Tag: judges

Wait, What? If There Was No Epstein Client List Then Why Did NY Court Refuse The Gateway Pundit’s Legal Request for the List Based on an Anonymous ‘John Doe’ Who Was On the List?

On Sunday night the Department of Justice and FBI released a document that concluded that notorious child predator Jeffrey Epstein did not have a “client list” and that he was not murdered but committed suicide.

The FBI released a video that shows an empty hallway in what they insist proves Epstein committed suicide.

The FBI memo says there is no evidence that Epstein blackmailed powerful political figures.

Additionally, the memo suggests that no further Epstein records will be released.

Here is a copy of the letter that was released by the DOJ and FBI on Sunday night.

Keep reading

The Unelected Magistrate Judges Undermining Trump And Rule Of Law Are Completely Unconstitutional

As the legal wrangling continues over a magistrate judge’s decision to release accused human trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia from federal custody, it’s worth taking a closer look not just at the role of Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in this case, but at the broader system of magistrate judges across the country. Contrary to widespread perception, reinforced by misleading media coverage, these judges wield extraordinary power despite having no constitutional standing under Article III.

Garcia is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who was deported there. Democrats and their media allies turned his case into a political flashpoint. Garcia was ultimately returned to the United States, where he was promptly arrested on two federal counts related to human smuggling.

One aspect of his case has gone largely unnoticed: Magistrate Judge Holmes’ authority to make critical decisions in a case with national political implications.

Despite being referred to as a “federal judge” by corporate media outlets such as The New York Times, Holmes is not an Article III judge under the U.S. Constitution, which requires that federal judges be nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and granted life tenure. Holmes meets none of these conditions. She was appointed by other judges, not elected officials, and she serves a renewable term, not a lifetime post.

Yet she holds immense power to approve arrests, authorize surveillance, and issue rulings that can shape lives, sway political outcomes, and alter the course of national events.

Her role in the Garcia case is just the latest reminder of how much judicial authority has been delegated to unelected magistrates operating outside the constitutional framework and how little scrutiny that quiet power grab has received.

Another example is Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who authorized the brazenly political FBI raid on President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022. He, too, sits outside the Constitution’s judicial framework, yet signed off on what may have been the most consequential search warrant in modern American history. And he did so with the full legal authority of a real judge, despite never having been through the vetting, scrutiny, or constitutional process required of one.

The American people are told they live under a government of checks and balances, where power is diffused and public officials are held accountable through a transparent process. The rise of magistrate judges represents a dangerous end-run around that system. These bureaucrats now wield a level of authority that the Framers never envisioned.

Keep reading

The Curbing Of The Administrative State

The Supreme Court delivered an opinion last week that not even the best of the punditry class was prepared to understand. The decision was Trump vs. CASA, and the topic concerned the nationwide injunction against Trump’s management of U.S. immigration policy. As with more than 40 other cases, federal district judges have intervened to stop the president from exercising executive powers.

The opinion could not be plainer: “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” That principle applies not only to this case but to the whole panoply of cases that have tethered the ability of the president to manage executive branch operations. The courts have presumed authority over the president that the Constitution plainly does not grant.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the following of the unjoined dissent by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: “[It] is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an Imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Court watchers called this an unprecedented rebuke of a colleague in a majority opinion.

The practical effect of the decision is to underscore the meaning of Article 2: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Why should this be controversial? Here we get into the overwhelming reality of the structure and operations of the U.S. government that stand in complete contradiction to the U.S. Constitution. It’s been going on for more than a century and has never been fundamentally challenged. Until Trump, most presidents were fine with it and offered no serious challenge. The legislature too has chosen to look the other way.

The issue is the fourth branch of government that is nearly the whole of the operational side of government as we know it. We elect leaders and representatives but our votes have carried ever less power over the course of a century. We know that but it has not always been obvious.

Keep reading

Trump Sues All 15 Federal Judges in Maryland Over Their Unlawful Practice of Issuing “Automatic Injunctions” to Stop Deportations of Criminal Aliens

Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sued the entire federal district court bench in Maryland on Tuesday evening over an order blocking deportations of criminal aliens.

The lawsuit was filed after the US District Court for the District of Maryland issued an order that required the clerk to automatically enter an injunction against removing any illegal alien that challenges their deportation and files a habeas petition.

“This lawsuit involves yet another regrettable example of the unlawful use of equitable powers to restrain the Executive. Specifically, Defendants have instituted an avowedly automatic injunction against the federal government, issued outside the context of any particular case or controversy. They did so by promulgating a standing order (“Standing Order”) and amended standing order (“Amended Standing Order”; together, “Orders”) that require the court clerk to automatically enter an injunction against removing, or changing the legal status of, any alien detained in Maryland who files a habeas petition,” the lawsuit against the judges said.

“Defendants’ automatic injunction issues whether or not the alien needs or seeks emergency relief, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the alien’s claims, and no matter how frivolous the alien’s claims may be,” the lawsuit said.

Keep reading

Biden Judge Blocks Trump From Withholding EV Charger Funds After Joe Biden Spent $7.5 Billion to Install 8 EV Chargers

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump Administration from withholding funds for electric vehicle chargers.

In 2021, the Democrat-controlled Congress gave Joe Biden $7.5 billion to install electric vehicle chargers all over the country and only 7 or 8 EV charging stations have been built. It’s a total scam.

According to 2021 analysis from the New York Times, $1.2 trillion of the ‘Infrastructure’ bill would be spent over 8 years and $550 billion will go to roads, bridges, rail lines, electric vehicles, water systems and other programs.

Electric vehicles are unpopular, expensive and bad for the environment but the Biden Regime is going into overdrive to force car companies to produce more EVs while they crack down on gas-powered vehicle tailpipe emissions.

President Trump vowed to immediately dismantle Joe Biden’s insane electric vehicle mandate.

Earlier this year the US Transportation Department suspended Biden’s EV charging station scam.

On Tuesday, Seattle-based US District Judge Tana Lin, a Biden appointee, temporarily blocked Trump from withholding EV charger funds to 14 states.

Keep reading

Biden Judge DEFIES Supreme Court, Says His Order Barring Deportation of Illegal Aliens to South Sudan Remains in Effect – Stephen Miller Responds

US District Judge Brian Murphy on Monday evening defied the US Supreme Court and said his order barring deportation of illegal aliens to South Sudan remains in effect.

In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump Administration to resume deporting illegal aliens to ‘third-party’ countries.

The Supreme Court granted the Trump Administration’s emergency application and paused Judge Brian Murphy’s order blocking the third-country removals.

Liberal Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented.

In her dissent, Sotomayor said, “Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention it plainly requires, this Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied. I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion.”

Last month US District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, said the Trump Administration violated his court order to provide the aliens with “meaningful” due process since they were being sent to “third-party” countries.

Some of the aliens are from Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba, so sending them to South Sudan puts them in danger, attorneys argued.

Judge Murphy said the US must maintain custody of the dangerous aliens during the process.

Judge Murphy also ordered the US government to provide interpreters and counsel to the aliens during the interview.

President Trump fumed and said that because of the judge’s order, 8 of the most violent criminals on earth are currently being held in Djibouti, a tiny country on the Horn of Africa next to Ethiopia.

The US government doesn’t even have a detention facility in Djibouti, so 11 ICE agents are detaining the aliens in a conference room in a converted Conex shipping container on the US Naval base in Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti.

Keep reading

Federal Judge In California Remains At The Ready To Wrest Control Of National Guard From Trump

“The fight doesn’t end here.” Gavin Newsom made that announcement on Thursday, soon after a federal appellate court ruled President Donald Trump retains control over the California National Guard. By Friday morning, the overturned district court judge repeated the mantra, but in subtler, more judicious terms designed to obscure his bias and his intent to halt the president’s use of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles. The apparent plan is now to find the president’s deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which goes to show that judges bent on executing a coup by courts also have six ways to Sunday to rebel against the duly elected president.

After rioters attacked ICE agents and federal property in California, on June 7, 2025, President Trump federalized the California National Guard. Once under federal command, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered thousands of National Guard troops to deploy to Los Angeles. Secretary Hegseth later also deployed some 700 active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton to Los Angeles.

Within days of the president’s federalizing of the California National Guard, Governor Newsom filed a multi-count complaint in a San Francisco federal court. Then, at 11:00 a.m., on June 10, 2025, the governor asked the court to immediately (by 1:00 p.m.) grant him an ex parte temporary restraining order, barring the deployment of troops in Los Angeles and directing the president to return control of the National Guard to the governor. Presiding Judge Charlies Breyer instead provided the Trump administration 24 hours to respond to the motion and set a hearing for June 12, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.

Judge Breyer opened the June 12, 2025 hearing by noting he had refused to grant the requested injunction on an ex parte basis, with the Clinton appointee stressing the importance of hearing from both sides before ruling. However, Judge Breyer soon made clear his fist was firmly on Governor Newsom’s side of the scale, with the federal judge appropriating the language of the left and declaring we have no king in America.

It came as no surprise, then, to court listeners that by day’s end Judge Breyer had entered an injunction against President Trump, enjoining him “from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles,” and directing the Commander-in-Chief “to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.” The court stayed his order until noon on Friday, June 13, 2025.

The Trump administration immediately sought a stay of Judge Breyer’s injunction in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — the federal circuit court that hears appeals from district courts in California, among other western states. Within hours, a three-judge panel of the federal appellate court entered an administrative stay of Judge Breyer’s order, keeping the president in charge of the National Guard. The Ninth Circuit then set an expedited briefing schedule and scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, June 17, 2025.

Last Tuesday, Trump appointees Judges Mark Bennette and Eric Miller, joined by Biden-appointee Judge Jennifer Sung, heard the parties’ argument concerning the propriety of the injunction. Two days later, in a unanimous opinion, the court held the Trump administration “made the required strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal,” and stayed the lower court’s injunction against the president. That stay left the California National Guard under federal control and deployed in Los Angeles, as directed by Secretary Hegseth.

In concluding that Trump was likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal, the Ninth Circuit focused on Newsom’s claim that the president lacked authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize the California National Guard. That federal statute authorizes the president to federalize the National Guard of a state whenever, among other things, “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States . . . ”

While Judge Breyer concluded that Trump had failed to establish that he was unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States, the Ninth Circuit rejected the lower court’s reasoning in two respects. First, the three-judge panel concluded that courts owe great deference to the president’s conclusion that regular forces are unable to execute federal law.

Keep reading

Judge Rules MS-13 Gang Member Kilmar Abrego Garcia Should NOT be Detained on His Criminal Charges of Child Trafficking – DOJ Appeals

Federal magistrate judge Barbara Holmes on Sunday ruled MS-13 gang member and wife beater Kilmar Abrego Garcia should not be detained on his criminal charges.

Abrego Garcia will likely remain in custody on an ICE detainer.

“As required by the Bail Reform Act, the Court has reviewed the evidence presented at the June 13 hearing and considered the parties’ arguments and the Pretrial Services report. For the reasons detailed below, the government’s motion for detention is DENIED. Specifically, the Court finds that no detention hearing is authorized under the Bail Reform Act in this case because the government failed to prove that this case involves: (1) a minor victim within the meaning of § 3142(f)(1)(E); (2) a “serious risk” that Abrego will flee, as required by § 3142(f)(2)(A); or, (3) a “serious risk” that Abrego will obstruct justice or otherwise interfere with the integrity of this proceeding, as required by § 3142(f)(2)(B),” the judge wrote in a 51-page memo.

Earlier this month Kilmar Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to human trafficking charges as and fought for his release pending trial.

Abrego Garcia appeared in a Nashville court clad in a red jumpsuit.

A federal grand jury in Tennessee recently indicted Kilmar Abrego Garcia for “transporting undocumented migrants within the United States.”

He was charged with one count of conspiracy to transport aliens and one count of unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens.

According to the indictment, Kilmar Abrego Garcia and co-conspirators from El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico and the US were trafficking illegal aliens from 2016 through 2025.

Read the indictment here.

Keep reading

Silvia Delgado, former attorney for “El Chapo,” elected as Judge in Chihuahua; links to drug trafficking expose flaws in legitimacy of New Judicial System promoted by Morena.


On June 1, 2025, Mexico held its first simultaneous elections for over 2,600 judicial positions, including seats in the Supreme Court, as part of the Morena government’s reform aimed at boosting transparency and accountability within the judicial branch.

However, participation was alarmingly low: just 11% in local elections and 13% in the federal race.

This low level of citizen engagement has sparked questions about the legitimacy and representativeness of the new judges.

Amid this context, the election of Silvia Rocío Delgado García as a criminal court judge in the Bravos Judicial District of Chihuahua has unleashed a storm of criticism and concern across Mexico.

Keep reading

DEA Judge Shuts Down Cannabis Manufacturing Case Without Hearing, Company Plans Legal Challenge

The company behind the application, MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, is now preparing to challenge the ruling in federal court and call for the judge’s recusal.

The ruling was issued by DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney II, who dismissed the company’s bid for a marijuana bulk manufacturing license after more than six years of delays. MMJ BioPharma said the decision came without warning and without any opportunity to present evidence or respond to agency claims—calling it a “procedural ambush.”

“This isn’t regulation—it’s an illegal ambush,” said MMJ CEO Duane Boise, who said the company had complied with all requirements under the Controlled Substances Act and FDA pathways.

MMJ, which is developing cannabis-based medicines for Huntington’s disease and multiple sclerosis, submitted a legally binding supply agreement in March 2024 with a DEA-licensed Schedule I facility. The agreement included specific sourcing protocols, defined volume, and DEA Form 222 compliance. Despite that, Mulrooney’s June 16 ruling ignored the document entirely and blocked it from being entered into the record.

Boise accused the DEA of demanding the agreement and then refusing to acknowledge it once submitted. “The agency cannot demand a document, receive it, then declare it irrelevant behind closed doors,” he said.

The order also reversed a previous determination by another administrative judge that certain disputed facts warranted a hearing. Instead, Mulrooney cited internal communications from a DEA investigator that MMJ was never allowed to challenge or respond to—raising concerns of ex parte communications and due process violations.

Keep reading