Trump Lawfare

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.

Trump admin refunds $81B in tariffs after his key trade policy was struck down by Supreme Court www.independent.co.uk
News Source
EXCERPT:

News Source
EXCERPT:

A convicted Cuban plane hijacker who terrorized a flight crew and forced a plane to divert to Florida in 2003 is back on the streets after a Bill Clinton-appointed federal judge ordered his release from ICE custody last week.

Miakel Guerra Morales, who served roughly 20 years in federal prison for aircraft piracy, had been detained by immigration authorities since December. He was awaiting deportation.

That is, until U.S. District Judge John E. Steele ruled on July 8th that he could no longer be held, despite the ongoing removal process.

A report from the magistrate judge in 2009 highlights some aspects of the brutality involved in the hijacking. The hijackers— Morales and a handful of co-defendants—wielded the plane’s emergency axes and several knives in an attempt to control the pilot and crew. Knives were, on multiple occasions, pressed against the throats of some individuals.

News Source
EXCERPT:

A new Wall Street Journal analysis found that Ketanji Brown Jackson is the most partisan justice on the Supreme Court, voting against the Trump administration 98 percent of the time in 100 major cases. In those same cases, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas aligned with the administration 89 and 88 percent of the time, respectively.

The Wall Street Journal suggested in its article that Alito’s record was the real story behind this data: “In a term dominated by Trump-related disputes, [Alito] voted to uphold every significant Trump initiative that came before the court, and he wrote frequent, full-throated endorsements of some of Trump’s most brazen efforts to expand presidential power.”

Alito is certainly a consistent conservative justice, but Jackson sides against the Trump administration in almost every major case, according to the WSJ’s analysis. The real story this data tells is about Jackson’s radicalism, which sometimes even causes her to split with her left-wing counterparts on the court.

News Source
EXCERPT:

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams has handed President Donald Trump a ruling with the kind of symmetry Washington usually saves for satire. President Barack Hussein Obama nominated Williams in 2011, and 15 years later, she’s effectively stripped Trump’s IRS settlement of legal use and pushed several lawyers toward professional discipline.

The political circle closed with almost comic precision.

Trump had a legit grievance; Charles Littlejohn, an IRS contractor, stole and leaked Trump’s tax records with confidential data from thousands of wealthy taxpayers.

Littlejohn pleaded guilty and received five years in prison.

News Source
EXCERPT:

A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration’s push to attach anti-DEI strings to federal grant money. The court ruled this week that the executive branch overstepped its constitutional authority by imposing the conditions on a group of West Coast cities and counties.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick granted a preliminary injunction Thursday barring the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and the Interior from enforcing the contested conditions against 11 local governments, concluding in a 68-page order that the restrictions likely run afoul of both the separation-of-powers doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act.

News Source
EXCERPT:

After the shocking Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship, a Texas hospital is going viral for advertising childbirth packages for expectant mothers just miles from the U.S. border in Mexico.

“Here in Texas, you have these birth tourism hospitals openly advertising birth packages, and they’re not advertising to Texans,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales explains on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“They’re not like, ‘Hey, Texans, come to our birth center. We’re really, really gentle.’ They’re actually advertising to Mexicans in Mexico. You have Mission Regional Medical Center; it’s within miles of the border. It’s advertising birth packages on billboards in Mexico,” she continues.

The billboard Gonzales shows is all in Spanish and boasts $3,950 for a natural birth and $5,525 for a C-section. Even more disturbing, the website the billboard pointed Mexicans to was “havemybabyinTEXAS.com.”

News Source
EXCERPT:

A federal appeals court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to replace informational panels at the slavery exhibit at the President’s House in Philadelphia. The decision is a legal victory for the administration as it moves to restore how the nation’s history is presented at federal historic sites.

The court issued a mandate Friday finalizing its June 18 ruling, allowing the Interior Department to move forward with replacing the exhibit panels at the President’s House, the nation’s first executive mansion, where President George Washington enslaved nine men and women.

The Interior Department sought immediate implementation of the ruling in a motion filed Thursday.

News Source
EXCERPT:

The ruling is in.

A Federal Judge has ruled on whether accused J6 pipe bomber Brian Cole Jr. is covered under President Trump’s sweeping J6 pardons.

In December of 2025, President Trump signed a sweeping executive order that pardoned mostly everyone involved in the protest the occurred at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th.

A Federal Judge has ruled accused J6 pipe bomber Brian Cole Jr. is not pardoned under President Trump’s pardons.

News Source
EXCERPT:

In August 2021, Florida woman Precious Bland drowned her 15-month-old and stabbed her husband who tried to stop her along with her teen daughter. After she was arrested and put on trial nearly five years later, she pled insanity, claiming that she had a “psychotic break” due to the stresses of Covid. At the time of the drowning she allegedly screamed, “Jesus Christ is coming, and Covid is going to kill us all!” The judge of this case, Miguel de la O, apparently found this argument persuasive and acquitted Bland.

Typically, the story would end there. Time and again, a psychotic murderer commits a heinous crime, stands before a liberal judge and claims insanity, receives mental health treatment, and is then released back into the public so that they can have more “psychotic breaks” that harm innocent people.

News Source
EXCERPT:

 

A federal court has blocked the Trump administration from firing 19 intelligence officers assigned to DEI programs.

 

In a 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration’s firings were illegal because they did not allow for an appeal or the opportunity for the 19 intelligence officers to request a reassignment.

The Court further ruled that the Trump administration illegally made the decision based on the anti-DEI executive order signed by President Donald Trump upon entering office rather than “workplace misconduct” or “performance concerns.”