Lawfare

A Supreme Court ruling will allow the Trump administration’s Mail-in Voting Executive Order to take effect in the 2026 midterm election. The order requires states to have “unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, [to] enable confirmation that only citizens receive and cast ballots, reducing the risk of fraud and protecting the integrity of Federal elections.”

The final ruling was 6-3, with the three progressive judges dissenting. The ruling did not determine if the executive order was legal, it only determined the states had no standing because they offered no proof of “concrete” harm by the order, claiming their arguments were only “conjecture.”

Trump Triumphs at SCOTUS – Dems Counting on Mail-in Voting Should Prepare to Panic www.westernjournal.com
News Source
EXCERPT:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump’s executive order regarding mail-in ballots to go forward.

In late March, Trump issued an executive order requiring states to send a list of names of those receiving mail-in ballots so they could be verified as U.S. citizens, with the Department of Homeland Security working in conjunction with the Social Security Administration.

“The Federal Government has an unavoidable duty under Article II of the Constitution of the United States to enforce Federal law, which includes preventing violations of Federal criminal law and maintaining public confidence in election outcomes,” the directive read.

The U.S. Postal Service was instructed not to deliver ballots to those unverified as citizens.

Further, states are required to have “unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, [to] enable confirmation that only citizens receive and cast ballots, reducing the risk of fraud and protecting the integrity of Federal elections.”

U.S. District Judge Jeanette Vargas struck down the Trump administration’s pause on issuing visas to 75 countries. The judge claimed Secretary of State Marco Rubio exceeded his legal authority. She asserts consular authority trumps Secretary of State authority. The judge is another Biden-appointed District Judge. The ruling has been appealed.

Federal judge rules against Trump’s 75-country visa ban thehill.com
News Source
EXCERPT:

A federal judge ruled against the Trump administration’s pause on issuing visas to immigrants from 75 countries on Friday. In a 61-page decision, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas found that this policy was “contrary to law” and was “in excess” of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s legal authority. The visa pause order was announced by…

Uthmeier Demands FL Bar Toss Complaint Against DHS Attorney thefederalist.com
News Source
EXCERPT:

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is demanding that the state bar dismiss a “meritless” complaint filed by left-wing activists against a Trump administration attorney for criticizing rogue judges.

In his Monday letter to Florida Bar Executive Director Joshua Doyle, Uthmeier slammed the Aug. 18 filing by the Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) and Lawyers Defending American Democracy against Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival as a “shameless publicity stunt.” The complaint was signed by 128 former federal and state judges, “only three” of whom “previously served on the bench in Florida,” according to the Florida AG.

As The Federalist previously reported, the left-wing groups and judges took aim at a July 23 X thread by Percival. Titled, “Worst of the Worst, District Judge Edition,” the DHS general counsel described rogue judges’ overreaching actions in several immigration-related cases involving the administration and how they conflicted with its policy agenda.

For this and his media appearances criticizing those activist judges, the left-wing groups and former judges demanded that the Florida Bar investigate Percival. They laughably claimed that his commentary constituted “serious professional misconduct” and accused him of “threaten[ing] the rule of law and increas[ing] the risk of violence against judges.”

“Patently Unlawful”: US Judge Strikes Team Trump’s Policy Suspending Immigrant Visa For 75 Nations www.ndtv.com
News Source
EXCERPT:

Washington:

A US judge on Friday struck down a Trump administration policy suspending the issuance of immigrant visas to applicants from 75 countries, saying that the policy exceeded Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statutory authority.

US District Judge Jeannette Vargas in Manhattan said the policy that the State Department announced in January was “patently unlawful” and ran afoul of federal immigration law, which explicitly stripped the secretary of state of authority over consular officers’ processing of immigrant visas.

“The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme,” she wrote.

The State Department’s suspension that also took effect in January impacted applicants from Latin American countries including Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay; Balkan nations such as Bosnia and Albania; South Asian countries Pakistan and Bangladesh; and those from many nations in Africa, the Middle East, and the Caribbean.

The State Department said applicants from those countries were “at a high risk for becoming a public charge and recourse to local, state and federal government resources in the United States.” The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

White House ballroom will cost nearly $400m as Supreme Court allows work to continue www.euronews.com
News Source
EXCERPT:

US President Donald Trump announced that a new White House ballroom will cost nearly $400 million, funded entirely by private donors and corporations.

“We’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the ballroom, and it’s all from people like me and great companies that are putting it up. It’s going to be close to $400 million, and it’s all paid for by patriots and patriotic companies, big companies. I’ll name the companies probably over the next couple of weeks, but I want to ask if they mind. But and really, most of them have said you could use my name gladly. So that’s all money. No, no taxpayer money for the ballroom at all,” Trump said.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has cleared the way for construction to continue for the time being.

The temporary order was issued just hours before lower-court rulings were set to halt above-ground work on the project due to a lack of congressional approval.

Trump thanked the high court and the chief justice during his remarks later Friday during a political appearance in South Carolina.

“When they say proceed, I think that’s a good thing. That’s a good thing,” Trump said.

How Leftist Nonprofits, Judges Enable Crime Sprees In Red States thefederalist.com
News Source
EXCERPT:

Oklahoma just witnessed another shocking example of what happens when the left takes over the criminal justice system and treats thugs like victims and victims like castoffs. Between 2022 and 2026, Ghanaian migrant Jeff Kofi Asare accumulated a hefty criminal record in Oklahoma with 7 convictions and a litany of charges including larceny, trespass, and resisting an officer. Asare saw little jail time for most of these offenses and spent a total of 75 days incarcerated for two breaking-and-entering convictions despite repeated criminal activity escalating in severity, which culminated in an alleged depraved sexual assault spree earlier this month.

On Aug. 1, he was arrested for sexual battery and indecent exposure after allegedly groping two women near a bus stop and was subsequently released pre-trial. On Aug. 6, he was again arrested for sexual battery for allegedly groping a woman near a park and again released pre-trial. On Aug. 12, he was arrested for attempted rape after firefighters heard screams and rescued a woman, allegedly from his clutches.

Like Iryna Zarutska before them, these four alleged victims, who were simply trying to board a bus or take a walk in a park, made the reasonable but increasingly inaccurate assumption that they were not in the presence of a violent criminal who had been arrested and released numerous times.

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.

James Comey remained at Justice Department as monitoring went on ...

Biden-Appointed Judge Orders James Comey’s Arraignment Moved Up to Wednesday Morning Over ‘Security Reasons’– conservativeroof.com
Source Link
Excerpt:

The arraignment of former FBI Director James Comey was moved up to Wednesday morning at 10 am ET for ‘security reasons.’

“The arraignment of Defendant James B. Comey, Jr. shall begin promptly at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 8,2025, in Courtroom 600 on the Sixth Floor of the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse,” the judge wrote in a 2-page order.

“Because there are multiple previously-scheduled matters that are expected to draw large numbers of people to the courthouse at the same time as the arraignment, and because it is necessary to ensure the security of the Court, the parties, and the public, it is hereby ordered that Defendant is summoned to appear for arraignment before this Court on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, at 10 am.,” the judge said.

Comey was originally set to be arraigned this Thursday morning after he was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia last month.

His case was assigned to US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee.

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’s NY Times Defamation Case Tossed

Trump’s NY Times Defamation Case Tossed

Federal Judge Dismisses Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times – Букви
Source Link
Excerpt:

A federal judge dismissed former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times over alleged defamation, ruling that the 85-page document did not comply with federal civil filing rules. The decision opens the door to refiling with all requirements met, should the Trump team decide to take advantage of that option.

The president’s team has a month to refile the lawsuit, and a Trump spokesperson said they will do so.

Judge Steven D. Merryday of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida said on Friday that the lawsuit “clearly and unjustifiably violates the requirements of Rule 8” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The complaint clearly and baselessly violates the requirements of Rule 8

– Judge Steven D. Merryday

The complaint should be “short, simple, and straightforward in presenting the facts,” while the attack on The Times was “inadmissible and improper,” the judge said.

Merryday added that the Trump team could refile the suit within the next four weeks, but the document should not exceed 40 pages.

The judge also stressed that the complaint should not serve as a “public forum for insults and taunts” or a “megaphone for publicity.”