Administrative State

Democrat Anti-Justice Comes For Shiloh Hendrix And Free Speech thefederalist.com
News Source
EXCERPT:

If there’s ever a doubt as to how perverse the Democrat approach to the justice system truly is, think back to what just happened to a 37-year-old woman named Shiloh Hendrix.

Hendrix on Thursday was sentenced by a judge in Rochester, Minnesota, to 200 hours of community service and fined $1,000. All of that is for an incident captured on video at a playground last year, wherein Hendrix was seen holding her young child and walking away from a man who was demanding that she speak to him.

If I were a content creator with The New York Times or CNN, this is where I’d leave out all the additional context regarding this incident, but because I’m honest, here’s the rest: Prior to what’s seen on camera, an 8-year-old boy had rummaged through Hendrix’s bag and taken something. Hendrix, who is white, approached the boy and used a racial slur. A bystander who saw the interaction then started video recording, demanding that Hendrix use the slur again.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 that a Christian teacher in a public school cannot show students any material that contradicts the school’s supremacist LGBTQ plus ideology. This ideology compels forced acceptance of belief, including gender fluidity and transitioning children, which is an existential challenge to American Rule of Law, where no entity, government or private, can compel belief or speech.

The dissenting Judge, Lawrence VanDyke, wrote, “Could public school administrators establish a policy allowing office decoration with partisan political messages deemed sufficiently ‘compassionate’ but prohibit—as inherently ‘hostile’—any political speech that did not align with the Democratic Socialists of America platform?…

If your instinctual answer to each of these questions is ‘No!’… you might be an everyday American. But according to the majority today, you vastly overestimate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech in our nation’s schools. In a decision that is irreconcilable with Supreme Court precedent, the majority announces an expansive new rule that all expression by public-school employees that might be observed by students is necessarily government speech, and not the personal speech of an American citizen—even when any reasonable observer would perceive the speech as the employee’s own personal expression.”

Ninth Circuit Upholds Ban on Christian Employee’s Books www.standingforfreedom.com
News Source
EXCERPT:


In completely ignoring the Supreme Court’s landmark free speech ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton, the federal appellate court insists that staff who express beliefs that don’t align with a school’s established orthodoxy can be fired.


[UPDATE] On Tuesday, a panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Oregon social worker Rod Theis has no free speech right to display books in his public school office that disagree with radical gender ideology — and that his firing was justified.

Theis, a devout Christian, used to work as an education specialist for InterMountain Education Service District, which required him to travel to different district schools to administer standardized tests to students. He was not a teacher and rarely had contact with most students but did have office space in two of the districts’ schools.

Many InterMountain district staff, including teachers, are allowed to decorate their classrooms and offices with various posters, flags, and books that promote Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ messages, pride flags, political candidates, views on political and social topics, and more. While still employed there, Theis followed their lead by displaying three children’s books — Johnny the Walrus, He is He, and She is She — in his offices. The three books teach the biblical view that sex is unchanging and that children should accept themselves as the sex they were born.

Though no student or parent ever complained about the books, one teacher in 2024 researched the books online, determined that they promote a “binary view of gender,” and filed a complaint, claiming that the three books are “transphobic” and therefore offensive. In response, InterMountain officials ordered Theis to remove the books. He filed a lawsuit and received an injunction from a district court that allowed him to display the books when students were not present. Soon thereafter, the same hostile teacher sent several students to Theis’s office, asking to see the books, to which he eventually agreed; the staff member caught Theis on video showing the books to the students, and the school district fired him.

Federal Appeals Court Hands Victory to Trump in Mail-In Voting Battle slaynews.com
News Source
EXCERPT:

President Donald Trump secured a temporary legal victory in his effort to strengthen oversight of mail-in voting after a federal appeals court paused a ruling that had blocked a proposed U.S. Postal Service election rule.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Postal Service may continue moving forward with the Trump-backed proposal while litigation proceeds.

The proposed rule would require states to provide the Postal Service with approved absentee voter lists before mail-in ballots are delivered.

However, the administration cannot yet implement the policy because a separate federal judge in Massachusetts issued an injunction last month blocking the rule, and that order remains in effect.

Federal Appeals Court Hands Victory to Trump in Mail-In Voting Battle slaynews.com
News Source

EXCERPT:

President Donald Trump secured a temporary legal victory in his effort to strengthen oversight of mail-in voting after a federal appeals court paused a ruling that had blocked a proposed U.S. Postal Service election rule.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Postal Service may continue moving forward with the Trump-backed proposal while litigation proceeds.

The proposed rule would require states to provide the Postal Service with approved absentee voter lists before mail-in ballots are delivered.

However, the administration cannot yet implement the policy because a separate federal judge in Massachusetts issued an injunction last month blocking the rule, and that order remains in effect.

Trump Administration Pushes for Tighter Mail-In Ballot Oversight

The proposal is part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to tighten safeguards surrounding mail-in voting.

Republicans have long argued that absentee voting systems require stronger verification measures to ensure ballots are delivered only to eligible voters.

Postmaster General David Steiner defended the proposal during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing last month.

Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) asked whether the Postal Service would continue delivering ballots if a state refused to provide its absentee voter list.

“Yes or no — if a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list over to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?” Peters asked.

“Under our proposed regulation, no,” Steiner replied.

“We would tell the state that we need the manifest.”

Court Says Challenge May Be Premature

The legal challenge was brought by the NAACP, which argued the proposal violates a 2021 settlement reached with the Postal Service following litigation over mail delays during the 2020 election.

Under that agreement, the Postal Service committed to “prioritiz[e] . . . the timely delivery of Election Mail” during every national election through 2028.

The D.C. Circuit concluded that the Trump administration is likely to prevail because the lawsuit was filed before the regulation had been finalized.

The judges also found that the proposed rule does not clearly conflict with the 2021 settlement.

In addition, the panel determined that the administration could suffer irreparable harm if it were prevented from completing the rulemaking process before the upcoming midterm elections.

“In this context, ‘there can be no do over’ once the election occurs,” the court wrote.

That observation reflects the administration’s argument that election procedures must be resolved before ballots are mailed rather than after votes have already been cast and certified.

Legal Battle Continues

Democrats and left-leaning advocacy groups have argued the proposal could interfere with mail-in voting and prevent eligible voters from receiving ballots.

The NAACP welcomed the lower court’s earlier decision blocking the rule, contending that the administration was attempting to undermine voting by mail.

The Trump administration has maintained that the proposal is intended to protect election integrity by ensuring ballots are delivered only to verified absentee voters.

The appeals court’s ruling does not end the dispute.

The Massachusetts injunction remains in place, preventing the Postal Service from implementing the regulation while that case proceeds.

If that injunction is eventually lifted, the Postal Service could move closer to enforcing the new requirements even as litigation continues.

The decision nevertheless represents an important procedural victory for the Trump administration as it continues pursuing election reforms ahead of future federal elections.

Mail-in voting became one of the most contentious issues of the 2020 election cycle, and the administration argues additional safeguards are necessary before another national election is conducted under the system.

READ MORE – Trump: ‘Netanyahu Will Not Be Arrested, in Any Way, Shape, or Form’ on American Soil


The House Oversight Committee has announced plans to investigate the accusations that the American Bar Association has become a progressive weapon of political war.

Representative Brandon Gill (R-TX) said a task force investigating them will “analyze how the American Bar Association (ABA) has weaponized its accreditation authority to promote DEI policies that are contrary to federal civil rights law and the negative consequences in the legal profession that result from these harmful policies. Members will also explore how Congress can help permanently eliminate DEI policies within American institutions, including the legal profession and academy.”

Congress to Probe ABA Over Alleged ‘Weaponization’ of DEI Policies legalinsurrection.com
News Source
EXCERPT:

Members of the House of Representatives are looking into whether the law school accreditation group, the American Bar Association, weaponized Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) to force discriminatory policies in admissions and coursework.

The House Oversight Committee’s Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Constitutional Abuses will hold a hearing Wednesday with ABA President Michelle Behnke to determine if the group actively pushed DEI policies at accredited schools.

In an interview with Just the News, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, outlined what the task force will be looking to uncover through its line of questioning during Wednesday’s hearing.

Thanks in part to holdups on Trump U.S. attorney confirmations by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), charges filed by Trump appointed U.S. attorney Linda Halligan against DNC operatives have been dismissed. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the charges against former FBI Director James Comey and current Fulton County Attorney General Leticia James.

The Judge ruled the Halligan was inappropriately appointed and thus has no authority to file charges before a U.S. court. Since the judge dismissed the charges, they can be brought again. Grassley held up the confirmation of Lindsey Halligan using a Senate traditional rule called the “blue slip,” which allows a home-state Senator to hold up any confirmations of their constituents for any reason.

Blurb:

Legal Expert Jonathan Turley Explains Why Comey and James Are Not Out of the Woods Yet, Despite Cases Being Dismissed – Western Journal

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley made clear on Monday why former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James are not out of legal jeopardy yet.

Earlier in the day, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Bill Clinton appointee, ruled that Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was incorrectly appointed, and therefore, the indictments brought by her office against Comey and James were “defective.”

“All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment … constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside,” the judge wrote.

Blurb:

Your taxpayer dollars and mine were paying for a special makeup artist at the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) — that is, until DOGE got involved.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cut contracts with a ceiling value of around $17 billion altogether over the last three weeks. It seems as if the waste and fraud in our federal government is endless, and DOGE has to wade through an absolute mountain of corrupt insanity as it tries to restore fiscal responsibility to the government.

In Obama, Democrats see a bridge between Biden and young voters ...

Obama Judge Tosses Victims’ Case In Order to Protect UNRWA’s Terror Ties To Hamas Atrocities– gellerreport.com
Source Link
Excerpt:

Obama Judge Analisa Torres has dismissed a high-profile lawsuit accusing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) of aiding and abetting Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel.=

Victims of the Octover 7th massacre Victims have testified that they were attacked by UNWRA employees and held captive in UNWRA buildings.

Hamas Hostages Were Held in UNRWA Compounds

Filed in New York by about 100 Israeli plaintiffs—including survivors, victims’ families, and a former hostage—the case sought more than $1 billion in damages, alleging UNRWA bolstered Hamas’s terror infrastructure through indirect funding and logistical support.

UNWRA is Hamas’s international diplomatic arm.

Trump nominates replacement for acting U.S. attorney in office probing Letitia James– www.cbsnews.com
Source Link
Excerpt:

President Trump said Saturday that he would be nominating senior White House aide Lindsey Halligan to serve as the top federal prosecutor for the Virginia office that was thrown into turmoil when its U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, abruptly left on Friday.

In a social media post just after he departed the White House for an event at Mount Vernon, Mr. Trump wrote he would be nominating Halligan as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, writing that she “will be Fair, Smart, and will provide, desperately needed, JUSTICE FOR ALL!”

Mr. Trump’s selection of Halligan came just hours after another conservative lawyer, Mary “Maggie” Cleary, said in an email to staff that was obtained by CBS News that she had been named acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

“While this appointment was unexpected, I am humbled to be joining your ranks,” Cleary told employees in the email. “The Eastern District of Virginia has a distinguished legacy upon which we will build.”

CBS News has reached out to the White House for clarification on whether Cleary or Halligan will be leading the Eastern District of Virginia while Halligan’s Senate nomination process plays out.

Halligan has been part of Mr. Trump’s legal orbit for the last several years, including serving as one of his attorneys in the early days of the FBI’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

E. Jean Carroll Confesses to Manipulate Jury to coax Trump Guilty Verdict

E. Jean Carroll Confesses to Manipulate Jury to coax Trump Guilty Verdict

E. Jean Carroll ADMITS She Used “Tricks” to Look “F*ckable” to Sway the Jury– wltreport.com
Source Link
Excerpt:

This is just disgusting…

E. Jean Carroll, the deranged woman who accused President Trump of raping her in the ’90s, just confessed that the entire trial was an act — complete with costumes.

In order to win her case, Caroll says that she and her lawyers manipulated her hair, makeup, and clothes in order to appear “f*ckable” to the jurors and convince them she was sexually-desirable to President Trump.

She said she cut her hair into the same style she had it in the ’90s and wore the same exact clothing. A makeup artist did her hair and makeup before the trial everyday, for the big show.

She admitted, “It was enough, it was enough. It was a trick.”

Watch this for yourself:

This reeks of delusion.

President Trump notoriously shut down Carroll’s rape accusation, claiming that she isn’t even his “type.”

For reference, this is her in the ’90s:

I could be wrong, but I really don’t think Carroll’s “trick” worked as well as she thinks it did…

Still, it’s an admission of fraud.

We knew she was a fraudster this entire time, but to hear her say it — point-blank — is frankly, disturbing.

Carroll’s admission comes right on the heels of a federal appeals court handing her a win and upholding the case.

Fox News reported:

President Donald Trump is still facing a $83.3 million payment to writer E. Jean Carroll after a federal appeals court rejected his challenge of a defamation verdict against him Monday.

The ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a lower court decision finding that Trump did, in fact, defame Carroll. Trump’s lawyers argued his comments about Carroll were protected by presidential immunity and that the verdict in the case was unjust. The three-judge panel rejected both of those claims.

“We conclude that Trump has failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering our prior holding on presidential immunity. We also conclude that the district court did not err in any of the challenged rulings and that the jury’s damages awards are fair and reasonable,” the court opinion read.

“The record in this case supports the district court’s determination that the ‘the degree of reprehensibility’ of Mr. Trump’s conduct was remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented,” the court added.

The appeals court should have seen this video before ruling on that case…

On another note, did anyone else notice the background?

Is that Carroll’s house?!

If so, that hoarding situation she’s got going on is yet another testament to her insanity.

What a nasty woman.

BREAKING: Letitia James Busted Again Over $200K Mortgage Allegations, Facing 15–30 Years in Prison– conservativeroof.com
Source Link
Excerpt:

Letitia James’s New York State mortgage records indicate that she committed mortgage fraud on a $200,000 “Credit Line Mortgage” with Citizens Bank in 2021. Like other mortgages, it requires a signed note, a mortgage document, and recording with the county clerk.

The mortgage document shows that James misrepresented her five-unit apartment building as a single-family dwelling. This false claim allowed James to avoid significantly higher commercial loan closing costs and a higher interest rate.

Source Link
Excerpt:

A federal judge has tossed out the Trump administration’s lawsuits against 15 Maryland judges who have ruled against President Donald Trump’s policies.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against all 15 judges with the US District Court for the District of Maryland in June. The complaint challenged Chief Judge Georga Russell III’s order pausing deportations for two business days when a detained illegal immigrant files a habeas corpus petition. The agency referred to the ruling as an “automatic injunction” that hampered the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws.

The DOJ asserted that district courts do not have jurisdiction over matters related to immigration. The complaint demanded that the judges recuse themselves from immigration-related cases.

In a scathing ruling, Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee, threw out the DOJ’s lawsuit, calling the case improper and constitutionally reckless. The judge argued that the policy was temporary and based on appellate court procedures. It also allowed judges time to properly evaluate the case.

Cullen acknowledged the administration’s objections to the judge’s rulings. “Fair enough, as far as it goes. If these arguments were made in the proper forum, they might well get some traction,” he wrote. However, he criticized the White House for bypassing regular channels like appeals or judicial council petitions. Instead, “the Executive decided to sue—and in a big way,” by suing every single judge in the Maryland district, the judge noted.

Source Link
Excerpt:

Friday, a federal judge in Florida ordered the famed “Alligator Alcatraz” detention and deportation center for illegal aliens closed and dismantled. My colleague Brad Slager had that story:

Judge Kathleen Williams, late Thursday evening in a Miami courtroom, issued a temporary restraining order requiring the state to refrain from bringing in any additional detainees, and declared that in 60 days the facility needs to be cleared of all of those being held, and the process of hauling out the installed infrastructure begins to take place.

Williams, a Barack Obama appointee, stated that an environmental impact assessment was to have been conducted prior to installing the new structures and other operational needs. She noted that no such advance research was conducted by the defendants, although the state did argue with a reference to a “Preliminary Ecological Assessment” that was conducted in late July. While that study alluded to several species possibly endangered, the state asserted that installations around the facility were erected to shield those in the surrounding area.