Tag: judges

Smith pledges to appeal judge’s “anti-democratic” decision to quash independence petition

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says her government will appeal a court ruling that blocked a citizen-led effort to force an Alberta independence referendum, calling the decision “incorrect in law and anti-democratic.”

The ruling, issued Tuesday by Liberal-appointed Alberta Court of King’s Bench Justice S. Leonard, quashed the approval of a proposed referendum question asking Albertans whether the province should become independent.

In the decision, the judge claimed Alberta failed to fulfil its duty to consult affected First Nations before allowing the citizen initiative process to move forward.

Justice Leonard also ruled the referendum proposal could not legally proceed under transitional provisions added to Alberta’s Citizen Initiative Act.

Keep reading

11th Circuit Denies Rehearing in President Trump’s MEGA RICO Lawsuit Against Crooked Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and the Russia Hoax Cabal

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has just DENIED President Donald Trump’s petition for rehearing en banc in his landmark lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, James Comey, the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and the rest of the Deep State operatives who orchestrated the greatest political hoax in American history, the Russia collusion lie that stole years from Trump’s first term and targeted him with endless lawfare.

The court’s denial of both panel rehearing and en banc review means the outrageous nearly $1 million sanction slapped on Trump and his former attorney, Alina Habba, stands.

In March 2022, President Trump filed it in federal court in Miami, naming Hillary Clinton, James Comey, the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and a host of other co-conspirators in a sprawling racketeering scheme to fabricate the Russia collusion narrative, spy on his campaign, and derail his presidency.

Trump asked for triple damages of expenses and losses of more than $24 million.

In April 2022, President Trump requested the Clinton-appointed judge overseeing his Russiagate case against Hillary Clinton and others be removed from the case due to obvious conflicts of interest.

Somehow, Clinton-appointed Judge Donald Middlebrooks and Judge Ryon McCabe received this case.

Middlebrooks refused to recuse himself from the case despite an obvious conflict of interest being that he was appointed by Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton.

Judge Donald Middlebrooks DISMISSED President Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and several FBI-DOJ crooks who manufactured the Russia Collusion hoax to influence the 2016 election and then to bring down his presidency in a government coup.

Judge Middlebrooks also threatened Trump’s attorneys with “consequences” for daring to file the case against Hillary Clinton.

Keep reading

Shooter Who Sprayed Dozens of Rounds at Passing Cars in Cambridge Previously Got in Gunfight with Police, Freed by Woke Judge After Just Three Years

A 46-year-old career criminal with a long rap sheet, including a 2020 shootout in which he fired thirteen rounds at Boston police officers, was caught on video Monday afternoon walking down a major Boston-area roadway and indiscriminately opening fire on passing vehicles with a semi-automatic rifle.

Tyler Brown, of Dorchester, sprayed 50 to 60 rounds along Memorial Drive in Cambridge around 1:30 p.m. on Monday.

Two innocent drivers were struck and left in critical condition.

Brown continued firing until a Massachusetts State Police trooper shot him, ending the rampage.

A former Marine who was driving nearby also reportedly assisted in stopping the threat.

The shooting occurred just minutes after Boston police had issued an alert to Cambridge authorities. Brown’s parole officer had contacted police after seeing him on a FaceTime call brandishing a rifle and making suicidal statements. Officers were conducting a wellness check at his home when he fled across the river and began his attack on Memorial Drive.

Boston 25 News reports:

During the shooting, two people in separate vehicles were struck, including an MBTA bus driver. A family member told Boston25 the victim was shot in the head. A mail truck was also hit by gunfire, though the driver was not injured.

Both shooting victims remain hospitalized in critical condition.

Authorities said a state police trooper arriving at the scene, along with a civilian described as a former Marine licensed to carry a firearm, moved toward the suspect while shots were being fired. Officials said the suspect was struck multiple times in the lower extremities and treated at the scene.

According to Ryan, people abandoned their vehicles and ran in multiple directions as the shooting unfolded. Some individuals reportedly took cover underneath their cars. A bullet also struck the front of the cruiser driven by the officer involved in stopping the suspect.

Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan confirmed Brown is in custody and facing multiple charges, including two counts of armed assault with intent to murder, weapons offenses, and additional felonies.

Keep reading

Angry Left plots to purge Virginia’s high court

After the Virginia Supreme Court rejected the results of the recent Democratic effort to effectively wipe out Republican representation in the state, Democratic pundits and activists have latched onto a proposal by Michigan State law professor Quinn Yeargain to gut the court by forcing the retirement of the current justices, appointing liberal activists, and then reversing the opinion. It is extremely telling that some are pushing the raw muscle play to retake power in Washington, particularly in light of the calls to pack the United States Supreme Court once the party is back in control.

Professor Yeargain declared on Substack that there is “a simple – and lawful – solution: Send the entire court into early retirement.” Under this plan, Virginia Democrats would adopt an absurdly low age for retirement in a gut-and-pack scheme: Yeargain suggested that they could set “the mandatory retirement of justices and judges after they reach a prescribed age, beyond which they shall not serve, regardless of the term to which elected or appointed.”

The current retirement age is 73.

Yeargain dismisses that number as “arbitrary” and says that the Democrats need only to “Make it 54 for Supreme Court justices – the age of the youngest justice, Stephen McCullough, who joined the majority opinion – and make it take effect immediately.”

Keep reading

Radical Woke Bexar County Judge – The County’s First Openly LGBT Activist on the Bench – Resigns in Disgrace and Accepts LIFETIME BAN from Judiciary

Bexar County Court-at-Law No. 13 Judge Rosie Speedlin-Gonzalez, the self-proclaimed “first openly LGBT judge” in the county, has been forced to resign in disgrace and accept a permanent, lifetime disqualification from ever holding judicial office in the State of Texas again.

According to the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Speedlin-Gonzalez signed off on the deal on April 20, 2026, quietly slinking off the bench effective immediately.

In exchange, prosecutors dropped felony unlawful restraint and misdemeanor official oppression charges against her.

The scandal stems from a December 2024 courtroom meltdown during a domestic violence probation revocation hearing. Defense attorney Elizabeth Russell dared to try changing her client’s plea mid-hearing.

Speedlin-Gonzalez flew into a rage, accused the attorney of “coaching” her client, and ordered bailiffs to slap handcuffs on Russell right there in open court.

The attorney was then marched into the jury box and detained like a common criminal, all because she had the audacity to advocate for her client in front of this power-drunk judge.

The downfall was politically humiliating as well. Speedlin-Gonzalez had already lost her Democrat primary reelection bid earlier this year.

Keep reading

Utah Supreme Court Justice Who Had Romantic Relationship with Leftist Redistricting Lawyer Involved in Helping Democrats Steal Congressional Seat Resigns

The Utah Supreme Court Justice who had a romantic relationship with a leftist lawyer involved in helping the Democrats steal a congressional seat has resigned.

In November, the Utah Third District Court struck down the congressional map crafted by the Republican-led state legislature, labeling it an unconstitutional “gerrymander” and replacing it with a map drawn by left-wing plaintiffs.

The Democrats gained a seat in bright red Utah.

The Utah Supreme Court did not block the new congressional map that gave Democrats a seat.

Last month, it was revealed that Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen had an inappropriate relationship with a man named David Reymann, a leftist redistricting attorney who helped the Democrats take a congressional seat amid the gerrymandering wars.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox and other state officials launched an investigation into Hagen’s relationship with Reymann.

KSL reported last month:

Utah’s governor, Senate president and House speaker are launching an investigation into Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen and allegations that she had a relationship with an attorney arguing cases before the high court.

Those allegations are detailed in a complaint submitted late last year to both Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission.

The complaint, which was obtained exclusively by KSL through a public records request, came from a Provo-based attorney who said Hagen’s ex-husband told him the justice had exchanged “inappropriate” text messages with David Reymann, one of the attorneys involved in a case about redistricting, which led to Utah getting a new congressional map.

Hagen strongly denies allegations of an inappropriate relationship of any kind. Reymann also called the allegations “false.” He does outside legal work for KSL and as an attorney for the Utah Media Coalition, of which KSL is a member.

On Friday, Governor Cox announced that he received a resignation letter from Diana Hagen.

Keep reading

Judge Rules Trump DOJ Can Retain 2020 Georgia Ballots Seized by FBI

A federal judge has ruled that the Department of Justice can keep possession of the 2020 election ballots seized earlier this year from Fulton County, Georgia, as part of an ongoing federal investigation into alleged irregularities surrounding that election.

This decision comes despite concerns raised about flaws in the process the FBI used to obtain its search warrant, as reported by Breitbart.

U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, issued a 68-page opinion explaining his decision.

He acknowledged that the FBI’s affidavit authorizing the search was not without “shortcomings,” but he stopped short of accusing the agency of acting in “callous disregard” of the county’s rights—a legal threshold that could have compelled him to return the original ballots.

“While the Affidavit was certainly far from perfect, this is not a situation where an officer left out all the facts that might undermine probable cause or where an officer intentionally lied,” Boulee wrote.

In other words, the judge found procedural errors but not enough evidence of misconduct or bad faith to nullify the FBI’s actions.

The ruling represents a notable moment in the ongoing push by federal authorities to investigate what they describe as “electoral improprieties” in the 2020 race.

Keep reading

Another Activist Judge Issues Laughable Ruling About DOGE Grant Terminations

We’re getting tired of activist judges undermining the Trump administration and its work to control wasteful spending, end fraud, and right America’s fiscal ship. Countless judges have ruled against the Trump administration not because the administration is wrong, but because they don’t like the President and his policy choices, and another judge did that with a ruling against Elon Musk’s DOGE.

Here’s more:

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency “blatantly used” race, gender and other protected characteristics to execute the largest mass termination of federal grants in the history of the National Endowment for the Humanities, a federal judge ruled on Thursday. 

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon declared the terminations unlawful, concluded that the DOGE staffers lacked the authority to make those decisions, and blocked the Trump administration from carrying out the grant terminations. 

“There can be no serious dispute that the review process implemented by DOGE did not conform to, or even resemble, NEH’s ordinary grant-review process,” Judge McMahon wrote.

So, awarding grants on the basis of certain characteristics is good. But ending discriminatory grants is bad. Got it.

Keep reading

Federal Court Strikes Down Trump’s 10 Percent Global Tariffs

A U.S. trade court has ruled against President Donald Trump’s 10 percent global tariffs.

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 that a 1970s law doesn’t allow the president to enact sweeping tariffs worldwide.

The State of Oregon, a spice company called Burlap and Barrel, and a toy company named “Basic Fun Inc.” challenged the tariffs.

Article 1, Section eight of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to levy duties, collect taxes, and more.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives some of that power to the president. It allows the president to impose temporary surcharges up to 15 percent.

On Feb. 20, Trump announced a 10 percent tariff on imports effective on Feb. 24 through July 24. 

Trump justified the tariffs because the U.S. runs a trade deficit with many other countries.

The plaintiffs claimed that the president doesn’t have the authority to invoke those tariffs “because large and serious balance-of-payments deficits cannot occur in a floating exchange rate monetary system,” according to the 88-page ruling.

The plaintiffs suffered economic harm, price erosion, a loss of goodwill, damaged reputation, and more, the court ruled.

“Finally, considering the balance of hardships, a remedy in equity is warranted, and the public interest would be served by a permanent injunction,” the ruling said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled against Trump’s tariffs. That ruling ordered the U.S. to refund tariffs, which is expected to cost about $166 billion.  

Keep reading

California Immigration Judge Sues Trump DOJ; Claims She Was Fired for Being a Registered Democrat Woman Over 40

A California immigration judge has filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Justice, alleging she was terminated because she is a registered Democrat, a woman over 40, fluent in Spanish, and had ties to immigrant-rights groups.

Kyra Lilien had been in the San Francisco Immigration Court since 2023, before transferring to the Concord Immigration Court in 2024.

Last July, Lilien was notified that her two-year probationary period would not be converted to a permanent appointment.

The 14-page lawsuit, filed this week, names the DOJ and Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants.

Lilien claims she met or exceeded all performance standards and received the highest possible ratings in her probationary reports for fiscal years 2024 and 2025.

According to TRAC Immigration data, she denied just 34% of asylum claims brought before her.

Despite this, she alleges her removal violated her civil and First Amendment rights.

Lilien’s attorney, Kevin Owen of Gilbert Employment Law in Maryland, told local station KTVU that Lilien “didn’t fit their mold” and that the actions taken against her were “impermissible and unlawful.”

“She didn’t fit their mold,” Owen said. “And what they did to her was impermissible and unlawful.”

The suit claims that immigration judges who were terminated or not retained around the same time were overwhelmingly female and points to internal memos issued by then-acting EOIR Director Sirce Owen in early 2025.

Those memos criticized “extremist leftist organizations” involved in illegal alien advocacy and Biden-era hiring practices that promoted illegal immigration and DEI hires.

Lilien, KTVU reports, “used to be program director for Jewish Family and Community Services, which largely helps Afghan refugees settle in the United States, and was the immigration program director for Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland.”

The complaint also names nearly 30 other immigration judges from across the country who were similarly fired or not converted from probationary status, including 14 from the Concord and San Francisco courts.

Keep reading