Tag: judges

Federal Judge Blocks Voter-Approved Oregon Law Requiring Marijuana Businesses To Have Labor Peace Agreements With Workers

A federal judge has struck down a voter-approved Oregon law that required licensed marijuana businesses enter into labor peace agreements with workers and mandated that employers remain neutral in discussions around unionization.

About three months after two marijuana businesses—Bubble’s Hash and Ascend Dispensary—filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon challenging the implementation of Measure 119, Judge Michael Simon on Tuesday ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, agreeing that the law unconstitutionally restricts free speech and violates the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the now defunct law, a marijuana businesses that was unable to provide proof of a labor peace agreement could have been subject a denial or revocation of their license.

The lawsuit named Gov. Tina Kotek (D), Attorney General Dan Rayfield (D) and Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission’s (OLCC) Dennis Doherty and Craig Prins as defendants.

In the order on Tuesday, the judge walked through various components of the legal arguments from both sides and ultimately agreed that the Oregon law is preempted by the NLRA, which is meant to provide protections for workers who want to unionize—but specifically preserves the right for “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate in labor disputes.”

By mandating neutrality from employers in labor discussions, that constitutes a violation of the NLRA, the judge ruled.

“Measure 119 does not distinguish between permissible employer speech and threatening or coercive speech,” Simon said. “Measure 119 is not limited to restricting only threatening, coercive, false, or misleading speech, but instead prohibits all speech by employers that is not ‘neutral’ toward unionization.”

On the question of whether the law violates First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution, the cannabis companies argued that “Measure 119 is a content-based restriction on speech that is subject to strict scrutiny, and that Defendants fail to provide a compelling government interest requiring this restriction.”

Keep reading

Obama Judge Says to Hell with the Supreme Court, Orders Trump DOJ to Turn Over Docs Related to Decision to Revoke ‘Protected Status’ for Hundreds of Thousands of Migrants

US District Court Judge Edward Chen, an Obama appointee, said to hell with the Supreme Court and still ordered the Trump DOJ to turn over documents related to its decision to revoke protected status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants.

Judge Chen said the Supreme Court’s ruling today is not a factor and insisted on a deadline tonight for the Trump DOJ to turn over the documents.

The US Supreme Court on Monday lifted a lower court’s block on President Trump’s order to revoke ‘protected status’ for hundreds of thousands of migrants living in the US.

The high court allowed the Trump Administration to strip approximately 350,000 Venezuelans currently in the US of their ‘protected status.’

Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone Supreme Court justice to dissent.

In March, San Francisco-based Judge Edward Chen issued a stay on Trump’s order to revoke Temporary Restricted Status (TPS) for Venezuelans who arrived to the US on Biden’s parole program.

Judge Chen, temporarily paused Trump’s plans to end Biden’s TPS program.

The DOJ argued that the parole programs were discretionary and it is up to the government to decide when it can cut the program.

It was previously reported that President Trump was set to strip the status of 532,000 migrants living in the United States who were flown in on Joe Biden’s parole program.

Recall that Joe Biden brought in more than half a million migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela on his CHNV program.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Oral Argument In Nationwide Injunction Case Illustrates Courts’ Coup Against Trump

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday in three cases concerning challenges to President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. The question before the high court was not, however, the constitutionality of the EO, but rather whether the lower courts had authority to issue injunctions on a nationwide basis to bar implementation of an EO. You would be hard pressed to know that, though, from the justices’ questions — the overwhelming number of which focused instead on how to stop Trump.

“So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Justice Sotomayor declared early in the argument, referring to the Trump Administration’s EO on birthright citizenship. “And you are claiming that not just the Supreme Court — that both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive from — universally from violating that holding — those holdings by this Court,” Justice Sotomayor further charged. “[W]hy should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action,” the justice pushed, when a nationwide injunction could immediately remedy the executive branch’s unlawful action.

Justice Kagan likewise framed the question for the Court as how to promptly halt the implementation of a president’s EO which is “dead wrong” on the law. “[E]very court has ruled against you” on the birthright citizenship question, she intoned to Solicitor General D. John Sauer. 

“If one thinks — and, you know, look, there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions, but I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that it’s quite clear that the EO is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame on your set of rules without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?” Justice Kagan further questioned the Trump Administration.

Those excerpts were but a few exchanges during the nearly three-hour hearing, with Justices Sotomayor and Kagan monopolizing much of last week’s oral argument with their questions focused solely on a solution: In effect, how do the courts expeditiously stop Trump, other than with a nationwide injunction? In positing this question, Justice Kagan even acknowledged “there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions . . . ”

From a legal perspective, the two liberal justices have it entirely backwards: The legal question for the justices was not how do courts accomplish their goal of stopping Trump without nationwide injunctions, but rather, do courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions?

Keep reading

Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan Launches Fundraiser After Being Charged With Aiding Illegal Alien Evade Arrest

The left-wing Milwaukee judge charged with helping an illegal alien evade arrest has launched a fundraising site as she tries to push back against the charges.

Earlier this week, a federal grand jury indicted Dugan for obstructing an ICE arrest last month.

Seemingly unable to fund her own legal costs, Dugan has set up a website asking supporters for donations to help fund a “full and aggressive defense.”

Her website states:

The Hannah Dugan Legal Defense Fund has been launched, and is aimed at raising resources to help Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan mount a vigorous defense against  the unprecedented attack on the independent judiciary by the federal government.

The fund, established consistent with Wisconsin’  Code of Judicial Conduct and Code of Ethics for Public Officials and Employees, will help raise the significant resources needed to present an appropriate defense to this extraordinary attack on Wisconsin’s  judicial branch of government.

Judge Dugan intends to return to the bench to which she was elected.  Therefore, the fund’s structure provides for stringent restrictions on contributions and strives for  consistency with state law regarding  permissible gifts.

Because the criminal charges are  unique to a member of the judiciary, and the prosecution poses a host of new questions of law, it will be critical for Judge Dugan to have the significant resources needed to defend herself and the integrity of an independent judiciary.

According to the FBI, Dugan became angry when she learned that ICE agents were waiting outside of her courtroom last week to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien involved in a domestic abuse case she was overseeing.

She allegedly directed Flores-Ruiz to leave the courthouse through a private jury door to evade arrest.

FBI Director Kash Patel said she had “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested at her courthouse.”

Keep reading

Report: Judge Allows Iowa to Keep Restricting Gender Identity Teaching in Schools

A federal judge said Thursday that Iowa can continue to restrict teaching on gender identity and sexual orientation in elementary schools, per a report.

The restrictions affect children through sixth grade but the state must permit non-mandatory programs related to those issues, according to the Associated Press (AP). The outlet said it was a split decision by U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher.

He recently temporarily blocked part of the law that would bar school libraries from keeping books on their shelves that depict sexual acts. In response, the state requested the decision be overturned.

The AP article continued:

Republican majorities in the Iowa House and Senate passed the law in 2023, intending to reinforce what they consider to be age-appropriate education in kindergarten through 12th grades. It’s been a back-and-forth battle in the courts in the two years since. The provisions of the law that are being challenged were temporarily blocked by Locher in December 2023, just before they became enforceable. That decision was overturned in August by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning the law has been enforceable for most of the current school year.

Locher’s recent split decision partially sided with an LGBTQ advocacy group who, along with some educators and students, sued Iowa over the issue.

Keep reading

Fugitive Capital Murder Suspect Released by Judge Spotlights Need for Texas Bond Reform

Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a total reward of $30,000 for information leading to the arrest of a fugitive capital murder suspect. The suspect was released by a judge in Kaufman County on bond. Abbott says the case highlights the need for passage of the bond reform bill currently before the Texas Legislature.

“​Trevor McEuen is exactly why Texas must fix its broken and deadly bail system,” said Governor Abbott. “A violent criminal like McEuen charged with capital murder should never be released on our streets.”

Abbott posted the $30,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Trevor McEuen, a capital murder suspect who fled after being released on bond by 422nd District Court Judge Shelton TW Gibbs IV (Republican) after he allegedly shot and killed Aaron Martinez, 35, in 2023. On May 5, McEuen failed to show up for court, cut off his ankle monitor, and absoncded from justice.

In addition to the capital murder charge, McEuen also faces four counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

The governor added $10,000 to the previously offered $20,000 rewards offered by the Kaufman County Crime Stoppers and Sheriff’s Office, Abbott’s office reported. This brings the total reward to $30,000.

Abbott stressed that cases like this hightly the reason why “I made bail reform an emergency item that must pass this legislative session.

In a bipartisan vote, the Texas Senate passed SJR 5 by a tally of 28-2. The bill is spearheaded by State Senator Joan Huffman (R-TX). The bill would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow judges to deny bail to defendants charged with serious violent crimes, including murder, aggravated kidnapping, robbery or assault with a weapon.

In a highly partisan political stunt, Texas House Democrats vowed to block the bill’s passage following the passage of school vouchers in April, Fox 26 journalist Greg Groogan reported.

Keep reading

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