Tag: judges

Dems Find Second Judge To Block More Of Trump’s Order Enforcing Election Law  

After a U.S. district court judge barred parts of Donald Trump’s election integrity executive order in April, a coalition of 19 Democrat attorneys general found a second district court judge to block other crucial provisions of the order. Along with the requirement of proof of citizenship to register to vote, these provisions include measures that strengthen security protections for overseas voting and ensure that ballots meet an Election Day deadline instead of straggling in for weeks on end.

By law, only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections. But left-leaning Massachusetts Judge Denise J. Casper ruled on Friday that wannabe voters should not have to prove they are citizens by showing documents like a passport, a state-issued photo ID like a driver’s license, or a military ID.

Casper has sided with the 19 Democrat-led states fighting President Donald Trump’s executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship to participate in federal elections. The states in this case are California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

In their lawsuit the states took aim at Trump’s order directing the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to include a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form, which would require state employees to assess citizenship — see the documents — before letting applicants register to vote when they apply for public assistance programs. (Those receiving public assistance are automatically handed a federal voter registration card when they apply for services.)  

The same executive order has other components, including a directive that Attorney General Pam Bondi take action against states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day in the final tabulation of votes and a measure to require proof of citizenship and state eligibility to register as an overseas voter under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). But Casper nixed those too.

In April U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly barred the order’s critical proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration application and, according to Politico, “another provision that instructs federal agencies not to assist individuals with registering unless they can assess that those people are U.S. citizens.” She left provisions like the Election Day deadline and the UOCAVA proof-of-citizenship requirement in place, but Democrats simply moved along to the favorable venue and achieved a victory in one district court that has nationwide consequences for the integrity of U.S. elections.

Keep reading

Court Postpones Arraignment in Federal Case Against Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver, Gives Her Permission to Travel Internationally

A court on Friday postponed the arraignment in the case against Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver to June 25.

McIver’s arraignment was originally scheduled for June 16.

The court also gave LaMonica McIver permission to travel internationally after a judge previously ordered her to surrender her firearms and said she cannot travel outside of the US.

Earlier this week a federal grand jury returned a 3-count indictment charging Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver with forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers at the Delaney Hall detention center in Newark last month.

McIver is facing a maximum of 17 years in prison for all three counts.

Keep reading

OUTRAGEOUS: Obama Judge Blocks President Trump’s Executive Order Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote in Federal Elections

Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper issued a preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of President Trump’s executive order aimed at securing federal elections by requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to vote.

The executive order, officially titled Executive Order No. 14248, was intended to plug the gaping holes in America’s voter registration system, which currently allows individuals to vote in federal elections with nothing more than a signed statement affirming their citizenship — no ID, no birth certificate, no passport.

But Judge Casper, siding with liberal Attorneys General from 14 Democrat-led states, ruled that Trump’s common-sense order was “likely unlawful and unconstitutional.”

The injunction now bars enforcement of the order’s five most critical provisions — including the requirement that:

  • Proof of Citizenship for Federal Voter Registration: The court blocked Section 2(a) of the order, which required the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to mandate documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form and for states to record such proof.
  • Military Voting Protections: The ruling blocks Section 3(d), which directed the Secretary of Defense to update the federal postcard application—used by service members and overseas voters—to require proof of citizenship and state voting eligibility.
  • Verification at Public Assistance Agencies: Section 2(d) was struck down. It required federal departments providing voter registration services through public assistance programs to verify citizenship before distributing registration forms.
  • Enforcement Measures: The judge barred civil or criminal enforcement under Section 7(a) in 13 Democrat-controlled states (including California, Massachusetts, New York, and Illinois) that allow ballots to arrive after Election Day.
  • Election Day Deadline Incentives: Finally, Section 7(b), which tied federal election funding to states’ compliance with having a ballot receipt deadline on Election Day, was blocked from being applied to the same 13 “Ballot Receipt States.”

In essence, this activist judge just gave the green light to non-citizens to continue exploiting America’s porous voter registration laws — all while handcuffing states and agencies trying to enforce basic accountability.

The plaintiffs in the case include California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and other liberal strongholds — the very states that have fought tooth and nail to block election reform and have extended voting privileges to non-citizens in local elections.

Now, with the federal judiciary’s backing, they’re trying to apply those same disastrous policies at the national level.

Keep reading

Sen. Schmitt Raises Alarm Over Judge’s Repeated Assignment in Trump Cases

Concerns about the impartiality of the federal judicial system surfaced this week after Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt (R) publicly challenged the repeated assignment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to several significant cases involving President Donald Trump. 

Posting on X, Schmitt described the pattern as a “statistical impossibility” and accused the case assignment process of being rigged.

Schmitt’s message quickly drew attention within conservative political circles.

“Judge James Boasberg has somehow been assigned FOUR major Trump cases,” he wrote on Tuesday. 

“A statistical impossibility. That isn’t ‘random.’ It’s rigged.”

Boasberg, who currently serves as chief judge for the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, has presided over multiple high-profile legal battles tied to Trump and his administration. 

These cases include a challenge concerning the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act—a statute employed to deport criminal illegal immigrants deemed threats to national security.

In addition to immigration cases, Boasberg oversaw litigation relating to the preservation of communications on the encrypted messaging app Signal. 

In March, he ordered Trump officials to save messages sent between March 11 and 15 connected to a sensitive military operation in Yemen. 

This directive came amid concerns over potential violations of federal record-keeping laws, since Signal’s auto-delete feature risked erasing crucial government communications.

The frequency with which Boasberg has been assigned these cases has sparked growing skepticism among Republican lawmakers.

Keep reading

‘Separation of Powers’ Is The Judiciary’s Bogus Justification For Anti-Trump Lawfare

The Founding Fathers worried the judicial branch was “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two.” Yet it seems that in these days of lawfare, the judiciary is quite capable of effectively attacking the other branches of government, particularly the branch headed by President Donald Trump.

A recent lawsuit, filed by the AFL-CIO against the Trump administration, offers the latest example of judicial interference with the executive branch. The lawsuit attacked several federal directives that attempted to reduce the federal workforce and reorganize many executive agencies.

Trump Executive Order is Constitutional

These actions began with Executive Order 14210, issued on February 11, to effect “‘large-scale reductions in force’ (RIFs) and reorganizations.” Trump’s order is completely unsurprising and legitimate.

Republicans have been worried for decades about the size of the federal government. Couple that concern with President Trump’s awareness that partisan actors, working as federal employees, undermine his agenda, and it makes perfect sense that the president would take swift action to reorganize and reduce the size of the executive branch.

In response to President Trump’s order, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent memos to executive agencies, beginning a process of reorganizing and reducing the federal workforce. The memos called for changes to the agencies and the elimination of thousands of executive-branch jobs.

The more than 50-page district court opinion, ruling against President Trump and his agencies last month, claimed that the executive branch had overstepped its authority, taking actions that should be reserved to Congress and thus violating the separation of powers. The court issued a shockingly broad order that all executive agency reorganizations and reductions in force must stop unless Congress explicitly approves the actions.

Trump is Governing His Own Branch

The Trump administration’s solicitor general filed an emergency petition to stay the order of the court on June 2, 2025. The petition makes a strong case that these reductions in force are lawful and within the power of the president:

In this case, the district court entered a nationwide injunction that bars nearly the entire Executive Branch — 19 agencies, including 11 Cabinet departments — from implementing an Executive Order that directs agencies to prepare plans to execute lawful reductions in the size of the federal workforce. That injunction rests on the indefensible premise that the President needs explicit statutory authorization from Congress to exercise his core Article II authority to superintend the internal personnel decisions of the Executive Branch. But “[u]nder our Constitution, the ‘executive Power’—all of it—is ‘vested in a President,’ who must ‘take Care that the Laws be 2 faithfully executed.’” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 203 (2020) (quoting U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, Cl. 1; id. § 3). Controlling the personnel of federal agencies lies at the heartland of this authority. The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the President does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers. See Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 607-609 (2024).

The Trump administration is absolutely right. Of course, conservatives value the separation of powers. But the claim that separation of powers prevents the president from reducing or reorganizing workers within the executive branch of government is false.

President Trump is trying to manage his own branch of government. There is no argument for the separation of powers between the executive branch of government and . . . the executive branch of government. This needs to be repeated over and over again to overcome the drumbeat of nonsensical claims that the president is overstepping his authority.

Article II of the Constitution is quite clear: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The president is, for purposes of constitutional authority, the executive branch of government. Of course he needs a staff. This staff may consist of dozens of subordinates or tens of thousands of them. But they are all subordinates who serve at the pleasure of the president.

Yes, Congress provides funding for these executive positions, but that funding does not mean Congress controls the number or persona. If Congress must rule on reducing the number of executive branch employees or reorganizing executive agencies, that would be a violation of the separation of powers: The president would lose control of his own branch of government. This is constitutionally and practically impermissible.

Keep reading

Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump From Deporting Family Of Radical Islamist Terrorist

Colorado Federal Judge Gordon Gallagher, a Biden appointee, issued an order on Wednesday blocking the Trump administration from deporting the family of radical Islamist terrorist Mohamed Soliman, who on Sunday set a dozen Jewish demonstrators on fire.

The two-page order — the latest in the string of judicial lawfare — states that the Trump administration “SHALL NOT REMOVE Hayem El Gamal and her five children from the District of Colorado or the United States unless or until this Court or the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacates this Order.”

The order comes hours after Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “have taken the family of suspected Boulder, Colorado terrorist, and illegal alien, Mohamed Soliman, into ICE custody.”

ICE detained Soliman’s wife, Hayam Salah Alsaid Ahmed Elgamal, and his five children and processed them for removal, according to the Department of Homeland Security. All are citizens of Egypt. While Soliman is an illegal alien, the legal status of his family members is unclear.

Soliman set Jewish demonstrators on fire in Boulder, Colorado, on Sunday, injuring a dozen, including a Holocaust survivor. The demonstrators were calling for the release of the hostages being held by Hamas.

Keep reading

Federal judge temporarily orders prisons to provide ‘transgender’ therapy despite Trump order

Prisons that deny trans-identifying prisoners hormone therapy could be guilty of cruel and unusual punishment, according to the newest ruling of a federal judge against the Trump administration.

Senior Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a request from a group of trans-identifying prisoners on Tuesday for a temporary restraining order against a ban on hormone therapy.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons was ordered to provide the therapy to the group of trans-identifying prisoners as well as 2,000 other prisoners who were certified under the ruling as belonging to the same class who would suffer irreparable harm otherwise.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20 that banned federal funds for treatments provided “for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.”

Keep reading

Mexico’s first judicial elections include ex-convicts and cartel lawyers

Mexico is preparing to hold its first-ever judicial elections, and concerns are growing over the criminal histories and affiliations of candidates on the ballot.

Among those seeking positions are individuals previously investigated for crimes ranging from organized crime to sexual abuse, and even an ex-convict who served time in a US prison for drug smuggling, says the New York Times.

The judicial elections, scheduled for Sunday, will decide 2,681 positions, including some on Mexico’s Supreme Court.

The reform was introduced last year by former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and is supported by current President Claudia Sheinbaum. They argue that the shift from appointments to public elections will reduce corruption and make the system more accountable to voters.

However, critics, including legal experts, have warned that opening up the judiciary to electoral politics could compromise judicial independence and allow unqualified or compromised individuals to gain power. Some also worry the process may increase the influence of organized crime in Mexico’s already-broken justice system.

At least four candidates have previously faced criminal investigations, according to letters obtained by The Times. These letters, sent in early May by the leaders of both congressional chambers—controlled by the ruling Morena party—asked electoral officials to disqualify 18 candidates accused of failing to meet the constitutional requirement of a “good reputation.”

Among those on the ballot is Fernando Escamilla, a 32-year-old candidate for a state criminal judgeship in Nuevo Leon. He previously provided legal services to Miguel Angel Treviño and Eleazar Medina-Rojas, two senior figures in the Zetas cartel.

Escamilla has defended his work, stating he merely advised on extradition law and believes it would be “unfair” to disqualify him from practicing law.

“It’s like a doctor,” Escamilla said. “When patients arrive at the emergency room, the doctor doesn’t ask what they do for a living before deciding whether to treat them, they just do.”

Other candidates have more serious criminal pasts. Leopoldo Javier Chávez Vargas was arrested in 2015 in Texas for attempting to smuggle meth into the US. He served nearly six years in prison and is now seeking a federal judgeship in Durango.

“I don’t deny my past,” he said. “I have fully accepted the consequences.”

Another candidate, Jesus Humberto Padilla Briones, was arrested in 2023 with meth and an illegal firearm.

Keep reading

Three Judges Blocking Trump’s Tariffs Have Decades-Long Histories of Democrat Activism

The judges on the U.S. Court of International Trade who ruled that President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are illegal have a history of Democrat Party activism.

Each of the members of the three-judge panel issuing the Wednesday ruling – which was stayed Thursday by an appeals court, allowing the tariffs to continue – fit the profile of other activists judges who continued their political activism after joining the court.

Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif, and Jane Restani have histories of supporting Democrat candidates that span as far back as 45 years ago and have thwarted Trump’s authority in both of his administrations, earning allegations of judicial activism.

Trump teed off on the judges Thursday night on Truth Social. “Where do these initial three Judges come from?” he asked. “How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of “TRUMP?” What other reason could it be?”

Katzmann, nominated by Barack Obama in 2015, attended Columbia, Oxford, and Yale Law School and later clerked for Stephen Breyer (while Breyer was on the First Circuit Court of Appeals). He was a researcher at the Center for Criminal Justice at Harvard Law School as well as a lecturer at Harvard Law School.

Although Katzmann is a registered unaffiliated voter in Massachusetts, he voted in the 2018, 2016, and 2014 Democrat primaries.

Keep reading

Only SCOTUS Can Rein In The Judicial Coup

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on May 15 on what has become a debilitating, critical crisis: the issuance of nationwide injunctions en masse by federal district court judges.

Notably, the overwhelming majority of those judges are Democrat appointees who seek to prevent President Donald Trump from doing what he was elected to do: govern. According to a lawsuit tracker by the Associated Press, more than 200 lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s executive orders.

In three consolidated cases from Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts, federal district court judges issued nationwide injunctions (sometimes called universal injunctions or, to quote Justice Neil Gorsuch, “cosmic injunctions”) against the implementation of a Trump executive order ending universal birthright citizenship. The plaintiffs in those cases claim the order violates the 14th Amendment.

Those injunctions reflect a broader pattern. In less than four months, roughly 40 nationwide injunctions have been entered against the Trump administration — almost double the number entered during all four years of the Biden administration. As Solicitor General John Sauer pointed out, 35 have come “from the same five judicial districts.”

One could reasonably argue that the judges entering these orders are essentially attempting to undo the results of the last election by keeping in place Biden administration policies — policies that more than 77 million voters roundly rejected last November. These judges apparently believe they have more authority than the president to make decisions on everything from domestic and foreign policy to matters affecting national security and the military.

The Supreme Court should vigorously enforce its prior precedents (including its 1984 decision in U.S. v. Mendoza), which strictly limit the ability of a single unelected district court judge (of whom there are nearly 700) to keep the administration from achieving its policy objectives by ruling not just for those who filed a lawsuit but also for everyone who didn’t.

The court must also end the blatant judge-shopping and what amounts to a collective wholesale interference in the president’s constitutional authority as head of the executive branch.

The May 15 session was itself unusual — hopefully a sign that Chief Justice John Roberts finally recognizes the judicial crisis these lower court judges are causing. Typically, oral arguments end in April, and emergency requests for stays are usually decided on the pleadings without oral argument.

We have to wonder whether the chief justice was prompted to act in part by Justice Samuel Alito’s rather stinging March 5 dissent in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh).

Keep reading