Tag: judges

Obama Judge Rules Against DOGE Shutdown Of USAID, Orders Employee Access Reinstated

In the latest legal turn of events – since the United States is now governed by activist judges, an Obama-appointed federal judge on Tuesday found that Elon Musk and DOGE likely violated the constitution when it shut down deep state slush fund USAID, and has ordered them to restore access for current (remaining) employees.

US District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled in favor of more than two dozen unnamed current and former USAID employees and contractors who challenged the Trump administration’s efforts to shutter the organization.

In a 68-page decision, Chuang granted in part their request for a preliminary injunction, ruling that DOGE and Musk likely violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and separation of powers.

Keep reading

Federal judge demands Trump admin provide information on Tren de Aragua deportations

In a 45-minute hearing on Monday, a federal judge questioned Trump administration lawyers over the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and a deportation flight that took off from the US bound for El Salvador as he handed down a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from invoking the act to swiftly deport illegal immigrant gang members.

The administration attorneys had requested that the hearing be called off, but US District Judge James Boasberg declined, ordering them into court for a “fact-finding hearing” over the use of the Act, and whether the administration knowingly defied his order, per Fox News. A hearing is set for Friday over the administration’s request to vacate the case.

Justice Department attorney Abhishek Kambli said that the Trump administration had complied with the written order from Boasberg, which came hours after the oral ruling. Per NBC News, Kamblu argued that the written ruling took precedence over the oral one issued from the bench, saying, “We believe that we’ve complied with the order.”

“You’re saying that you felt that you could disregard it because it wasn’t a written order,” Boasberg said. He called the argument a “stretch.”

Federal attorneys declined during the hearing to reveal how many deportation flights took off from the US on Saturday, citing national security protections. One lawyer for the administration said, “Those are operational issues, and I am not at liberty to provide information.”

Kambli said, “I am only authorized to say what we have said” in court filings, the one in question stating that the plaintiffs “cannot use these proceedings to interfere with the President’s national-security and foreign-affairs authority, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.”

Near the end of the hearing, Judge Boasberg said, “My orders don’t seem to carry much weight.”

Keep reading

Demented Obama Judge Who Wants to Liberate Venezuelan Gang Members Sent 70 Trump Supporters to Prison on Made-Up 1512c Charges that Were Later Overturned by SCOTUS

On Saturday, Judge James Boasberg, an Obama-appointee, granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the Trump administration from deporting thousands of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act.

Far-left America-hating leftist groups such as the ACLU and Democracy Forward, rushed to a DC court in a desperate bid to shield dangerous illegal aliens from deportation.

Judge Boasberg was only too happy to slap his name on this anti-American court order to halt the deportation of dangerous illegals who are notorious for taking over apartment buildings in Colorado. Boasberg does not care about violent illegal aliens flooding the streets of America.

On Sunday, investigative reporter Julie Kelly wrote about the deranged side of Judge Boasberg.

This same Obama judge who is filing retraining orders to keep Venezuelan gang members from jail — worked diligently to jail every January 6 defendant using a bogus made-up charge that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.

Keep reading

Radical Clinton Judge Accuses Trump Admin of Violating His Court Order After He Rehires Thousands of Probationary Employees

US District Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee, declined to stay his previous order rehiring thousands of probationary employees across six federal agencies and accused the OPM chief of violating his court order.

Judge Alsup on Thursday said the Trump Administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) illegally fired thousands of probationary employees.

The activist judge ordered the Trump Administration to rehire thousands of fired probationary employees in six federal agencies.

Alsup blasted the Trump Administration and said he felt “misled by the US Government” as he ordered six federal agencies to offer reinstatement to fired probationary workers.

“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Judge Alsup said. “That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to avoid statutory requirements.”

The six government agencies include: VA, DOD, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Agriculture.

On Saturday, Judge Alsup declined to pause his order and said the acting OPM Chief’s failure to testify violated his court order, Politico’s Josh Gerstein reported.

“This order pauses to address defendants’ attempts to frustrate fact-finding. The defense submitted a single declaration, from defendant Charles Ezell, in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO. The undersigned ordered defendant Ezell to appear for cross examination at the subsequent evidentiary hearing, or, alternatively, to submit to a deposition at his convenience. Plaintiffs were likewise ordered to make their declarants available for examination. Defendants chose to withdraw the Ezell declaration to avoid submitting its declarant to examination, in violation of this Court’s order,” the judge wrote.

Keep reading

Pentagon Enforces Transgender Ban as Biden Judge Warns DOJ of Legal Fallout, Possible Court Ruling This Week

The U.S. military is undergoing major policy changes regarding transgender service members following a Presidential Trump directive to ban transgenders from service in the U.S. military.

The ongoing federal litigation challenging this policy. A ruling is expected on Tuesday or Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden-appointed judge, has expressed skepticism and indicated her likely hostility towards Trump’s transgender ban.

The judge was quoted by the Associated Press as saying of transgender troops: “They have to essentially be in hiding while in service.”

The judge was quoted in this ABC story as saying she believed transgenders only had a higher risk of suicide because of discrimination. The judge said the DOJ ‘cherry picked’ evidence and examples to support its claims that transgenders were unfit for military service.

The ongoing litigation contends that Trump’s order violates transgender people’s rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

On February 26, 2025, the DoD implemented President Trump’s Executive Order 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.”

The policy prohibits transgender individuals from serving openly in the U.S. military and bars those diagnosed with gender dysphoria or related conditions from enlistment, appointment, or retention.

Gender dysphoria is the mental illness where one’s biological sex does not match the gender the individual believes they ought to have.

This move effectively reinstates the Trump-first-term-era policy that was ended by President Biden in 2021.

The DoD argues that the new policy banning transgenders is necessary to maintain combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, and medical readiness.

Transgender therapies, not including surgery, typically costs employers between $25,000-$75,000 per year.

Keep reading

Attorney General Pam Bondi Slams Radical Judge’s Order to Halt Trump Admin’s Deportation Flights for Venezuelan Gang Members

A radical leftist judge has thrown a wrench into President Donald Trump’s bold mission to secure America’s borders and protect its law-abiding citizens from foreign threats.

On Saturday, Chief Judge Judge James E. Boasberg—an Obama appointee—issued a temporary restraining order to block the Trump administration from deporting thousands of Venezuelan nationals, including dangerous gang members, under the Alien Enemies Act.

This wartime measure, a cornerstone of executive authority, has been wielded for centuries to expel hostile foreign nationals.

This outrageous ruling comes after far-left activist groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward, rushed to court in a desperate attempt to shield violent illegal immigrants from deportation.

Their lawsuit, J.G.G. v. Trump, claims that using the Alien Enemies Act to remove illegal immigrants—many of whom are tied to the brutal Tren de Aragua gang— is “unlawful” and “unprecedented” during “peacetime.”

Never mind that the Constitution grants the president sweeping powers to defend the nation from foreign threats, or that these deportations target criminals who have no business roaming American streets. For now, Boasberg’s order halts deportations for the lawsuit’s named plaintiffs for a mere 14 days.

Judge Boasberg’s radical ruling reached a new level of insanity later on Saturday when he ordered the Trump administration to immediately return planes that were already deporting members of the notorious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua—one of the most dangerous criminal organizations in the Western Hemisphere.

Keep reading

Activist Judges and the Overreach of Judicial Authority: A Case for Sedition and Treason

Executive Summary

The balance of power among the three branches of government is a cornerstone of the United States Constitution.

However, activist judges have increasingly encroached upon executive authority, undermining the separation of powers.

When judges exceed their constitutional authority by obstructing or overturning executive actions without legitimate constitutional grounds, they not only overstep their role but may also commit acts tantamount to treason and sedition.

This essay explores the legal basis for holding such judges accountable, citing relevant laws, cases, and precedents.

The Constitutional Framework

Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests executive power in the President, granting him authority over the administration of federal agencies and the enforcement of laws.

Conversely, Article III establishes the judicial branch, limiting its role to interpreting the law rather than legislating or executing it. The principle of separation of powers is intended to prevent any branch from usurping the functions of another.

James Madison, in The Federalist Papers No. 47, emphasized that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” When judges attempt to override executive decisions outside their jurisdiction, they disrupt this balance and engage in judicial tyranny.

Keep reading

The Left’s Judicial Insurrection Against Trump Is a Constitutional Crisis — Here’s Why It Must Be Stopped

Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has been met with an unprecedented legal onslaught from far-left activist judges and radical groups determined to sabotage his administration at every turn.

These rogue judges—many appointed by Clinton, Obama, and Biden—have launched a relentless legal coup to undermine the will of the American people and prevent Trump from carrying out his constitutional duties.

Appearing on The War Room with Steve Bannon, Josh Hammer, Senior Counsel for the Article III Project, warned that what America is witnessing is no ordinary judicial activism—it’s a full-blown judicial insurrection.

So far this year, President Trump has faced 125 legal challenges in just two months.

The full list of 125 legal challenges remains active and is documented on the Just Security website.

Keep reading

Clinton-Appointed Judge Rules Inmate Who Murdered Baby Must Be Provided Taxpayer-Funded Sex Change at ‘Earliest Opportunity’

Clinton-appointed Judge Richard Young has ordered the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) to provide sex change surgery for a “transgender” inmate who murdered a baby.

The inmate, Jonathan Richardson, who now goes by “Autumn Cordellioné,” is in prison for the reckless homicide of a baby.

Richardson was convicted in 2001 for strangling his then-wife’s 11-month-old daughter to death.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit against the Indiana Department of Corrections seeking a sex change on behalf of Richardson in 2023, three years after the baby-killer decided to begin identifying as a woman.

Currently, there is a law in Indiana banning taxpayer-funded sex change procedures for inmates.

According to a Fox News report, the ACLU argued that the law violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Judge Young sided with the ACLU on March 5 and ordered taxpayers to foot the bill for the murderer’s vanity surgery.

Keep reading

United Nations judge convicted of forcing young woman to work as slave

A Ugandan judge who sits on a UN court has been convicted of enslaving a young woman while she was living in Oxford.

Lydia Mugambe, 49, took “advantage of her status” over her victim in the “most egregious way” by preventing her from holding down steady employment and forcing her to work as her maid, while providing childcare for free, prosecutors said.

She was found guilty on Thursday at Oxford crown court of conspiring to breach UK immigration law, people trafficking, modern slavery and conspiracy to intimidate a witness.

Mugambe collapsed in the dock as the guilty verdicts were read out and the judge ordered that the court be cleared after there were audible gasps in the public gallery. The Ugandan judge was escorted from the court by two dock officers.

Mugambe was appointed two years ago to the UN court that deals with residual matters from the criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

She is understood to be a PhD research student at Oxford’s law faculty while on sabbatical from her main role as a high court judge in Uganda.

At the trial, Caroline Haughey KC, for the prosecution, said that Mugambe had “exploited and abused” the victim by “taking advantage of her lack of understanding of her rights to properly paid employment and deceiving her as to the purpose of her coming to the UK”.

The jury accepted the prosecution’s case that Mugambe had engaged in “illegal folly” with John Leonard Mugerwa, who was Uganda’s deputy high commissioner in London.

The pair were found to have conspired to arrange for the young woman to come to the UK. Prosecutors said that Mugambe and Mugerwa had participated in a “very dishonest” trade-off.

Keep reading