal Alien Voters

The radical Left’s desperate scheme to flood American elections with illegal non-citizen votes just hit a massive, Trump-shaped brick wall in Florida.

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Florida has OVERRULED a highly controversial order by a far-left, foreign-born activist judge in Washington D.C., officially REINSTATING President Donald Trump’s powerhouse election security system.

The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system upgrades, which allow patriot states to instantly screen voter rolls and purge illegal aliens, is back online.

Last March, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at preserving and protecting the integrity of US 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,” Trump’s executive order said.

“Under the Constitution, State governments must safeguard American elections in compliance with Federal laws that protect Americans’ voting rights and guard against dilution by illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error. Yet the United States has not adequately enforced Federal election requirements that, for example, prohibit States from counting ballots received after Election Day or prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote,” Trump said.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, on June 22, 2026, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan issued her 75-page crackpot ruling blocking the Trump Administration’s common-sense updates to the SAVE database.

Keep reading

A judge decides that property owners in Wainfleet, Ont. deserve to be fined MILLIONS for renting their properties!

Government overreach has once again reared its ugly head in the Township of Wainfleet, Ont. (pop. approximately 7,000). And at least one Ontario judge is OK with this.

Here’s the skinny: Wainfleet council has effectively declared war on landowners who make their properties available for short-term rentals. And the township is fining these residents at least $10,000 per owner per dwelling per day!

Translation: as these daily fines mount, few can afford to pay these enormous sums. And that ultimately means “violators” risk having their properties seized by the township.

This seems like banana republic stuff to say the least.

Meanwhile, one dare not say anything negative about this council on social media. That’s because this council is trying to silence citizens via a lawsuit based on… copyright violation? Indeed, the township claims videos online depict the township’s crest and corporate log, emblems that are being used without consent or approval. Seriously.

It would appear that the Township of Wainfleet likes to carry out its shakedowns away from the public eye and will pursue censorship to ensure that goal if need be. All of which has many residents in the township pondering if Wainfleet is situated in the Dominion of Canada – or the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.

Rebel News interviewed Scott Wilson and Laural Duquette more than a year ago. They head up the Wainfleet Association of Responsible Short-Term Rentals (STR).

Wilson says he is facing a total fine threshold that now totals $175 million. As such, his family risks having their property confiscated by the township given that they are unable to pay those fines.

The township’s heavy-handed tactics are beyond the pale. Granted, Canadians do not enjoy private property rights under the constitution. But the questions arise: what is driving this short-term rental vendetta? What is the harm in a homeowner renting out his or her property? Those are key questions – and questions that deserve answers – except that nobody at the township will come on the record to comment.

And another query arises: what indeed is the unspoken strategy behind the short-term rental jihad? Is this all about Wainfleet councilors embracing a NIMBY initiative when it comes to short-term rentals in their township?

Recently, Wilson and his fellow renters had their day in court fighting these massive fines. It did not go well. Justice James Ramsay in the Superior Court of Justice in Welland ruled in favour of the township. Here are some excerpts from his decision:

  • “There is no evidence of bad faith [by the Township of Wainfleet].”
  • “The penalties are coercive, as opposed to punitive. They are not disproportionate.”
  • “The by-law is not discriminatory. Requiring the owner to own the property for two years before applying for a licence promotes stability of ownership and makes absenteeism by landlords less desirable. Operators who live in the community have a stake in the liveability [sic] of the neighbourhood.”

Justice Ramsay dismissed the application and awarded the Township of Wainfleet partial legal costs totaling $5,000. Then again, given that Wilson is already on the hook for $175 million, five grand amounts to chump change…

Check out our most recent interview with Wilson. While he and his fellow renters may be down, they are not out given they are appealing the decision.

That appeal is scheduled for next January. This story is far from over. Stay tuned.

Keep reading

New Orleans Kangaroo Court Issues ARREST WARRANT for Louisiana AG Liz Murrill After Grand Jury Indicts Her on 16 Felony Counts for Defending State Law Against Rogue Local Officials

They are doing it again, folks. The radical left has completely weaponized the justice system, and this time, they are coming after one of the strongest conservative fighters in the country.

A grand jury in Orleans Parish, deep in Democrat-controlled New Orleans, handed down a 16-count felony indictment against Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill on Thursday, minutes after the charges were returned. An arrest warrant was issued with bond set at a staggering $400,000, NOLA reported.

Murrill, a Republican, now faces eight counts of malfeasance in office and eight counts of public intimidation and retaliation. The charges stem from May 13 letters she sent to New Orleans Mayor Helena Moreno (D), District Attorney Jason Williams (D), and five City Council members.

In those letters, Murrill warned the officials that their attempts to circumvent a new state law merging the city’s separate civil and criminal court clerks’ offices could trigger serious consequences under Louisiana’s “usurper laws,” including potential removal from office by Governor Jeff Landry. She also made clear that any interim clerk installed in defiance of state law risked imprisonment.

The Louisiana Legislature, working with Governor Jeff Landry, passed a law to consolidate the long-fragmented Orleans Parish court clerk system. The goal was to fix chronic problems in one of the most dysfunctional and crime-plagued court systems in America. Under the new law, Civil Clerk Chelsea Richard Napoleon assumed duties over the combined office.

Newly elected Criminal Court Clerk Calvin Duncan was blocked from taking office. In response, the Democrat-led New Orleans City Council passed resolutions to install their own interim clerk (retired Judge Calvin Johnson) and call a special election — directly challenging state authority.

AG Murrill did what any responsible Attorney General should do: she sent formal legal warnings citing the usurper statutes and demanding compliance with state law.

Keep reading

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