Tag: judges

Anti-Christian Judge Prevents Mother from Taking Daughter to Church or Even Reading the Bible

Child custody cases are often fraught with trying and unusual behaviors and demands, but the recent custody order from a judge in Maine has taken bigotry against Christians to a new level.

Emily Bickford had a daughter, Ava who turns 13 in January, with Matt Bradeen. The two were not married, and Emily has retained primary custody while the father has visitation rights.

Emily is Christian and has worked to provide a foundation of faith for her daughter, something her non-custodial father opposes.  He has been described as ‘hating’ Christianity.

Bradeen took the issue to court, found a former ACLU president who had become a judge, and the war on religion commenced.

The judge issued a custody order that can only be viewed as hostile to Christianity. The order forbids Ava from associating with any of her church friends, attending church or Christian events, and even prevents Ava from studying the Bible, “religious philosophy,” or discussing her faith with her own mother.  Ava is also not allowed to participate in Christian holiday events such as Christmas.

According to Liberty Council, the mother and daughter had been attending Calvary Chapel, an evangelical Christian church in Portland, ME, for 3½ years. Ava shared her excitement with her father over her upcoming baptism and that is when the trouble began.

Instead of sharing his daughter’s excitement, even if his views differ, he engaged the leftist judge and then brought in a Marxist former sociology professor from California as a “witness.” The witness testified that Calvary Chapel (and any church that believes the Bible) is a “cult” that causes psychological harm to children.

“The judge found that Emily is a fit parent EXCEPT for the fact that she is a Christian,” Liberty Council’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver notes.

“The judge mocked Ava and Emily’s faith by purposefully refusing to capitalize the word ‘God’ — something I have never seen.”

The judge even chastised Emily for allowing the church pastor to pray for Ava. And the judge ruled that Emily could not take Ava to ANY church unless Matt approves. And Matt has steadfastly refused to approve ANY church,” he continued.

Keep reading

Outrage Erupts After Judge Releases Two Murder Suspects Without Requiring Any Bail Payment

A California judge has released two accused murderers in as many weeks without requiring a dollar of bail from either of them.

People far from the dysfunctional San Francisco Bay Area should be outraged by that news.

According to Fox News, Judge Hector Ramon freed a man named Vicente Aguilera-Chavez on Oct. 31, without requiring him to post bail.

Then, during a hearing a week ago, he released another man named Agustin Sandoval, also on his own recognizance.

Both men are charged in connection with a 2017 nightclub parking lot shooting that killed 21-year-old Edu Veliz-Salgado and wounded another man in Santa Clara County, KTVU-TV reported.

The case went cold for years until detectives in the city of Sunnyvale identified the two suspects last year.

Yet despite the severity of the charges, Judge Ramon released both defendants back into the community without requiring bail.

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen told Fox News that two accused killers are now freely walking his community.

“The odds of re-offense or fleeing from justice just doubled. People’s lives ride on those odds,” he said. “This is outside the bounds of what’s acceptable, and it’s dangerous to the public.”

He also noted that Aguilera had been to prison twice and was a reputed gang member.

Keep reading

Panel of Federal Judges Block New Texas Congressional Map, Orders State to Use 2021 Map

A panel of federal judges on Tuesday blocked the new Texas Congressional map and ordered the state to use the 2021 map.

In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel ordered Texas to use its 2021 congressional map.

The judges claimed the newly redrawn map is unconstitutional because it appears to be a ‘race-based gerrymander.’

The ruling is expected to be immediately appealed.

US District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion.

Politico reported:

A panel of federal judges has blocked Texas’ newly-redrawn congressional map — which made five districts in the state more favorable to Republicans — saying the plan appeared to be an illegal race-based gerrymander.

In a 2-1 ruling, the court ordered Texas to rely instead on the boundaries legislators drew in 2021. The new map, the majority concluded, appears likely to be unconstitutional and was drawn at the urging of the Trump administration.

“The map ultimately passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor — the 2025 Map — achieved all but one of the racial objectives that DOJ demanded,” U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Galveston-based Trump appointee, wrote for the panel majority.

In late August, the Texas House voted on the new Congressional map after the Democrats stonewalled them for more than two weeks.

The map, passed 19–2 along party lines, was designed to create up to five new Republican‑drawn U.S. House seats in anticipation of the 2026 midterm elections.

“This mid-decade redistricting isn’t about fair representation—it’s about politicians picking their voters instead of voters choosing their leaders,” the Senate Democrat Caucus said in a previous statement. “And it doesn’t stop here. If they can gerrymander now, they can and will do it before every election.”

Democrat-run California passed a new congressional map that eliminates five GOP seats in response to Texas’s new map.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California, arguing that its new map is unconstitutional because it is allegedly race-based.

Keep reading

The Imperial Judiciary Strikes Back

So far, more than 100 federal court judges have ruled against the Trump administration in hundreds of lawsuits filed by states, unions, nonprofit organizations and individuals.

While some of these rulings are fairly grounded in the Constitution, federal law, and precedent, many are expressions of primal rage from judges offended by the administration, and moving at breakneck speed to stop it. According to a Politico analysis, 87 of 114 federal judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Democrat presidents, and 27 by Republicans. Most of the lawsuits were filed in just a few districts, with repeat activist judges leading the opposition.

Lawsuits against the administration may be filed in the District of Columbia and, often, also in other districts. Initially, cases are randomly assigned. Plaintiffs focus on districts with predominately activist, progressive judges. Because related cases are usually assigned to the same judge, later plaintiffs file in districts in which related cases were assigned to friendly activists.

Conservative judges generally believe they should interpret the law and avoid ruling on political questions, while many liberals see themselves as protectors of their values. After 60 years of domination by activist liberals, the Supreme Court and conservatives on appeals courts are finally demanding that district court judges respect the Constitution. The Supreme Court is also re-evaluating precedents established by far-left justices who substituted their values for the words and intentions embodied in the Constitution.

To date, the Supreme Court has reversed or stayed about 30 lower court injunctions blocking the administration, and appeals courts have reversed or stayed another dozen. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson imposed an administrative stay on a district court decision requiring the immediate resumption of SNAP (food stamp) payments.

Federal judges who oppose Trump’s agenda are openly opposing the Supreme Court. In April, D.C. Chief Federal Judge James Boasberg sought to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for violating an order the court had vacated. In May, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho criticized the court’s demand that district courts act promptly on administration requests. In a September ruling, Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs challenged the court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent.

Ten of 12 federal judges interviewed by NBC News in September, and 47 of 65 federal judges responding to a New York Times survey in October, thought the court was mishandling its emergency docket. They described orders as “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.”

Deservedly so. Though the Supreme Court and appeals courts judges have rebuked district court judges for ignoring higher courts and abusing their authority, they continue to do so with rulings focused on identity politics, and a progressive lens on the woes of immigrants, minorities, women, and workers. They likely expect to be reversed on appeal, but they secure wins by causing delay and creating fodder for progressive activists to rally their supporters.

There is little that can be done about these judges. Removal requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With Democrats supporting these judges, that is unrealistic.

Keep reading

Chicago Judge Orders Release of Hundreds of Criminal Illegal Aliens Arrested by ICE

A Biden-appointed federal judge in Chicago has ordered the release of hundreds of criminal migrants arrested by federal immigration agents during Operation Midway Blitz.

US District Judge Jeffrey Cummings ordered the Trump administration to release more than 600 migrants that the judge claims were arrested in violation of a Consent Decree. Cummings has given the Department of Justice until November 19 to release the targeted migrants, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Cummings signaled his decision earlier in the week when he said he was thinking of providing what he called “equitable relief” for thousands of illegals in federal custody after he determined that the agreement had been violated by immigration agents.

The decree was signed in 2022 when President Joe Biden’s agencies agreed to accept curbs drafted by the ACLU. Judges allow consent decrees to bind future administrations.

Cummings has ruled that migrants can pay a $1,500 bond and accept some sort of monitoring — including electronic ankle monitors — and to then be released pending the outcome of their immigration proceedings.

The left-wing judge claimed that many on the list were otherwise engaged in non-criminal activities and said, “It is highly unlikely any of them are criminal gang members, drug traffickers, or assorted ne’er-do-wells who fall under the category of what ICE has called ‘the worst of the worst.”

Keep reading

D.C. Appeals Court STRIKES DOWN Trump DOT’s Safety Rules — Allows Immigrants to Obtain Commercial Licenses Again Despite Fatal Florida Truck Crash

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked the Trump-Vance administration’s emergency safety rule, a rule designed to keep America’s highways safe from unvetted foreign drivers.

The court sided not with public safety, not with the families of crash victims, but with activist groups, blue-city governments, and unions who argued that asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients should continue holding commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) despite major questions about identity verification, training standards, and foreign driving histories.

The stay halts the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) new rule limiting CDLs to individuals on verifiable, trackable visa categories, H-2A, H-2B, and E-2.

The rule excluded categories where driving and identity records cannot be confirmed, including asylum seekers, refugees, and DACA recipients.

Keep reading

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