Tag: judges

Wisconsin’s Leftist Supreme Court Justices Have A Recusal Problem

Michael Gableman is asking another leftist Wisconsin Supreme Court justice to recuse herself from his disciplinary case before the state Office of Lawyer Regulation, according to court documents obtained by The Federalist. 

Gableman, the former state Supreme Court justice tapped by Republican legislative leadership in 2021 to lead a politically-doomed investigation into Wisconsin’s irregularity-filled 2020 presidential election, could have his law license suspended at the hands of a liberal-led court that clearly loathes him. 

The court will ultimately decide if the recommended 3-year suspension is proper.

‘No Reasonable Person’

On Wednesday, Gableman’s attorneys filed a motion with the court calling on Justice Janet Protasiewicz to step away from the proceedings, citing biased comments she made on the campaign trail. Protasiewicz, who in 2023 defeated former Justice Daniel Kelly in what was at the time the most costly judicial election in U.S. history, released a caustic press release effectively declaring Kelly and Gableman enemies of the state. 

”It’s too bad that Dan Kelly continues to join Mike Gableman in courting extremists who oppose democracy,” the Milwaukee County liberal opined. “Dan Kelly and Mike Gableman have demonstrated to the citizens of Wisconsin that they are not fit to be on the bench.”

In the same campaign statement, Protasiewicz denigrated all Republicans concerned with election integrity, accusing them of being part of “disgraceful effort to promote Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election.” 

Given her history, Gableman argues Protasiewicz is unable to live up to a core judiciary standard: Avoiding even the appearance of bias. 

“Because of her statements on the campaign trail, she can’t comply with this standard while deciding whether Gableman has breached his professional responsibilities or, if he has, determining the appropriate discipline,” the recusal motion states, adding that “no reasonable person would want a judge to rule on his or her case after publicly and zealously attacking the person‘s professional judgment and character.”

The motion quotes from a 2020 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, which borrows from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1965 Estes v. Texas decision, cementing the basic requirement of due process, and the pursuit of preventing even “the probability of unfairness. . .”

Noble words. But In Wisconsin, the justices alone are the final arbiters of recusal, each deciding the question of whether to recuse, or not to recuse. 

‘Rubber Stamp’

Last month, leftist Justice Rebecca Dallet denied a similar request to recuse herself from the Gableman disciplinary proceedings. 

On the campaign trail in 2017, Dallet accused Gableman, a justice at the time, of running “one of the most unethical campaigns in state history.” She attacked him for refusing to recuse himself from what she banally described as a “criminal campaign-finance” investigation, accusing Gableman of being a “rubber stamp for his political allies.” Dallet was referring to Wisconsin’s notorious “John Doe” investigations, politically-driven probes led by left-leaning government agents who secretly targeted Wisconsin conservatives. Gableman wrote the majority opinion that found the star chambers unconstitutional and that the special prosecutor “was the instigator of a ‘perfect storm’ of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent…” 

In her denial order, Dallet insisted that none of the public statements she made about Gableman while she campaigned for her Supreme Court seat “create a serious risk of actual bias…” The justice claims she can act fairly and impartially in Gableman’s case. 

“In short, the opinions I expressed about Gableman’s judicial and campaign conduct from 2008 to 2018 say nothing about the conduct he is now accused of committing, let alone demonstrate that in either fact or appearance I cannot act impartially in this matter,” Dallet wrote. 

Keep reading

Suffolk County Ordered to Pay $112 Million to Hundreds of Illegal Aliens After Obama Judge Rules They Were ‘Unlawfully Detained’

Suffolk County was ordered to pay $112 million to hundreds of illegal aliens after a judge ruled they were ‘unlawfully detained.’

US District Court Judge William F. Kuntz II, an Obama appointee, issued the ruling after an illegal from Guatemala living in Long Island filed a lawsuit claiming he was detained by ICE beyond his release date.

The judge ruled that the sheriff’s office in Long Island unlawfully held the illegal aliens since the state of New York doesn’t allow local law enforcement to do so.

The plaintiff was arrested in 2017 were police asked him about his immigration status.

According to PIX11, lawyers argued that the plaintiff’s cousin paid a $1,000 bail with the agreement that he would appear in immigration court yet he was never informed of the bail.

Police reportedly transferred the Guatemalan illegal to the Varick Street Detention Center in Manhattan and later transferred to a county jail in New Jersey.

The case ballooned after it became a class action lawsuit so now Suffolk County residents are on the hook for $112 million.

“This decision brings long-overdue accountability,” said plaintiffs’ attorney José Pérez, Deputy General Counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF. “The jury confirmed what we have argued all along, that Suffolk County’s actions trampled the basic due process rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.”

Keep reading

Utah Activist Judge Hands Democrats a Win — Tosses GOP-Drawn Congressional Map and Imposes Plaintiff’s Version Ahead of 2026 Elections, Projected to Give Dems +1 Seat

The Utah Third District Court has 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 new map, which the court claims better complies with the state’s anti-gerrymandering initiative, is projected to give Democrats an additional seat in one of the nation’s deeply red states.

At the heart of the controversy is the court’s decision to affirm a lower court injunction blocking the legislature’s maps (S.B. 1011 and S.B. 1012, known as Map C), claiming they violated Proposition 4 — a 2018 initiative designed to curb partisan gerrymandering.

The Court, led by Judge Dianna M. Gibson, has thrown out the legislature’s S.B. 1012 (Map C) and S.B. 1011, both approved earlier this year by the state’s duly elected representatives.

And instead adopts “Map 1,” drawn by the plaintiffs themselves, after declaring that the legislature’s map “unduly favored Republicans.”

“Map C was drawn with partisan political data on display,” wrote Gibson.

“Map C does not abide by Proposition 4’s traditional redistricting criteria ‘to the greatest extent practicable.’ And, based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that Map C was drawn with the purpose to favor Republicans—a conclusion that follows from even S.B. 1011’s metric for partisan intent—and it unduly favors Republicans and disfavors Democrats.”

“In short, [the Legislature’s map] does not comply with Utah law,” Gibson wrote in her ruling.

“Because the Lieutenant Governor’s November 10, 2025, deadline for a map to be finalized is upon us, the Court bears the unwelcome obligation to ensure that a lawful map is in place, which the Court discharges by adopting.”

Gibson’s opinion dismisses the legislature’s chosen criteria as “biased,” while elevating the plaintiffs’ computer-generated maps as the new standard for “neutrality.”

“Under the only reliable ensemble of computer-simulated maps that comply with Proposition 4’s requirements offered by the parties, Map C is an extreme partisan outlier—more Republican than over 99% of expected maps drawn without political considerations,” she wrote.

“The Court therefore finds that Map C is an extreme statistical outlier not only when compared to Dr. Chen’s simulations, which universally comply with Proposition 4’s neutral criteria, but also when compared to subsets of Dr. Trende’s simulations as they approach compliance with Proposition 4’s neutral criteria.

“Given Map C’s level of pro-Republican favoritism and extreme statistical departure from maps drawn to comply with Proposition 4’s neutral criteria given the state’s political geography, the Court credits Dr. Chen’s conclusion that Map C’s partisan characteristics cannot be attributed to compliance with those criteria or the state’s political geography,” she wrote.

Under the court-imposed Map 1, Utah’s longstanding 4-0 Republican advantage could be broken for the first time in decades, despite the state voting Republican in every presidential race since 1968 and in every congressional district by double digits.

The last time the state supported a Democratic presidential candidate was in the national Democratic landslide of 1964, when Lyndon B. Johnson won the state.

In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama narrowly won Salt Lake County, the state’s most populous county, marking the first time a Democrat had carried that county since 1964. The new map creates a Democrat-leaning district centered around Salt Lake County.

Keep reading

McIver trial pushed back as judge mulls whether to toss charges

A federal judge has indefinitely delayed Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-Newark)’s trial on assault charges, previously set to begin on Monday, while he mulls whether to toss the charges against her entirely.

District Judge Jamel Semper wrote in a brief order today that the November 10 trial is “adjourned without date pending resolution of the pretrial motions.”

McIver was charged with assault in May following a scuffle with federal immigration officers at the Delaney Hall immigrant detention center in Newark. The first-term congresswoman pleaded not guilty to the charges, and filed a series of motions over the summer arguing both that the indictment runs afoul of the Constitution’s Speech or Debate clause protecting official legislative acts and that the attempt to prosecute her is politically motivated.

At an October 21 hearing, Semper heard oral arguments from McIver’s legal team and from the Department of Justice, which has asked Semper to dismiss McIver’s efforts to derail the indictment. Two and a half weeks later, Semper has yet to issue a ruling on the matter.

There has, however, been some activity on a different motion to force the Trump administration to take down “extrajudicial statements” that denigrate McIver. Semper said during oral arguments that the Department of Justice needed to “redouble their efforts” to take down offending social media posts and statements, and some have been removed in the weeks since then, but McIver’s attorneys wrote in a new letter today that other prejudicial posts still remain available.

Also still lacking a resolution is a separate court decision over whether to allow disputed acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba, who has led the prosecution against McIver, to continue serving in her role; three judges on the Third Circuit Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in that case on October 20, but have yet to come to a decision.

Keep reading

JUST IN: Judge Immergut Permanently Blocks Trump From Deploying National Guard Troops to Portland

Judge Karin Immergut issued a permanent injunction blocking President Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Oregon.

Last month a federal appeals court temporarily blocked President Trump from deploying Oregon National Guard troops to Portland after a judge issued a Temporary Retraining Order (TRO).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily reinstated Judge Karin Immergut’s TRO last month after it halted an order issued by a three-judge panel from the court.

President Trump previously called up hundreds of California National Guard Troops to Portland to circumvent the judge’s order blocking Oregon National Guard Troop deployment.

Trump also activated up to 400 Texas National Guard troops for deployment to Oregon, Illinois and other states amid violent, anti-ICE protests.

On Friday evening, Immergut issued a permanent injunction and blocked Trump from deploying troops to Portland.

Trump can appeal Immergut’s ruling.

NBC News reported:

A federal judge in Oregon on Friday issued a permanent injunction barring the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard on the streets of Portland in response to protests against the president’s immigration policies.

“This Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither ‘a rebellion or danger of a rebellion’ nor was the President ‘unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States’ in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard,” U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term, wrote in her ruling.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Restricts Use of Tear Gas, Other Anti-Riot Measures in Chicago

A federal judge has restricted the federal government’s use of tear gas and other types of anti-riot measures in Chicago.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis said during a hearing that government witnesses’ claims of violence at protests in Chicago were not credible, citing several occasions where she said video recordings contradicted immigration officials’ accounts about what happened.

“The government would have people believe instead that the Chicagoland area is in a visehold of violence, ransacked by rioters, and attacked by agitators,” she said. “That simply is untrue.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a statement from a spokesperson on the ruling described protesters in the city as “rioters, gangbangers and terrorists” who pose a threat to federal agents.

“Despite these real dangers, our law enforcement shows incredible restraint in exhausting all options before force is escalated,” the DHS spokesperson said, noting that the government would appeal the decision.

The spokesperson described the injunction as “an extreme act by an activist judge that risks the lives and livelihoods of law enforcement officers.”

Ellis has seen at least one of her earlier rulings related to immigration enforcement in the city overruled, and this latest ruling could face similar challenges if the judge is found to have overstepped her authority by an appellate court. If it isn’t overturned in a higher court, Ellis’s ruling will stay in effect as proceedings related to this issue move forward.

The court hearing comes amid escalating showdowns between protestors opposed to the administration’s immigration enforcement operations and federal agents in America’s third-largest city.

For weeks, protestors and civil liberties groups have alleged that tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have become increasingly aggressive in the city.

Ellis agreed with these allegations in her ruling, finding that the government’s use of force in several cases wasn’t merited by the circumstances on the ground.

Keep reading

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Refuses To Recuse After Openly Mocking Defendant

isconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Dallet has denied a motion to recuse herself from a case after openly criticizing the defendant, former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman. She is now slated to rule on whether Gableman should have his law license suspended. Gableman has been attacked for his aid in investigating concerns about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. 

Dallet is part of a growing movement of judges becoming more vocal about their partisan beliefs. Especially on the campaign trail, they promote not their impartiality but their political agendas. The courts are not meant to be benches of activists. For judges to avoid recusal issues, they need to maintain their impartiality and integrity. 

In early October, Gableman submitted a request to have two sitting justices removed from presiding over his case. He showed they each had a history of making biased statements that might affect the outcome of the court’s decision. One, Justice Susan Crawford, who had reportedly accused him of being a “disgraced election conspiracy theorist,” agreed to recuse herself because she had personal knowledge of the case that would prevent her from proceeding in unbiased decision-making. 

The other, Justice Rebecca Dallet, has refused to remove herself from the case. This is alarming because Dallet has a history of openly attacking Gableman, including during her election campaign, when she said Gableman “ran one of the most unethical campaigns in our state’s history,” and that he “was a rubber stamp for his political allies.”

Dallet has argued that her previous statements about Gableman being corrupt are irrelevant because they were made between 2008 and 2018 — but the dates don’t matter, only her record of attacks on her perceived political opponent. Dallet has repeatedly shown she’s biased against Gableman. Her record of attacks indicates she is unfit to rule on his law license. 

For the courts to maintain their dignity, they must not have any semblance of bias. Judges are required to recuse themselves from cases if there is any reasonable public doubt about their partiality. Crawford’s recusal was right and proper. Dallet refusing to do the same would be an abuse of power against someone she clearly once viewed as a political enemy — and may still. Further, Dallet’s unwillingness to recuse leaves a precarious 3-3 split between liberals and conservatives.

Gableman’s law license hangs in the balance over accusations of ethics violations, stemming from his investigation into Wisconsin’s 2020 election. In 2021, he was hired by the leader of the Wisconsin Assembly to investigate allegations of voter fraud as the head of a new Office of Special Counsel.

Gableman’s concerns about the 2020 election have been vindicated as evidence has arisen. For instance, according to the MacIver Institute, “Between January 1, 2020, and November 3, 2020, 33,473 deceased individuals matched records in the state voter system and were identified,” and the response from local clerks “seems to suggest again that state law is being ignored” and “raises all sorts of questions about the competency of the WEC staff and the local clerks.”

WEC also reportedly violated state laws by not requiring many newly registered voters to electronically sign their forms or provide proof of a valid driver’s license. Early absentee voting accounted for almost 60 percent of all ballots cast in the state’s 2020 election. Despite this, the city of Madison refused auditors the ability to physically review their absentee ballots. In a sampling of absentee ballots reviewed by statewide auditors, about 7 percent lacked the full witness address mandated by law.

Gableman’s investigation into Wisconsin’s discrepancies received pushback from elected officials on both ends of the political spectrum. Many news outlets targeted both him and Trump for their inquiries — but they’re far from the only two targets of left-wing lawfare.

Keep reading

Judge Rips DOJ Prosecutors, Gives Comey Another Win in Federal Criminal Case

A magistrate judge on Wednesday ripped DOJ prosecutors and accused them of a slap dahs indictment against James Comey.

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.

Comey’s false statements charge is related to his September 2020 Senate testimony on whether he authorized leaks to the media.

In 2020, James Comey lied when he told congressional investigators that he never gave anyone permission to anonymously leak information about Hillary Clinton’s email investigation to the media.

However, evidence presented by prosecutors proves Comey gave his friend-turned-lawyer Daniel Richman permission to leak to The New York Times – and cheered it on.

The Justice Department also has other materials related to Comey’s case “on a desk” at the FBI headquarters. Comey’s lawyers accused the DOJ of withholding evidence in violation of the Constitution.

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick scolded prosecutors for their handling of the case and said they quickly moved to “indict first, investigate second.”

Fitzpatrick also ordered the Justice Department to turn over all grand jury materials to Comey’s attorneys by Thursday.

Comey’s attorneys are arguing that some of the documents used in the indictment may be privileged.

Keep reading

Judges Rule Against Property Owners Seeking Compensation for SWAT Team Damage

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Nov. 3 that the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT team is not liable for damage done to a business while chasing a criminal in 2022.

NoHo Printing & Graphics Owner Carlos Pena will ask the full court to rehear the case, his attorneys from the Institute for Justice said in a statement posted to the Institute’s webpage.

A majority ruled that arresting a criminal is an exception to the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. That clause requires the government to compensate the owners of property taken by government action.

In August 2022, a criminal barricaded himself inside the business Pena had owned for 30 years. Police actions resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in damage and lost profits. Pena’s insurance and the city refused to pay, so in July 2023, he sued.

In March 2024, the court ruled against Pena, and he appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Pena vowed to keep up the fight. In an email to The Epoch Times, Pena wrote that the battle is larger than just his business.

“What happened to me isn’t right and sometimes it feels like the deck is stacked against good citizens. I just don’t want anyone else to lose everything they worked for, like I did,” Pena wrote.

Pena and McKinney, Texas, homeowner Vicki Baker both filed claims against their respective cities after police damaged their property.

In Baker’s case, a fugitive high on methamphetamine barricaded himself in her house with a teenage hostage. He eventually released the teen girl, who told police that her kidnapper told her he would not be taken alive.

Keep reading

Judge Orders Prosecutors to Turn Over Evidence Against James Comey

A federal judge on Nov. 5 ordered prosecutors from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to hand over evidence in its case against former FBI Director James Comey.

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick gave the DOJ until the end of Thursday to provide Comey’s attorneys with grand jury materials, along with other evidence related to the case. Comey’s attorneys told the court that they had no access to relevant evidence that had been collected years ago as part of an FBI probe into media leaks.

The DOJ alleges that Comey lied to Congress in 2020 during a hearing in which he said he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports.”

Comey has pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to dismiss his case as “selective and vindictive” prosecution. He argues that the case was brought in retaliation for his role in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, in which President Donald Trump was falsely accused of colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

His attorneys argued in a court filing that the Trump administration declined to prosecute other individuals who allegedly lied to Congress, saying it was because they were his political allies.

Judge Fitzpatrick, during Wednesday’s hearing, questioned whether the prosecution may have acted too hastily to indict Comey.

“The procedural posture of this case is highly unusual,” he said.

The judge asked the DOJ to provide Comey’s defense team with evidence seized from his former attorney, Daniel Richman, in 2019 and 2020.

The DOJ alleges that Comey repeatedly leaked information to the media through Richman for years, in contradiction of his statement to Congress that he never authorized any leaks.

Keep reading