Tag: judges

Federal judge strikes down workplace protections for transgender workers

A federal judge in Texas struck down guidance from a government agency specifying protections against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Thursday determined that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission exceeded its statutory authority when the agency issued guidance to employers against deliberately using the wrong pronouns for an employee, refusing them access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity, and barring employees from wearing dress code-compliant clothing according to their gender identity because they may constitute forms of workplace harassment.

Kacsmaryk said the guidance is “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

Keep reading

Militant Zionists Spur Arrest of Pro-Palestine Student, Judge Rules

A U.S. federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that the detention of a former student who expressed pro-Palestine views was unconstitutional and that it was a punitive measure triggered almost solely by a complaint from the Zionist militant group Betar.

Late last week, Judge Angel Kelley wrote in her decision that a former student at the University of Massachusetts (UMass), detained unlawfully by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), be released, providing the first court admission that a Zionist extremist groups is working with U.S. authorities to violate free speech rights.

Judge Kelley wrote that the government’s “pursuit of [the former student’s] detention seems to have been almost exclusively triggered by Betar Worldwide.” 

Keep reading

Judge Dismisses Charges Against Illegal Immigrants Accused of Crossing Into Military Zone

A federal judge in New Mexico has dismissed the charges against dozens of illegal immigrants who were accused of violating security regulations by trespassing on a military zone along the U.S.–Mexico border, according to court documents filed this week.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth ruled that the federal government had failed to demonstrate that the illegal immigrants knew they were entering the restricted New Mexico National Defense Area (NMNDA).

According to courtfilings dated May 14 and 15, the government argued that it had placed signs in both English and Spanish to declare that the area is a military zone and that any unauthorized entry is prohibited.

But Wormuth stated that this was insufficient to prove that the illegal immigrants knew they were violating security regulations when they entered the areas, as the defendants may have missed the signs.

“As the United States concedes, the NMNDA spans over 180 miles of ‘often difficult and mountainous terrain,’” the judge stated. “The mere fact that some ‘signs’ were posted in the NMNDA provides no basis on which to conclude that the defendant could have seen, let alone did see, the signs.”

Assistant Federal Public Defender Amanda Skinner said that Wormuth dismissed the trespassing charges against all illegal immigrants who made initial court appearances on May 15. They still face charges for crossing the border illegally.

Keep reading

Judicial Coup Exposed: New Bill Proposed to Answer Courts’ War on Trump and America

A bold legislative proposal, the “Restoring Constitutional Mandate for Congress to Set Rules for the Federal Courts Act,” seeks to rein in what its author warns is an existential crisis – a  “judicial coup” targeting President Donald Trump and the American people.

Drafted by Jonathon Moseley, a 24-year legal veteran and founder of the Patriot Legal Defense Fund, the bill aims to rescind the Rules Enabling Act.  The Constitution empowers Congress to set the rules for the Federal courts.

But Congress generously trusted the U.S. Supreme Court with this honor and prestige.  The bill includes a rebuke of U.S. Supreme Court Justices who have abused their constitutional role.

On May 12, Chief Justice John Roberts – who never criticizes misconduct by judges, politicized lawfare, or abuses against conservatives – issued his third attack on President Trump.

Roberts has not seemed to grasp that respect is earned, not demanded.  But when judges like Roberts criticize only one side of the political world, they lose all credibility.

Roberts made similar veiled threats against the Trump Administration in Buffalo on May 7, the week before.

The previous week Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson added to a seemingly-coordinated drum beat.

On May 8, Justice Sonia Sotomayor basically rallied the nation’s lawyers to fight an insurrection against Republican officials, speaking at the American Bar Association.

Moseley argues that judges should never be speaking outside the courthouse to maintain the public trust.

“The ABA has sued Trump over federal grant terminations,” yet Sotomayor was speaking to a litigant in an active lawsuit.

Active members of the ABA are already the most left-wing and activist lawyers compared to most attorneys just working for clients.

Keep reading

Here Are 16 Of The Most Egregious Injunctions Barring The Trump Administration From Doing Its Job

The Trump administration hit the ground running in January, quickly executing a multitude of initiatives related to closing the border, deporting illegals, culling the federal bureaucracy, stopping the abuse of federal dollars to fund far-left programs, and eradicating harmful ideologies like diversity, equity, and inclusion from federal purview.

All of these items, most of which were campaign promises upon which President Donald Trump was elected by the American people, have received a litany of criticism from far-left actors — which was to be expected.

However, what has emerged in weeks and months of Trump doing what he promised voters is a pattern of unelected federal judges standing in the way of exercising the will of the American people and handing win after win to the left through incessant district-level nationwide injunctions on federal actions.

While many of the judges are Democrat appointees, what has become clear is that no matter who appointed a judge — from Trump himself, to former Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Biden — these judges appear to believe they serve as some entrenched panel of oligarchs who really have the final say on what the president is and is not allowed to do.

Keep reading

Judge STRIPS NYC of Control Over Rikers Island — Cites ‘Unprecedented’ Violence and Mismanagement

A federal judge has stripped the city of control over its notorious Rikers Island jail complex, citing “unprecedented” levels of violence, systemic mismanagement, and a blatant disregard for court orders.

In a scathing 77-page ruling released Tuesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain officially stripped New York City and its Department of Correction (DOC) of full control over Rikers Island, citing a decade of failure to protect inmates from “grave and immediate” harm, including unconstitutional levels of violence, abuse, and systemic mismanagement.

The ruling, issued in the landmark Nunez v. City of New York case, appoints an independent “Nunez Remediation Manager” to take control over key safety and use-of-force functions at Rikers.

The decision comes after Judge Swain previously found the City in civil contempt of 18 separate provisions of the Consent Judgment and multiple court orders dating back to 2015.

The DOC was cited for repeated failures to address excessive use of force, violent incidents, inadequate staff supervision, and failure to protect incarcerated youth.

Despite nearly a decade of oversight by a federal Monitor and more than 700 expert recommendations, the court concluded that the City had failed to make meaningful progress.

“Nine years have passed since the parties first agreed that the perilous conditions in the Rikers Island jails were unconstitutional; that the level of unconstitutional danger has not improved for the people who live and work in the jails is both alarming and unacceptable,” Swain wrote.

In a last-ditch effort to avoid a receivership, the City proposed giving current DOC Commissioner Lynelle Maginley-Liddie enhanced authority as a so-called “Compliance Director.”

But the judge rejected this as insufficient, noting that while Maginley-Liddie had shown early promise, the City had already proven incapable of reform on its own.

Keep reading

Court Order Blocking Trump From Targeting Perkins Coie Is Overreach

Federal District Court Judge Beryl Howell’s injunction prohibiting the implementation of Donald Trump’s executive order restricting the Perkins Coie law firm spoils a righteous core with judicial activism.

On March 6, Trump issued an executive order asserting that “the dishonest and dangerous activity of…Perkins Coie has affected this country for decades. Notably, in 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false “dossier” designed to steal an election…. Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws….”

The order also accused Perkins Coie of racial discrimination, citing its “publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws.”

The order suspended security clearances for the firm’s lawyers and barred them from federal buildings, prohibited the government from engaging the firm, directed federal contractors to disclose if they use the firm’s services, and referred the firm to be investigated for violating civil rights laws. The order was one of several similar orders issued, or contemplated, against leading law firms.

Howell, an Obama appointee, previously served as chief judge for the District of Columbia, in which capacity she was a strong supporter of Jack Smith’s Trump prosecution. Her 120-page opinion excoriated the administration for disregarding the First Amendment and failing to comply with her orders. She criticized the content and formatting of the Justice Department’s memoranda, averred that the government had no credible evidence of racial discrimination or other wrongdoing by Perkins Coie, and rejected all of its arguments.

Howell is right that the First Amendment and principles of American justice mandate that lawyers be able to deliver candid advice and zealous advocacy to their clients. But, she goes too far by ignoring the compelling case that Perkins Coie conspired with Hillary Clinton and Fusion GPS to improperly influence the 2016 election and destabilize the Trump presidency by developing the fraudulent Steele dossier (which falsely accused Trump of being a Russian agent), and then misleading government investigators about its provenance.

She began her decision by quoting Shakespeare’s admonition to “kill all the lawyers” to make it easier to seize power, and Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote that the legal profession “is the most powerful existing security against the excesses of democracy.” Howell then held that “using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints…, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with tolerance, not coercion…. Simply put, government officials cannot… use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”

Access to unvarnished legal advice is sacrosanct, but Howell goes off the rails. She never acknowledges that much of Perkins Coie’s wrongdoing had nothing to do with its legal advice, but came in its capacity as a political kingpin. She bewilderingly asserts that using the firm’s admissions of racial discrimination violates its First Amendment rights. Her related attack on the administration’s opposition to diversity programs reveals her motives for this bizarre conclusion.

Keep reading

Time to end judicial immunity

Chatter and sincere efforts to impeach lawfare judges handing out political favors disguised as legal rulings from their judicial throne is never going to amount to much more than fading headline news.  It is time to end judicial immunity for judges.

End it through constitutional amendments, state by state, and federally by amending the U.S. Constitution.  It’s not too late to listen to Thomas Jefferson.

Even if, by some miracle, Congress jumps through all the hoops to land a despotic judge in the hot seat, it still doesn’t threaten a judge’s fat paycheck and pensions.  More importantly, impeachment is an empty, elusive deterrent that leaves the victims of a judge’s lawless rulings with zero recourse.

The arrest of rogue judges like Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan, who used the bench to aid and abet a criminal, was an unusual step in the right direction, but wait for it.  It’s coming: She’ll wiggle out of it through the escape hatch called judicial immunity.

In other words, thanks to the shield of steel that judges gave themselves long ago, they can do whatever they want and get away with it.

If one of the illegal aliens these impervious judges are ordering to stay put or be returned to America goes off and rapes and murders someone’s daughter, the almighty judge can’t be sued because of the immunity he enjoys.

Her family would have a better chance of suing the flight attendant who helped deplane the deportees or the cop who escorted the busload of them back onto U.S. soil — just not these black-robed self-appointed gods whom we must rise to greet whenever they enter a room.

And they know it.  Absolute immunity is the ultimate safety net.  “Bet it all, because you won’t lose a thing” is basically what immunity says to judges.

Without consequences, the sacred checks and balances that the framers of the Constitution so carefully built into our system of government go out the window, at least when it comes to judges.  The eighteenth-century French philosopher Montesquieu, who invented the concept of “separation of powers” in his famous premonitory treatise “The Spirit of the Laws,” must be rolling in his grave.

Then came Jefferson, warning that it is a “very dangerous doctrine” to make judges “the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.”  Because it would, as he prophetically wrote back in 1820 to his pal William Charles Jarvis in his now famed Jefferson papers, “place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.”

“Our judges are as honest as other men,” Jefferson wrote, “and not more so.”  Put judicial review in the hands of Congress, he warned, or else we’ll be sorry.

Keep reading

John Roberts Is The Judicial Supremacist The Founders Warned Us About

It’s a sad day in America when the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ignores the basic framework of the Constitution he’s supposed to interpret.

That’s what happened on Wednesday, when Chief Justice John Roberts took it upon himself to subtly thumb his nose at President Trump and conservatives during a rare sit-down interview in his hometown of Buffalo, New York. In addition to rebuking calls to impeach activist lower court judges for overstepping the confines of the Constitution, the chief justice had this to say about the subject of “judicial independence”:

In our Constitution … the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president. That innovation doesn’t work if … the judiciary’s not independent. Its job is to, obviously, decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive. And that does require a degree of independence.

To quote Vice President J.D. Vance, does John Roberts hear himself?

The chief justice begins by claiming that the judiciary is a “co-equal” branch of government. Then, in the very next breath, he asserts that the courts can “strike down … acts of Congress or acts of the president.”

If the courts can unilaterally “strike down” actions by the legislative and executive it believes to be unlawful or finds unfavorable, as Roberts maintains, then that isn’t “co-equal.” It’s judicial supremacism.

What Roberts is conveying is his apparent belief that the Supreme Court and judicial branch writ large are wholly supreme to the other branches of government. That is, regardless of the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives, it is judges who have the final say on matters of law and public policy.

While courts play an important role in American society, this is the exact opposite of the system the Founding Fathers established in the Constitution. If anything, the judiciary was viewed by framers like Alexander Hamilton to be the weakest branch, as it lacked “influence over either the sword or the purse” and “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

The founders were not shy about sharing their fears of what would occur should the views of judicial supremacists like Roberts become reality.

Keep reading

Texas Indicts 5 County Officials In Voter Fraud Investigation

Six Texas residents — five of whom are current or former local Frio County officials — were indicted on Wednesday in a voter fraud probe.

“The people of Texas deserve fair and honest elections, not backroom deals and political insiders rigging the system. Elected officials who think they can cheat to stay in power will be held accountable. No one is above the law,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement.

According to a Paxton press release, the six individuals are charged with allegedly engaging in illegal ballot harvesting activity. Texas law specifies that only a voter can return his absentee ballot, with limited exceptions.

Among the charged persons is Rochelle Camacho, a Frio County judge who a grand jury indicted on three counts of ballot harvesting. In addition to two Pearsall City Council members, the indictments also included former Frio County Elections Administrator Carlos Segura, who was charged with one count of “Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence,” according to Paxton’s office.

The state AG’s office noted that five of the named individuals were arrested last week, “with the exception of Rochelle Camacho, who will be processed at a later date.” Five of the six suspects have “ties to Democratic candidates,” The New York Times reported.

The charges stem from a series of search warrants executed last August by Paxton’s Criminal Investigation Division. The warrants were related to what the AG’s office characterized as “a multi-year election integrity investigation into credible allegations of vote harvesting” across Frio, Atascosa, and Bexar Counties.

What’s notable about the still-ongoing probe, however, is its encompassing of individuals tied to a prominent left-wing activist group.

Keep reading