Tag: judges

Judge temporarily halts construction at ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ detention center over environmental concerns

A federal judge has ordered a halt to the construction of the “Alligator Alcatraz” immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades due to environmental concerns.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ruled that the facility can continue operations and hold detainees. However, the continued construction of the facility is temporarily barred for the next two weeks.

The ruling followed an eight-hour meeting in which five witnesses were called by the environmental groups who issued a lawsuit over the detention facility. The environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe asked Williams to halt operations and further construction at the facility, arguing that it’s built on environmentally protected wetlands and reverses billions in environmental restoration.

The plaintiffs argued that the detention center was illegally built due to federal and state officials bypassing a review process legally required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

“This is a very common-sense law that requires the government to look before it leaps, to analyze the environmental impacts, to do an environmental impact study, to take public comment, to consider alternatives, and none of that was done at so-called ‘Alligator Alcatraz,’” stated Eve Samples, the executive director of Friends of the Everglades.

Keep reading

Judge rules against Seattle employees fired for religious refusal of COVID vax

King County Superior Court Judge Tanya L. Thorp has ruled in favor of the City of Seattle in a high-profile lawsuit brought by dozens of former city employees who were terminated after refusing to comply with the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Thorp ruled that none of them had sincerely held religious beliefs when they objected to the vaccine mandate. She said their beliefs are “secular cloaked in religious vernacular,” and that prayer is not a reasonable manner for decision making.

In her ruling, Thorp agreed with arguments presented by the city’s outside counsel, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, granting a motion for summary judgment on most of the plaintiffs’ claims. The employees from City Light (SCL), the Seattle Police Department (SPD), Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), and the city’s Finance/Admin department (FAS) had alleged violations of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, failure to accommodate religious beliefs and wrongful termination.

In court documents obtained by The Ari Hoffman Show on Talk Radio 570 KVI, the City argued that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with the vaccine mandate. Thorp said that their objections were “secular concerns cloaked in religious vernacular.”

The city further argued that prayer alone does not convert a personal decision into a protected religious belief, citing federal case law that distinguishes personal or medical objections from religious practices.

Keep reading

Second Court Ignores Landmark SCOTUS Ruling, Issues Nationwide Injunction

In a 6-3 ruling late last month, Justice Amy Coney Barrett minced no words when it came to so-called “universal injunctions,” lower-court rulings that extended far beyond that court’s jurisdiction.

“It is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive,” Barrett wrote in the decision.

“That goes for judges, too,” Barrett added. “When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

That decision, by the way, did not decide the merits of the case in which the universal injunction was issued: President Donald Trump’s administration has argued that the 14th Amendment does not grant birthright citizenship because those born to citizens of other countries within U.S. borders are not among “persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The meaning of this language, and whether children of foreign nationals are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States will eventually be decided one way or another before the high court. But the ruling itself was clear: Before that, nationwide universal injunctions were the judiciary acting in a way that exceeded its power.

So, for the second time since the decision, the judiciary has exceeded its power, because what the heck?

In a 2-1 decision handed down late Wednesday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, judges ruled that the plaintiffs — attorneys general from four Democratic-led states, Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington — could receive a nationwide injunction because that was the only way to obtain requisite relief, according to The Hill.

“States’ residents may give birth in a non-party state, and individuals subject to the Executive Order from non-party states will inevitably move to the States,” U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould wrote in the opinion of the court.

Both Gould and Judge Michael Hawkins, who voted to issue the universal injunctions, were Bill Clinton appointees.

Keep reading

Florida Judge Says ‘Hands Are Tied,’ Won’t Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts

A federal judge has denied the Trump administration’s request to unseal transcripts from Florida grand jury proceedings related to a 20-year-old criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, saying her “hands are tied.”

U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida Robin Rosenberg wrote in her denial that an unrelated 2020 ruling by the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “does not permit” her to unseal grand jury records in instances not covered by the criminal procedure rule, CNBC reported.

“Eleventh Circuit law does not permit this Court to grant the Government’s request; the Court’s hands are tied — a point the Government concedes,” Rosenberg wrote.

President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) petitioned the U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach, Florida, to obtain the transcripts from two grand juries that convened there in 2005 and 2007, respectively.

In its argument for the transcripts, which are normally left sealed in such cases, the DOJ pointed to a “strong public interest in the historical investigation into Jeffrey Epstein,” the convicted sex offender suspected of trafficking minors to other pedophiles.

The DOJ also argued that “many of the rationales supporting grand jury secrecy” no longer apply since Epstein’s 2019 death, which the department claimed was a suicide earlier this month. 

The controversial memo from the DOJ, headed by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, also claimed there was no evidence of a “client list” belonging to Epstein to blackmail people with.

Neither argument provided by the department would qualify as an exception to the rule regarding the transcripts, Rosenberg wrote in her Wednesday decision. 

The Florida judge’s ruling does not impact two other pending requests by the DOJ that seek grand jury transcripts related to the later investigations that led to the 2019 and 2020 New York indictments of Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. 

Keep reading

DHS Slams Judge For Ordering Release of Transgender Inmate from Men’s ICE Detention Center

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) condemned a Biden-appointed U.S district judge this week for ordering the release of a transgender Mexican illegal alien — a man who identifies as a woman — from a male-only detention facility.

The illegal alien, Odalis Jhonatan Martinez-Velasquez, had been placed into Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s (ICE) men’s detention center in accordance with President Donald Trump’s standing executive order and for the safety of women in ICE custody, DHS stated on X.

In making her ruling, Oregon District Judge Baggio joins what has become a judicial conga line of Democrat-appointed federal judges blocking Trump administration policies, as Breitbart News has reported.

In this most recent case, the judge appears to have served two left-wing causes in one order — transgenderism and open borders — as DHS accused the Court of “caving to pressure from immigration and transgender activists” and “ignoring the rule of law.”

According to a separate DHS statement, Velasquez illegally entered the country in 2023 and was released under the Biden administration. He was then lawfully detained on June 2, 2025 and processed for expedited removal.

Keep reading

Dershowitz Reveals More As He Clarifies His Comments About the ‘Epstein List’

We previously reported on the comments that Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz made about the “Epstein List” during an interview he did on former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s podcast.

At that time, he spoke about names being suppressed, but said he was limited in what he could say because he was “bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and I can’t disclose what I know,” he added.

Dershowitz explained in that interview that he had been falsely accused, as my colleague Bob Hoge reported. 

His comments might help answer some of the questions people have had. 

In an interview with Chris Cuomo on News Nation, Dershowitz clarified more about what he was saying. Cuomo asked if the government had anything they could release tonight.

“The judges have issued orders — which is why I can’t disclose things I’d love to disclose.” 

Dershowitz answered “No,” that there was no “client list” – as in something made by Jeffrey Epstein.

What there is, is a redacted FBI affidavit from accusers. There are several of them. From accusers, that accuse Jeffrey, that accuse various people of having improper sex. And that has been redacted. The names of the people accused have been blacked out.

Dershowitz said because he knew who these people were, “I can tell you right now none of them are public figures who are currently in office. Some of them were previously in office. Some of them are dead. But there is no client list.”

He said “two judges in Manhattan” were suppressing the names “largely to protect the alleged accusers,” and that’s why he can’t disclose them. 

Keep reading

Memo Reveals D.C. Judges Are Predisposed Against Trump Administration

Federal judge James Boasberg advised Chief Justice John Roberts and some two dozen other judges that his D.C. colleagues were “concern[ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis,” according to a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist. That Judge Boasberg and his fellow D.C. District Court judges would discuss how a named Defendant in numerous pending lawsuits might respond to an adverse ruling is shocking. Equally outrageous is those judges’ clear disregard for the presumption of regularity — a presumption that requires a court to presume public officials properly discharged their official duties.

During the week of March 11, 2025, members of the Judicial Conference met in Washington, D.C., for the first of its two regular meetings. As the U.S. Court’s webpage explains, “[t]he Judicial Conference of the United States is the national policymaking body for the federal courts.” 

The Judicial Conference consists of Chief Justice Roberts, who presides over the body, as well as the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, and one district judge from each regional circuit, making for a group of approximately thirty judges. While the Judicial Conference mainstay is considering “administrative and policy issues affecting the federal court system,” and “mak[ing] recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch,” a side conversation at the group’s most recent meeting revealed a disturbing detail — the predisposition of supposedly unbiased judges against the Trump Administration.

In a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist, a member of the Judicial Conference summarized the March meeting, including a “working breakfast” at which Justice Roberts spoke. According to the memorandum, “District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues’ concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.”

“Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize,” according to the memorandum. The summary of the working breakfast added that Chief Justice Roberts noted that “his interactions with the President have been civil and respectful, such as the President thanking him at the state of the union address for administering the oath.”

Donald Trump, however, is not merely the president: He is a Defendant in scores of lawsuits, including multiple cases in the D.C. District Court. As such, this conversation did not concern generic concerns of the judiciary, but specific discussions about a litigant currently before the same judges who expressed concern to the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court that the Trump Administration would disregard the court’s orders.

Judge Boasberg’s comments reveal he and his colleagues hold an anti-Trump bias, for the Trump Administration had complied with every court order to date (and since for that matter). The D.C. District Court judges’ “concern” also went counter to the normal presumption courts hold — one that presumes public officials properly discharged their official duties. Apparently, that presumption does not apply to the current president, at least if you are litigating in D.C.

Keep reading

Democrats Collude With Judges To Keep Allowing Noncitizens To Vote In U.S. Elections

Abattle appears to be looming between President Donald Trump and the entire upper echelon of the national Democratic Party over Trump’s election Executive Order (EO) 14248. The order was signed on March 25, 2025, and entitled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” EO 14248 addresses key election integrity deficiencies involving voter eligibility, ballot fraud, foreign interference, and accountability for wrongdoing. It also implements sorely needed mechanisms to assess the accuracy of voter rolls and the security of voting machines.

EO 14248 was immediately challenged by the “Who’s Who?” of the Democrat Party. Nineteen attorneys general filed a complaint in Massachusetts, while four top Democrat Party organizations filed their complaint in Washington, D.C., along with three civic groups. All similarly challenge certain parts of the election EO with only slightly different arguments.

Constitutional Arguments

At issue is the president’s constitutional power regarding elections. The complainants argue that elections are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the states according to a selective reading of Art. I Sec. IV of U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs fail to acknowledge the second sentence: “but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing [sp.] Senators.”

Thus, Congress, not the states, has ultimate jurisdiction over federal elections. That clause birthed the National Voting Rights Act (1965), the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA, 1993) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA, 2002). Despite the clear, plain text of the U.S. Constitution, the attorneys general boldly state twice in their brief that their states will not adhere to those laws because: “Plaintiff States intend to administer federal elections according to State laws …”

Article II, Section II explains the general power of the president in providing: “… he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …” Thus, the president has unquestioned authority to order that the Executive Branch take any steps necessary to ensure federal and state laws regarding any matter is upheld. That is precisely what EO 14248 does. The EO contains nine key sections, each of which issues Executive Branch orders, carefully crafted with references to federal laws, that the orders help to enforce for United States elections.

Proof of Citizenship

The complaints against the EO allege only theoretical harm since EO 14248 has never actually harmed anyone. With merely speculative claims about the future, the plaintiffs cannot truly meet the legal requirements of a cognizable, particularized injury necessary to establish the proper standing to bring a claim. Nevertheless, Washington, D.C. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a temporary injunction on two provisions involving proof of citizenship. Immediately, several media assets reported that a judge blocked the entire order even though the injunction was temporary and involved only two of roughly 40 total provisions in the order.

The judicial decision temporarily enjoins the president from ordering federal agencies to assess citizenship prior to providing the Federal Voter Registration Form to enrollees of public assistance programs. It also enjoined the president from ordering the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), to amend the National Mail Voter Registration form to include proof of citizenship. Thus, the form can temporarily continue to be used to register potential voters who attest to being citizens of the United States whether they are citizens or not.

This  decision does not square well with federal law which states: “It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any [federal] election …” 18 U.S.Code § 611(a) and that: “Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election … Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned…” 18 U.S. Code § 1015(f).

The executive order simply requires federal agencies to enhance their procedures to enforce federal law pursuant to the president’s constitutional power. To help justify this rather overreaching decision, Judge Kollar-Kotelly stated:  “As a consequence, the Democratic Party Plaintiffs and the members they represent face nationwide irreparable harms that this court must remedy.” In other words, Democrats are greatly harmed if they must abide by the law and cannot continue to try and register individuals who are not qualified to vote.

Keep reading

Judge orders Trump administration to stop immigration arrests without probable cause in Southern California


A federal judge on Friday found that the Department of Homeland Security has been making stops and arrests in Los Angeles immigration raids without probable cause and ordered the department to stop detaining individuals based solely on race, spoken language or occupation.

US District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ordered that DHS must develop guidance for officers to determine “reasonable suspicion” outside of the apparent race or ethnicity of a person, the language they speak or their accent, “presence at a particular location” such as a bus stop or “the type of work one does.”

Friday’s ruling comes after the ACLU of Southern California brought a case against the Trump administration last week on behalf of five people and immigration advocacy groups, alleging that DHS — which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement — has made unconstitutional arrests and prevented detainees’ access to attorneys.

The ruling is limited to the seven-county jurisdiction of the US Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles and surrounding areas.

Keep reading

Oregon federal judge orders release of trans suspect charged with firebombing, shooting up Tesla dealership

On Thursday, Oregon US District Court Judge Adrienne Nelson ordered the pre-trial release of an individual accused of firebombing and shooting up a Tesla dealership in January.

Adam Matthew Lansky, 41, of Salem, a trans-identified militant extremist sex worker, is set to be released from the Yamhill County Jail on Thursday and will be moved to the Northwest Regional Re-Entry Center, a federal halfway house, pending trial.

Lansky had pleaded not guilty to federal charges that include two counts of attempted arson of a property used in interstate commerce and unlawful possession of an unregistered destructive device. Nelson is the second federal judge who ordered Lansky to be released from jail, the Oregonian reported.

Judge Nelson ruled to release Lansky on appeal after Assistant US Attorney Parakram Singh filed to overrule US Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman’s release order issued on Wednesday. Singh argued that Lansky remained a danger to the public, stating that he allegedly threw Molotov cocktails and fired an AR-15-style rifle into a Tesla showroom. Judge Beckerman described Lansky’s actions a “very reckless,” but claimed they were an “outlier event” and ordered his release from jail, citing his lack of criminal history. Additionally, Beckerman said that Lansky’s actions were likely a result of mental health issues.

Keep reading