Tag: judges

Pizzas Sent to Judges’ Homes in Name of Judge’s Murdered Son

Hundreds of pizzas have been delivered to the homes of judges and their adult children amid increasing threats to the judiciary, including some sent in the name of a New Jersey federal judge’s murdered son.

Judge Esther Salas of the District of New Jersey described the incidents during an online event on Tuesday aimed at addressing the worsening threat landscape for federal judges, who have been subject to impeachment efforts and viral threats after ruling against President Donald Trump’s actions.

Salas has spearheaded national efforts to improve security for judges since her son, Daniel Anderl, was murdered in 2020 at their home by an attorney who posed as a delivery man.

“Now Daniel’s name is being weaponized to bring fear to judges and their children,” she said during the event. “You’re saying to those judges, you want to end up like Judge Salas? You want to end up like Judge Salas’ son? These are alarming developments.”

Salas said in an interview that at least 10 pizzas have been sent to federal judges and their relatives, with her son’s name listed as the sender. These deliveries have been made across the US , including in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Los Angeles, she said.

Many of the judges who have received pizzas and other food deliveries were handling legal challenges to Trump administration actions, Salas said. However, at least one of the judges who recently received pizzas in her son’s name wasn’t, indicating the threats are part of a broader attack against the judiciary, Salas said.

Keep reading

Jeb Boasberg’s “Criminal Contempt” Finding Makes Mockery of Separation of Powers

Jeb Boasberg, the chief judge of the D.C. District Court, sure has a knack for timing.

As the national conversation this week revolves around accusations the Trump administration is defying court orders by refusing to return an illegal El Salvadoran, er “Maryland father,” back to the U.S., Boasberg swooped in Wednesday afternoon with a lengthy opinion accusing the administration of “criminal contempt” for ignoring a set of orders he issued on March 15. (I first wrote about Boasberg’s contempt trap on March 19.)

In a series of hasty decisions that day, Boasberg, in another instance of fortuitous timing for foes of the Trump administration as I explained here, halted the deportation of illegal Venezuelans covered by the president’s Alien Enemies Act (AEA) proclamation, which Trump had been signed the night before. Boasberg issued two written temporary restraining orders—one prohibiting the deportation of five unnamed illegal Venezuelans represented in the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and another one turning the five plaintiffs into a class action suit protecting anyone in custody subject to the AEA.

And during an emergency hearing held that Saturday evening, Boasberg also issued what he describes as an “oral command” at around 6:45 p.m. to return planes carrying the newly-designated class of illegals. “[Any] plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States,” Boasberg told the Department of Justice attorney present at the hearing. “However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.”

The problem, as Boasberg appears to have known at that time, is that two planes carrying the AEA subjects had already departed and were out of U.S. territory. His “oral command” was impossible to obey or to enforce. (Complicating matters further is Boasberg did not include the “oral command” in his written order published about 40 minutes later.)

The alleged defiance of the two written orders—which were both vacated on April 7 by the Supreme Court after a majority concluded Boasberg’s courtroom was the wrong jurisdiction and the ACLU sought the wrong type of relief—and his “oral command” represent the basis of Boasberg’s contempt allegations. And Boasberg appears prepared to name a court-appointed attorney if the Trump DOJ refuses to bring charges against the yet-unidentified officials he accuses of contempt.

Keep reading

Judge Rules School Can Ban ‘XX’ Protests Over Males in Girls’ Sports

The Bow School District was acting within its authority to kick two soccer dads out of a girls game for wearing pink “XX” wristbands as a silent protest against biological males playing on girls’ teams, a federal judge ruled Monday.

But one of the dads, Anthony Foote, told NHJournal he plans to keep fighting for what he sees as the rights of women and girls.

“What was our offense? Supporting girls’ sports and defending biological reality?” Foote said. “This ruling is a slap in the face to every parent who believes schools should be a place of fairness, not political indoctrination. The judge openly admitted that Pride flags are allowed because they promote ‘inclusion,’ but wristbands defending women’s sports are banned because they might ‘offend’ someone. That’s viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple — and it’s unconstitutional.”

United States District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe ruled against Foote, Kyle Fellers, Eldon Rash, and Nicole Foote in a 45-page order denying their preliminary injunction against SAU 67. The parents are being represented by the Institute for Free Speech, a legal nonprofit that promotes parents’ rights. Del Kolde, the senior attorney, said he is still considering his next steps in this case.

“We strongly disagree with the Court’s opinion issued today denying our request for a preliminary injunction. This was adult speech in a limited public forum, which enjoys greater First Amendment protection than student speech in the classroom. Bow School District officials were obviously discriminating based on viewpoint because they perceived the XX wristbands to be ‘trans-exclusionary.’ We are still evaluating our options for next steps,” Kolde said.

The crux of McAuliffe’s ruling is that while Fellers, Foote, and the others acted within their First Amendment rights to protest, venues like school athletic events are considered “limited public forums” and school officials acted within their legal authority to restrict what the parents said and did.

“The question then becomes whether the School District can manage its athletic events and its athletic fields and facilities — that is, its limited public forum — in a manner that protects its students from adult speech that can reasonably be seen to target a specific student participating in the event (as well as other similar gender-identifying students) by invited adult spectators, when that speech demeans, harasses, intimidates, and bullies. The answer is straightforward: Of course it can. Indeed, school authorities are obligated to do so,” McAuliffe wrote.

Keep reading

Trump’s Department of Justice Tells Judge They’re No Longer Amused Playing Her Silly Games

The Department of Justice’s response to a request by the attorneys representing El Salvadoran national Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia for a “show cause” holding the government in contempt didn’t go exactly according to the script the plaintiffs had in mind. It served notice on Obama-appointed federal judge Paula Xinis that she was mistaken if she thought the Department of Justice or the White House were shaking in their boots. It is the philosophical follow-up to the last response the DOJ sent to the judge; see Trump Admin Respectfully Tells Judge Xinis to Pound Sand in Abrego Garcia Case – RedState.

This case started when Abrego Garcia was picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in suburban Maryland and given a free plane trip to an anti-terrorism prison in El Salvador. What would have been an unremarkable deportation of an illegal immigrant with alleged gang ties and an active removal order became more complicated when it was discovered that the removal order said he couldn’t be removed to El Salvador because the bad blood between his gang, MS-13, and another gang might make him a target. Since then, the administration has been locked in a battle of will with a federal judge who seems hellbent on bringing an illegal immigrant back to the US so she can demonstrate her power.

The government summarizes the demands made by the plaintiffs this way: “In response, Plaintiffs moved for three categories of relief: (1) an order superintending and micromanaging Defendants’ foreign relations with the independent, sovereign nation of El Salvador, (2) an order allowing expedited discovery and converting Tuesday’s hearing into an evidentiary hearing, and (3) an order to show cause for why Defendants should not be held in contempt. 

Keep reading

Pennsylvania Judge Convicted of Shooting Sleeping Boyfriend in Head

A Pennsylvania judge was convicted of shooting her sleeping boyfriend in the head.

Sonya McKnight, a magisterial judge in Dauphin County, shot her sleeping boyfriend in the temple last February after the victim, Michael McCoy tried to end their relationship and told her to move out.

McCoy, who miraculously survived but is now blind in one eye, told police he woke up “with massive head pain” and couldn’t see. McKnight tried to convince him that he shot himself.

McKnight was convicted of attempted murder and aggravated assault on Wednesday.

This wasn’t the first time McKnight shot a romantic partner. She reportedly shot her ex-husband in the groin after an argument over furniture. She wasn’t charged for that shooting because she said she was acting in self-defense.

NBC News reported:

A Pennsylvania judge was convicted Wednesday of attempted murder and other counts for shooting her boyfriend in the head as he slept last year, officials said.

A jury convicted Sonya McKnight, a magisterial judge in Dauphin County, on one count each of attempted murder and aggravated assault, the Cumberland County District Attorney’s Office said.

“There were two people in that house, and only two people in that house,” District Attorney Sean McCormack told reporters after the verdict. “And one of them, the one who was shot, said he did not shoot himself.”

The shooting happened Feb. 10, 2024, at a home in Harrisburg after the victim, Michael McCoy, tried to end his one-year relationship with McKnight, authorities said in a probable cause statement.

McCoy told detectives that he had been asleep for about an hour or two when he awoke “with massive head pain” and could not see, police have said in an affidavit.

Keep reading

House Passes Rep. Darrell Issa’s No Rogue Rulings Act to Limit Rogue Activist District Court Judges – One Republican Joins Democrats and Votes “No”

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) No Rogue Rulings Act, which will place restrictions on federal District Court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.

One Republican, Rep. Mike Turner from Ohio, voted to empower activist judges.

The new law will stop a single district court judge, one out of 677 across the nation, from dictating policy for the entire country, as we’ve seen countless times from Trump-hating activist judges.

This comes after the Supreme Court vacated Judge James Boasberg’s orders barring the Trump Administration’s removals of Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. They ruled that Boasberg, as a single district court judge, lacked jurisdiction to dictate the President’s policy.

Keep reading

‘Not a cult’: Holy war erupts as judge bans mom from taking daughter to Christian church

A mother whose constitutional rights were violated by a Maine judge hearing a custody dispute has taken the fight to the state Supreme Court.

The case involves a radical ruling from Jennifer Nofsinger, a judge who heard a custody case, who ordered that the mother was not allowed to take her 11-year-old daughter to an evangelical Christian church.

That was based on “objections” from the child’s father, who like the mother and daughter was not identified in the report from Liberty Counsel, which is working on the case.

Chairman Mat Staver said, “Calvary Chapel is not a cult. This custody order banning a mother from taking her child to a Christian church because of its biblical teachings regarding marriage and human sexuality violates the First Amendment. The custody order cannot prohibit the mother from taking her daughter to church. The implications of this order pose a serious threat to religious freedom.”

The judge granted the father, who objects to the Christian teachings of the church, “the sole right to govern the girl’s religious activities.”

The high court is being asked to reverse the “unlawful custody order” and to restore the mother’s First Amendment right to pass on her religious beliefs

The judge adopted the ideology of a leftist teacher from California who was hired by the father. That teacher, Janja Lalich, told the judge “that cults usually have a charismatic, authoritarian leader who teach about a ‘transcendent belief system’ that offers answers, and ‘promises some sort of salvation.’ She further testified that she had ‘studied’ Calvary Chapel Church and found that the church’s pastor was a ‘charismatic’ speaker, spoke ‘authoritatively’ in his messages, and that he asserted his messages were objective truth.,” Liberty Counsel reported.

That meant, Lalich claimed, the church was “cultic.”

Keep reading

North Carolina Supreme Court Halts Previous Order Requiring Verification of 65,000 Ballots in Hotly Contested Judicial Race

The North Carolina Supreme Court halted a previous order from the state appeals court requiring the verification of 65,000 questionable ballots.

This case has been bouncing around between state and federal courts.

Last week the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that approximately 65,000 ballots — cast by voters with incomplete registration information, missing photo identification, or submitted by individuals who have never lived in North Carolina — may be invalid under state and federal election law.

The 2-1 decision was authored by Judges John Tyson and Fred Gore, both registered Republicans. Judge Tobias Hampson, a Democrat, dissented.

The court ordered election officials across the state’s 100 counties to notify affected voters, giving them 15 business days to prove they are legally eligible to vote, or their ballots could be tossed out, handing conservatives a chance to reclaim a critical seat on the state’s highest court.

In January, the North Carolina Supreme Court in a 5-1 vote blocked the state from certifying Democrat incumbent justice Allison Riggs as the winner of the race as her GOP opponent, Jefferson Griffin, challenges the election.

As previously reported, North Carolina’s Supreme Court race headed for a recount due to a close final tally as the Democrat pulled ahead two weeks after Election Day.

Democrat incumbent Sarah Riggs closed the race with 2,770,818 votes to GOP challenger Jefferson Griffin’s 2,770,193 votes.

The race went to a recount since the vote difference is fewer than 10,000 votes.

Republican Griffin was leading the race until all of a sudden Democrat Riggs overcame her opponent weeks after the election.

President Trump won North Carolina by more than 3 percent over Kamala Harris in the 2024 election but somehow the Democrats took many down ballot races.

The Democrat incumbent is now ahead by 600 votes after late votes came in for the North Carolina Supreme Court seat.

Keep reading

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who led 2020 election probe agrees to surrender law license

A former Wisconsin state Supreme Court justice who spread election conspiracies and led an investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2020 loss in the swing state agreed Monday to surrender his law license to settle multiple misconduct violations.

The state Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a 10-count complaint in November against Michael Gableman, accusing him of misconduct during the probe. The state Supreme Court ultimately could revoke Gableman’s law license, although the court rarely administers such a harsh punishment against wayward attorneys.

The OLR and Gableman filed a stipulation with the Supreme Court on Monday in which they agreed an appropriate sanction would be suspending Gableman’s license for three years. A referee overseeing the case and the Supreme Court must approve the agreement before it can take effect.

Gableman acknowledged in the filing that the complaint provides “an adequate factual basis” and that he couldn’t successfully defend himself against the allegations.

Keep reading

Rep. Andy Biggs Files Bold Resolution to Remove Deep State Judge James Boasberg Without 2/3 Senate Vote

Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) has filed a resolution to remove U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg for failing to uphold the Constitution’s “good behavior” clause—without requiring the traditional two-thirds Senate vote.

The resolution, submitted in the House of Representatives, alleges Judge Boasberg—currently Chief Judge of the powerful United States District Court for the District of Columbia—knowingly abused his position to interfere with the constitutional authority of President Donald Trump.

The resolution declares Judge Boasberg’s conduct a breach of constitutional order, particularly his unlawful meddling in President Trump’s lawful directive to deport members of Venezuela’s notorious Tren de Aragua gang under the Alien Enemies Act.

On March 15, 2025, Trump issued a proclamation invoking the 1798 law to expel these violent foreign operatives, citing threats to public safety and national security.

Instead of supporting the executive branch’s effort to secure the homeland, Boasberg allegedly stepped in to block the deportations—effectively undermining a sitting president’s constitutional authority to defend America from foreign enemies.

The article of removal also raises grave concerns about Boasberg’s prior conduct as a FISA court judge, suggesting that he misused his discretion and failed to disclose payments from outside sources. These actions, Biggs asserts, further prove Boasberg is unfit to serve on the bench.

“James E. Boasberg knowingly extended beyond the bounds of power of his office and unjustly interfered in the execution of foreign policy and national security for partisan purposes of halting the implementation of the President’s foreign policy and for political gain,” according to the resolution.

Furthermore, James E. Boasberg has failed to disclose payments received from non-federal source and abused his discretion during his term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”

Now, Rep. Biggs seeks to bypass the cumbersome impeachment process—typically requiring a two-thirds Senate vote—by invoking Congress’s inherent authority under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.

It’s a direct shot across the bow at activist judges who think they can trample the will of the American people and the duly-elected President, Donald Trump.

Keep reading