Tag: judges

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

Democrat Judge Indicted in Ballot Harvesting Scheme, Public Officials Arrested

The Texas Attorney General’s office indicted a Democrat county judge and arrested several public officials, accusing them of scamming voters by engaging in an illegal vote ballot harvesting scheme.

A former Frio County elections administrator, a Frio County vote harvester, two Pearsall city council members, and a Pearsall school board member were all arrested last week on charges of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence and vote harvesting, with Frio County Judge Rochelle Camacho also facing three counts of vote harvesting, while her “processing” is postponed for a later date.

“The people of Texas deserve fair and honest elections, not backroom deals and political insiders rigging the system,” reads a statement from Texas AG Ken Paxton.

The AG’s office explained the arrests stem from cooperation with Frio County District Attorney Audrey Louis and a probe by its Criminal Investigation Division, which looked “into credible allegations of vote harvesting.”

“On May 1, 2025, Frio County District Attorney Audrey Louis and the Election Integrity Unit of the Office of the Attorney General presented a criminal vote harvesting case to a grand jury in Frio County,” Paxton’s office wrote.

Here’s a list of the indicted and arrested public officials:

  • Frio County Judge, Rochelle Camacho: 3 counts of Vote Harvesting
  • Former Frio County Elections Administrator, Carlos Segura: 1 count of Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence
  • Pearsall City Council, Ramiro Trevino: 1 count of Vote Harvesting
  • Pearsall City Council, Racheal Garza: 1 count of Vote Harvesting
  • Pearsall ISD Trustee, Adriann Ramirez: 3 counts of Vote Harvesting
  • Alleged Frio County Vote Harvester, Rosa Rodriguez: 2 counts of Vote Harvesting

Keep reading

Durbin calls on DOJ to investigate anonymous pizza deliveries to judges’ homes

The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee has called on the Department of Justice and the FBI to “immediately investigate” a string of anonymous pizza deliveries sent to judges’ homes.

In the event that the DOJ and the FBI have already initiated investigations, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also asked Attorney General Pam Bondi and Kash Patel for an update on those efforts. 

“In recent months, federal judges and their relatives have received anonymous deliveries to their homes,” Durbin wrote in a letter to Bondi and Patel on Tuesday. “These deliveries are threats intended to show that those seeking to intimidate the targeted judge know the judge’s address or their family members’ addresses. The targeted individuals reportedly include Supreme Court justices, judges handling legal cases involving the Administration, and the children of judges. Some of these deliveries were made using the name of Judge Esther Salas’s son, Daniel Anderl, who was murdered at the family’s home by a former litigant who posed as a deliveryman.”

Keep reading

Judge Blocks Department Of Education From Canceling COVID-Related School Aid

A federal judge on May 6 blocked the U.S. Department of Education from canceling more than $1 billion in funding that was allocated to help address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary schools and students.

U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos entered a preliminary injunction that prohibits the Department of Education from enforcing its recission of extensions for the funding that had been granted in January by the prior administration.

Education officials also cannot modify the previously-approved extensions without giving the states at least 14 days notice, the judge said.

Congress allocated funds to states to distribute to schools to address problems stemming from the pandemic. The more than $276 billion was distributed to states through an education stabilization fund. Under laws passed by Congress, states had until Sept. 30, 2024, to designate the money, and until Jan. 28, 2025, to access funds to achieve the designations.

States could ask for extensions for the latter deadline, and a number did so. The Department of Education granted extensions to at least 16 states, and Washington, enabling them to access the money through March 2026. 

Education Secretary Linda McMahon informed the states in March that the extensions were being rescinded because additional review had determined they were “not justified” in part because the pandemic is over, although the states could reapply for extensions.

Keep reading

OUTRAGEOUS: Lawless Biden Judge Orders Trump Administration to Admit Roughly 12,000 Potentially Dangerous ‘Refugees’ into America

Another black-robed tyrant has usurped President Trump’s lawful immigration authorities in a fit of anger and arrogance.

As the Associated Press reported, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a Biden judge from Seattle, on Monday ordered the Trump administration to admit around 12,000 refugees into America under a court order partially barring the president’s attempts to suspend the nation’s refugee admissions program. At the same time, he ignored the possibility that these refugees could pose a threat to America.

“This Court will not entertain the Government’s result-oriented rewriting of a judicial order that clearly says what it says,” Whitehead wrote Monday. “The Government is free, of course, to seek further clarification from the Ninth Circuit.”

“But the Government is not free to disobey statutory and constitutional law — and the direct orders of this Court and the Ninth Circuit — while it seeks such clarification,” he added.

This means that American lives are now potentially in danger thanks to this rogue judge’s ruling.

The Gateway Pundit reported back in February that Whitehead blocked Trump’s attempts to stop the federal refugee resettlement program, which has been abused for years by Democrat administrations and refugees themselves.

In his ruling, Whitehead said that Trump’s actions were an “effective nullification of congressional will” in setting up the nation’s refugee admissions program.

“The president has substantial discretion … to suspend refugee admissions,” Whitehead stated. “But that authority is not limitless.”

In March, a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Whitehead’s February order that would have forced the Trump Administration to restart refugee admissions. Trump was allowed to continue with his pause on all new refugee admissions.

The administration was still required to process the approval of refugees before January 20. The ruling noted that Trump’s executive order had nothing to do with those refugees.

Keep reading