Tag: judges

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

Supreme Court Stands By While Lower Courts Carry On Ripping Up The Constitution

There is a judicial coup underway in the U.S., and the Supreme Court is refusing to stop it. Yet another unpunished hit to the Constitution happened this week when a federal judge in Texas ordered President Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security to hand over sensitive communications with the El Salvadoran government about one of its Alien Enemies Act deportees.

In his initial order, Judge Keith P. Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ordered the Trump administration to confirm the “current location and health status” of Venezuelan Widmer Josneyder Agelviz-Sanguino, who was allegedly one of the 238 deportees flown to the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador, within 24 hours.

The Clinton appointee also demanded that the Trump administration disclose “the legal basis for his continued detention,” ensure Agelviz-Sanguino can establish contact with his lawyers, and detail “any logistical arrangements made with El Salvadoran authorities.”

After multiple extensions, the Trump administration handed over information to the judge under seal, according to legal news outlet Law & Crime. Ellison, however, deemed the documents insufficient and issued a subsequent order demanding that the U.S. government file a “declaration describing all actions taken by Defendants and the U.S. Embassy since May 19, 2025.”

The order claims to require details like “Names/titles of El Salvadoran officials contacted, methods of contact, and copies of all written communications” and “Timeline of follow-up attempts and plans to escalate such attempts if no response is received.” Ellison even mandated a description of the “specific El Salvadoran law cited as justification for Agelviz-Sanguino’s detention” down to the “Statute name, article number, English translation, and verification of its applicability to Venezuelan nationals.”

The Department of Justice appealed the order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued an administrative stay on Ellison’s demands Friday morning.

As Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at The Article III Project noted, Ellison’s order is “completely insane.”

“Article III does not get to tell Article II how to conduct foreign affairs – nor does it get to surveil sensitive diplomatic discussions,” he wrote.

Yet, until the Supreme Court ends the unbridled injunction and order madness, the Trump administration is at the mercy of an unconstitutional supremacy that has infected even the furthest limbs of the judicial branch.

Keep reading

Utah House Speaker demands state judge resign for giving no prison time to man convicted of child exploitation

After spending just four months in jail, a judge said that a 22-year-old man in Utah will not be given any more time behind bars after he was convicted of exploiting children, with Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz calling on him to resign.

Aidan Hoffman, 22, attended a sentencing hearing overseen by Judge Don Torgerson on Tuesday in Utah, where he pleaded guilty on two felony counts of sexually exploiting a minor, according to KSLTV. Court documents in the case said that Hoffman had distributed as well as had in his possession images of children getting raped and sexually abused.

Hoffman was charged last August on multiple felony counts of exploiting a minor and spent four months in prison, being allowed out in December on certain conditions. However, during the sentencing this week, Torgerson dropped 10 of the other felony charges, only going through with two of them. Instead of giving Hoffman time behind bars, Torgerson decided that he would not go to prison or pay any fine.

Torgerson handed the 22-year-old a suspended prison sentence and said he would be placed on probation for four years, meaning that he would only go to prison if he violated the probation. During the hearing, Torgerson referred to the time that Hoffman spent in jail, saying, “112 days is a lot of jail time. It’s a lot of jail time for someone your age who comes from some level of privilege.”

When speaking to The Post Millennial, House Speaker Mike Schultz, a Republican from Utah’s 12th House district, said he would not rule out impeachment over the matter, and demanded that the judge resign.

“This is deeply troubling and indicative of a broader pattern within the judiciary. Such decisions not only fail to deliver justice for victims but also erode public confidence in the legal system,” he told TPM. “Judge Torgerson’s decision is a failure of justice, and it cannot be ignored. To restore public trust and uphold the integrity of the judiciary, he must resign. Accountability is not optional—it is essential when the stakes involve the safety and dignity of children.”

Torgerson viewed a couple of the videos that were in possession of Hoffman and told those in the hearing he had “seen worse.”

The Grand County Attorney, Stephen Stocks, said that he was shocked by the decision of the judge, as well as Torgerson’s mention of “privilege” in the decision and the comments about the videos.

Keep reading

A Federal Judge Says New Mexico Cops Reasonably Killed an Innocent Man at the Wrong House

Around 11:30 on a Wednesday night in April 2023, three police officers repeatedly knocked on the door of Robert Dotson’s house at 5305 Valley View Avenue in Farmington, New Mexico. They were responding to a report of “a possible
domestic violence situation,” but they were in the wrong place: They were supposed to be at 5308 Valley View Avenue, which was on the opposite side of the street. When Dotson, a 52-year-old father of two, came to the door with a gun in his hand, the cops shot and killed him.

That response, a federal judge in New Mexico ruled last week, was reasonable in the circumstances and therefore did not violate Dotson’s Fourth Amendment rights. The officers “reasonably believed that Dotson posed a severe risk of imminent harm” to them, U.S. District Judge Matthew Garcia writes in response to a federal civil rights lawsuit that Dotson’s family filed in September 2023. Garcia rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the officers—Daniel Estrada, Dylan Goodluck, and Waylon Wasson—”recklessly created the need to apply deadly force by going to the wrong address.”

Garcia concedes that the defendants’ conduct prior to the shooting was “not a paragon of careful policework,” which is quite an understatement. When the cops were dispatched to 5308 Valley View Avenue, he notes, Wasson “utilized his service vehicle’s mobile data terminal” to “locate the address, incorrectly placing the [house] on the right (south) side of the street.” Meanwhile, Goodluck, who was in a separate vehicle, “searched Google Maps to locate the property,” and that search correctly located the house as “being situated on the left (north) side of Valley View Avenue.”

When the officers arrived at the scene, Goodluck “continued to question whether [they] were headed to the correct residence,” Garcia says, but “he deferred to Officer Wasson’s seniority and said nothing.” After Wasson knocked on the front door of Dotson’s house three times without getting a response, Goodluck “finally voiced his concern that the Defendant officers went to the wrong address.” Pointing across the street, he said, “It might have been 5308. Right there.” Wasson was puzzled: “Is this not 5308? That’s what it said right there, right?” No, Goodluck replied: “This is 5305, isn’t it?”

Wasson then asked the dispatcher to confirm the correct address. After the dispatcher said “5308 Valley View Avenue,” Wasson jokingly said, “Don’t tell me I’m wrong, Dylan.” By this point, the plaintiffs say, the cops “were realizing they were at the wrong residence and were laughing about it.”

According to the lawsuit, Dotson and his wife, Kimberly, were upstairs in their bedroom when Wasson knocked on the front door. “The knock was not loud, and his announcement ‘Farmington Police’ could not be heard” on the second story, the complaint says. “The police vehicles were parked down the street and did not have their lights on.” But the couple “believed that they heard a knock,” so Dotson “put on his robe and went downstairs.” For “personal protection,” he “picked up the handgun which was kept on top of the refrigerator in the Dotson residence, not knowing what he might encounter at that late hour.”

When Dotson “opened his front door,” the lawsuit says, he “was blinded by police flashlights.” At that point, “the police did not announce themselves,” and Dotson “had no idea who was in his yard shining bright lights at him.” According to the lawsuit, Wasson, upon seeing Dotson’s gun, “opened fire instantly,” and “the other officers, Estrada and Goodluck, immediately followed by firing their guns.” Dotson was struck by 12 rounds.

Hearing the shots, Kimberly Dotson rushed downstairs and “saw her husband lying in his blood in the doorway,” the lawsuit says. She “still did not know what had happened [or] that police officers were in her front yard.” She “fired outside at whoever had shot her husband,” and the officers “each fired at Mrs. Dotson—another 19 rounds. Fortunately, she was not hit.”

At that point, according to the complaint, the officers “finally announced themselves, and Kimberly Dotson told them that someone had shot her husband and requested their help.” She “did not realize even at that moment that the three police officers had killed her husband,” which she did not learn “until she was finally told eight hours later at the police station where she was detained.”

After the shooting, the lawsuit says, “the officers involved did not disclose to investigators that they were at the wrong address, which was the error leading to the tragic result and without which it would not have occurred.” The mistake “was discovered by other officers who arrived at the scene.”

Keep reading

A Judge Of Her Peers? Judge Dugan Assigned A Judge Previously Rebuked For Political Comments

Five years ago, I wrote about a federal judge who, in my view, had discarded any resemblance of judicial restraint and judgment in a public screed against Republicans, Donald Trump, and the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin judge represented the final death of irony: a jurist who failed to see the conflict in lashing out at what he called judicial bias in a political diatribe that would have made MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell blush.

His name is Lynn Adelman.

I was wrong in 2020. Irony is very much alive.

This week, a judge was randomly selected to preside at the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan. A critic of Trump’s immigration policies, Dugan is accused of obstructing federal law enforcement and facilitating the escape of an unlawful immigrant.

The judge assigned to the Dugan case? You guessed it. Lynn Adelman, 85.

A judge is expected to come to a case like this one without the burden of his own baggage.

Judge Adelman is carrying more baggage than Amtrak in Wisconsin.

The selection of Adelman shows how political commentary by judges undermines the legitimacy of the court system. Now, in a case that has divided the nation, the public will have to rely on a judge who discarded his own obligations as a judge to lash out at conservatives, Trump, and conservative jurists.

Adelman was a long-standing Democratic politician who tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to run for Congress during his 20-year tenure in the Wisconsin Senate. For critics, Adelman never set aside his political agenda after President Bill Clinton nominated him for the federal bench.

Adelman was sharply rebuked for ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to rule in favor of a Democratic challenge over voting identification rules just before a critical election.  Adelman blocked the law before the election despite a Supreme Court case issued years earlier in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), rejecting a similar challenge.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a stinging reversal, explaining to Adelman that in “our hierarchical judicial system, a district court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional just because he thinks (with or without the support of a political scientist) that the dissent was right and the majority wrong.”

Adelman, however, was apparently undeterred. In 2020, he wrote a law review article for Harvard Law & Policy Review, titled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”

Adelman attacked what he described as a “hard-right majority” that is “actively participating in undermining American democracy.” He also struck out at Trump as “an autocrat… disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party.”

Keep reading

Michigan Judge Fights Lipreader Evidence which might prove she Lied to Cops after Assaulting Shopkeeper, Alleging Hate Hoax

In a misconduct saga that’s dragged on longer than most felonies, a Michigan judge accused of faking an assault allegation and charge of racism against a small businessman, wants key evidence thrown out, including silent surveillance footage and expert lip readers that might prove she lied to police.

Judge Demetria Brue of Detroit’s 36th District Court is fighting misconduct charges from the state’s Judicial Tenure Commission over a 2019 dispute with a Mackinac Island bike shop owner that she accused of being a racist. The Commission has said they are upset about two things: 1) that the judges lied about the encounter, and 2) that they attempted to use their status as judges to evade prosecution, both of which are against the rules for judges.

Documents reveal that the significant delay has been caused by repeated motions filed by the two judges challenging the process and power of the commission to censure them.

The shop owner, Ira Green, operates a bike rental business on Michigan’s Mackinac Island, and rented to two judges who were sightseeing during a judicial conference being held on the island.

The JTC says Brue falsely claimed the shop owner assaulted her during what was supposed to be a $23 sightseeing trip along with another Michigan judge, Judge Debra Nance of Southfield, Michigan. The Detroit Judge Brue wanted half off the price of the bike rental because of a complaint about how the bike handled, and then grabbed the receipt after, allegedly, calling the shop owner racist.

Keep reading

White House Responds to Massachusetts Judge for “Protecting Criminal Illegal Immigrant Monsters” – Shows List of Murderers, Child Sex Offenders, and Drug Traffickers Judge is Protecting

The White House called out “far-left activist” Massachusetts Judge Brian Murphy in a press release Wednesday after he ruled the administration cannot deport violent criminal aliens. 

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Biden-appointed US District Judge Brian Murphy said the Trump Administration violated his court order when it deported seven illegal aliens to South Sudan. He said they failed to provide the aliens with “meaningful” due process since they were being sent to “third-party” countries.

Murphy even suggested Trump Admin officials may have committed contempt for enforcing immigration policy.

The individuals were sent to South Sudan because they’re so bad that even their home countries “would not take them back,” said Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons.

The seven illegal aliens from several different countries have been convicted of murder, sexual assault with children or incapacitated individuals, drug trafficking and other drug charges, and robbery. Most of them have convictions for multiple crimes.

In response to Murphy’s ruling, the White House issued the following news release on Wednesday, featuring the mugshots and rap sheets of the aliens:

It’s another attempt by a far-left activist judge to dictate the foreign policy of the United States — and protect the violent criminal illegal immigrants President Donald J. Trump and his administration have removed from our streets.

“We conducted a deportation flight from Texas to remove some of the most barbaric, violent individuals illegally in the United States. No country on earth wanted to accept them because their crimes are so uniquely monstrous and barbaric … Thanks to the courageous work of the State Department and ICE and the President’s national security team, we found a nation that was willing to accept custody of these vicious illegal aliens,” said Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

“As a career law enforcement officer and a career officer with ICE, I’ve been dealing with these recalcitrant countries for years — having to see repeated murders, sex offenders, violent criminals re-released back into the United States because their home countries would not take them back,” said Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons. “Under President Trump and under the leadership of Secretary Noem, we are now able to remove these public safety threats so they won’t prey on the community anymore.”

Keep reading