And we look to other breaking legal developments: Dr. Anthony Fauci’s instructions to delete emails; updates on the case of Tyler Robinson, who has been charged with the murder of Charlie Kirk; and, a new criminal investigation into former FBI Director James Comey.

Share

Supreme Court: Construction of the White House ballroom may continue

In an August 31 per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the construction of the White House ballroom can proceed. A federal district court had previously enjoined the construction of the ballroom.

By a 5-4 vote, the Court observed that the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (“Trust”) – which sued to prevent the construction project – lacked standing to challenge the ballroom because neither it (nor its members) had suffered a concrete or particularized injury. Instead, the Trust had only alleged that one if its members would suffer from having to view the ballroom because she found its scale and height distasteful. The Court also noted that the district court likely exceeded its authority by enjoining “the activities of a coordinate branch of government.” And finally, the alleged injuries sustained by the member of the Trust did not even remotely compare to the interests of the Executive to have secure infrastructure. The Court’s opinion, however, was careful to point out that it did not rule on the legality of the ballroom project.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson. He argued that the “construction is likely unlawful” because Congress has not given “express authority” for its construction. He also alleged that the aesthetic “injury” was sufficient for standing.

Military Judge tosses confessions of alleged 9/11 ringleader

On August 28, a military judge ruled that the government cannot use at trial the 2007 confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged ringleader of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The judge found that the confessions Mohammed made to FBI agents nearly 20 years ago at Guantanamo Bay were not voluntary. According to reports, the judge reasoned that the prosecution “failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Mohammed’s statements to the F.B.I. were voluntarily given.”

Mohammed is accused of proposing the 9/11 terror plot to Osama Bin Laden and serving as the “operational leader” of the plot. He is also alleged to have trained “some hijackers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

After the decision of the military judge, the chief prosecutor stated they were reviewing the ruling and would “make a decision on whether to appeal in the near future.”

Mohammed faces the death penalty if convicted. Previously, a federal court of appeals threw out a plea agreement that would have given Mohammed and two other conspirators life without parole. That plea deal was reached despite the objections of many families of the 9/11 victims, and it was voided after then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin repudiated the deal.

Emails allege New York’s top prosecutor targeted President Trump

As first reported by the Times Union, New York Assistant Attorney General Daniel Wiesenfeld sent an agency-wide email within the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleging he was instructed by his supervisor (Investor Protection Bureau Chief Shamiso Maswoswe) to “find and pursue crimes committed by specific individuals and organizations affiliated with Donald Trump.” The email revealed he was also asked to target Truth Social, the President’s social media platform.

On Wednesday, September 2, the New York Post reported that the whistleblower met with the FBI and federal prosecutors “for several hours.”

Curiously, that email was wiped from the office’s servers and disappeared from the inboxes of over 2,000 employees. The fact that Letitia James targeted Trump is well-known - she campaigned on that platform, after all - although this is the first documentation of her pursuit of Trump to come from her subordinates. After her election, she brought a massive civil fraud case against Trump and his companies that resulted in a $500 million penalty and significant operational restrictions on Trump’s businesses. A New York appeals court dismissed the $500 million penalty as unconstitutionally excessive. President Trump’s effort to dismiss the other restrictions resulting from the civil fraud case is ongoing.

In other news:

• Senator Rand Paul has released additional records from Dr. Anthony Fauci that show he instructed email recipients to delete his sensitive emails after reading - an obvious effort to evade transparency under the Freedom of Information Act and an arguable violation of law for the deletion of federal records.

• A Utah judge ruled that prosecutors have presented sufficient evidence against Tyler Robinson, the accused killer of conservative icon Charlie Kirk, and will allow them to seek the death penalty. Yesterday, Robinson entered formal pleas of not guilty to all charges.

• According to reporting from Fox News, a federal grand jury has issued a subpoena to Daniel Richman, former FBI Director James Comey’s “longtime friend and advisor” as part of a new investigation into Comey’s leaks of classified information to the media.

Share

Ghislaine Maxwell’s last-ditch appeal is rejected

A New York federal judge has denied Ghislaine Maxwell’s efforts to vacate her convictions relating to her participation, with Jeffrey Epstein, in the sexual abuse of young girls that spanned over a decade.

Previously, Maxwell’s appeal of her conviction was rejected by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 and then by the Supreme Court in 2025. After the Supreme Court declined to hear her case, Maxwell submitted a pro se petition to the federal district court in December 2025 that argued her convictions and sentence constituted constitutional and legal errors that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

As the judge observed, Maxwell was convicted and subsequently sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment based on “evidence of her guilt that was overwhelming.” That evidence included testimony from victims and corroborative documentary evidence that included photographs and flight records. She did not show a denial of her constitutional rights during her criminal trial. Moreover, Maxwell’s pro se petition was denied because she attempted to re-litigate issues that had already been rejected on her direct appeal.

The legal fight continues over election integrity

On August 24, the Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, stayed an injunction issued by Massachusetts District Court Judge Indira Talwani (an Obama appointee) that enjoined the Trump Administration from implementing an Executive Order “designed to maintain public confidence in federal elections.”

President Trump’s Executive Order, which seeks to ensure citizenship verification in federal elections, was challenged by a number of States and liberal organizations. The Supreme Court held that these States did not have standing to challenge the Executive Order because they had not suffered “concrete harm”: no obligations had been placed on the States and the President’s prioritization of prosecuting election-related crimes “does not inflict a traditionally recognized harm on the States.” The Supreme Court also observed that the Executive Order’s request that the Postal Service issue rules on mail-in and absentee ballots, at this time, imposed “no legal requirements on the States.”

The day after the Supreme Court’s ruling that overruled her injunction, Judge Talwani issued a strange memorandum that accused the Trump Administration of violating the preliminary injunction, though she declined to issue sanctions over that alleged violation. She also slighted the Supreme Court for accepting “the government’s feigned compliance.” This was followed up by an August 26 order from Judge Talwani that vacated her injunction.

In other news:

• Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, reached a $17.1 billion settlement with 47 states that ends a years-long case “that sought to hold the tech giant accountable for the role its platforms played in undermining children’s mental health.” Meta also agreed to institute daily time limits for children’s accounts and ensure age-appropriate content.

• The FBI and DOJ seized domains used by Chinese state-sponsored hackers to “target U.S. critical infrastructure and other sensitive networks.” According to Attorney General Todd Blanche, “federal law enforcement investigated and disabled the PRC’s malicious software, the latest in a series of technical operations to dismantle indiscriminate hacking activities sponsored by the People’s Republic of China.”

• The DOJ announced that federal contractor Deloitte “agreed to pay the United States $21.5 million to resolve allegations that Deloitte violated the False Claims Act by failing to comply with anti-discrimination requirements in its federal contracts and discriminating against employees and applicants on the basis of their race or sex.” The settlement agreement includes allegations that Deloitte took aggressive actions to discriminate based on race and sex “when making hiring, promotion, and staffing decisions” in violation of the anti-discrimination requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Share

Former Fauci advisor David Morens pleads guilty.

David Morens, a former senior advisor to Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has pled guilty to a conspiracy charge relating to “a scheme to evade Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and the Federal Records Act in connection with communications about coronavirus research grants.” We previously explained the criminal case against Morens here.

According to the stipulated facts filed with the plea deal, Morens used his Gmail account to communicate with others regarding efforts to counter the beliefs that COVID-19 was developed in a lab. He also used his Gmail account to influence the National Institutes of Health to fund grants to his co-conspirators. Morens stipulated that he accepted improper gifts provided by a co-conspirator for his “behind-the-scenes shenanigans” that assisted the conspirator’s company.

Morens faces up to five years in prison but due to his age (78) and his lack of a criminal record, we expect he will only face probation. His co-conspirators have yet to be charged.

Rusty Thumbs: the Eric Swalwell investigation

The White House has released FBI records evidencing that former Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell had a potentially compromising romantic relationship with Chinese National Fang Fang.

According to the FBI records, Fang Fang was “the facilitator of a scheme to trade internships in Congressman Eric Swalwell’s Congressional office in return for campaign contributions, potentially in violation of” federal law. Several of these campaign contributions were made illegally through conduits.

Swalwell was interviewed by the FBI in May of 2015, where he confirmed he “had physical relations with Fang on a handful of occasions”, though he denied any illegal activity. One witness interviewed by the FBI had “the impression that FANG is a Chinese spy”. The FBI’s attempt to set Fang up with an undercover employee were unsuccessful – due to the timing of the placement of the undercover employee (UCE), Fang was suspicious that they were a government agent.

Fang would eventually leave the United States and be barred from re-entry. Prosecution of Fang was determined to be “non-viable due to national security reasons.” The investigation was headed by the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, which was led by Jack Smith, who would later be appointed and aggressively pursue President Trump.

FDA Commissioner expressed concern over COVID-19 vaccine adverse events

New records released by Senators Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have revealed that on May 27, 2021, Dr. Janet Woodcock, who at the time was serving as the Acting Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, informed Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins that medical professionals she knew were experiencing adverse events after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

In Dr. Woodcock’s own words: “I have been contacted by a number of people who have experienced adverse events post COVID-19 vaccination (from all three of the current vaccines). Many are healthcare professionals, some of whom I know.”

Despite these private concerns, Dr. Woodcock would publicly promote the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. Two months after that email, Dr. Woodcock would testify before Congress and state that the vaccines were safe. She would also encourage children to receive the vaccines, telling them it would help end the pandemic.

United Airlines asks Supreme Court to stop COVID-19 vaccine mandate class action.

United Airlines has asked the Supreme Court to block a class action over allegations from its employees that the airline, which had mandated COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic, failed to reasonably accommodate their religious and medical objections to the vaccine. United Airlines took their case to the Supreme Court after the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling that affirmed a district court’s decision to certify as a class a group of United Airlines employees who sought religious accommodations to the COVID-19 vaccine and were placed on unpaid leave.

In other news:

• The government has filed its opening brief in a federal appeals court in the Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia case, which a district court had dismissed for vindictive prosecution. Abrego Garcia was previously deported and then returned to the U.S., after which he faced a criminal prosecution for human smuggling.

• The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a Texas law that imposed new security measures on mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting.

• A Muslim illegal alien who murdered his roommate left the country after Democratic Virginia prosecutors “helped him get a foreign passport and allowed him to leave the mental hospital on unsupervised visits.” While he was on leave from the Northern Virginia Mental Health Institute, the admitted killer “boarded an international flight at Washington Dulles International Airport and traveled to Istanbul, Turkey. He thereafter traveled to Dushanbe, Tajikistan.” The Daily Wire has a great rundown of the infuriating case.

Share

The Fauci Texts

On Monday, Senators Ron Johnson and Rand Paul released initial texts from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s iPhone that demonstrate Dr. Fauci’s knowledge of potential dangers pregnant women might face after receiving the COVID-19 vaccines:

Those texts were part of a discussion between Dr. Fauci, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. Additional texts from their conversation can be found here.

Dr. Fauci’s private concerns stand in stark contrast to his public assurances that the vaccines were safe. In February 2021, less than one month after those texts, Dr. Fauci would maintain that the COVID-19 vaccines presented no “red flags” to pregnant women.

Exposing the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines, especially with respect to pregnant women and the unborn, has long been a mission of Defending the Republic (DTR). Not long after the vaccines were “approved,” we sued the FDA for its failure to produce Moderna’s vaccine data in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.

DTR’s lawsuit was successful and led to the production of tens of thousands of pages of documents that had never been seen by the American public. These documents showed Moderna failed to investigate post-vaccine deaths and adverse medical events, the lack of oversight from the federal government, and how the Moderna vaccine was associated with fetal abnormalities in pregnant rats.

This release of a small batch of Dr. Fauci’s texts might just be the tip of the iceberg, as his phone “contains more than 34,000 text messages and 522 voicemails.” The Senators are not just working on reviewing and releasing these texts but are also making sure that no data was deleted.

Court of Appeals blocks White House ballroom

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has affirmed a preliminary injunction of a district court that enjoins the construction the White House ballroom. In its 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals concluded that there will be irreparable harm absent the injunction and that the Trump Administration has not shown that Congress delegated the authority to add a ballroom “to either the President or the National Park Service.”

In her dissent, Judge Neomi Rao (a Trump appointee) argued that the district court’s injunction was a “blatant abuse of discretion” because those that sued the Trump Administration had no standing. She also noted that the district court “elevated the aesthetic displeasure of a single passerby over the government’s security interests in the ballroom and the security risks of leaving an open construction site at the President’s home and office.” This is a case of national security and Presidential powers - one the Trump Administration will most likely take this case to the Supreme Court.

In other news:

• DOJ indicts former SPLC CFO. The DOJ has filed a second superseding indictment in its criminal case against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – and it includes charges against the organization’s former Chief Financial Officer, Heidi Beirich, for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Beirich is alleged to have not only have helped conceal the payment of donor funds to extremist informants but also oversaw donor funds to a neo-Nazi with whom she was a romantic relationship.

• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ensures baby receives life-saving care. Paxton obtained an emergency order that guarantees that a child who was just born on Wednesday, August 12 will receive life-saving medical care after birth. The baby was carried by a surrogate mother and the “intended parents” are alleged to have refused to agree that they would consent to his medical care after his birth. You can read the court order here.

• DOJ finds Duke Law School racially discriminated. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has concluded that Duke Law School discriminates based on race in admissions process in violation of federal law. In its letter to Duke’s attorneys, the DOJ noted that the university’s internal communications and policy documents, along with student testing data, demonstrated an intent to discriminate against Asian and White applicants.

• Court of Appeals: Trump Administration can expedite removal of illegal aliens. In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that District Court Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, lacked jurisdiction to stay the Trump Administration’s expedited removal of illegal aliens who have been paroled.

Defending The Republic’s "Lawsplainer" is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

And we also cover suits against the Trump Administration for its efforts to combat welfare fraud and re-institute tariffs, as well as the progress on the nomination of Todd Blanche for Attorney General.

Share

Source: Jennifer Jacobs

White House releases documents on “Oxferd Comma”

The White House released internal memos documenting the FBI’s opening of Oxferd Comma, the criminal investigation into President Trump that was opened on May 16, 2017. The FBI opened its full investigation based on an alleged “articulable factual basis” that President Trump had been involved in activities “for or on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation.” The FBI also investigated whether President Trump’s firing of then-FBI Director James Comey was a criminal effort to obstruct the FBI’s Russia collusion investigation.

By May of 2017, however, the FBI had no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. In fact, many of the factual allegations – such as those from the Steele Dossier – had already been disproven. Despite that, the opening of Oxferd Comma helped spur the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein the very next day – as if that was the purpose all along. Oxferd Comma would be effectively transferred to Special Counsel Mueller’s team and they would pursue Trump and his Administration for almost two years before issuing a tepid report that did not conclude that President Trump committed a crime.

Source: Richard Fausset

CAIR fights terrorism designations

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has filed lawsuits challenging orders from the governors of Texas and Florida that designated CAIR as a foreign terrorist organization. Both States recognized the concerning history of CAIR, which includes being named as an unindicted co-conspirator in one of the largest prosecutions of terrorism financing in U.S. history. The States also noted the organization’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and that members and leaders of CAIR have been convicted of supporting terrorism, advocated suicide bombings, and praised Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack against Israel.

The Florida Executive Order instructed the State to withhold government benefits from any person providing support or resources to CAIR. A federal district court has enjoined that declaration and ordered the State of Florida to not take any steps to enforce the Executive Order from Governor Ron DeSantis. The State of Florida has appealed that decision but has also agreed to not take any steps to enforce the Executive Order.

In Texas, after Governor Greg Abbott’s Executive Order was published, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against CAIR and its local chapters, seeking to “ban the terrorist organizations from operating in Texas and to stop their violent ideology from spreading across the state.” That lawsuit is pending. By that time, CAIR had already filed their own lawsuit in a Texas federal court that alleged the Governor’s declaration was illegal and unconstitutional. That case is ongoing.

Source: CBS Miami Team

Court of Appeals upholds Florida’s Protect Children Act

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc opinion, has upheld the constitutionality of Florida’s Protect Children Act, which makes it a misdemeanor to “knowingly admit a child to an adult live performance.”

The law was challenged by Hamburger Mary’s, a restaurant that offered drag shows” – some of which children were invited to attend. Hamburger Mary’s “canceled its family drag shows and barred children from attending its other shows” after the Act was passed. The trial court granted a universal preliminary injunction in Hamburger Mary’s favor that “applied against anyone and everyone in Florida”, concluding it was likely to succeed on its constitutional claims.

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the injunction. It noted that “the district court lacked authority to impose a universal injunction against all enforcement of the Act” and that Hamburger Mary’s “claims are unlikely to succeed on the merits.” The Act “does not facially violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.” Instead, states are permitted to protect minors from obscenity – especially where drag show performers conduct increasingly lewd shows in front of young children. As the Eleventh Circuit observed: “Preventing children from attending adult live performances obscene for them is rationally related to Florida’s interest in safeguarding the well-being of minors.”

In other news:

Todd Blanche Attorney General nomination proceeds: The confirmation of Todd Blanche as Attorney General passed one significant hurdle this week, as the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 along party lines in favor of advancing his nomination. The vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee was secured after Blanche made written assurances “that he would kill a proposed $1.8 billion compensation fund that could have been used to pay Jan. 6 rioters and limit the scope of a deal granting broad tax immunity to Mr. Trump and his family.”

Democrat States sue to prevent release of welfare data: A number of Democrat States, including New York and California, have filed suit against the Trump Administration for its efforts to oversee the States’ compliance with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. This oversight is part of President Trump’s Executive Order that seeks to end fraud in vast benefits system funded by American taxpayers.

States sue Trump Administration over latest tariffs: Twenty-five Democrat-led states have sued the Trump Administration over its recent efforts to impose tariffs on goods imported from 60 countries. The tariffs were instituted after an investigative determination was made that these countries failed to impose or enforce a “prohibition on the importation of goods produced wholly or in part with forced labor.” The states’ lawsuit contends the tariffs are contrary to federal law and that the tariff action is made without authority.

Share

Source: Melissa Quinn

Trump Administration asks Supreme Court to allow Executive Order on election integrity Executive Order

The Trump Administration has filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court after a federal district court stayed President Trump’s Executive Order that promotes election integrity in the upcoming federal elections in November.

In March 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order 14399 to prevent violations of federal election law, to “enhance election integrity via the United States Mail,” and to maintain public confidence in election outcomes.” As part of that Executive Order, federal agencies were instructed to consider potential actions that were consistent with President Trump’s objectives.

A number of States filed suit challenging that Executive Order on constitutional grounds and sought to enjoin its implementation. Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee in the District of Massachusetts, issued a permanent injunction that halted the Executive Order. The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that injunction.

But the district court – and the court of appeals – were wrong. As explained in the Trump Administration’s emergency application, the district court “lacked jurisdiction” over the suit because none of the federal agencies “had taken any concrete actions to implement the Order.” In other words, the States were not commanded to do anything, and the States had not suffered any current or imminent harm. Thus, under Supreme Court precedent, the States lacked standing to pursue the lawsuit.

We expect the Supreme Court to agree with that assessment.

Source: Aidan Williams

Fauci pleads the Fifth

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, pled his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer substantive questions during the July 29, 2026 Congressional hearing led by Senator Rand Paul into COVID-19 origins and the government’s funding of gain-of-function research in China.

Dr. Fauci’s refusal to testify follows Senator Paul’s releases of government documents concerning COVID-19, including Dr. Fauci’s personal diary, his efforts to enrich himself with award grants, and private messages from “natural origin” COVID-19 proponents that privately cast doubt on their public conclusions.

Under questioning yesterday, Dr. Fauci refused to answer even the most basic questions – including what day of the week it is and the color of his tie. And while Dr. Fauci’s obstructive non-responses effectively limited the search for the truth, Republicans used the opportunity to educate the public on Dr. Fauci’s abuses of power.

For example, here is Senator Josh Hawley providing key details on Dr. Fauci’s personal enrichment scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic:

In response to Dr. Fauci’s exercising of his Fifth Amendment right, Senator Paul stated: “It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions for your refusal to testify.” And there is a strong argument for obstruction, as President Biden pardoned Fauci for all his official conduct from January 1, 2014 through January 19, 2025. A vote on a Congressional resolution declaring Fauci to be in contempt of Congress will be held on August 5.

Source: NY Times

Federal Court: school district retaliated against parent for objecting to pride flag in classroom

A federal district court in Michigan concluded that a school district retaliated against a parent for uploading a video criticizing public school officials for displaying pride flags in a public-school classroom.

In response to that video, the school district issued a no-trespass order against the parent, displayed his photo in its main office, and threatened him with criminal prosecution if he entered the school. He was also banned from attending extracurricular activities. That no-trespass order continued for nearly two years until the parent sued in federal court.

The district court found that the parent had engaged in protected First Amendment activities by posting the video and criticizing the school and the school district. It also reasoned that the actions of the school district were not only retaliatory but based on “the content of his speech” and “because of his publicly expressed political views.” The loss of the First Amendment freedoms, the court noted, “constitutes irreparable injury.” As a result, the court ruled in favor of the parent and enjoined the school district from enforcing the no-trespass order or from taking any additional retaliatory action in response to the parent’s protected speech.

In other news:

A group of Catholic medical providers has sued the State of New York, alleging that the Medical Aid in Dying Act (which takes effect in August 2026) violates their Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment by requiring them to “implement policies that facilitate the provision of information and counseling about assisted suicide, qualify patients for assisted suicide, and refer patients seeking physician-assisted suicide to willing providers.”

Elon Musk’s xAI has filed a lawsuit that challenges an overbroad Minnesota law that could impose heavy penalties on AI companies that generate satirical photos of public officials.

ELECTION FRAUD IN MICHIGAN; THE CHINESE STOLE OUR VOTER DATA; OUR “INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY” HAS LONG KNOWN ELECTION MACHINES ALLOW CHEATING—AND MORE . . .

Newly declassified documents show massive voter registration fraud in Michigan. President Trump disclosed that China possesses voter data on millions of Americans, thousands of non-citizens vote in federal elections; and, intelligence community assessments show they know all about electronic voting vulnerabilities. A federal court of appeals has effectively approved the release of Joe Biden’s recordings with his ghostwriter discussing classified information, and a key case addressing the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is headed to the Supreme Court.

Share

Source: Layla Ferris

Newly declassified documents prove election fraud

The Trump Administration has declassified documents that expose a Democrat voter registration scheme in Michigan, China’s acquisition of sensitive American voter data and their plans to meddle in the 2020 election, and over 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections.

These documents show that in the months approaching the 2020 election, Democrats engaged in widespread voter registration fraud that included forged signatures and the registration of fictitious persons. According to witness interviews, the leadership of the voter registration organizations knew about the ongoing fraud and did nothing to stop it. Internal FBI documents from this release also demonstrate that the Biden Department of Justice “slow-walked the investigation for years” by withholding its approval to proceed with the investigation and then limiting the scope of the investigation. As a result, the individuals and groups that submitted thousands of false voter registrations and forged voter signatures were never held accountable.

With respect to China, the release includes intelligence that China acquired voter information – names, addresses, party affiliation – on approximately 220 million Americans. Intelligence reports also noted China’s aims to influence American elections through economic policies aimed at Trump supporters and how the intelligence community downplayed China’s meddling.

The release also included a Department of Homeland Security review of voter data that “identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens” who are registered to vote in our elections. The real number of non-citizens registered to vote in federal elections is no doubt substantially higher, as Democrat states have refused to share their voter rolls with the Trump Administration.

And finally, the Trump Administration publicized intelligence concluded that America’s electronic voting system is vulnerable. One intelligence assessment stated that American adversaries, including Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, “have the capability to compromise U.S. election infrastructure.” Another assessment stated:

“We assess that centralized election-related data repositories, such as voter registration databases, pollbooks, and official election websites, are most vulnerable to exploitation, and adversaries could use access to these systems to disrupt election processes.”

Source: The Epoch Times

Appeals Court allows release of Biden interview tapes

In a per curium order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has denied Joe Biden’s last-ditch bid to prevent the release of transcripts and audio recordings that he had in 2016 and 2017 with his writing partner, Mark Zwonitzer, while preparing his 2017 memoir.

These recordings were reviewed as part of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation of Biden’s possession and sharing of classified materials. While Biden escaped being criminally charged, the recordings themselves were damning. As explained in Hur’s lengthy report, Biden admitted to Zwonitzer that he still possessed classified materials from his time as Vice President and the tapes demonstrated that “Biden read his notes from classified meetings to Zwonitzer nearly word-for-word.”

There is, however, no certainty that the transcripts and recordings will be released any time soon. Biden will likely seek relief from the Supreme Court which may delay the release for months if not until next year. We anticipate the Supreme Court will ultimately deny Biden’s request if it gets there.

Source: James Wilson

Supreme Court agrees to hear an excessive fines case where an airplane pilot has been ordered to forfeit his $95,000 plane over some beer

Alaskan pilot Kenneth Jouppi operated a one-man air-taxi service that shuttled tourists and locals over the Alaskan wilderness and to communities that were nearly inaccessible but by small plane. In 2012, he flew a passenger to the village of Beaver, which prohibited the possession or importation of alcohol. Jouppi did not search his passenger’s bags which included some beer. Alaskan state troopers searched his plane after it was loaded with his passenger’s belongings and found the beer. Jouppi was charged with a misdemeanor offense of importing beer into a dry county and was found guilty at trial.

As a result of that misdemeanor, the State of Alaska pursued Jouppi’s small plane, valued at $95,000, under the State’s criminal forfeiture laws. After years of appeals, Alaksa’s Supreme Court ruled that the forfeiture of the plane did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment (which prohibits the imposition of “excessive fines”).

On July 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review Jouppi’s case and whether the seizure of his plane violates the Eighth Amendment. This is a highly important case, as the Supreme Court has the opportunity to require courts around the country to apply the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause in accordance with its original intent, which takes into consideration “the magnitude and manner of the offense.”

In other news:

Senator Rand Paul has released documents showing that in September of 2021, Biden’s FBI prevented Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from questioning and searching Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance “upon arrival at JFK airport form China after participating in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) investigation into the origins of COVID-19.” CBP sought to question Daszak on a variety of issues including his travels, any meetings with Chinese government officials, and whether he transported biological samples from China. The FBI’s New York field office requested they “do not stop” Daszak as he entered the United States.

The Hawaii Supreme Court has issued a scathing and unhinged opinion critical of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions. With respect to the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs, which restored the rights of the states to restrict abortions, the Hawaii Supreme Court remarks that due process was “gutted.” It claims the U.S. Supreme Court’s “jurisprudence has cratered democracy itself” and applies “pretend law.” It accuses the U.S. Supreme Court of blatant racism: “The Roberts Court sees only white”, erases “Black history”, and engineers “the dilution of Black votes.”

Share

Source: Brian Carter

Federal Judge issues order chastising President Trump and the DOJ

Federal district court judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama appointee, has issued a scathing order concerning the settlement of President Trump’s lawsuit against a number of government defendants, including the IRS.

President Trump, members of his family, and The Trump Organization sued the Government for the illegal disclosure of President Trump’s tax information to the media. (A government contractor pled guilty to that offense.) Trump and the government were eventually able to reach an agreed resolution of the case and it was dismissed.

The settlement agreement reached between the parties created the Anti-Weaponization Fund – which was to be used to compensate the victims of lawfare – before it was struck by a court and abandoned by the Department of Justice (DOJ). A subsequent release order, signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, essentially discharged President Trump, his family, and his companies from any IRS or government investigations.

Judge Williams – a partisan whose attempt to shut down a Florida immigrant detention camp was overruled back in April – concluded that Trump’s lawsuit “was brought to manipulate the judicial process to pursue benefits unavailable in litigation because the Parties were not adverse.” She accused both sides of misconduct, alleging the government attorneys had misled the court and that the plaintiffs “acted in bad faith.”

As a result of these “findings”, she has referred Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward to their respective Bars, which will conduct disciplinary investigations. She has also barred the Parties from referring to the “settlement agreement” or using or “citing any of its provisions” in any judicial, regulatory, or administrative proceeding “as evidence of a ‘settlement’ reached in this matter.” As The New York Times observed, “it is unclear if that will otherwise prevent Mr. Trump and the many companies affiliated with him and his family from relying on it to try to escape I.R.S. scrutiny.”

We seriously doubt her ruling with upheld if appealed. Prior administrations – most notably the Obama Administration, which used billion-dollar settlements to create slush funds to enrich liberal activist organizations – have done much worse, yet never received similar treatment by a federal judge.

Source: Nate Raymond

Trump Administration asks Supreme Court to vacate Ninth Circuit ruling protecting foreign nationals

The Government has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that the Trump Administration “unlawfully ended legal protections that allowed 600,000 Venezuelans to live and work in the United States temporarily.”

The Government’s request to the Supreme Court is follows on the Court’s recent decision in Mullin v. Doe (June 25, 2026), where the Court held that federal law “barred” challenges to terminate temporary protected status of foreign nationals. The Doe case was decided after the Ninth Circuit’s decision and changed the governing legal principles that should apply to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. We expect the Supreme Court to grant the Government’s request and reverse the Ninth Circuit.

In other news:

Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced that the Texas Health and Human Services Commission has submitted a referral to the Texas Attorney General concerning healthcare providers that are soliciting birth tourism in Texas.

Following the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision, Republican Senator Jim Banks has introduced legislation “to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens and birth tourists.” The bill would codify President Trump’s declaration that the United States is under invasion by illegal aliens and ensure that citizenship “does not apply to the children of those who entered as part of an invasion.”

Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testified before a House subcommittee on Tuesday, July 14, requesting additional funding that would help assist with security-related measures. Justice Barrett explained that she was sent home by her security detail “with a bulletproof vest” after the leak of the draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Justice Kagan testified that there is a 38% increase in threats this year, which “follows a 25% increase last year.”

Share

Source: iStock Images

Louisiana Supreme Court rejects grand jury abuse

In an order issued July 3, 2026, the Louisiana Supreme Court has stayed the criminal prosecution of the State’s Republican attorney general, Liz Murrill.

Murrill was prosecuted for her efforts to defend a recently enacted state law that abolished the office of Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. The indictment alleges she threatened to retaliate against political figures in Orleans Parish – stemming from her warnings to Orleans Parish leadership that “their attempt to install a competing Orleans Parish clerk of court triggers serious consequences under Louisiana’s usurper laws.”

The Louisiana Supreme Court noted that the “indictment appears to turn the law on its head and flows from what appear to be extraordinary procedural defects and improprieties.” Although Louisiana law requires grand jury returns to occur in “open court,” the judge overseeing the matter closed the court and reporters were “handcuffed and removed from these otherwise public proceedings.” Additionally, the Court noted that the special prosecutor appointed to the case had a significant conflict of interest that precluded her involvement in the matter.

Not only has Louisiana’s Governor Jeff Landry promised to pardon Murrill, if necessary, but he has also directed the Louisiana State Police to investigate the grand jury improprieties. Our view: Landry is a fighter and a friend.

Source: Ken Cendero

DOJ memo: birth tourism fraud will be prosecuted

As we discussed last week, the Supreme Court issued its ruling that birthright citizenship is guaranteed to the children of illegal aliens and those temporarily present in the United States.

In response, the Trump Department of Justice has issued a memo that directs “all United States Attorneys and the Criminal Division to work with the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of birth tourism schemes.”

These birth tourism schemes assist pregnant women in obtaining fraudulent visas and coach their clients on hiding pregnancies from immigration officials – all in violation of a number of federal statutes. In one of the larger birth tourism cases prosecuted during President Trump’s first term, Chinese nationals living in the United States made millions by falsifying visa information and training pregnant customers to avoid detection by U.S. customs.

And currently, on the Southern Border, one Texas hospital is advertising “birth packages” – aiming to themselves profit from birth tourism.

Source: Right Angle News Network on X.

On July 7, 2026, Texas Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to investigate this hospital’s advertisement “to foreign nationals in an apparent effort to profit from securing United States citizenship for their children.”

While the Supreme Court has dramatically limited how these immigration issues can be solved, at least the Trump Administration and border states like Texas are going on offense and targeting those who allow birth tourism to flourish.

Source: Getty Images

Third Court: Trump can remove liberal signs from federal properties

Back in June, an activist federal district court judge concluded that the Trump Administration’s removal of signs and exhibits that demonstrated liberal points of view from federal properties was unlawful. That judge also ordered the Trump Administration to restore the signs and exhibits, reasoning that the removals were “contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated that ruling, holding that the district court “lacked jurisdiction” over a number of counts alleged in the City of Philadelphia’s complaint. The Third Circuit noted that the Administrative Procedure Act does not permit the courts to review the primary violations of law that Philadelphia claimed. It further observed that Philadelphia “does not have any statutory, property, or contractual rights that empower it to curate the exhibits in the President’s House.”

This is yet another appeals court win by the Trump Administration. Around the country, liberal district court judges have flouted the law to impose their political preferences and to invalidate lawful actions by the Administration. Credit to those appeals courts that have ended such nonsense.

As July 4^th approaches, check out our America250 sale at DefendingtheRepublic.org. Everything is 50% off. LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice is on sale for only $4.99. These are high-quality paperbacks using the same paper and print as the hardbacks. Hardbacks are sold-out. Rush Limbaugh recommended this book repeatedly. Get yours now—and they make great gifts too.

Share

Source: Allison Roberts

Supreme Court destroys American citizenship.

An extremely broad view of “birthright citizenship” is here to stay—for likely way too long. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States.

Justice Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. (Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the Court’s constitutional reasoning.)

At issue in the case before the Supreme Court were challenges to President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order that declared citizenship would not be automatically extended to children born of illegal immigrants or those born to women holding lawful temporary visas. This Executive Order relied on a common-sense understanding of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” More specifically, the Executive Order observed that those children born of unlawful residents or temporary visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United Sates.

The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning (and the arguments of the dissenting Justices), concluding that a person is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the government of the country in which he is physically present, even if that presence is temporary and even if the parents decide to raise that child in another country.

The dissenting opinions of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (as well as that of Justice Gorsuch and the concurring opinion of Justice Kavanaugh) are powerful reads that demonstrate birthright citizenship without reasonable restraints is contrary to this Nation’s history. Justice Thomas noted that the majority opinion was “not historically accurate” and based on thin reasoning. He supported those conclusions by a thorough review of historic quotes that denied universal birthright citizenship.

And on the issue of the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” Justice Alito observed:

“the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on a person who is born in this country or naturalized only if that person is also ‘not subject to any foreign power.’”

There is no doubt that, as Justice Alito predicted, this decision “will seriously affect the country’s future.” The Supreme Court’s result-driven opinion (in our opinion) makes it extremely difficult to remedy the egregious abuses we have been suffering—including anchor babies, and outrageous profits by criminals through human trafficking and birth tourism.

In response, the Trump Administration should severely restrict illegal immigration, prosecute birth tourism fraud, and deny admission or long visas to foreigners who are pregnant. IRS should also look into taxing “American citizens” (anchor babies or others) wherever they are living abroad, rack up the interest and penalties, or require them to renounce their “American citizenship” after paying what they owe.

Source: Getty Images

States Can Exclude Male athletes from girls’ sports!!

In recent years, this country has seen a dramatic increase in the number of biological males that “identify as females” and participate in girls’ sports—rendering girls’ sports both unfair and a farce. Predictably, this has led to male athletes dominating high school girls’ sports – at the expense of the girls who only want a level playing field.

Due to these developments, 27 States have enacted laws that restrict girls’ sports for biological females. Biological males who wanted to play on the girls’ team challenged those laws, alleging they violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In an opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court held that under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools may “determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.” Justice Kavanaugh noted that “Title IX regulations allowed separated sports teams precisely because of the biological differences between the sexes.” These regulations recognized inherent physical differences “as well as the safety and competitive fairness concerns that would arise if males were allowed to compete in female sports.”

The Court also held that laws that maintained the integrity of girls’ sports were substantially related to the States’ interests of “safety and competitive fairness,” as male participation would put girls at “significant risk” of potential severe injuries and puts girls at a competitive disadvantage.

Source: Getty Images

Other Supreme Court cases of note.

This has been a significant term for the Supreme Court – below are quick summaries of some of the most notable recent cases:

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Committee. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on political parties’ coordinated expenditures violates the First Amendment. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented.

Watson v. Republican National Committee. In the bad news for the election integrity department, Justice Barrett delivered an opinion holding that Mississippi (and essentially any other state) can count “absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later.” Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh dissented. The dissenters thought that Election Day meant Election Day—silly them.

Trump v. Cook. This case involved President Trump’s firing (for cause) of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors over allegations of mortgage fraud and the falsification of bank documents. The Supreme Court held that President Trump “failed to afford Cook the procedural protections she was entitled by statute” – specifically notice of the allegations and an opportunity to respond prior to her termination. The opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett dissented.

There are lots of problems with this decision, not to mention the Court seems to contradict itself as it just held the same day that the President can fire whoever he wants in the Executive Branch.

Mullin v. Doe. In an opinion written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf held that aliens holding Temporary Protected Status from Syria and Haiti are not entitled to keep that status pending litigation. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented. Goodbye Syrians and Haitians.

This week, the Department of Justice announced it has charged 455 defendants in connection with over $6.5 billion in healthcare fraud. The 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown is one of the largest on record, spanning 50 U.S. states and territories and resulting in the seizure of over $182 million in cash and other assets. And as part of this week’s Lawsplainer, we also review the Supreme Court’s decision to keep a murderer behind bars and its ruling on the constitutionality of a law that prohibited an occasional marijuana user from possessing a firearm.

As July 4^th approaches, check out our America250 sale at DefendingtheRepublic.org. Everything is 50% off. LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice is on sale for only $4.99. These are high-quality paperbacks using the same paper and print as the hardbacks. Hardbacks are sold-out. Rush Limbaugh recommended this book repeatedly. Get yours now—and they make great gifts too.

Source: Getty Images

National Health Care Fraud Takedown charges 455 defendants with over $6.5 billion in alleged fraud

On Tuesday, as part of the 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, the Department of Justice announced charges against 455 defendants – including 90 doctors and medical professionals – “for their alleged participation in health care fraud and opioid abuse schemes involving over $6.5 billion in false claims and significant patient harm, including death.”

Source: Department of Justice

In addition, as a result of unprecedented international cooperation, the Department of Justice was able to charge, apprehend and return to the United States a number of fugitives that defrauded the United States, including: a defendant in the Republic of Cyprus charged in connection with an alleged $3.7 billion scheme; two defendants in Estonia whose fraud totaled over $10.6 billion; and a fraudster in the Philippines who charged $1.2 billion in a telemedicine scheme.

One defendant – a nurse practitioner charged in the Southern District of Texas – allegedly “billed Medicare more than $1 million per patient on average” as part of her alleged “$906 million scheme.” The indictment charges she used these funds to build a $4.6 million beach resort in the Philippines and spent millions on luxury vehicles and jewelry. And in the Eastern District of New York, eight defendants are alleged to have committed a $38 million fraud for adult day care services that were never provided.

This is the interior of a Brooklyn adult day care center where fraudulent bills “claimed hundreds of beneficiaries received services per day.” Source: Department of Justice.

The Takedown is a huge success that builds upon other health care fraud cases, such as the Minnesota Health Care Fraud that charged over 15 defendants for over $90 million in fraudulent Medicaid charges. And it is likely just the tip of the iceberg. For far too long, American taxpayers have enriched those who have abused our public health programs. This, we hope, is just the beginning of the Trump Administration’s efforts to end the billion-dollar fraud industry once and for all.

Source: KC Baker

Supreme Court restores conviction in murder of Etan Patz

The tragic disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz in Manhattan captured the attention of the Nation in 1979. He left his family’s apartment to take a bus to school – but before that, he stopped to buy a drink at a bodega where 18-year-old Pablo Hernandez worked. Patz did not get on the bus, and he was never seen again.

In 2012, Hernandez confessed to Patz’s murder to detectives and prosecutors. One of those confessions was made before he was read his Miranda rights. (He would also confess to his family and a psychiatrist while he was in custody.)

Hernandez was eventually convicted of the kidnapping and murder in 2017 by a Manhattan jury. He challenged that conviction in a federal district court, filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus and alleging the trial court gave an incorrect jury instruction regarding whether his confession was voluntary. The district court ruled that the instruction was a harmless error. On appeal, a panel of the Second Circuit reversed that decision, concluding the error was not harmless and ordering the release of Hernandez unless the State of New York gave him a new trial.

The Supreme Court, in a per curium opinion, held that the Second Circuit exceeded federal law governing a federal courts’ power to grant habeas relief to a prisoner convicted in state court. It reasoned that neither the Constitution nor federal law require a trial court to instruct a jury on the grounds for suppressing a confession. As a result, Hernandez will serve the rest of his 25-years-to-life sentence.

Source: Adobe Stock

Supreme Court rejects limits on gun rights

In an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court held that a federal statute that prohibits the possession of a firearm by a user of an unlawful controlled substance was unconstitutional as applied to a defendant who used marijuana a few times a week. It rejected the Government’s arguments that to prosecute under that statute, it need not show whether the marijuana effected the user or whether he posed a danger to himself or others as a result of his marijuana use.

This ruling is narrow; it does not address efforts to ban the possession of firearms by those using more dangerous drugs, and it does not address whether the Government could prosecute marijuana users under that statute where the use of the drug renders him dangerous.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, agreed that the application of the federal statute violated the Second Amendment. He wrote separately to call attention to the fact that the federal statute “exceeds Congress’s enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.” He (correctly) reasoned that the law “criminalizes possession of firearms apart from any purchase or sale of goods and services across state lines.” The power to criminalize the possession of a firearm by a user of a controlled substance is relegated to the States, not the federal government.

And, be sure to shop our America250 sale at DefendingtheRepublic.org. Everything is 50% off. LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice is on sale for only $4.99. These are high-quality paperbacks using the same paper and print as the hardbacks. Hardbacks are sold-out. Rush Limbaugh recommended this book repeatedly. Get yours now—and they make great gifts too.

This week in the law:

Image by Geoff Harris

ActBlue CEO Pleads the Fifth

ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones testified before the House Administration Committee on June 10, 2026. Her appearance before the Committee came after lengthy investigations – detailed below – into ActBlue’s subversion of its own security protocols that allowed foreign contributions to be made to Democrat candidates for office. Her testimony was illuminating, if only for the fact that she refused to answer any question—instead invoking the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify pursuant to advice of counsel.

In total, Wallace-Jones “invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify 22 times in response to questions from House Republicans.” Not only did she refuse to answer specific questions concerning ActBlue’s potential federal crimes, she also refused to answer even the simplest of questions, such as: “How much fraud is too much fraud?

Her appearance follows an April 20, 2026 report from the House of Representatives detailing how ActBlue weakened its fraud-prevention policies that “left the door open for large-scale fraud campaigns” on the Democrats” top fundraising platform. As that House investigation was ongoing, there were multiple high-level ActBlue staff members, including its “highest-ranking legal officer,” who were either terminated or resigned. One ActBlue lawyer alleged he was retaliated against after “blowing the whistle on internal misconduct.”

According to the House report, ActBlue’s legal team left the platform after the 2024 election “because of its knowing and willful acceptance of illegal foreign contributions and the subsequent cover-up.” Due to ActBlue’s intentionally weak fraud-prevention measures, political donations were allowed to be made by foreign nationals – a violation of federal law. The House further concluded that “ActBlue may have processed up to $38 million in foreign contributions during the 2024 election cycle.”

In sworn depositions, ActBlue employees invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination “in response to every single one of the Committees’ substantive questions – 146 times in total.” Moreover, ActBlue failed to fully produce documents responsive to the Committees’ subpoenas.

During the House investigation, Wallace-Jones claimed that “passport information is required from donors providing an address outside of the United States.” That was not accurate. She further claimed that ActBlue contacts donors and requests passport information “if a contribution appears to be from a foreign address.” That also wasn’t true.

It is obvious that Wallace-Jones took the Fifth not only to protect ActBlue but to also protect herself from criminal exposure. But with the House obtaining evidence that ActBlue willfully accepted foreign funds along with the false statements provided by Wallace-Jones, that should be sufficient for the Department of Justice to open a grand jury investigation into the organization and its leadership – if it hasn’t already.

Our opinion: James O’Keefe exposed ActBlue for “smurfing” long ago. We do not understand why there have been no prosecutions. The people whose names they used for “contributions” had no idea they had made any. Doesn’t DOJ understand money-laundering?

Image by USA Today

Court of Appeal rules in favor of a trial on a COVID-19 vaccine medical exemption

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reversed reinstated a nurse’s lawsuit, which alleged her employer (CentraCare) failed to accommodate her medical disability and wrongly required her to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

The nurse, Christine Klimek suffers from Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), which developed after a 2010 workplace injury. In 2021, “CentraCare implemented a new policy requiring the COVID-19 vaccination for every employee unless the employee obtained a medical or religious exemption.” Klimek applied for the medical exemption and noted to her employer that she was previously granted a permanent medical exemption for vaccines by CentraCare in 2016. CentraCare denied her covid exemption, put her on unpaid leave, and effectively terminated her employment.

In its opinion, the Eighth Circuit found noted that Klimek showed that “her position involved no physical patient care and that she was working entirely from home electronically preparing records.” The Court of Appeals further called “into question whether CentraCare made a reasonable effort to determine whether” Klimek’s disability could be accommodated.

Concluding that Klimek presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, the Eighth Circuit “reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment” and remanded the case to the district court for a trial.

Image by Carlos Barria

Federal judge orders Trump Administration to restore liberal opinions in Department of Interior Signage

A Massachusetts federal district court judge has concluded the Trump Administration’s removal of signs and exhibits that demonstrated liberal points of view to be unlawful.

President Trump, by Executive Order, sought to remove from federal properties materials that rewrote our Nation’s history and replaced “objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than the truth.” As part of that directive, the Secretary of the Interior, ordered removal of signs, exhibits, and displays that voiced liberal opinions on climate change, slavery, and LGBTQ pride.

A number of groups sued, seeking an order requiring the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service to restore all national park sites to how they existed prior to the order of removal. Judge Angel Kelley, a Biden appointee, granted that relief, concluding the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable injury absent the injunction and that the actions of the defendants were “contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

The judge labeled President Trump’s Executive Order as “unreasoned” and “lawless.” She found the Secretary of the Interior’s order implementing President Trump’s directive as an “arbitrary and capricious” departure from the practices of prior Administrations.

It is difficult to imagine any type of serious injury or harm from the removal of a climate change sign. Even the court admitted that the harms are “nonquantifiable by nature.” But the court somehow found “irreparable injury” anyway, partly relying on the fact that the plaintiffs alleged the removal of the signs deprived the children of a certain educational material on “civil rights, climate change, and slavery.” She reached that conclusion despite the fact that the plaintiffs waited over seven months after the removals to file their lawsuit – a fact which puts the “irreparable injury” in serious doubt.

Our opinion: We expect the Trump Administration’s appeal of this decision ultimately to be successful. Yet another judge substituted her judgment on running the Department of Interior for that of the President. Here’s to another great waste of time and taxpayer resources caused by the Left and its activist judges.

Subscribe now

Share

Image by Getty Images

Lawsuit seeks to KO the White House UFC fights.

Backed by a liberal public interest group, two activists have sued the Trump Administration, demanding a D.C. federal district court stop “UFC Freedom 250” which is to be held at the South Lawn of the White House on June 14, 2026.

In short, two activists allege the event, which will require temporary structures, violates federal law and National Park Service (NPS) Regulations. They also allege that the structures for the event cause them “aesthetic injury” by diminishing their “personal enjoyment, experience of beauty, and feelings of national pride.” They further claim that the event is “hideous” and “disgusting.”

The Trump Administration has filed this opposition to the plaintiffs’ temporary restraining order. It notes that the event has been planned for nearly a year but the plaintiffs chose to wait until the very last moment to try to shut the event down. It observed that site has been prepared and the temporary structure is in place to host more than 4,000 spectators on the South Lawn. Athletes have trained for months and will be traveling from all over the world to fight in this event. And yet all this planning could be dashed “by the whim of two people who believe they have superior taste and want to spoil the event for everyone else.”

The Trump Administration also observes that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the event because their only alleged injury is “aesthetic harm,” and D.C. Circuit case law provides that the “mere incidental viewership” of something objectionable is insufficient for standing. Moreover, the plaintiffs’ legal claims fail on the merits. The NPS has issued temporary amendments to regulations that exempt the events planned in celebration of the 250^th Anniversary of American Independence – which would include UFC Freedom 250. In fact, these types of events happen all the time – such as Elton John’s 2022 performance at the South Lawn at the White House before President Biden and a crowd of 2,000 people.

The district court will likely deny plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order before Sunday’s fights. This is a ludicrous case even by D.C. standards.

OLC provides important opinion on discrimination claims—ignore race!

We have another step toward making our systems “race-blind.” Recently, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Department of Justice was asked by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) whether the “disparate impact” provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “are constitutionally interpreted and applied, particularly by the EEOC in its interpretive rules and guidance documents.

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating in employment based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” This statute has been interpreted not only to prohibit intentional discrimination but to prohibit practices that “have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities (known as ‘disparate impact’).” Ricco v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009). What is that??

As Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2009, the disparate impact provisions of Title VII “place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.”

The OLC answered that question in a June 9, 2026, memorandum opinion. Consistent with Justice Scalia’s observations, the OLC concluded that “EEOC’s Title VII guidelines are unconstitutional because they contemplate liability based on disparate effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, and pressure employers to engage in race-based decision making.”

For those employees challenging an employer’s business practices, they must establish the challenged “practice specifically caused the alleged disparate impact and provide evidence that an equally effective alternative practice causes less disparate impact.”

In effect, this corrects the unconstitutional EEOC interpretation of Title VII, provides guidance to those seeking to sue employers for racial discrimination, and eases the burden on employers who, historically, have tried to avoid Title VII “liability through race-based decision making.” Perhaps now, employers can focus on merit-based promotions and hiring.

Image by Craig Chandler

Nebraska can no longer give in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.

A Nebraska federal district court has granted a consent judgment that orders Nebraska laws that “extend eligibility for in-state tuition benefits to aliens unlawfully present in the United States violate the Supremacy Clause and are invalid.” As part of that consent judgment, Nebraska is “forever restrained” for enforcing the portions of its subject laws “that extend eligibility for in-state tuition benefits to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.”

This order was issued after the United States sued the State of Nebraska, challenging four provisions in Nebraska law “that extend eligibility for in-state tuition benefits at Nebraska post-secondary education institutions to aliens resident in the state who are not lawfully present in the United States while denying such benefits to United States citizens from other states.”

The Nebraska Attorney General agreed with the position of the United States that these the Nebraska statutes were preempted by federal law. In its memorandum, the court noted: “The Nebraska statutes establishing residence requirements for illegal aliens to obtain in-state tuition, while leaving United States citizens from other states to pay full out-of-state tuition, blatantly violate the federal law” as set out in the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

This week, the D.C. Court of Appeals decided it could run the military better than the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of War concerning soldiers who want to “transition.” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche dealt the death blow to the nearly $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” intended to help those harmed by the Left’s lawfare and abuses of power. We learn more about the wrongdoing of the SPLC. And finally, a good Supreme Court decision allows Alabama to proceed with common-sense congressional redistricting – despite fierce objections from the liberal wing of the Court.

Image by Rahmat Gul

D.C. Court of Appeals Decides to Run Military Policy.

In February 2025, Secretary of Defense (now Secretary of War) Pete Hegseth followed President Trump’s Executive Order concerning gender identity issues in the military. He declared that persons afflicted with gender dysphoria were unfit for military service.

This policy – which we will refer to as the Hegseth Policy – was challenged by active-duty service members and those seeking to enlist in the military, who argued that it violated their Fifth Amendment right of equal protection because it was “not based on any legitimate government purpose.” The D.C. District Court agreed and enjoined the Government from taking actions consistent with the Hegseth Policy – but only to those currently-enlisted plaintiffs who sued.

In a two-to-one opinion released June 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the Hegseth Policy violated the plaintiffs’ “constitutional right to equal protection of the law” and affirmed the district court’s order stopping application of the policy—as it applied to current service members who have dealt with gender dysphoria. The DC Circuit of well-known liberals “reasoned” the Hegseth Policy was “factually unsupported” and based on “archaic and overbroad generalizations about sex,” “animus” with an “interest to harm the politically unpopular group of transgender persons.”

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Justin Walker rightly observed that the Constitution assigns to Congress and the Commander in Chief the authority to determine whether those with gender dysphoria can serve in the military. Before 2016, he noted that the military “effectively banned all transgender persons from either joining or remaining in the military.” Judges “must not second-guess military judgments about how the armed forces are structured, trained, and operated.”

Until the Supreme Court addresses the issue, the Commander in Chief cannot oversee this military as he sees fit; instead, federal judges are. We expect the Supreme Court to side with the Trump Administration.

Image by Rebecca Beitsch

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announces the Death of the $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

In news that will disappoint many victimized by the left’s lawfare – including, but not limited to, those targeted in the Trump-Russia investigation, the January 6 defendants, and the conservative lawyers targeted by their state bar groups and others– Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has announced the DOJ is “not moving forward” with the nearly $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

The Fund was created as part of a settlement agreement between President Trump and the IRS. Its purpose was to establish “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

The creation of the Fund was temporarily blocked by a D.C. federal judge after a liberal coalition, including a (former) January 6 prosecutor and the National Abortion Federation, sued to block its formation. And in Florida, where the settlement was reached, the judge overseeing Trump’s civil case against the IRS pledged to review the formation of the Fund after a group of former federal judges alleged the court was potentially manipulated.

While the Trump DOJ had strong arguments regarding the legality of the Fund – there is similar precedent from the Obama Administration, who used settlements to fund leftist causes – it appears that political pressure from Republicans in Congress helped spur its demise. We are extremely disappointed in the “Republicans” who opposed it.

Image by Getty Images

More Information of the SPLC Funding Evil!

The government has filed a superseding indictment alleging more information of outrageous acts by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In our coverage from April of this year, we addressed the original indictment and how the SPLC funneled more than $3 million of donor funds “to those involved with violent extremist groups.”

While the superseding indictment does not include new charges, the SPLC still faces 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering – it does provide new details on the facts of the SPLC’s operation.

The problem with this Indictment (and the first one) is that it does not indict any individuals—yet only individuals could have made these horrific decisions. In our opinion, people should go to jail for this. Were it a conservative charity, they would have indicted them all. Just ask former Congressman Steve Stockman, for one.

Here are the highlights:

The SPLC paid a member of the National Alliance (a neo-Nazi organization) over $1,200,000 in donors’ money. During this time, the SPLC employee who oversaw the payments started a romantic relationship with – and lived with – the National Alliance member.

One SPLC “informant” was a leader of the National Socialist Party of America, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and a leader of a faction of the Aryan Nations. He was paid with SPLC donor funds and would use that money to “host extremist rallies, donate money to leaders of other extremist organizations, [and] recruit new members into his extremist organization.”

Two Ku Klux Klan members approached the SPLC for help with leaving the movement. The SPLC encouraged them to remain in the KKK and offered them a monthly salary from donor funds. These KKK members “were reimbursed by the SPLC with donor money for all expenses they incurred for cross-burning events.”

Image by Alabama Daily News

Supreme Court Victory for Common Sense: Alabama can use congressional map that was subject of Voting Rights Act challenge.

In a four-page order issued June 2, 2026, the Supreme Court allowed Alabama to go ahead and use a congressional voting map that has been in courts since 2021. The Supreme Court noted that the district court effectively ignored the high court’s recent decision on redistricting and had “interposed itself into Alabama’s ongoing efforts to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections under maps that its elected representatives selected.”

In our previous coverage of this case, we outlined the history of this redistricting controversy and the outrageous ruling of the federal district court that Alabama’s “refusal to intentionally create a second majority-minority district constituted intentional racial discrimination.”

The dissent, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, accused the majority of allowing the intentional discrimination “against Black Alabamians” which “disregards both democratic values and the rule of law.”

But we say, why shouldn’t redistricting be race-blind? Have “AI” do in by number of citizens as evenly as possible in contiguous districts.

LAST week, we had a SNAFU in distribution, so we are sending it (again for some people) right now. This issue reports on a significant shift in the Trump Administration’s immigration policy – one which will pursue civil fraud cases against immigration lawyers who have filed false asylum claims. We also highlight the wrongful conduct of two Obama-appointed federal district court judges. One has dismissed the criminal case against a member of MS-13 despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. The other conducted an extramarital affair in her office and then lied about it – all of which is sufficient grounds for her impeachment.

Image by Lynne Sladky

DHS to pursue fraud cases against immigration lawyers

As reported by CBS News on May 26, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys to aggressively pursue administrative fraud cases against immigration lawyers accused of filing false asylum claims.”

Immigration fraud has long been a problem – especially by those immigrants, and their lawyers, who file “false asylum claims in federal court.” According to DHS General Counsel James Percival, “millions of illegal aliens have committed fraud on our immigration system.” Immigration lawyers “and powerful Big Law pro bono practices, frequently coach clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when asserting their asylum claims.”

These facts are reflected by the sheer numbers – and dramatic increase – of asylum applications over the last five years. This chart from DHS provides some recent numbers:

This is a signal that immigration officials will finally apply federal law and seek “civil penalties against people accused of immigration-related document fraud, including those who knowingly prepare, file or help file applications that are false or contain false statements.”

Pursuing these civil penalties might be the Trump Administration’s most effective weapon against left-wing lawyers and the Big Law firms that have abused the immigration and asylum process. It has the potential to undercut much of the leftist lawfare machine, and the Trump Administration must devote significant resources to ensure its success. Additionally, findings of fraud would be destructive to the careers of the lawyers who have knowingly submitted fraudulent asylum applications and could ultimately lead to their disbarment.

Image by Gary Grumbach

Judge dismisses criminal case against human trafficker Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia

A Tennessee federal district court judge has dismissed the criminal case against Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia (“Abrego”), concluding there is a presumption the prosecution was vindictive and that the Government did not rebut that presumption.

Abrego, as you might recall, is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador and a member of MS-13 with a history of domestic violence. He was deported to El Salvador in 2022 and challenged that removal in federal court.

As his civil case was ongoing, Abrego was returned to the United States in June of 2025 – because he faced a two-count indictment for conspiring to “bring undocumented aliens” from a number of countries to the United States. According to the indictment, Abrego and his co-conspirators “also worked with transnational criminal organizations in Mexico to transport undocumented aliens through Mexico and into the United States.”

The dismissal of Abrego’s criminal case was ordered by Judge Waverly Crenshaw, an Obama appointee. He noted that the investigation into Abrego, which he maintains was previously closed, was only re-opened after Abrego’s successful lawsuit. This, along with statements by DOJ officials stating the investigation resumed after statements from the Maryland federal judge, “taints the investigation with a vindictive motive.” To Judge Crenshaw, this showed a “realistic likelihood” that the prosecution was vindictive, which gave the Government the burden to prove it wasn’t.

Judge Crenshaw failed to appreciate that the Government had good reason to close their investigation into Abrego. The investigation was opened in December 2022, less than a month after he was stopped in Tennessee. It was only closed after he was removed to El Salvador. As the Government observed, the indictment was only sought after the investigation “revealed additional new evidence previously unknown to anyone”, which “is textbook grounds to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness.”

Perhaps the Government will appeal the dismissal. But in the end, it may not matter. Abrego was ordered not to be removed to El Salvador. But there are other countries to which he may be deported. The Government previously proposed that he may be removed to Liberia, noting that Liberia had agreed to accept Abrego.

Image by Getty Images

Federal district court judge reprimanded for affair with high-ranking police officer.

The Judicial Council of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit has upheld the reprimand of a federal district court judge for conducting an extramarital affair with a high-ranking police officer in her office during working hours. According to excellent research from Marco Polo, the District Court Judge is Eleanor L. Ross (an Obama appointee).

The complaints against the judge were reported by a law clerk, who alleged:

Judge Ross had sexual relations with a uniformed police officer in her office “during working hours and while staff [including the law clerk] were present in chambers and within earshot of the judge’s office.”

The intimate activity could be heard by the law clerk on multiple occasions.

These allegations were corroborated by other clerks. At first, Judge Ross denied the allegations. She then changed her story and admitted the affair took place in her office. The special committee investigating the allegations found that Judge Ross engaged in three instances of judicial misconduct:

(1) She had an extramarital affair in her office, during business hours, within hearing distance of her staff; (2) she attended a partisan political event for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis; and (3) she made false statements to the Chief Judge of the District.

In a perfect world, this conduct – not only the affair but the lying about the affair – would result in impeachment. While federal district court judges are appointed for life, they can be removed “through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.” Impeachment of a federal judge is rare, but it’s also rare for a judge to lie about an affair that took place in her office. We hope House Republicans start the impeachment process with haste.

This week, we report on a significant shift in the Trump Administration’s immigration policy – one which will pursue civil fraud cases against immigration lawyers who have filed false asylum claims. We also highlight the wrongful conduct of two Obama-appointed federal district court judges. One has dismissed the criminal case against a member of MS-13 despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. The other conducted an extramarital affair in her office and then lied about it – all of which is sufficient grounds for her impeachment.

Image by Lynne Sladky

DHS to pursue fraud cases against immigration lawyers

As reported by CBS News on May 26, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys to aggressively pursue administrative fraud cases against immigration lawyers accused of filing false asylum claims.”

Immigration fraud has long been a problem – especially by those immigrants, and their lawyers, who file “false asylum claims in federal court.” According to DHS General Counsel James Percival, “millions of illegal aliens have committed fraud on our immigration system.” Immigration lawyers “and powerful Big Law pro bono practices, frequently coach clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when asserting their asylum claims.”

These facts are reflected by the sheer numbers – and dramatic increase – of asylum applications over the last five years. This chart from DHS provides some recent numbers:

This is a signal that immigration officials will finally apply federal law and seek “civil penalties against people accused of immigration-related document fraud, including those who knowingly prepare, file or help file applications that are false or contain false statements.”

Pursuing these civil penalties might be the Trump Administration’s most effective weapon against left-wing lawyers and the Big Law firms that have abused the immigration and asylum process. It has the potential to undercut much of the leftist lawfare machine, and the Trump Administration must devote significant resources to ensure its success. Additionally, findings of fraud would be destructive to the careers of the lawyers who have knowingly submitted fraudulent asylum applications and could ultimately lead to their disbarment.

Image by Gary Grumbach

Judge dismisses criminal case against human trafficker Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia

A Tennessee federal district court judge has dismissed the criminal case against Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia (“Abrego”), concluding there is a presumption the prosecution was vindictive and that the Government did not rebut that presumption.

Abrego, as you might recall, is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador and a member of MS-13 with a history of domestic violence. He was deported to El Salvador in 2022 and challenged that removal in federal court.

As his civil case was ongoing, Abrego was returned to the United States in June of 2025 – because he faced a two-count indictment for conspiring to “bring undocumented aliens” from a number of countries to the United States. According to the indictment, Abrego and his co-conspirators “also worked with transnational criminal organizations in Mexico to transport undocumented aliens through Mexico and into the United States.”

The dismissal of Abrego’s criminal case was ordered by Judge Waverly Crenshaw, an Obama appointee. He noted that the investigation into Abrego, which he maintains was previously closed, was only re-opened after Abrego’s successful lawsuit. This, along with statements by DOJ officials stating the investigation resumed after statements from the Maryland federal judge, “taints the investigation with a vindictive motive.” To Judge Crenshaw, this showed a “realistic likelihood” that the prosecution was vindictive, which gave the Government the burden to prove it wasn’t.

Judge Crenshaw failed to appreciate that the Government had good reason to close their investigation into Abrego. The investigation was opened in December 2022, less than a month after he was stopped in Tennessee. It was only closed after he was removed to El Salvador. As the Government observed, the indictment was only sought after the investigation “revealed additional new evidence previously unknown to anyone”, which “is textbook grounds to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness.”

Perhaps the Government will appeal the dismissal. But in the end, it may not matter. Abrego was ordered not to be removed to El Salvador. But there are other countries to which he may be deported. The Government previously proposed that he may be removed to Liberia, noting that Liberia had agreed to accept Abrego.

Image by Getty Images

Federal district court judge reprimanded for affair with high-ranking police officer.

The Judicial Council of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit has upheld the reprimand of a federal district court judge for conducting an extramarital affair with a high-ranking police officer in her office during working hours. According to excellent research from Marco Polo, the District Court Judge is Eleanor L. Ross (an Obama appointee).

The complaints against the judge were reported by a law clerk, who alleged:

Judge Ross had sexual relations with a uniformed police officer in her office “during working hours and while staff [including the law clerk] were present in chambers and within earshot of the judge’s office.”

The intimate activity could be heard by the law clerk on multiple occasions.

These allegations were corroborated by other clerks. At first, Judge Ross denied the allegations. She then changed her story and admitted the affair took place in her office. The special committee investigating the allegations found that Judge Ross engaged in three instances of judicial misconduct:

(1) She had an extramarital affair in her office, during business hours, within hearing distance of her staff; (2) she attended a partisan political event for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis; and (3) she made false statements to the Chief Judge of the District.

In a perfect world, this conduct – not only the affair but the lying about the affair – would result in impeachment. While federal district court judges are appointed for life, they can be removed “through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate.” Impeachment of a federal judge is rare, but it’s also rare for a judge to lie about an affair that took place in her office. We hope House Republicans start the impeachment process with haste.

It was a busy week in the courts. This week’s Lawsplainer covers the curious decision of a New York court to suppress some evidence seized after the arrest of Luigi Mangione—the alleged assassin of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. We also address the indictment of a former federal prosecutor. She has been charged with stealing copies of the unreleased report of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

The Supreme Court has been busy again—allowing abortion pills to be distributed to Louisiana – despite powerful dissents from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. And finally, Virginia’s radical gerrymander plan fails again, and Elon Musk loses his lawsuit against OpenAI.

Image by Getty Images

Luigi Mangione – Court rules evidence from his backpack cannot be used against him.

Luigi Mangione is awaiting trial in New York for the December 2024 murder of Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare. The shooting took place outside the Hilton hotel in midtown Manhattan. Five days after the murder, Mangione was discovered at a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania. After he was detained at the McDonald’s, police searched his backpack and recovered a number of items, including a nine-millimeter handgun, a loaded magazine, a silencer, a notebook, a passport, and cash. The firearm, magazine, and silencer recovered from Mangione are pictured below.

Here is video footage of his initial interaction with the police, where he even lied to them about his name—claiming he was “Mark Rosario.”

Mangione’s attorneys moved to suppress the evidence that was recovered from his backpack as well as his statements made to law enforcement during his arrest at McDonald’s. On May 18, 2026, a New York court granted that request in part, suppressing the evidence found during the search of Mangione’s backpack at the McDonald’s, “including the [loaded] magazine, cellphone, passport, wallet and computer chip.” The gun, the knife, the USB drive, and other items – including a red notebook which contained his confession – were discovered as part of a valid inventory search after Mangione was processed, and the prosecution can use that evidence against him.

With respect to Mangione’s statements, the court is suppressing his responses to questions concerning: (1) why he had a fake ID; and (2) why he lied about his name. These are excluded because the trial court determined that at this point of the interaction – where he was surrounded by eight police officers – he was essentially in custody, as “a reasonable person would not believe they were free to leave.” However, any responses given by Mangione in the approximately 20 minutes before the determination of custody can be used by the prosecution. These responses included Mangione giving a fake name and stating he was from the “DMV” (Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia).

In making these rulings, the court applied New York law, even though the arrest and search occurred in Pennsylvania. The court reasoned that New York “has a paramount interest in the application of its law” and that “procedural and evidentiary issues are governed by the law of the forum state.” New York law on the suppression issue is generally stricter than other states. The prosecution argued that the police followed Pennsylvania law in “good faith.” The court, however, observed that is not the test under New York law and that “New York does not have a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule” (which prohibits prosecutors from using evidence that was obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights).

The warrantless search by the Pennsylvania police, according to the court, did not meet any justification under New York law. Though the police would have inevitably discovered the loaded magazine and other items that were suppressed, that does not change New York’s application of the exclusionary rule.

Ultimately, this is only a small win for Mangione – one which is unlikely to change the outcome of the case. The evidence against Mangione is overwhelming. His gun was a match for the murder weapon, he was on camera in the area, and his fingerprints were found near the scene. But more importantly, his notebook, which will be used as evidence, detailed his plan to “wack” Thompson as part of his grievances against the health insurance industry and wealthy executives.

Image by Getty Images

Former federal prosecutor indicted for stealing sealed report of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

In an indictment unsealed on May 20, 2026, Carmen Lineberger – the former Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida – has been charged with stealing the unreleased report of Special Counsel Jack Smith that had been ordered sealed.

Judge Cannon presided over Special Counsel Smith’s failed prosecution of President Trump, for documents he kept at Mar A Lago. After dismissing the case against Mr. Trump, Judge Cannon ordered Smith’s report to be sealed. She prohibited DOJ employees from “releasing, sharing, or transmitting [the report] outside the Department of Justice.”

In December 2025, Assistant U.S. Attorney Carmen Lineberger downloaded Special Counsel Smith’s report and altered its file name to “Bundt_Cake_Recipe.pdf.” She then sent the report to her personal Gmail account. She took similar steps to share an internal DOJ memo with her personal Gmail account, titling the compiled document as “Chocolate_cake_recipe.pdf.”

According to FBI Director Kash Patel, Lineberger altered the names of the documents “to conceal them from record searches.”

She faces two counts of theft of government property; one count of destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations; and one count of concealment, removal, or mutilation of public records.

Image by KUOW, Ellis O’Neal

The Supreme Court allows abortion drugs to continue to be distributed by mail.

The Supreme Court has granted a stay of (or put a hold on) the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that prevented the distribution of abortion-inducing medication by mail.

We first discussed this case on May 7, explaining how President Biden’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) altered its safety and reporting guidelines to allow for distribution of the abortion drug mifepristone by mail. The FDA guidelines under the Biden Administration were not changed due to the increased safety of the drug or because of exhaustive studies, but rather because President Biden demanded complete access to abortion drugs after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, which gave the States the ability to regulate abortion.

The Supreme Court’s order granting the applications for the stay provides no reasoning or justification for its decision. Specifically, the Supreme Court stayed the decision of the Fifth Circuit—meaning that the abortion drugs will be allowed to be distributed by mail while litigation continues in the Fifth Circuit and perhaps through the Supreme Court.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the Court’s decision. Justice Thomas observed that the drug companies “have not satisfied their burden for securing interim relief,” as they merely alleged the “Fifth Circuit’s order would reduce profits they derive from selling mifepristone.” He noted that under the Comstock Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1461, “it is a criminal offense to ship mifepristone for use in abortions.” They cannot “be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult to commit crimes.”

Justice Alito found the Court’s “unreasoned order” to be “remarkable.” He decried the “scheme” to undermine the Court’s decision in Dobbs and thwart Louisiana’s efforts to limit abortions.

Image by Agencies Images

Updates

To follow-up on our previous reporting, here are some updates on several of the most significant cases we have covered:

• As expected, the Supreme Court has denied an application to stay the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling. So, the Virginia legislature’s effort at “partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts in the Commonwealth” fails again.

• Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, its leadership, and Microsoft has been dismissed after jurors concluded Musk did not bring his suit until after the three-year statute of limitations expired. Musk alleged that he was intentionally deceived that OpenAI would remain a non-profit entity when, in fact, its leadership created for-profit entities to loot OpenAI’s assets. Musk is expected to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, but it may be a difficult decision to overturn.

This week, we are diving into the desperate and likely doomed efforts by the Commonwealth of Virginia and its Democratic legislators to save an outrageously partisan gerrymandered map that was struck down by the Virginia Supreme Court. We also discuss the ruling from the South Carolina Supreme Court that Alex Murdaugh – the disgraced former attorney convicted of murdering his wife and son – will get a new trial due to a county clerk’s plot to influence the jury for her own personal gain. You can’t make this one up!

And finally, we are reviewing the Supreme Court’s rejection of a court-ordered racial gerrymandered map in Alabama, which created a second “majority-Black district.”

Image by Adobe Stock Images

Virginia Tries to Save its “Partisan Gerrymandering”

The State of Virginia has requested the United States Supreme Court put a hold on the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling that “invalidated an amendment to the Commonwealth’s Constitution that authorizes the General Assembly to adopt new congressional maps.”

In its May 8, 2026 opinion, the Virginia Supreme Court reviewed the legality of a proposed constitutional amendment – which the General Assembly of Virginia submitted to Virginia voters – that authorized “partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts in the Commonwealth.” This state constitutional amendment passed in April 2026. A divided Virginia Supreme Court held that the legislative process used to advance that proposal violated the Virginia Constitution, which “incurably” tainted and nullified the amendment. The Virginia legislature was in such a hurry to rig its voting map that it failed to follow its own required procedures.

There is a lot at stake in Virginia. If the gerrymandered map were allowed to stand, it would serve as an unprecedented seizure of power by Virginia Democrats. Currently, there are 11 U.S. House Districts in Virginia: 5 Republicans and 6 Democrats. It would change that ratio to 1 Republican and 10 Democrats. As the Virginia Supreme Court explained, the 47% of Virginians that voted for Republicans “would now be represented by 9% of Virginia’s delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives.” And the 51% of Virginians who voted Democrat “would now be represented by 91% of Virginia’s congressional delegation.”

The Commonwealth of Virginia and Democrat leadership from the Virginia legislature are asking the Supreme Court to leave the map as the democrats rigged it.

Among other problems with the case, Virginia’s the request for a stay of the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision seems to be the wrong relief. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s injunction. The requested stay would not reverse that injunction. Ed Whelan, a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, offers these thoughts (along with Supreme Court litigator Alan Gura):

Image by Valerie Bauerlein

South Carolina Supreme Court: Alex Murdaugh Gets a New Trial

In March 2023, former attorney Alex Murdaugh was convicted of the murders of his wife Margaret and their son Paul. Prior to the murders, Murdaugh had been living a secret life. To the public he was a partner at a prestigious plaintiff’s law firm and had a strong reputation in the local community. But in reality, he was struggling financially – to the point where he stole millions from his clients and his law firm. He also had a severe opioid addiction.

As Murdaugh was facing exposure from his financial crimes, he brutally murdered Margaret and Paul near their family home. Both were killed from close range. As the State explained in its briefing to the South Carolina Supreme Court, “those murders immediately put a stop to the gathering storm at [Murdaugh’s] doorstep.”

At trial, the evidence against Murdaugh was overwhelming. He was present at the scene that night. His phone showed an uncharacteristic “flurry of movement” around the time of the murders. He owned two guns that matched the weapons used in the murder – and these guns were never found. He deleted call records from his phone, and his story about the events of that night were inconsistent with the overall evidence. He tried to pay-off a witness to secure his alibi. And after his financial crimes were discovered by his law firm, he arranged for his own (unsuccessful) murder so that his surviving son could receive life insurance benefits.

After the trial, it was discovered that Rebecca Hill, the Colleton County Clerk, had attempted to tamper with the jury. She told the jury “not to be fooled” by the evidence presented by Murdaugh’s attorneys. She also instructed them to watch Murdaugh “closely” and to “look at his movements” during the trial – which one juror interpreted as meaning ‘he was guilty.” Hill also interrogated a juror about her ex-husband’s alleged social media posts, pestered that juror about information regarding jury deliberations, and brought to the trial court’s attention social media posts that she mistakenly believed were from the juror’s ex-husband. Her meddling helped lead to the juror’s dismissal.

And according to an alternate juror, Hill told the jury: “They’re going to say things that will try to confuse you. Don’t let them confuse you or convince you or throw you off.”

Hill’s motives were, in part, financial. One witness “testified that Hill repeatedly told her she wanted to write a book so she could buy a lake house, and a guilty verdict would be the best way to sell books.” Based on these facts, Murdaugh sought a new trial. That was denied by the trial court and the appeals court.

On Wednesday, May 13, the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered a new trial, concluding that “County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.”

Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, South Carolina Supreme Court reasoned that the evidence of jury tampering created a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, which shifts the burden to the government to establish that “such contact with the jurors was harmless to the defendant.” It found that the State did not meet “its heavy burden of proving there is no reasonable possibility that the verdict was affected by Hill’s comments.”

To the contrary, Hill – an officer of the court – was advising the jurors to find Murdaugh guilty and to disregard the evidence presented by his attorneys. Her conduct “to undermine the jury process is unprecedented in South Carolina.”

What happens now? The case will go back to the trial court. Assuming Murdaugh and the government cannot work out a plea deal – and there is no indication that they will – there will be another trial. However, Murdaugh is still in prison for his financial crimes.

Image by Alander Rocha

Alabama’s Redistricting Plan Gets Supreme Court Approval

Over the last five years the State of Alabama has endured extensive litigation regarding its redistricting efforts. After it passed its 2021 redistricting plan, it faced federal lawsuits that alleged the map diluted the votes of Black Americans, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and resulted in racial gerrymandering and intentional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. The 2021 plan was halted by a federal district court, which held the challengers were likely to succeed on their claim that it violated the Voting Rights Act.

After the Supreme Court upheld that order, Alabama adopted a new congressional districting plan – what we will refer to as the 2023 plan. That plan, like the 2021 plan, only had one majority-Black district. The 2023 plan was also challenged in court, and it was enjoined under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it did not appropriately place Black voters into a “majority-Black district.” The district court also held that Alabama’s “refusal to intentionally create a second majority-minority district constituted intentional racial discrimination.”

The Supreme Court has vacated that order and remanded the case to the district court “for further considerations in light of Louisiana v. Callais.” As we previously explained, in Callais, the Supreme Court held that a similar district court order that forced Louisiana create a second majority-Black district “was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

While the Supreme Court’s order concerning the Alabama redistricting is only one paragraph and does not provide specific instructions on exactly how the district court should address Callais, we expect the district court to reverse its ruling on the 2023 plan and allow it to be used in the upcoming elections.

It looks like we have finally progressed to a race-neutral common-sense approach to districting maps. Perhaps they could be drawn by AI in contiguous areas of approximately the same number of citizens in each district without regard to anything else—instead of the crazy configurations that have resulted from all the partisan gerrymandering of the last several decades!

This week, we are covering ongoing litigation concerning the Biden Administration’s flouting of FDA procedures to allow for abortion pills to be delivered through the mail to pro-life states. We are also reviewing oral argument at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of “geofence warrants,” which allow law enforcement to obtain a user’s location data from cell phone service providers.

And we follow-up on developments in Callais v. Louisiana – which we covered last week – where Justice Samuel Alito provides a strong condemnation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s unhinged rhetoric and “legal reasoning.”

Image by Tammy Turner

The Fight for Abortion Pills goes to the Supreme Court

On May 4, the Supreme Court issued an order to administratively stay – until Monday, May 11 – a recent order by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that prevented abortion providers from providing abortion medication by mail. This is not a stay on the merits but will instead allow for further briefing on the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit, after which the Supreme Court will decide how to proceed.

For background, Biden issued an Executive Order to federal agencies to “expand access” to medical abortion. So, the Biden Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed the abortion drug mifepristone (typically taken during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy) to “be prescribed online and dispensed through mail, without any need for an in-person visit to a doctor.” The FDA altered its safety guidelines for mifepristone and failed to study whether it was safe to allow mifepristone to be remotely prescribed.

The State of Louisiana sued in federal district court, alleging the FDA’s new regulation was “based on flawed or nonexistent data” and because the regulation had “resulted in numerous illegal abortions in Louisiana and caused Louisiana to pay thousands in Medicaid bills for women harmed by mifepristone.”

The district court determined that Louisiana was likely to win its challenge but denied the State’s request to stay the regulation. Louisiana appealed and the Fifth Circuit granted the stay. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that the FDA’s actions were “likely unlawful” because the FDA eliminated the requirement to report mifepristone’s adverse events and yet used the lack of adverse event data to support its remote prescription rule—totally bootstrapping its decision.

The FDA had also relied on literature to support the remote prescription of the drug even though the literature did not support its position. This was, to the Fifth Circuit, “a textbook example of arbitrary and capricious reasoning.” Additionally, the FDA action undermined Louisiana’s “laws protecting unborn human life” and undermined its policy that “every unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person.”

Image by Getty Images

Cell Phone Location Data and the Fourth Amendment

In Chatrie v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the execution of a “geofence warrant” violated the Fourth Amendment. This is what the FBI used to track down all the January 6 defendants.

A geofence warrant allows law enforcement to obtain from a service provider – such as Google or Verizon – the identities of users who were in a location at a particular time. Overall, a geofence warrant is a valuable tool for law enforcement, especially where there are no witnesses to a crime. But it does implicate significant Fourth Amendment concerns, especially when companies like Google collect location data on “numerous tens of millions” of Americans.

Chatrie involves a bank robbery in Midlothian, Virginia in the spring of 2019. In the commission of that robbery, Okelle Chatrie gave the teller a note demanding $100,000. When the teller replied that she did not have access to that type of money, he pulled a firearm, forced everyone to the ground, and forced the manager to open the safe. He got away with $195,000 in cash.

After the robbery, law enforcement obtained a geofence warrant from Google that sought location data for every device within 150 meters of the bank robbery for the period of one hour. After Google returned that list, law enforcement sought – without seeking another warrant – location data for that same bank robbery for a period of two hours. And again, without seeking an additional warrant, law enforcement requested subscriber information for one of the devices.

One of those devices belonged to Okello Chatrie, who eventually pleaded guilty to bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. He entered that plea subject to his motion to suppress the geofence warrant.

We can safely assume that the Supreme Court is hearing this case because some courts have ruled different ways on the issue of whether obtaining location data from a service provider violates the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The Fourth Circuit – the court that heard Chatrie’s appeal – “held that obtaining location information from Google was not a search at all.” The Fifth Circuit disagrees. A ruling from the Supreme Court on this issue would clear-up confusion in the lower courts and provide guidance on exactly what the rules are for a geofence warrant.

The oral argument in Chatrie was on April 27, 2026. From a review of the transcript, it seems like the Supreme Court may agree with the Fourth Circuit that the geofence warrant complied with the Fourth Amendment and that a geofence warrant, if limited in time and scope, is constitutional. Important to the Court’s consideration is the fact that location data is shared voluntarily. Justice Alito observed that “you have to choose to disclose” your location. And Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that “the only reason the government has access to this information is because you decided to make it public.”

If you value your privacy, you might want to turn off your phone’s location.

Image by AP Photo, Butch Dill

Justice Alito labels Justice Jackson’s dissent as trivial, baseless, and insulting

Last week, we discussed the Supreme Court’s opinion in Callais, where it held a federal district court wrongly required the State of Louisiana to redraw its voting district maps to “create a second district that was majority-black.” The Supreme Court held it was an unconstitutional gerrymander; neither the Constitution nor the Voting Rights Act allowed or required such racial discrimination.

On May 4, the Supreme Court granted a request to issue its judgment to the lower court forthwith. Typically, the Clerk of the Supreme Court waits 32 days to send the judgment to the lower court to provide the losing party time to file a petition for rehearing.

But the Supreme Court can adjust this 32-day waiting period at its discretion. And it had strong basis to do so: early voting has already started for the Louisiana primaries and the general election will start in less than six months.

That seemed reasonable to the entire Supreme Court – except for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. In a scathing dissent (which no other Justice joined), she berated the Court for choosing sides in the redistricting battle and spawning “chaos in the State of Louisiana.” To Justice Jackson, the Court is “not content to have decided the law” but it has decided to “take steps to influence its implementation.” She closed her dissent with harsh words:

“The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power. Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, respectfully, I dissent.”

Justice Samuel Alito – joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – took her on and wrote a forceful concurring opinion: “The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered.”

Justice Alito’s concurrence eviscerates the reasoning and conclusions of Justice Jackson. He observes that her reasons for allowing the election to proceed under an unconstitutional map to be “trivial at best” as well as “baseless and insulting.” Justice Alito reasoned that the upcoming Louisiana elections required “prompt action by this Court.” And he observed that Justice Jackson’s belief that the 32-day period should run out to “avoid the appearance of partiality” does not explain how such a step would create the appearance of partiality on behalf of those “who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.”

As for her claim that the Court’s decision represents an abuse of power? Alito states: “That is a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”

In closing, Justice Alito provides remarks with which many on the Court would probably agree:

The dissent accuses the Court of “unshack[ling]” itself from “constraints.” It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint.”

Subscribe now

We also look into the indictment of David Morens, the former senior National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases official who faces charges for his scheme to evade Freedom of Information Act requests connected to COVID-19.

And, we note there is a new indictment of former FBI Director James Comey—for his social media threat against the President. There has been a year long investigation, and we do not have any details of evidence that supports the charges. However, our friend on X @theVivaFrei has an enlightening analysis. Sidney can’t help but note—in her opinion—that the charges are only the tip of the iceberg of Comey’s malicious actions against President Trump since he rode down the escalator.

Share

Image from Liberty Justice Center

Pro-Life Group gets Relief from Subpoenas Targeting Donor Information

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport, the Supreme Court considered whether an organization may challenge the constitutionality of a subpoena in federal court.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers (First Choice) is a religious nonprofit that has provided counseling and resources to pregnant women in New Jersey for over 40 years. They are a pro-life organization – they believe that life begins at conception and work “to protect and honor life in all stages of development.”

In 2022, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, established the Reproductive Rights Strike Force, which sought to protect abortion providers and those seeking abortions. After its creation, the Strike Force issued a public warning in which it accused pro-life centers – those like First Choice – of “seeking to prevent people from accessing comprehensive reproductive health care” by “providing false or misleading information about abortion.”

The Strike Force and the Office of the Attorney General never received any complaints about First Choice. Despite that fact, the Attorney General served a subpoena on First Choice in 2023 under a number of New Jersey Laws, including the State’s Consumer Fraud Act. It demanded the production of 28 categories of documents under threat of contempt of court, including the names, addresses, phone numbers, and place of employment of all persons who had donated to First Choice through a page on the organization’s website.

Just days before the deadline to comply with the subpoena, First Choice filed suit in a federal district court seeking relief from compliance with the subpoena. In that suit, First Choice made a number of arguments – including that the Attorney General’s demand for donor information violated its First Amendment rights. After the deadline passed, the State of New Jersey filed its own suit in state court, accusing First Choice of violating state law by failing to comply with the subpoena.

The federal district court dismissed First Choice’s lawsuit, concluding it did not have a “justiciable” claim—meaning a claim proper for the court to decide. A divided panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, finding that First Choice had not established “enough of an injury.” The Supreme Court accepted this case to determine whether First Choice’s lawsuit may proceed in federal court.

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit and held that First Choice can challenge the constitutionality of the subpoena in federal court, as it “has established a present injury to its First Amendment association rights.” In doing so, he recognized the “vital relationship between privacy in one’s associations and the freedom to associate.” Justice Gorsuch observed that ending this privacy would be disastrous:

“Strip away the ability of individuals to work together free from governmental oversight and intrusion, and the freedom to associate may become no freedom at all – individuals deterred, groups diminished, and their protected advocacy suppressed.”

The Court disagreed with the findings of the lower courts that First Choice had not sustained enough of an injury to proceed with its constitutional claims. It observed that the First Choice donors had expressed fear of the New Jersey Attorney General’s “hostility toward pro-life groups.” And it recognized that the threats from the Attorney General would weaken First Choice’s ability to recruit new donors, given the threat that their personal information would be part of a government investigation. This burden of First Choice’s constitutional rights was “more than enough to establish injury in fact” under Supreme Court precedent.

Hallelujah! We say!

Image from Associated American Press

Supreme Court holds that Louisiana’s Congressional Map is Unconstitutional

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, which involved Louisiana’s adoption of a majority-black district at the direction of a federal district court. It held that the State’s attempt to comply with the district court’s order “was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

This case originated from Louisiana’s 2022 redistricting, which included (like its predecessor) only one district where black voters were a majority of the voting-age population. As soon as that redistricting was passed, there were a number of lawsuits filed in federal district court that alleged a violation of the Voting Rights Act because it only created one majority-black district and spread out the remaining black voters among other districts where they were less likely to be able to elect a black person.

After lengthy legal proceedings, the district court held that the challengers were “‘likely to prevail’ on their claim that the Voting Rights Act demanded the creation of a second majority-black district.” This essentially forced the State to redraw its own map and create a second district that was majority-black; otherwise, the district court would create its own map and mandate its use.

After the new map (called SB8) was enacted, a lawsuit was filed in the Western District of Louisiana, alleging that its creation of a second majority-black district was a racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause. The district court case resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, concluding the SB8 was unconstitutional.

The State of Louisiana appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would consider not only the constitutionality of SB8 but also “whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination.”

In a 5-3 decision, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that “because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8.” It held that SB8 “is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.” The Court applied the “general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race.”

Image from Andrew Harnicks, Getty Images

The Indictment of David Morens

In what is hopefully the first of many steps to restore justice from the atrocities of the COVID-19 pandemic, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) official David Morens has been indicted by a federal grand jury.

The indictment alleges that Morens, a former advisor to Anthony Fauci, and two co-conspirators – Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance and former National Institutes of Health official Gerald Keusch – “defrauded and committed offenses against the United States by hiding from public view various federal records” relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Morens had a significant public position within NIAID which included advising leadership and senior staff and providing guidance on infectious disease planning and management. He also gathered facts from federal contractors and the scientific community regarding the nature and origins of COVID-19 and assisted in formulating policies in response to the pandemic.

Though he had legal obligations to preserve records and was provided yearly training on his obligations regarding document preservation, Morens used his personal Gmail account “to create, transfer, and exchange federal records that pertained to Morens’s responsibilities as a Senior Advisor at NIAID.” He did this to not only hide his communications with the co-conspirators and others from pending FOIA requests, but also to allow him and others to advance the interests of EcoHealth Alliance.

As part of this conspiracy, Morens not only deleted emails but expressed his desire to his co-conspirators to use his personal Gmail account to evade his FOIA responsibilities. Morens also went to bat for EcoHealth Alliance in their efforts to secure millions of dollars in federal grants – a conflict of interest that he tried to keep secret.

Daszak was so thankful for this help that he sent bottles of wine to Morens’s residence, with promises that there would be a “continued series of expressions of gratitude for your advice, support, and behind-the-scenes shenanigans.” Daszak would also promise Morens additional things of value, including meals at Michelin-starred restaurants.

Overall, Morens faces five counts related to: (1) conspiracy against the United States; (2) destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations; (3) concealment, removal, or mutilation of records; and (4) aiding and abetting. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

• James Comey Indicted

Finally, we get to the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, who faces two counts: (1) making a knowing and willful “threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a); and (2) knowingly and willfully transmitting in interstate commerce “a communication that contained a threat to kill the President, Donald J. Trump” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).

The threat arose from Comey’s Instagram post of “8647” – what he described as a “cool shell formation” he found on his walk on the beach—but there is a lot more to it.

Comey was interviewed about this post by the U.S. Secret Service in May of 2025. He took down the post after public outcry, stating on Instagram that “It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

Our friend on X @theVivaFrei has an interesting analysis of Comey’s legal problems and provides context others have missed. Frei explains:

People are either unaware of, or ignoring the context of Comey’s Instagram post. It was not a “one-off”. It was actually the second in a series of three posts, all of which were connected, self-referential, and clearly deliberately so.

Post 1: Comey at the beach, reading his new book, FDR Drive (image attached).

Post 2: 8647 in shells.

Post 3: The summary of his new book which he is reading in Post 1. That summary:

“Garcia believes Buchanan went far beyond the protection of the first amendment when *he singled out his enemies by name* and *suggested “something should be done” about them*. His fans have obliged, killing or grievously, injuring some of his foes.”

Comey is telling you exactly what he is doing.

Reading his book. Singling out his enemies by name (as close as he can get) - 47 for Trump.

Suggesting “something should be done about them” - 86 for kill or eliminate.

And “his fans have obliged” from his book description that he posted.

This analysis also explains why the indictment seeks forfeiture of “property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the said offense.” DOJ apparently believes Comey’s coded message “took a page out of his new book,” and promoted its sales.