Judgefare

Source Link
Excerpt:

A federal judge in Maryland on Thursday permanently blocked two of President Trump’s memos aimed at ending Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs at universities.

Earlier this year, the Department of Education issued an ultimatum to federally funded schools: eliminate DEI programs within 14 days, or risk losing all federal funding.

The directive, detailed in a letter from the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), was in response to “pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences” that have turned America’s schools into indoctrination camps.

Source Link
Excerpt:

Over the past year, I have investigated all of the six major cases against Donald Trump that played out simultaneously between his two administrations for my book Breaking the Law. Each one of them involves obvious improprieties that necessitate investigations. In many instances, I believe investigators will find criminal activity, which ought to be prosecuted.

It is encouraging and heartening to see that the Department of Justice has taken up a criminal investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia “Tish” James and that the Office of the Special Counsel is investigating Special Counsel Jack Smith. This could mark a new era of accountability in this country and a return to law and order.

Source Link
Excerpt:

Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg ordered the release of documents in Jack Smith’s classified documents case and President Trump’s attorney-client privilege dispute.

Jack Smith relied on a DC grand jury and radical Marxist Obama-appointed Judge Beryl Howell in the classified docs case before quietly heading down to Florida to file charges.

Judge Beryl Howell ruled against Trump at every turn. She previously ordered Trump’s lawyer Evan Corcoran to testify before a grand jury in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into classified documents stored at Mar-a-Lago.

Source Link
Excerpt:

A Kentucky man who was sentenced to 14 years in prison last year but was put back on the street five months after his sentencing has been arrested after a Louisville woman and her children were kidnapped at knifepoint.

Armond Langford. 32, was arrested Friday after a six-hour manhunt, according to WHAS-TV.

Before his arrest, a woman and her two children were kidnapped. The woman said she was forced to drive to a bank as Langford demanded $20,000.

“He opened our back door and told them to get in the car…. They got in the car. They drove to the bank. He held a knife at her the whole time, he was telling her to drive faster,” Brandon Strong, husband and father of the victims, told the TV station.

Federal Judges Keep Defying Supreme Court Orders Against Trump Admin– dailycaller.com
Source Link
Excerpt:

Federal judges are increasingly ruling against the Trump administration’s agenda and in defiance of Supreme Court orders.

The executive branch finds itself fending off endless counter-opinions from federal judges in the courtroom as it continues to implement its hard-line immigration policies. While the Trump administration has scored major victories in the nation’s highest court, including successfully reining in the scope of nationwide injunctions by federal judges, some have chosen to defy Supreme Court rulings.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of the Biden administration, blocked the Trump administration on Friday from using a process known as “expedited removal” to quickly remove illegal migrants from the country, according to court documents. The order could, at least for the time being, dramatically curtail the White House’s ability to carry out its deportation agenda.

In a public statement about the ruling, an administration spokesperson slammed the Biden-appointed judge, accusing her of defying a previous Supreme Court ruling.

Source Link
Excerpt:

A federal appeals court on Friday paused a lower court injunction that had blocked the Trump administration from ending union bargaining rights for thousands of federal workers at 21 agencies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted an emergency stay sought by the administration, putting on hold a preliminary injunction issued by District Judge James Donato in June in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and five other unions representing federal employees.

The unions sought to challenge President Donald Trump’s March 27 executive order, which aimed to eliminate collective bargaining rights for employees of government agencies with national security missions.

In a 15-page decision, the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit panel stated that the government is likely to succeed on the merits of the plaintiffs’ retaliation claim, finding that Trump’s order does not, on its face, “express any retaliatory animus.”

“Even assuming that plaintiffs have made out a prima facie claim of retaliation, on this record the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct,” the judges stated.

Source Link
Excerpt:

The Senate has confirmed President Trump’s former criminal defense attorney Emil Bove to a lifetime appointment as a federal appellate judge for the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 50-49 Senate vote was largely along party lines with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voting against Bove’s confirmation to the federal bench.

Source Link
Excerpt:

Twenty-two states filed a lawsuit on July 29 challenging a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that would strip Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

The lawsuit, filed by attorneys general from Democratic-led states and the governor of Pennsylvania, seeks to block a provision in the legislation that bars organizations providing abortion care and that received more than $800,000 in Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023 from receiving Medicaid reimbursements. This includes Planned Parenthood health centers.

The states alleged that the provision targeted Planned Parenthood for its abortion advocacy, arguing that it violates the spending clause and First Amendment protections by retaliating against the organization.

The provision would deny low-income individuals access to cancer screenings, testing, and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and family planning services, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also argues that the provision would cripple the states’ medical healthcare ecosystem and force them to use state funds to keep affected health care centers operational.

Source Link
Excerpt:

In a July 18 ruling, Senior 6th District Court of Appeals Judge Julia Gibbons, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, stated that the provision of the 2024 law that bans the “recruitment” of underage girls to obtain an out-of-state abortion violates the First Amendment by allowing speech discouraging abortion while prohibiting speech encouraging aborting an unborn child. The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Democratic pro-abortion state Rep. Aftyn Behn, who sought to block the legislation, alleging that the law violated “free speech.”

“(The recruitment provision) prohibits speech encouraging lawful abortion while allowing speech discouraging lawful abortion,” Gibbons wrote in the ruling. “That is impermissible viewpoint discrimination, which the First Amendment rarely tolerates — and does not tolerate here.”

“Because abortion is generally illegal in Tennessee, the state may constitutionally punish speech made in direct furtherance of in-state abortions,” the judge added. “The state may not, however, criminalize speech recruiting a minor to procure a legal abortion in another state.”

Source Link
Excerpt:

President Donald Trump expressed his frustration with Republican Senate leaders over the lack of votes on his judicial nominees, including his nominees for federal judgeships and U.S. attorney positions. With the August recess fast approaching, the Republican-controlled Senate has confirmed a historically low number of judicial nominees.

As of this report, just one Article III judge has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate when Judge Whitney D. Hermandorfer was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. There are currently 11 nominations awaiting Senate action, three for the courts of appeals and eight for the district courts.

The pace of judicial confirmations in Trump’s second term is historically slow. For comparison, the average number of judicial confirmations by this point in a term stands at 11, with former President Barack Obama having 26 of his nominees confirmed by July 29.

In a lengthy Truth Social post, President Trump pressed Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to pick up the pace. “Chuck Grassley, who I got re-elected to the U.S. Senate when he was down, by a lot, in the Great State of Iowa, could solve the ‘Blue Slip’ problem we are having with respect to the appointment of Highly Qualified Judges and U.S. Attorneys, with a mere flick of the pen,” the president wrote, adding that Senate Democrats are determined to block any and all nominees.

Source Link
Excerpt:

A Massachusetts district judge blocked the Trump administration on Monday from effectively defunding Planned Parenthood for a year.

Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the withholding of Medicaid funds possibly violated the First Amendment’s right of association, according to court documents. The case stems from a provision in Trump’s tax bill that eliminates Medicaid reimbursements to abortion providers that received more than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in 2023 for one year, regardless of the other services the provider offered.

“The court’s order does not require the federal government to spend money not already appropriated for Medicaid or any other funds,” Talwani wrote. “Instead, this order grants preliminary relief that prevents Defendants from targeting a specific group of entities — Planned Parenthood Federation Members — for exclusion from reimbursements under the Medicaid program where Plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood that they will succeed in establishing that such targeted exclusion violated the United States Constitution, and where Plaintiffs satisfy the remaining requirements to obtain a preliminary injunction.”

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah filed a joint lawsuit against Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), following the passage of Trump’s tax bill.

Source Link
Excerpt:

President Donald Trump scored another huge legal victory after a judge tossed out a lawsuit brought against his administration that challenged his “dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).”

Conservative pundits and commentators are saying this is a significant development, as it may lead to the dismissal of other cases against the administration that make similar claims. Once it’s appealed, the circuit court’s precedent will then bind other district courts in our nation’s capital.

The lawsuit in question was first filed on Feb. 6, 2025, by the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees. The purpose of the suit was to block President Trump from putting thousands of individuals who worked for USAID on administrative leave before eventually firing them.

Both groups, which filed the lawsuit jointly, claimed that the administration’s actions were in violation of federal employment protections and posed safety risks to those who worked abroad.

When it was first filed, Judge Carl J. Nichols, who was appointed to the bench by President Trump, issued a temporary restraining order halting the planned removal of over 2,200 government workers. The reason? Safety concerns overseas.

Source Link
Excerpt:

“You are a bunch of lying f*cking scumbags. You terrorize, you try to terrorize Supreme Court justices over a decision that didn’t go your way.”

In a recent interview with PBS’ Frontline program, War Room host Steve Bannon criticized the outlet for expressing concerns about “rhetoric” from President Donald Trump, but not when Supreme Court justices were targeted in the wake of the Roe v Wade decision.

“You can’t let these radical judges do it. And this is going to be a showdown. It has to be a showdown,” Bannon said.

“And the rhetoric about the judge, because a lot of lawyers say, you know, all of the rhetoric, calling for impeachment, the radical left lunatic, that this rhetoric, it shouldn’t—that’s not the type of thing the President should say. He should appeal. He should abide by the court ruling and not—,” the PBS interviewer asked before being cut off.

“Listen, by the way, was there any complaint from PBS, or was there any complaint by the Democrats on the rhetoric used against the judges when the Roe v Wade decision came out and they had to have police protection at their houses?” Bannon asked. “I don’t remember, I don’t remember anything about the rhetoric being too high.”

Who is Darrin Gayles? Meet the Obama-appointed judge handling Trump’s $10B lawsuit against Murdoch, WSJ – Hindustan Times

Source Link

Excerpt:

The federal judge who has been assigned to take care of President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal is Darrin P. Gayles, a former federal prosecutor who was appointed by Barack Obama.

Gayles, a United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, is a former US attorney who was appointed by Obama in 2014. At the time, a vote of 98-0 unanimously confirmed him in the Senate. Gayles went on to become the first openly gay Black man to serve on the federal bench. His appointment to Trump’s case happened randomly.

Trump’s lawsuit was filed in federal court in Miami on July 18. It accuses the newspaper, its parent companies, executives and journalists of falsely claiming that Trump wrote a 50th birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. Trump’s lawsuit reportedly names Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp, WSJ publisher Dow Jones, executive Robert Thomson, and two WSJ journalists whose bylines were there in the story.

New Jersey federal judges sideline Alina Habba as top prosecutor, Trump’s DOJ ousts her replacement– www.cbsnews.com
Source Link
Excerpt:

Federal judges in New Jersey invoked a rarely used judiciary power to sideline interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba, installing her top assistant as the state’s top federal prosecutor — but hours later, the Trump administration responded by ousting Habba’s deputy.

President Trump installed Habba, who had served as his personal attorney, on March 24 in an interim capacity. An appointee can lead a U.S. attorney’s office for up to 120 days pending Senate confirmation. Habba was not formally nominated for the role until July 1 and has not been confirmed.

The state’s district judges voted to replace her. Chief Judge Renée Bumb wrote in an order Tuesday that they appointed Habba’s first assistant, longtime prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace, to the role.

Hours later, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department had “removed” Grace, accusing “rogue judges” of “threatening” the president’s constitutional powers.

A Justice Department official told CBS News that Grace is no longer with the department.

Source Link
Excerpt:

An appellate court ruled the Trump administration can move forward with ending temporary deportation protections for thousands of Afghan and Cameroonian nationals.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is allowed to end the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 10,000 Afghans and Cameroonians while a court challenge against the move continues to play out in court, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday. The court determined that while CASA — an immigration advocacy group suing DHS — has a plausible case, there is not enough evidence to block the TPS phaseout while the court challenge continues.

“We agree with the district court that CASA, Inc. has stated a plausible claim for relief with regard to the alleged ‘preordained’ decision to terminate temporary protected status (TPS) for Afghanistan and Cameroon, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in favor of CASA, Inc,” the court stated, according to court documents.

“At this procedural posture, however, there is insufficient evidence to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a postponement of agency action pending appeal,” the ruling continued.

Source Link
Excerpt:

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer will proceed with evaluating Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s (D-CA) claims that President Donald Trump‘s use of the National Guard in Los Angeles violated a federal law preventing troops from being used for regular law enforcement activities, despite an appeals court ruling that Breyer could not pause the use of the troops.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit blocked Breyer’s previous pause on Trump’s federalization of the National Guard after Breyer said the president unlawfully took over it.

After the appeals court took jurisdiction over those claims, Breyer requested briefs from California officials and the Justice Department on whether they believed he could still rule on Newsom’s claims that the deployed troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act by engaging in civilian law enforcement activities. In an order filed late Wednesday evening in California, Breyer ruled that he has that authority and ordered some discovery to be permitted in the case.

“Both parties posit that the Court does retain that jurisdiction,” Breyer wrote in his order. “Upon review, the Court agrees. The Court may proceed with the case, including by hearing arguments on the propriety of a preliminary injunction on Posse Comitatus Act grounds and by allowing discovery.”

Breyer said he would consider a preliminary injunction on Newsom’s allegations that the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act following a timeline requested by California officials. Their briefing requested responses and depositions be completed by July 11 and a supplemental briefing be filed by July 15.

Source Link
Excerpt:

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hand down a pivotal decision that could finally put an end to one of the Left’s favorite judicial tricks: nationwide injunctions designed to paralyze conservative executive action.

According to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a looming Supreme Court decision on nationwide injunctions could have “enormous” impacts on the Trump administration.

Turley said Tuesday that the high court will likely crack down on rogue activist judges.

The SCOTUS is poised to decide on the practice by federal judges that can currently halt executive branch policies affecting the entire country.

Conservatives have argued that injunctions have been strategically sought in left-wing jurisdictions.

The moves are part of a strategy to undermine the Trump administration’s agenda on immigration enforcement and deportations.

“It’s going to be an enormous decision potentially,” Turley explained.

The legal scholar noted that a decision may come on Thursday.

“For the administration in the immigration areas, as well as other areas, the court could very well say, ‘Enough. We’re not going to have individual judges freezing the entire United States government on critical programs like this.”

Turley said that many of the injunctions are brought in “favorable” jurisdictions in front of “favorable” judges.

Those activist judges issue the injunctions that are favorable to Democrats and stop the president’s policies in their tracks.

Source Link
Excerpt:

A federal judge in California blocked President Donald Trump‘s executive order aimed at ending collective bargaining for federal workers across various federal agencies.

Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, an Obama appointee, issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday blocking Trump’s order stripping collective bargaining rights from 21 agencies, which the president said he could do under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, citing national security concerns.

Donato sided with the American Federation of Government Employees, the AFL-CIO, and other unions who said the order was unlawful retaliation and violated their First Amendment speech rights.

“Plaintiffs have demonstrated a serious question under the First Amendment that warrants preserving the status quo pending further litigation. The court need not take up plaintiffs’ other claims as a potential ground for an injunction,” Donato said.

Donato pointed to a fact sheet released by the White House, which said Trump would “not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions,” as part of his concerns about First Amendment violations.

The judge said the fact sheet “expressed a clear point of view that is hostile to federal labor unions and their First Amendment activities.”

Source Link
Excerpt:

A so-called judge has once again subverted the rule of law and potentially endangered the public due to hatred of President Trump.

As The New York Times reported, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Friday to release pro-Hamas student activist Mahmoud Khalil on bail. At this time, he is the only ‘major’ anti-Israel agitator demonstrator in America remaining in confinement.

U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz, an appointee of Joe Biden, issued the ruling.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that Farbiarz ruled that the Trump administration could not deport Mahmoud Khalil, who was a graduate student at Columbia University before being detained.

Back in March, The Gateway Pundit reported that Trump’s ICE agents arrested Khalil, who led anti-Israel protests at Columbia and Barnard College.

He was set to be deported after being detained and taken into custody by ICE. The State Department had also issued an edict revoking his student visa and green card.

But U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman, an Obama appointee, slammed the brakes on the Trump administration’s efforts to deport Khalil.

Source Link
Excerpt:

Colorado likes to brand itself as the “gold standard” of elections and democracy. But scratch the surface, and you’ll find something rotten. The same state that tried to bar President Trump from the 2024 ballot—only to be rebuked unanimously by the Supreme Court—is now under scrutiny for far more than election antics. Colorado has become ground zero for judicial tyranny, a place where whistleblowers are crushed, innocent men are financially destroyed, and courtrooms operate more like cartel headquarters than halls of justice.

The case of Tina Peters, the Mesa County clerk-turned-election integrity advocate, is finally drawing attention from the Department of Justice. After years of political persecution, Peters’ case has shifted from the DOJ Civil Division to the Criminal Division, with officials asking if her prosecution was less about justice and more about inflicting political pain. That’s a generous way to describe what happened. Jena Griswold, Colorado’s secretary of State, publicly posted hundreds of active election passwords, blocked expert witness Clay Parikh—one of the nation’s top cyber forensics specialists—from testifying, and weaponized the courts to silence Peters. The state’s judiciary went along with it, ruling that “nothing was compromised,” while the public saw the truth unfold in real time.

But Tina’s case isn’t an outlier—it’s a symptom of a far larger disease infecting Colorado’s judiciary. In a stunning exposé published in the Boston Broadside, the story of “John Doe”—a Colorado father who had more than $656,000 garnished from him without notice, hearing, or even proof of service—has exposed the state’s family court system as a lawless racket. The article, titled “The Family Court Fleecing of a John Doe — It Could Happen to You!”, details how John Sarina  (his real name, known to many familiar with the case) was railroaded by a court that allowed perjury by his ex-wife to go unpunished. Despite his repeated attempts to notify the court that he had not been served, Arapahoe County Court and Magistrate Moschetti allowed the financial carnage to proceed unabated. Constitutional rights were treated like an inconvenience. Due process was entirely absent.

Source Link
Excerpt:

This April, the acting director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review issued a memo clarifying the requirement of immigration judges to effectively manage their crushing caseloads by dismissing legally insufficient applications for protection from removal or for asylum.

This is the most significant action taken by any administration to give immigration judges the tools that all other judges have in their tool kit to dismiss meritless cases on their existing dockets and swat away specious claims in the future.

Take the fact that there are over four million pending cases on immigration review docket, and the fact that, in 2022, about 68% of removal and deportation cases resulted in removal orders, and only about 14% of asylum claims were granted. Based on my conversations with immigration chief judges, if immigration judges do their duty, they could trim the existing dockets by up to 70% and could dismiss over 2.8 million cases.

For over six years, we have been urging the Department of Justice and administrations across both parties to give immigration judges the same tools that all state and federal judges have to manage their dockets. The three tools are summary judgment authority, the ability to dismiss a clearly non-meritorious case based on the pleadings (the written paperwork filed with the court), and contempt authority. See here, here, here and here.

Source Link
Excerpt:

Not a week seems to go by without a rogue lower court judge issuing yet another overreaching edict designed to subvert the will of the American people.

On Monday, an Obama-appointed district court judge attempted to block parts of President Trump’s executive orders ending subsidization of programs promoting DEI and radical gender ideology. On June 5, a different Obama-appointed judge handed down an injunction aiming to halt the Trump administration’s prohibition on international students attending Harvard. A week before that, yet another Obama-appointed judge sought to prevent the president from ending a Biden-era “parole” program for foreign nationals living in the United States.

While these “judges” certainly deserve criticism for rubber-stamping leftists’ lawfare, there’s one individual who deserves primary blame for this concentrated effort to cripple Trump’s presidency via a judicial coup: Chief Justice John Roberts.

Over the past five months, rogue lower courts have issued nearly 200 overreaching injunctions and temporary restraining orders attempting to prevent Trump from fulfilling his Article II obligation to execute the nation’s laws. And yet, despite this egregious usurpation of constitutional authority, the Supreme Court’s leading justice has done nothing substantive to stop it.