Tag: judges

Biden Judge Blocks ICE From Arresting Protestors or Using Crowd Dispersal Tools in Minnesota

A federal judge on Friday issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and blocked ICE from arresting so-called peaceful protestors.

US District Judge Katherine Menendez, a Biden appointee, also blocked ICE agents from deploying non-lethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against protestors.

Six individuals sued The DHS, DHS Chief Kristi Noem and other federal agencies to restrict ICE’s tactics.

Approximately 3,000 federal agents have descended on Minnesota to arrest criminal illegal aliens.

Judge Menendez also ruled that protestors may ‘safely’ follow ICE vehicles.

The judge ruled:

Covered Federal Agents are hereby enjoined from:

a. Retaliating against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge.

b. Arresting or detaining persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct and absent a showing of probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime or is obstructing or interfering with the activities of Covered Federal Officers.

c. Using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct.

d. Stopping or detaining drivers and passengers in vehicles where there is no reasonable articulable suspicion that they are forcibly obstructing or interfering with Covered Federal Agents, or otherwise violating 18 U.S.C. § 111. The act of safely following Covered Federal Agents at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop.

Keep reading

ACTIVIST JUDGE STRIKES AGAIN: Clinton-Appointed Judge Who Claimed Trump “Likely Committed Crimes” in Challenging 2020 Elections Now Blocks DOJ’s Voter Data Request — Calls It “Unprecedented and Illegal”

Another day, another radical ruling from the federal bench.

Federal District Judge David O. Carter, the same Clinton-appointed judge who previously made headlines by claiming President Trump “likely committed crimes” during the 2020 election challenges, has now moved to block the Department of Justice from securing election integrity in California.

On Thursday, Judge Carter issued a scathing order dismissing the DOJ’s lawsuit against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and the State of California, effectively shielding the state’s voter rolls from federal scrutiny.

Judge Carter granted all of their motions to dismiss, ruling that the DOJ’s request violated the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). He went so far as to accuse the Executive Branch of trying to “usurp the authority over elections.”

The DOJ had sued the Golden State to obtain unredacted voting records to ensure compliance with federal election laws, but Carter has slammed the door shut, calling the government’s request “unprecedented and illegal.”

The 14 states that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has sued for refusing to provide their full, statewide voter registration files are: 

  • California
  • Delaware
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • New Hampshire
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • Vermont
  • Washington

The Department of Justice, under Trump administration, launched this legal battle to enforce “voter roll maintenance enforcement and compliance”.

The goal was clear: to investigate potential non-citizen voting and ensure that California’s voter lists are accurate and up to date. The DOJ requested standard data found in voter files, including names, voting history, and Social Security information, to verify eligibility.

Keep reading

Judge’s Conduct in “We Build the Wall” Case Draws Scrutiny After Timothy Shea Conviction – Tim’s Family Speaks Out

The federal prosecution of Timothy Shea in the “We Build the Wall” case continues to raise serious questions about judicial conduct, jury integrity, defense representation, and sentencing fairness following Shea’s 2023 conviction in the Southern District of New York.

Shea was indicted in August 2020 alongside Stephen Bannon, Brian Kolfage, and Andrew Badolato in connection with the nonprofit organization that raised private funds to construct sections of a border wall. Shea was listed fourth on the indictment and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. The case was presided over by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres.

In January 2021, then-President Donald Trump pardoned Bannon, effectively removing him from federal prosecution. Shea, a Colorado resident who lives in Castle Rock with his wife of 20 years and their three children, ultimately became the only defendant from the original indictment to face trial and incarceration.

Mistrial and Concerns Over Judicial Impartiality

Shea’s first trial in 2022 ended in a mistrial after a week of testimony and more than a week of jury deliberations. Immediately after the jury was dismissed, Judge Torres stated from the bench that she was available the following week to retry the case.

Defense attorneys viewed the remark as improper, noting that the decision to retry a case rests solely with prosecutors, not the court. The comment, they argued, suggested a predisposition toward continuing the prosecution rather than maintaining judicial neutrality.

Several months later, Shea was retried and convicted. What followed intensified concerns about the integrity of the proceedings.

Keep reading

Biden Judge Blocks President Trump’s $10 Billion Welfare Funding Freeze in Five Blue States

A federal judge on Friday blocked President Trump’s $10 billion welfare funding freeze in five blue states.

US District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and blocked Trump’s halt on funding for childcare and social services.

On Tuesday, President Trump sent letters to California, Colorado, New York, Minnesota and Illinois to inform them of the federal cuts.

Trump made the cuts to the welfare programs due to widespread fraud in the state’s programs.

The five states were given a January 20 deadline.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the other Democrat attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration and asked the judge for an emergency order.

Judge Subramanian halted Trump’s welfare freeze for two weeks as both sides submit arguments to the court.

Politico reported:

A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from freezing $10 billion in welfare funds earmarked for five blue states.

In response to a request from the states for an emergency injunction, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian ordered that the money from three programs — Child Care Development Fund, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and Social Services Block Grants — must continue to flow to the states.

His decision, which expires in two weeks, was meant to give the two sides time to submit more extensive legal arguments on whether the cuts should be allowed or the ban kept in place, the judge wrote.

Earlier in the week, California, Colorado, Illinois, New York and Minnesota received letters from the federal Department of Health and Human Services notifying them of the cuts. California is in line to receive about half of the $10 billion in targeted funding.

The attempt to withhold the funds was in response to what the Trump Administration has alleged without evidence is widespread fraud and waste in the states’ welfare programs. Along with the cuts, administration officials are also requesting reams of information about how states administer the programs in an effort to bolster the claims of malfeasance and ineptitude.

Keep reading

YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS UP: 92-Year-Old Clinton Judge Who Denied Trump’s Hush-Money Removal to Federal Court and Blocked Venezuelan Gang Deportations Now Assigned to Preside Over Maduro Case in New York

In the latest episode of the Deep State circus that’s turned our justice system into a bad joke, a 92-year-old federal judge appointed by none other than Bill Clinton back in the ’90s has been assigned to oversee the high-profile case against Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro in New York.

This is the same judge who has a track record of rulings that seem tailor-made to thwart President Trump’s agenda and protect left-wing interests.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who took senior status way back in 2011, but somehow keeps popping up in major cases.

He has issued several controversial rulings adverse to Donald Trump and his administration. These rulings have spanned Trump’s time as a private citizen, his first presidency, and his current second term.

Keep reading

Trump judges blast peers for letting California impose ‘state-sanctioned groupthink’ in medicine

The federal government’s refusal to register a supposedly offensive trademark for the Asian-American rock band The Slants prompted the Supreme Court to issue a sweeping precedent that protected First Amendment rights from the government-speech doctrine.

Now eight years later, that ruling is center stage again as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended the doctrine that steamrolls individual speech under the banner of government speech to validate California medical training. And some dissenting judges nominated by President Donald Trump on that court are raising deep concerns.

A majority of the full appeals court, whose jurisdiction stretches from the Pacific to the Rockies, refused to rehear a challenge to California’s imposition of “implicit bias” training in continuing medical education, which doctors must receive to keep their licenses, leaving intact a three-judge panel’s ruling that deemed the private courses to be government speech.

The 9th Circuit has become less liberal with Trump’s 11 nominees but Democrat nominees still dominate the largest federal appeals court, which has 29 active judges. The rehearing denial doesn’t specify the vote count.

“A proper analysis—as prescribed by the Supreme Court, our own court’s prior cases, and our sister circuits—reveals that California’s prior CME regulations did not meaningfully express or shape messages through CME courses” before the Golden State made implicit-bias training a statutory requirement in 2019, the first dissent from refusal to rehear said.

Physicians in CME courses would also be “unlikely to perceive the instructor’s message as the government’s” and the Medical Board of California’s “regulations otherwise exert very little control over CME instructors’ messages,” Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote.

He was joined by Judges Patrick Bumatay and Eric Tung, the latter only confirmed in November.

The Trump appointees blasted the “improperly anemic governmental speech analysis” by the panel, which relied on the “mere scope of California’s regulatory scheme” to conclude that “CME attendees perceive instructors as relaying the government’s views,” at odds with the “well-pleaded allegations” of the challengers.

Tung also wrote a dissent, joined by VanDyke and Bumatay, that scolded the panel for rebranding private instructors as government agents and sidestepping the scientific debate over the validity of implicit bias, which the California law asserts with no evidence is responsible for healthcare “outcome disparities” by race and sex.

Keep reading

Judge Who Helped Illegal Migrant Escape ICE Resigns

A Wisconsin judge who helped an illegal alien escape from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials announced she would be resigning from her position in response to “unprecedented federal legal proceedings” brought against her.

Matt Smith, the political director with WISN 12 News, shared a letter addressed to Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) from Milwaukee Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan on X. In her letter, Dugan expressed that the citizens of Wisconsin “deserve to start the year with a judge on the bench in Milwaukee County Branch 31.”

“As you know, I am the subject of unprecedented federal legal proceedings, which are far from concluded but which present immense and complex challenges that threaten the independence of our judiciary,” Dugan said. “I am pursuing this fight for myself and for our independent judiciary. However, the Wisconsin citizens that I cherish deserve to start the year with a judge on the bench in Milwaukee County Branch 31 rather than have the fate of that Court rest in a partisan fight in the state legislature.”

Dugan continued on to state that it was “with a heavy heart” that she was submitting “this letter of resignation.”

“My faith in God and in our legal system leads me to trust that in the long run justice will be served for our independent judiciary and for me,” Dugan added.

Keep reading

Judge Blocks White House’s Attempt To Defund Consumer Watchdog Agency

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the White House cannot lapse its funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a watchdog that has long drawn the ire of congressional Republicans.

In a ruling, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote that the CFPB should continue to receive its funding from the Federal Reserve despite the central bank operating at a loss. The Trump administration has argued that the CFPB should be dissolved because how it gets its funds is invalid.

The CFPB has largely been inoperable since President Donald Trump was sworn into office nearly a year ago. Its employees are mostly forbidden from doing any work, and most of the bureau’s operations this year have been to unwind the work it did under President Joe Biden and even under Trump’s first term.

The head of the White House’s budget office, Russell Vought, is currently the acting head of the CFPB. The White House earlier this year issued a “reduction in force” for the CFPB, which would have furloughed or laid off much of the bureau.

In November, the Trump administration’s attorneys said in a court filing that a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo had concluded there were no legally available funds at the Federal Reserve for the CFPB to request.

The memo, which was issued by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, stated that “if the Federal Reserve has no profits, it cannot transfer money to the CFPB.”

“Because the only lawful source of funding from the Federal Reserve has dried up,” the memo added, “the proper method for obtaining additional funds is to request them from Congress pursuant to the Appropriations Clause, not to draw funds from the Federal Reserve without a congressional appropriation.”

The White House has also said that the CFPB cannot lawfully draw funds to fund its operations from the Fed if the Fed does not have “combined earnings” to allocate to the bureau. Without additional funds, the CFPB is expected to deplete its operating funds completely in January.

But in her order, Jackson wrote that the government “manufactured” arguments to allow for a lapse in funding for the CFPB.

Keep reading

Judge Orders Release of Secret Tyler Robinson Hearing in Charlie Kirk Assassination Case, Transparency Wins Over Defense Objections

A Utah judge has ruled that transcripts and audio from a previously sealed hearing in the high-profile assassination case of conservative icon Charlie Kirk will be made public, albeit with redactions.

Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graf announced during a Monday video hearing that a redacted transcript of an October 24 closed-door session will be released by the end of the following day, with audio potentially released within two weeks.

The decision comes amid intense scrutiny of the case against 22-year-old Tyler James Robinson, who is accused of fatally shooting Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, during a speaking event at Utah Valley University on September 10.

Kirk was struck by a single bullet to the neck while addressing thousands on campus as part of his “American Comeback Tour.” He leaves behind his wife, Erika Kirk, and two young children.

Robinson faces seven felony charges, including aggravated murder, a capital offense in Utah, where prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, potentially by firing squad.

The secret October hearing focused on whether Robinson could appear in future court proceedings in civilian clothing and without visible restraints.

Judge Graf ultimately ruled that Robinson could wear street clothes but must remain shackled for security reasons, citing the “extraordinarily serious” nature of the charges.

Defense attorney Staci Visser has vigorously fought against media access, arguing that cameras and public scrutiny could prejudice potential jurors and create an unfair trial.

During earlier proceedings, Visser complained about media capturing images of Robinson in shackles, stating, “We don’t want the chaos that is out in the media in this courtroom,” according to a report from the New York Post.

However, Kirk’s widow, Erika, has been a strong advocate for openness, pushing for cameras in the courtroom to allow the public to see Robinson and counter any emerging conspiracy theories surrounding her husband’s murder.

Media coalitions, including local and national outlets, have also demanded greater access, requesting limited redactions to sealed materials and the opportunity to challenge future closures.

Robinson has appeared mostly via video or audio from jail. His first in-person court appearance earlier this month showed him calm, even chuckling with his lawyers, while family members attended in support.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 18, with ongoing debates over media coverage expected to continue into January.

Keep reading

Clinton Judge Blocks DOJ from Searching Comey Media Mole Daniel Richman’s Materials for Classified Information

A federal judge will not allow the Justice Department to search James Comey’s mole Daniel Richman’s data for classified information.

US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee, won’t let the feds search Richman’s personal computer hard drive for additional classified information without a search warrant.

Earlier this month, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered the DOJ to return all materials it seized from Comey’s media mole a week after she blocked federal prosecutors from accessing key evidence in the criminal case against James Comey.

Comey’s secret media mole, Daniel Richman, recently sought to block the Justice Department from accessing his files as the Trump Administration prepares to hit James Comey with a new indictment.

The feds seized materials from Daniel Richman several years ago, and he asked a judge to block the DOJ from accessing his files.

A grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia indicted former FBI Director James Comey in September. He was indicted on two counts – false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

The charges are related to Comey’s testimony to Senate investigators in September 2020 about whether he authorized leaks to the media.

Newly released November 2016 emails reveal that James Comey was guiding his media mole, Daniel Richman, and authorized leaks to the media.

Comey’s case was thrown out after a separate Clinton judge dismissed the case based on the Appointments Clause.

Earlier this month, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the DOJ to return all data it seized from Daniel Richman.

Over the weekend, Kollar-Kotelly blocked the DOJ from searching Richman’s materials.

“ORDERED that the Government shall not review Petitioner Richman’s materials for any additional classified material beyond the single classified memorandum from Mr. Comey that was originally contained in Petitioner Richman’s personal computer hard drive without first obtaining a valid search warrant,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly also gave Attorney General Pam Bondi until January 5, 2026, to certify the transfer of Richman’s data.

Keep reading