Tag: judges

Federal court rules teachers’ Pride flag messages to children are not protected by 1st Amendment

A federal appeals court has ruled that teachers’ Pride flags, the pro-LGBT messaging they demanded to use on their public school students, are not protected by the First Amendment.

“Plaintiffs-Appellants Christopher Dolce, Sarah Ecke, and Shinaide McAleavey-Polley allege that the Connetquot Central School District and its officials violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and Title VII when it ordered them to remove the pride flags and stickers that decorated the walls of their public high school classrooms,” said the opinion from the 2nd U.S Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gonzalez, J.) dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim, and the teachers appealed. Applying Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), we conclude that the teachers’ classroom wall decorations constituted speech pursuant to their official duties as Government employees. As a result, the District did not violate their First Amendment rights when it ordered the teachers to remove them.

“We also conclude that the teachers have not plausibly pled that the District selectively enforced its policies against them because of an impermissible motivation, or that they suffered any adverse employment actions.”

Then a commentary at Twitchy revealed the surprise: The ruling was from “a Biden appointee who is a lesbian. That’s refreshing common sense.”

This surprise comes in an age when judges appointed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden routinely rule against President Donald Trump no matter the issue, the question or the legal dispute. One Washington-based leftist judge even has defied the U.S. Supreme Court in ruling politically against Trump.

The decision said, “Under Garcetti v. Ceballos … and its progeny, when public employees’ speech ‘owes its existence’ to their ‘professional responsibilities,’ the government – their employer – can control the content of that speech without implicating their Frist Amendment rights. The question in his case is whether that same principle applies to displays hung on the walls of a public high school teacher’s match classroom. We hold that it does.”

Keep reading

Biden Judge Dismisses Trump DOJ Lawsuit Challenging California Policy Allowing Biological Males to Compete in Girls’ Sports

A Biden-appointed federal judge has dismissed the Trump Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging California’s policy allowing transgender-identifying biological males to compete on girls’ school sports teams.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela of the Central District of California dismissed the Justice Department’s case against the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) with prejudice, handing California officials a major victory in their ongoing battle with the Trump administration over women’s sports, the New York Post reported.

Valenzuela was nominated to the federal bench by Joe Biden and confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate in December 2024.

The Trump Justice Department filed the lawsuit in July 2025, accusing California education officials and the CIF of violating Title IX by allowing biological males who identify as female to compete against girls.

According to the DOJ complaint, California’s policies deprive female athletes of equal athletic opportunities by forcing them to compete against biological males for victories, podium placements, recognition, and potentially college opportunities.

But Valenzuela rejected the administration’s argument.

The Biden judge concluded that California had not received sufficiently clear notice that federal education funding was conditioned on excluding transgender-identifying biological males from girls’ athletic teams.

Keep reading

Obama-Appointed Judge Hands Sanctuary City a Win, Throws Out Trump DOJ Lawsuit Against Rochester — Rules Federal Law Can’t Stop Local Officials from Blocking ICE

An Obama-appointed federal judge in Rochester, New York just handed the open-borders Left another win, tossing the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the City of Rochester’s sanctuary policies and slamming the door on the case with prejudice.

Senior U.S. District Judge Frank P. Geraci Jr. granted Rochester’s motion to dismiss on Tuesday and tossed the Justice Department’s amended complaint with prejudice, preventing the administration from simply revising and refiling the case in the same court.

Geraci also denied the Trump administration’s motion for summary judgment as moot.

Geraci was nominated to the federal bench by Barack Obama in 2012 and assumed senior status in 2023.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in April 2025 against Rochester, Democrat Mayor Malik Evans, the Rochester City Council, and Council President Miguel Meléndez Jr.

The administration argued that Rochester’s sanctuary policies intentionally obstruct federal immigration enforcement, unlawfully discriminate against federal authorities, and violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

The policies prohibit city personnel from using local resources to assist federal civil immigration enforcement except where specifically required by law.

Keep reading

Biden Judge Blocks President Trump’s Executive Order Ending Birth Tourism

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked President Trump’s executive order ending birth tourism.

The other order bans birthright tourism, the practice by which people travel to the United States solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child on our soil.

President Trump, earlier this month, signed two executive orders on birthright citizenship and birth tourism, following the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Trump Administration’s executive order ending birthright citizenship.

During the Oval Office signing, Trump decried the “very, very unfortunate” Supreme Court decision, adding, “So we’re making adjustments because it’s very unfair.”

“This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves, and what’s happening now, people are building businesses around it,” Trump said. “Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it was supposed to work. It’s a disgrace. They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen.”

On Wednesday, US District Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s executive order.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Restores Bowe Bergdahl’s Desertion Conviction — Rules Federal Judge Had No Authority to Erase Court-Martial Judgment

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday that a federal district court had no authority to overturn former Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s military conviction for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

Remember Bowe Bergdahl?

He’s the Army soldier who walked off his post in Afghanistan in 2009, left his brothers in a war zone, and triggered a desperate search that cost American lives.

Bergdahl abandoned his post in Afghanistan on June 29, 2009, without authorization. He was subsequently captured by the Taliban-linked Haqqani network and held for nearly five years.

His disappearance triggered a massive search-and-rescue operation that placed other American service members in danger and resulted in several injuries, according to the court.

The six U.S. Army soldiers commonly cited as having died during operations allegedly connected to the search for Bowe Bergdahl were:

  • Staff Sgt. Clayton P. Bowen
  • Pfc. Morris L. Walker
  • Staff Sgt. Kurt R. Curtiss
  • 2nd Lt. Darryn D. Andrews
  • Pfc. Matthew M. Martinek
  • Staff Sgt. Michael C. Murphrey

In 2014, Barack Obama approved an outrageous prisoner exchange that released five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay in return for Bergdahl. Obama then staged a celebratory Rose Garden appearance with Bergdahl’s parents.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Blocks New York From Enforcing $75 Billion Climate Superfund Law

A federal judge ruled on Monday that New York cannot enforce a 2024 state law that sought to impose an estimated $75 billion in charges on carbon-emitting companies for allegedly causing climate damage between 2000 and 2018.

Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes in Syracuse, New York, sided with 22 Republican state attorneys general, as well as industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in finding the state measure preempted by federal law. The judge said the Clean Air Act, which gave the federal Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, did not authorize states to adopt emissions compensation schemes.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Climate Change Superfund Act into law in December 2024. It required about three dozen covered fossil-fuel companies to pay a combined $3 billion annually for 25 years, or $75 billion in total. The funds would have been earmarked for infrastructure work, including coastal wetlands, stormwater systems, roads, bridges, and responses to extreme weather.

Sannes said enforcing the law risked upsetting the balance of protecting the environment, “a project that necessarily requires national standards and global participation,” and promoting economic growth, energy production, foreign policy interests, and national security.

West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey led the coalition of states challenging the legislation in a February 2025 lawsuit. The attorneys general said at the time that New York’s law was politically motivated “overreach” that punished traditional energy companies, including West Virginia-based coal and natural gas companies, that now comply with applicable laws. They said payouts from coal, oil, and natural gas producers could wipe out thousands of jobs if the producers were forced to shut down.

“We were the first to challenge this law because we saw it for what it was – a money grab by the elites in New York, who want to punish West Virginians for doing the jobs that enable them to heat their homes and build their cities,” McCuskey said in an Aug. 31 statement.

Hochul’s office is reviewing the decision to determine possible next steps, spokesperson Ken Lovett said.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for damages caused by polluters,” he said.

New York was the second U.S. state to establish a superfund requiring major fossil-fuel companies to help finance infrastructure projects such as flood mitigation and coastal protection.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute sued Vermont on Dec. 30 to block that state’s superfund. That case remains pending.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson from the Justice Department’s Energy and Natural Resources Division welcomed Monday’s decision.

“New York’s law would have expropriated $75 billion from energy companies around the world during an energy emergency and in direct defiance of American foreign policy and federal law,” Gustafson said. “We will continue to fight for affordable, reliable energy for all Americans.”

Keep reading

SNAP Junk Food Bans in Two States on Hold Due to Court Rulings

The battle over SNAP benefits might be being waged from state to state, but federal courts are part of the action, too.

Two states that had planned restrictions on the foods that can be purchased by those using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cards have put the moves on hold after a federal court ruled in favor of SNAP recipients in a case covering five other states, Newsweek reported Monday.

Six states still have restrictions in place.

SNAP, formerly known as “food stamps,” is a federally funded program administered by the individual states. It is overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Some states restrict its use from purchasing junk food, such as sodas, candy, and some juices and energy drinks. Others have plans to do so.

The states that already have restrictions that are unaffected by the ruling, according to the grocery tracking website Greenchoice, are Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah.

South Carolina and North Dakota were only days away from implementing similar bans beginning Sept. 1 when Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, struck down restrictions that had already been in place in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

Keep reading

OUTRAGEOUS: California Election Fraudster Exposed by James O’Keefe AVOIDS PRISON After Paying Skid Row Homeless to Register to Vote — Gets Just 18 Months’ Probation

A California election fraudster exposed by James O’Keefe’s undercover journalists walked away from federal court Monday without spending a single day behind bars.

Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, 64, also known as “Anika,” was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi to just 18 months of probation and 120 hours of community service after pleading guilty to one felony count of paying another person to register to vote in a federal election that carries up to five years behind bars, the New York Post reported.

That’s it. No prison time for illegally paying vulnerable homeless people to register to vote and sign election petitions in deep-blue California.

She took a plea, cooperated, and the sentence collapsed. Prosecutors had already agreed not to pile on additional charges tied to the same operation.

According to her plea agreement, Armstrong spent roughly 20 years as a paid “petition circulator,” collecting signatures to qualify initiatives, referendums, and recalls for the California ballot. Coordinators paid her per registered-voter signature. That is the whole racket. More registered names, more money.

Prosecutors say she treated Skid Row like a factory floor: a dense cluster of desperate people who would sign almost anything for two or three dollars, a cigarette, or a phone cord.

When signatures started getting rejected because the signers were not registered to vote, she “fixed” the problem. Starting no later than 2025, she hauled stacks of voter-registration forms from the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters down to Skid Row and paid people to register first, then sign.

Keep reading

Judge Tosses Lawsuit Over State Investigations into Texas Teachers’ Posts About Charlie Kirk

Following the murder of conservative icon Charlie Kirk in 2025, The Gateway Pundit reported that more than 100 educators across the state of Texas faced investigations for their vile, hateful, and violent content celebrating his assassination.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) announced that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) began the investigations into teachers who cheered Kirk’s murder and potentially incited additional violence online.

In a strongly worded letter to superintendents, TEA Commissioner Mike Morath condemned the educators’ despicable behavior, noting that such conduct may constitute violations of the Educators’ Code of Ethics.

Not wanting to be held accountable for their behavior, in January 2026,  the Texas American Federation of Teachers (Texas AFT) filed a First Amendment lawsuit in federal court against the Texas Education Agency and Commissioner Morath, asking a judge to stop the state investigations so they can be as grotesque on social media as they want.

Texas AFT, along with the national AFT president, the far-left radical Randi Weingarten,  and Texas president Zeph Capo, claimed Morath’s letter created a “vague, overbroad crackdown on off-duty political speech, chilled teachers, and led to leave, reprimands, doxxing, a temporary ‘do not hire’ flag,” and at least one firing.

The state, however, argued the letter was not a new policy and pointed to existing ethics rules. Districts, not TEA, made most employment decisions.

Keep reading

The Long Shadow Of Judge Indira Talwani

This week, the Trump administration found itself in a familiar position: facing an injunction from Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Indeed, it had just secured an order from the Supreme Court on its emergency docket lifting her earlier injunction on the U.S. Postal Service requiring voting lists to confirm U.S. citizenship.

The case against the executive order on mail-in ballots has reasonable arguments on both sides, although (as I have said previously) the challengers are likely to prevail in defeating the rule or at least delaying the policy until after the midterm elections. The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility over “the times, places, and manner of holding elections.”

However, the U.S. Postal Service is a federal agency, and the federal government does have a role in the funding and regulation of federal elections. More importantly, the Trump administration is arguing that it is not barring mail-in voting but merely imposing “modest informational requirements.” Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, and the new rule “does not displace a single state election law. And it need not and should not prevent a single voter from voting by mail.”

The controversy over Talwani is not necessarily the merits of her decision that the rule convenes the constitutional framework. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits and could well rule in favor of her interpretation.

The controversy is the pattern of sweeping injunctions by Talwani and a few other judges.

Litigants have been accused of forum-shopping by going to liberal, Democratically appointed judges to prevent Trump policies from being implemented in a wide array of areas, including immigration, elections, reduction in government bureaucracies, and foreign aid.

Like her colleague in Boston, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy, Talwani is viewed by many as a one-stop-shop judge for forum-shopping. Both have issued hair-trigger injunctions, and both have been repeatedly reversed.

Talwani was reversed on Aug. 24 for imposing an injunction against the mail-in balloting policy. Her injunction was taken to be premature and without a legal injury, since the administration had not issued a formal rule. The truth is, the challengers had her at hello. She did not wait for a showing of a cognizable injury before issuing another injunction, because the decision appeared made before the case hit her own docket.

Previously, Talwani showed the same inclination in other cases.

For example, she issued an injunction against revoking the humanitarian parole program for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Her order was lifted on appeal.

She also issued an injunction to stop the Trump Administration from defunding Planned Parenthood. That order was also set aside on appeal.

Regardless of the outcome of this latest injunction, Talwani has offered the strongest case in favor of the expanded use of the emergency docket, also known as the “shadow docket.” Liberal law professors and litigants have bewailed the expanded use of this docket at the Supreme Court to resolve cases without the need for a long briefing and oral argument. However, judges like Talwani have created legitimate concerns over the use of the appellate system to slow or freeze new policies. This is why the “shadow docket” has become more prominent.

This year, confidential memoranda were leaked from the court on the use of the emergency docket and published by the New York Times. It was only the latest such strategic leak from a court that was once the paragon of confidentiality and civility.

The internal exchanges of the justices were illuminating as to the majority’s underlying reason for allowing this fast-track review. The immediate issue was a move by the Environmental Protection Agency to impose unlawful regulatory burdens on electric utilities despite a countervailing earlier ruling in Michigan v. EPA. Chief Justice Roberts believed (as did many) that the EPA was using the ongoing litigation to force utilities to spend billions of dollars to comply with new regulations that the Supreme Court had already rejected.

“In other words,” Roberts wrote, “the absence of stay allowed the agency to effectively implement an important program we held to be contrary to law.”

Keep reading