The suspected wannabe assassin who opened fire at the White House Correspondents&#8217; Dinner last weekend is &#8220;not a danger to anybody,&#8221; his lawyer argued in court on Wednesday.
In a court filing, Cole Allen&#8217;s defense team argued that the gunman should be allowed to roam free as he awaits his trial, the New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/04/30/us-news/whcd-shooting-suspect-cole-allen-makes-absurd-argument-for-why-he-should-walk-free/">reported</a>. Allen&#8217;s lawyer also claimed that the suspect had no intention of carrying out a mass shooting since he was not carrying an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
&#8220;Mr. Allen has no criminal history — not even prior arrests, which alone would rebut the presumption of detention,&#8221; his defense team wrote, adding, &#8220;The government’s rhetoric about a ‘mass shooting’ is also unsupported by its own proffered facts. Mr. Allen was not alleged to be holding an automatic or even semi-automatic weapon that are the hallmarks of the modern-day mass shooting.&#8221;
During a court hearing on Thursday, defense attorney Tezira Abe said Allen&#8217;s defense team was changing course and dropping its request to keep him out of detention &#8220;at this time.&#8221; Abe then asked the judge for Allen to be removed from his &#8220;safe cell,&#8221; where he&#8217;s remained isolated around the clock since being taken into custody. Allen, wearing an orange jump suit, was present for the hearing in the D.C. federal court on Thursday.
Allen ran through a security checkpoint inside the Washington Hilton last Saturday and fired one shot from his Mossberg 12-gauge pump-action shotgun before he fell to the ground and was detained by Secret Service and law enforcement agents, according to federal prosecutors. The gunman was also carrying a fully-loaded Rock Island Armory 1911 .38 caliber pistol and multiple knives.
Shotguns have been used in some of the darkest mass shootings in U.S. history, including by the gunmen at Columbine, the Aurora theater, and Washington Navy Yard.
In a manifesto that Allen sent to family members just before the attack, the gunman said he was targeting top Trump administration officials at the White House Correspondents&#8217; Dinner and added that he would shoot any of the attendees or law enforcement officers who got in his way.
“I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that,” he wrote in the manifesto.
Three law enforcement sources told NBC News on Wednesday that Allen <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bullet-that-struck-secret-service-agents-vest-now-traced-to-would-be-assassin?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Bullet+That+Struck+Secret+Service+Agent%E2%80%99s+Vest+Now+Traced+To+Would-Be+Assassin">fired</a> the shot that struck a Secret Service agent after early reports suggested the agent might have been hit by friendly fire. The agent was protected by his bulletproof vest.
A Secret Service agent fired five times at Allen as he charged through the security checkpoint, but Allen was not hit, according to federal prosecutors. The gunman fell down and suffered a minor knee injury immediately after he breached the security checkpoint, the Justice Department stated.
Allen is charged with attempting to assassinate the president of the United States, transportation of a firearm and ammunition in interstate commerce with intent to commit a felony, and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

Cole Allen/White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Lawyer Says WHCD Shooter ‘Not A Danger’ Because He Had The Wrong Gun

Courts

Crime

Donald Trump

shooter

Shooting

U.S.

White House Correspondents’ Dinner

<div class="article-body">
<div class="article-meta">
<div class="author-bio">
On Monday this week — only six days after Virginia’s gerrymandering referendum — the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the alleged constitutional and statutory offenses Democrats in Virginia’s General Assembly committed in 2025 in bringing their attempt to amend Virginia’s constitution to get rid of our bipartisan redistricting commission. There is a second case on appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court that addresses Democrats’ alleged 2026 violations of Virginia’s constitution and laws. Finally, there is a third case, still in trial court in Richmond, addressing whether the Democrats’ proposed new map is so extremely gerrymandered that it violates Virginia’s constitution. If the Virginia Supreme Court throws out the referendum, the map case will be mooted and dismissed.
Recognizing how important it is to have maps in place, the Virginia Supreme Court has moved with a speed I have never before observed. Two days after last week’s referendum, briefs were filed, and four days after that, oral arguments were held. One can only assume that the Court will issue a ruling at a similar pace.
As a 30+ year litigator, it’s important to realize how little you can often glean from oral argument. In Monday’s hearing, only three of the seven justices asked anything, and most of that came from just two: Justices Russell and McCullough. A note on these two: Most people will observe that they are among the more conservative justices. That is true, but both of them also have a rare depth of experience dating back before they became judges, more than a decade ago, in interpreting and litigating Virginia state constitutional issues. There are very few state constitutional experts — they are both such experts in Virginia.
Notably, current Democrat Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones’ public comments defending the referendum since the three-point win by the “yes” folks have exclusively focused on the importance of the vote. &#8220;The people have spoken,” and therefore the court should not invalidate the referendum. No reference to the constitution or laws of Virginia, just raw mobocracy. So, it was almost hilarious to hear the very first question to Jones’ own lawyer, along the lines of “counsel, does the outcome of last week’s vote have any bearing on the legal issues before us today?” Answer: “No.”
Jones’ own lawyer gutted his public posturing with his answer to the very first question asked in oral argument. Ouch.
A little election law history in Virginia: the last time the Democrats controlled Virginia’s state House, Senate, and Governorship, they gave Virginia 45-day elections. It is thus ironic that early voting is causing the Democrats’ biggest problems with their bum-rushed attempt to amend Virginia’s constitution to gerrymander the state into oblivion.
To amend Virginia’s constitution, the General Assembly must pass a proposed amendment twice — once on each side of an intervening election. Simple enough, right? Not when you’re in a race to rewrite maps to “get Trump” in the midterms.
The Democrats didn’t pass their gerrymandering amendment for the first time until Halloween last year — during the election that gave us Governor Abigail Spanberger. Their problem? Voting began six weeks earlier, on September 19, 2025. Over one million Virginians had already voted by Halloween. The lawyer for the Democrats’ response? Too dang bad. Seriously. Jones’ lawyer said that early voters vote early at their own risk, basically stating if there’s an October surprise, too bad for you, you shouldn’t have voted early.
Isn’t this the party that raises early voting and mail-in voting to a religious-like level? Aren’t you an automatic racist if you oppose the nobility of early voting?
And now that the 45-day election stands in the way of their power grab, they are throwing those voters under the bus. One of the plaintiffs in the case is a Democrat early voter who strongly supported the bipartisan redistricting amendment that passed just over five years ago by a 2-to-1 margin. Not only that, her own delegate proposed the gerrymandering amendment to undo the bipartisan redistricting. She had no idea they might do this, and if she had known, she would have voted against her delegate.
The Virginia attorney general, who has been spewing pablum about how much he wants to protect voting, doesn’t care about this woman’s vote, nor the other million+ voters in 2025 who voted, having no idea of the power play that was about to be rammed through by the Democrats.
Considering the more lenient approach taken on the other two issues during oral argument — namely, whether the Democrat-controlled General Assembly could shift the focus of its special session from the state budget to adding a constitutional amendment unexpectedly, and whether Virginia’s law requiring court clerks to post potential constitutional amendments 90 days before an election was violated (which was impossible here since the amendment didn’t exist until near the end of the 2025 election) — I anticipate that this Court will swiftly declare the referendum unconstitutional.
***
Ken Cuccinelli is the former Virginia attorney general and former acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
</div>
</div>
</div>

Trump’s Redistricting Bids Near End With Virginia, Florida Moves

Gerrymandering Democrats Taken To Court

DW Opinion

gerrymandering

Virginia Democrats

A doctor asked the Supreme Court to intervene in her battle against woke California medical education requirements she says stifle her free speech.
Dr. Azadeh Khatibi and the medical watchdog organization Do No Harm filed a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/1032366223/Khatibi-Pet-for-Cert-1?_gl=1*158e1y2*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTg1NjQ4MTE0NS4xNzc3Mzg2MDE2*_ga_Z4ZC50DED6*czE3NzczODYwMTUkbzEkZzEkdDE3NzczODYwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw*_ga_8KZ8BV0P5W*czE3NzczODYwMTUkbzEkZzEkdDE3NzczODYwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw">petition</a> on Tuesday asking the Supreme Court to take up a case challenging continuing medical education requirements that mandate instructors teach doctors about “implicit bias,” which is the claim that a person can unconsciously discriminate against another. Khatibi argues that the requirements, which were signed into law by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, force medical professionals to push politically charged ideas.
“By mandating ideologically charged racial theories be taught in continuing medical education courses, California infringes on physicians’ free speech rights,” Do No Harm Chair Stanley Goldfarb told The Daily Wire. “We are asking the Supreme Court to intervene to protect these critical rights in the field of medicine. Doctors do not need lawmakers telling them what to think when providing medical advice to patients.”
The petition filed Tuesday wants the court to address the question of whether a state can “compel private professionals to convey a contested ideological message as a condition of teaching courses required for a professional license.” Khatibi and Do No Harm are both represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation.
The requirements being challenged say that those giving continuing medical education must give examples of “how implicit bias affects perceptions and treatment decisions of physicians and surgeons, leading to disparities in health outcomes,” or suggest strategies to address how “unintended biases in decision-making may contribute to health care disparities by shaping behavior and producing differences in medical treatment.”
Previous attempts to challenge the requirement at the federal district and appeals court levels have been unsuccessful. Those courts have said the requirements are part of the state’s prerogative to regulate medical practice.
The petition filed with the Supreme Court argues that the implicit bias mandate exceeds the state’s regulatory power.
“That sweeping ruling erases the constitutional boundary between government and private speech, threatens the speech rights of countless professionals, and directly conflicts with this Court’s precedents limiting the government speech doctrine and protecting against compelled speech,” the petition said.
Goldfarb said that there is no evidence of implicit bias in health care and that doctors should be trained to address each patient’s unique needs rather than focusing on race.
“There is no evidence so-called systemic implicit bias exists in health care, and propagating such debunked pseudoscience only deepens suspicion between patients and providers,” he said. “We urge the Court to take up our case and resolve California’s overreach once and for all.”

Governor Gavin Newsom in Hayward, California

Government Forcing Ideology Into Medicine Vs. Doctors’ Right To Think And Speak Freely

California

Gavin Newsom

Health

Health Care

medicine

Supreme Court

FBI Director Kash Patel on Monday sued The Atlantic for $250 million over what he calls a “malicious and defamatory hit piece” that accused the federal law enforcement chief of having a serious drinking problem.
Patel is acting on a promise he made over the weekend to sue <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/kash-patel-fbi-director-drinking-absences/686839/">The Atlantic over a Friday story</a> whose sub-headline read, “Kash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.”
<div class="flex flex-col text-sm pb-25">
<section class="text-token-text-primary w-full focus:outline-none [--shadow-height:45px] has-data-writing-block:pointer-events-none has-data-writing-block:-mt-(--shadow-height) has-data-writing-block:pt-(--shadow-height) [&amp;:has([data-writing-block])&gt;*]:pointer-events-auto scroll-mt-[calc(var(--header-height)+min(200px,max(70px,20svh)))]" dir="auto" data-turn-id="request-WEB:707589a6-9f60-4c4f-8fa9-98f1b04b62f3-6" data-testid="conversation-turn-14" data-scroll-anchor="true" data-turn="assistant">
<div class="text-base my-auto mx-auto pb-10 [--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-xs,calc(var(--spacing)*4))] @w-sm/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-sm,calc(var(--spacing)*6))] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-lg,calc(var(--spacing)*16))] px-(--thread-content-margin)">
<div class="[--thread-content-max-width:40rem] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-max-width:48rem] mx-auto max-w-(--thread-content-max-width) flex-1 group/turn-messages focus-visible:outline-hidden relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn">
<div class="flex max-w-full flex-col gap-4 grow">
<div class="min-h-8 text-message relative flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 text-start break-words whitespace-normal outline-none keyboard-focused:focus-ring [.text-message+&amp;]:mt-1" dir="auto" data-message-author-role="assistant" data-message-id="bff3f5b8-fb4d-49aa-b43c-e0a8192212f0" data-message-model-slug="gpt-5-3-mini" data-turn-start-message="true">
<div class="flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden">
<div class="markdown prose dark:prose-invert w-full wrap-break-word light markdown-new-styling">
The story portrayed an absent FBI chief concerned about his job security and allegedly struggling with substance abuse, which is said to be affecting key investigations, including the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Patel has forcefully denied all allegations of misconduct.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>
</div>
&#8220;You wanna attack my character, come at me, bring it on, I&#8217;ll see you in court,&#8221; Patel said in an <a href="https://x.com/FoxNews/status/2045893562026353027?s=20">interview with Fox News</a>. &#8220;We have to fight back against the fake news.&#8221;
The piece, written by reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick, cited more than two dozen anonymous sources alleging Patel engages in “excessive drinking,” as well as “conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences&#8221; that &#8220;alarmed officials at the FBI  and the Department of Justice,&#8221; <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/fbi-director-kash-patel-sues-atlantic-court-records-show-2026-04-20/">according to Reuters</a>.
&#8220;Memo to the fake news &#8211; the only time I’ll ever actually be concerned about the hit piece lies you write about me will be when you stop,&#8221; Patel posted on April 18. &#8220;Keep talking, it means I’m doing exactly what I should be doing. And no amount of BS you write will ever deter this FBI from making America safe again and taking down the criminals you love.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Memo to the fake news &#8211; the only time I’ll ever actually be concerned about the hit piece lies you write about me will be when you stop. Keep talking, it means I’m doing exactly what I should be doing. And no amount of BS you write will ever deter this FBI from making America…
— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) <a href="https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2045549772044439803?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2026</a></blockquote>
Patel’s <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.291527/gov.uscourts.dcd.291527.1.0.pdf">19-page suit</a> was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., accusing The Atlantic of publishing a &#8220;sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece.&#8221;
&#8220;Defendants are of course free to criticize the leadership of the FBI, but they crossed the legal line by publishing an article replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patel’s reputation and drive him from office,&#8221; the lawsuit reads. &#8220;Indeed, Fitzpatrick could not get a single person to go on the record in defense of these outrageous allegations, instead relying entirely on anonymous sources she knew to be both highly partisan with an ax to grind and also not in a position to know the facts.&#8221;
The Atlantic provided the FBI a two-hour window to respond to &#8220;nineteen detailed allegations concerning complex issues of national security, personnel files, security-detail logs, internal facilities logs, and personal conduct,&#8221; according to the lawsuit.
On Monday, The Atlantic vowed to fight the lawsuit, which seeks $250 million in punitive damages.
&#8220;We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists against this meritless lawsuit,&#8221; the company said in response to the lawsuit.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Statement from The Atlantic: <a href="https://t.co/ZoIldjSbzl">pic.twitter.com/ZoIldjSbzl</a>
— The Atlantic Communications (@TheAtlanticPR) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheAtlanticPR/status/2046239419422675189?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 20, 2026</a></blockquote>

Kash Patel

We Now Know How Much Kash Patel Is Suing The Atlantic For

kash patel

Lawsuit

Politics

The Atlantic

Trump Administration

FBI Director Kash Patel is preparing for a full-scale legal battle against The Atlantic after the outlet published a bombshell report he says is riddled with falsehoods, and he’s making clear he intends to take it to the mat.
“Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook,” Patel <a href="https://x.com/S_Fitzpatrick/status/2045273851764859074">told the magazine</a> ahead of publication, a warning that has now escalated into an imminent lawsuit.
The Friday article by Sarah Fitzpatrick, titled “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/kash-patel-fbi-director-drinking-absences/686839/">The FBI Director is MIA,</a>” levels a barrage of allegations against Patel, painting a picture of a senior law enforcement official allegedly plagued by instability, heavy drinking, and internal dysfunction. The report claims Patel engaged in “erratic” behavior, suffered bouts of paranoia about his job security, and was frequently absent or unreachable during key moments.
Among the most explosive claims: that Patel is “known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication” in front of colleagues, that members of his security detail have struggled to wake him due to alleged inebriation, and that officials once considered using breaching equipment to access a locked space when he could not be reached. The piece also alleges that meetings had to be delayed due to his condition and suggests his behavior could pose a “national security vulnerability.”
Patel’s legal team has forcefully rejected every one of those claims.
In a <a href="https://x.com/jbinnall/status/2045287437325254768">pre-publication letter</a>, his attorney Jesse Binnall called the allegations “categorically false and defamatory,” emphasizing that most rely on anonymous sources using vague phrasing like “people familiar with the matter.” Binnall argued that such sourcing “could not possibly possess firsthand knowledge” and accused the magazine of reckless disregard for the truth, a key component in proving defamation involving a public figure.
He also pointed to what he described as glaring factual holes, including the alleged “breaching equipment” incident, which he said has “no corroborating public record whatsoever” and appears to be either fabricated or based on a single unreliable source.
Reaction on X was immediate and sharply divided, with Patel allies and critics clashing over the credibility of The Atlantic’s reporting.
FBI media adviser Erica Knight <a href="https://x.com/_EricaKnight/status/2045279436354867267">blasted</a> the article as a recycled collection of rumors that “every real DC reporter chased, couldn&#8217;t verify, and passed on,” while laying out a lengthy defense of Patel’s record. She pointed to internal metrics under his leadership — including tens of thousands of arrests, major increases in violent crime enforcement, and large-scale fentanyl seizures — while dismissing the report’s central claims outright. “The so-called ‘intoxication incidents’ The Atlantic breathlessly reports have happened exactly ZERO times,” Knight wrote, adding bluntly: “Lawsuit is being filed.”
Others with direct ties to Patel echoed that pushback. Clint Brown, who described himself as a “sherpa” during Patel’s transition into the role, <a href="https://x.com/DissidentClint/status/2045310456340840611">said</a> he spent months working closely with him, and never witnessed any of the behavior described in the report. “Your anon sourced story is BS,” Brown wrote, adding that Patel was consistently responsive, detail-oriented, and deeply engaged in his work, often reviewing briefings at all hours.
Patel himself <a href="https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2045549772044439803">leaned into the fight</a>, framing the controversy as proof he’s doing his job. “Memo to the fake news — the only time I’ll ever actually be concerned about the hit piece lies you write about me will be when you stop,” he posted, adding that criticism would not deter the FBI from “making America safe again.”
On Capitol Hill, the reaction broke along predictable lines. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) seized on the report, <a href="https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/2045524585567723876">saying</a> it confirmed Patel is “completely unfit to serve” and calling for his resignation. But Tom Cotton (R-AR), who works directly with Patel as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, <a href="https://x.com/TomCottonAR/status/2045517520849773053">dismissed</a> the story as a “dishonest smear” and pointed instead to what he described as tangible results from the bureau. Cotton followed up, <a href="https://x.com/TomCottonAR/status/2045517524926705838">adding</a>, &#8220;Here&#8217;s what&#8217;s really happening: Liberal reporters and disgruntled deep state leakers — who have zero knowledge of what the story alleges — are bitter that the FBI is no longer targeting Catholic parents and pro-lifers.&#8221;
The clash underscores what is quickly becoming more than just a media dispute: a political and legal showdown that is now playing out in real time across both the press and the courts.
Inside the administration, Patel has drawn swift and public backing. “Patel has accomplished more in 14 months than the previous administration did in four years. Anonymously sourced hit pieces do not constitute journalism,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said when reached out to by The Atlantic for comment.
FBI Assistant Director of Public Affairs Ben Williamson, who pushed back on the allegations when first contacted by the outlet, didn’t mince words in his response. He dismissed the report as a reheated collection of long-circulating rumors that had never held up under scrutiny, <a href="https://x.com/_WilliamsonBen/status/2045274603455476140">saying</a>: “This article is a compilation of pretty much every obviously fake rumor I’ve heard the last 14 months except the Atlantic is the only one dumb enough to actually print it.”
Patel himself has gone further, <a href="https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2045327321192599867">publicly accusing</a> the magazine of acting with “actual malice,” the high legal bar required in defamation cases involving public officials. He went further, saying, “See you and your entire entourage of false reporting in court.”
His team is also demanding that The Atlantic preserve all internal communications, drafts, and source materials related to the story, a clear signal that litigation is not just a threat, but imminent.
For her part, Fitzpatrick is standing by her reporting, citing interviews with more than two dozen sources and insisting the story is accurate. 
Neither side is backing down and so the high-stakes collision between a top federal law enforcement official and a major national publication seems imminent. If Patel follows through, the case could become a major test of modern media practices, particularly the reliance on anonymous sourcing in stories involving national security figures, and whether courts are willing to scrutinize those standards more aggressively.
The next round seems likely to play out in court, where both sides will be forced to back up their claims under oath, and where the consequences could be far more serious than a war of words.

Patel Unleashes On The Atlantic Over ‘Categorically False’ Report Including ‘Locked Room’ Claim

Media

Media Bias

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday handed energy companies a significant procedural victory, ruling that Chevron may move a long-running Louisiana environmental lawsuit from state to federal court and, in doing so, broadened the scope of a key federal jurisdiction statute.
In a 7–1 decision in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-813_3e04.pdf">Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish</a>, the Court held that companies acting under federal authority may remove cases to federal court if the claims are meaningfully connected to their federal duties—even if the government did not directly control the specific conduct at issue. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.
The dispute originated in 2013, when Louisiana parishes sued several oil companies, alleging that historic production activities—specifically those during World War II—damaged the state’s coastline. The parishes cited the use of earthen pits, vertical drilling, and the dredging of canals as violations of state law. Chevron sought to &#8220;remove&#8221; the case to federal court, arguing that during the war, it acted as a federal contractor producing high-octane aviation gasoline (&#8220;avgas&#8221;) for the U.S. military. Since the crude oil produced in Louisiana was the essential &#8220;feedstock&#8221; for that gas, Chevron claimed the lawsuit &#8220;related to&#8221; its federal duties.
The core legal question centered on whether a lawsuit challenging raw material production &#8220;relates to&#8221; a federal contract to refine those materials into a military product. The Fifth Circuit had previously ruled against Chevron, suggesting the government had not specifically directed the methods of oil extraction.
Justice Thomas, however, rejected this narrow interpretation. He emphasized that the 2011 congressional amendments to the statute replaced a strict &#8220;causal nexus&#8221; test with a much broader standard.
As Thomas noted: &#8220;The phrase &#8216;relating to&#8217; sweeps broadly. It means &#8216;to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with.'&#8221;
While Thomas acknowledged that the connection cannot be &#8220;tenuous, remote, or peripheral&#8221;—famously quipping that &#8220;ordinary readers would not understand the statement that someone is &#8216;related to Joe&#8217; to refer to &#8216;a mutual tie to Adam and Eve'&#8221;—he found that Chevron’s wartime activities were deeply intertwined with federal mandates.
The Court highlighted the &#8220;all-hands-on-deck&#8221; nature of the WWII effort, where the federal government pressured companies to maximize production &#8220;day and night.&#8221; Because the specific Louisiana crude was a &#8220;preferential&#8221; grade for avgas, the extraction methods used were not independent business choices, but were driven by the need to satisfy military demand. Thomas wrote, &#8220;In this all-hands-on-deck, wartime context, Chevron needed to produce more crude oil as quickly as possible to facilitate more avgas refining, including its own. &#8230; This suit implicates acts by Chevron that are closely connected to the performance of its federal duties.&#8221;
This ruling is widely seen as a win for energy companies because it lowers the threshold for removing cases to federal court. By allowing indirect but meaningful connections to suffice, the decision strengthens a key procedural tool that can shape where—and potentially how—major environmental and climate lawsuits are litigated.

Chevron Corp. Jack/St. Malo Platform As Big Oil Rivals Shale In Gulf

Supreme Court Ruling In WWII-Era Oil Dispute Drives Major Win For American Energy

Energy

Oil companies

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Wednesday decried &#8220;progressivism,&#8221; saying the political ideology threatens the foundational principles and values of the United States.
During a lecture at the University of Texas School of Law, Thomas participated in an event <a href="https://www.fox7austin.com/news/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-speaks-ut-austin">marking the 250th anniversary</a> of the signing of the United States Declaration of Independence.
He warned that a political ideology of &#8220;cynicism, rejection, hostility, and animus&#8221; is consuming Americans and taking over the country&#8217;s way of life.
&#8220;Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence, our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government,&#8221; Thomas said. &#8220;It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
🚨 JUST IN: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is being praised nationwide for dropping this TRUTH on leftism and &#8220;progressivism&#8221;
&#8220;Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights… <a href="https://t.co/pVRS8AuwwL">pic.twitter.com/pVRS8AuwwL</a>
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2044821167328878610?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
Thomas, one of the most influential conservatives on the Supreme Court, argued progressive ideals are on a collision course with the nation’s founding values.
&#8220;Since Woodrow Wilson&#8217;s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government,&#8221; Thomas said. &#8220;It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Justice Thomas: &#8220;Since Woodrow Wilson&#8217;s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/7Z08ZnNR0H">pic.twitter.com/7Z08ZnNR0H</a>
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) <a href="https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/2044793679009689802?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<div dir="auto" lang="en" data-testid="tweetText">
Thomas slammed elitism in Washington and accused policymakers of being &#8220;so swept up in the euphoria of acclamation and acceptance that they put aside their convictions.&#8221;
&#8220;They fall prey to the enchanting siren songs of flattery and become so bewitched by praise that they will desperately seek to conform accordingly,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;They water down their message, negotiate against themselves, vote against their principles, and hide in the tall grass,&#8221; Thomas asserted. &#8220;They recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists, or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences and their country.&#8221;
The broadside against progressivism comes amid rising tensions at the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a rare public apology for personal criticism directed at Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The controversy began in Kansas, where she criticized Kavanaugh for his <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">concurring opinion</a> in an immigration case involving ICE raids.
</div>
“I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops,” Sotomayor said, according to a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-08/sotomayor-faults-kavanaugh-over-immigration-stops-concurrence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bloomberg report</a>. “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
“At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, I referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate,” Sotomayor said in a statement. “I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor publicly apologizes for comments suggesting Justice Brett Kavanaugh was privileged and out of touch for his concurrence in an immigration case greenlighting warrantless ICE stops in LA. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> <a href="https://t.co/6kLLuHol5d">pic.twitter.com/6kLLuHol5d</a>
— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) <a href="https://twitter.com/bykatiebuehler/status/2044528919785750761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2026</a></blockquote>
During a speech on Monday at Yale Law School, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stepped up her criticism of the court&#8217;s conservative majority, calling their handling of the emergency docket &#8220;corrosive,&#8221; <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/justice-jackson-says-us-supreme-courts-use-emergency-docket-is-corrosive-2026-04-15/">according to Reuters</a>.
In Texas, Justice Thomas urged Americans frustrated with the country&#8217;s direction to get off the sidelines.
&#8220;I think if we don’t stand up and take ownership of our country, and take responsibility for it, we are slowly letting others control how we think and what we think,&#8221; Thomas said. &#8220;It&#8217;s our country.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Justice Clarence Thomas on rebuilding public trust in government: &#8220;I think if we don&#8217;t stand up and take ownership of our country, and take responsibility for it, we are slowly letting others control how we think and what we think.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/4bho06ftMX">pic.twitter.com/4bho06ftMX</a>
— CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/2044604183077061074?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2026</a></blockquote>

The U.S. Supreme Court Poses For Official Group Photo

Clarence Thomas Issues Stark Warning About America’s Survival Under The Left

Clarence Thomas

Washington D.C.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is launching a formal investigation into Lululemon over concerns the popular activewear brand may be misleading consumers about the safety of its products, particularly regarding the potential presence of so-called “forever chemicals.”
In a press release obtained exclusively by The Daily Wire, Paxton’s office confirmed it has issued a Civil Investigative Demand as part of a broader probe into whether Lululemon has accurately represented the health impacts, safety standards, and material composition of its clothing. The company, which generated more than $11 billion in fiscal year 2025, markets itself heavily around wellness, sustainability, and performance — branding that Paxton suggested may not align with emerging concerns.
“Americans should not have to worry if they are being deceived when trying to make healthy choices for themselves and their families,” Paxton said. “I will not allow any corporation to sell harmful, toxic materials to consumers at a premium price under the guise of wellness and sustainability.”
At the center of the investigation are PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of synthetic chemicals widely referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their extreme resistance to breaking down in the environment or the human body. According to researchers at <a href="https://sustainability.yale.edu/explainers/yale-experts-explain-pfas-forever-chemicals#:~:text=PFAS%2C%20or%20per%2D%20and%20polyfluoroalkyl%20substances%2C%20are,chips%20*%20Toilet%20paper%20*%20Waterproof%20cosmetics">Yale School of Public Health</a>, PFAS have been used in consumer and industrial products since World War II, often for their water-resistant, stain-resistant, and non-stick properties, qualities commonly associated with performance apparel.
That same durability, however, is what makes PFAS potentially dangerous. Experts warn the chemicals can accumulate over time in the human body, persisting in blood, liver, and kidneys for years. Studies have linked PFAS exposure to a wide range of health risks, including certain cancers, liver toxicity, reduced fertility, immune system suppression, and developmental issues.
“PFAS are often called ‘forever chemicals’ because they contain an exceptionally strong carbon-fluorine bond, which makes them highly resistant to breakdown,” Yale epidemiology chair Vasilis Vasiliou explained. “As a result, they persist in the environment for decades or longer.”
Paxton’s investigation will specifically examine whether Lululemon’s products contain PFAS that consumers would not reasonably expect based on the company’s marketing. It will also scrutinize the company’s internal safety standards, testing protocols, and supply chain practices to determine whether its products comply with its own stated guidelines.
The probe comes amid growing scrutiny of PFAS contamination nationwide. Federal regulators only recently began setting enforceable limits on certain PFAS chemicals in drinking water, though those standards have already faced rollbacks and legal challenges. Meanwhile, consumer awareness has surged, with increasing concern about the presence of these chemicals in everyday products, including clothing.
While the investigation is still in its early stages, it signals a broader shift toward holding companies accountable for how they market “health-conscious” products, particularly when underlying materials may tell a different story.
Worth noting, Paxton is currently locked in a high-profile Republican primary runoff against John Cornyn (R-TX) for a U.S. Senate seat. His investigation also aligns with a broader push inside the Trump administration to crack down on environmental toxins in consumer products. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made similar issues a priority at HHS, including a recent <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-hhs-announce-historic-actions-protect-americans-microplastics-and-safeguard">joint initiative</a> with the EPA targeting microplastics, which regulators have begun categorizing alongside PFAS as emerging public health risks.
For now, the outcome of the investigation remains unclear. But as scrutiny around PFAS intensifies, companies built on wellness branding may increasingly find themselves under the microscope.

Is Lululemon Using Forever Chemicals?

Forever Chemicals

Ken Paxton

Texas

A U.S. appeals court on Friday declared unconstitutional a nearly 158-year-old federal ban on home distilling, calling it an unnecessary and improper means for Congress to exercise its power to tax.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled in favor of the nonprofit Hobby Distillers Association and four of its 1,300 members.
They argued that people should be free to distill spirits at home, whether as a hobby or for personal consumption including, in one instance, to create an apple-pie-vodka recipe.
The ban was part of a law passed during Reconstruction in July 1868, in part to thwart liquor tax evasion, and subjected violators to up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Edith Hollan Jones said the ban actually reduced tax revenue by preventing distilling in the first place, unlike laws that regulated the manufacture and labeling of distilled spirits on which the government could collect taxes.
She also said that under the government&#8217;s logic, Congress could criminalize virtually any in-home activity that might escape notice from tax collectors, including remote work and home-based businesses.
&#8220;Without any limiting principle, the government’s theory would violate this court’s obligation to read the Constitution carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power,&#8221; Jones wrote.
The U.S. Department of Justice had no immediate comment. Another defendant, the Treasury Department&#8217;s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Devin Watkins, a lawyer representing the Hobby Distillers Association, in an interview called the ruling an important decision about the limits of federal power.
Andrew Grossman, who argued the nonprofit&#8217;s appeal, called the decision &#8220;an important victory for individual liberty&#8221; that lets the plaintiffs &#8220;pursue their passion to distill fine beverages in their homes.&#8221;
&#8220;I look forward to sampling their output,&#8221; he said.
The decision upheld a July 2024 ruling by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, Texas. He put his ruling on hold so the government could appeal.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Bill Berkrot)

Alcohol

From Felony To Freedom: A Century-Old Rule On Liquor Just Collapsed

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)

Food

Showing why her own colleagues have long viewed her as the abrasive outlier of the High Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor — who said in 2001, &#8220;I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn&#8217;t lived that life&#8221; —  recently decided that the hallowed traditions of Supreme Court protocol are secondary to her own progressive &#8220;lived experience.&#8221;
Speaking at the University of Kansas, the &#8220;Wise Latina&#8221; took a <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/sotomayor-faults-kavanaugh-over-immigration-stops-concurrence">verbal sledgehammer</a> to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, violating the unwritten rule that judicial disagreements stay within the mahogany walls of One First Street.
Sotomayor’s target was a concurrence Kavanaugh wrote regarding an emergency order on immigration enforcement. While Kavanaugh noted that brief stops for legal residents are typically just that—brief—Sotomayor went for the jugular, and she made it personal. Mocking Kavanaugh’s upbringing, she sneered, “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
It was a stunningly low blow, even for Sotomayor. By attacking Kavanaugh’s class and background rather than his legal reasoning, she didn&#8217;t just breach collegiality; she set it on fire. Supreme Court protocol dictates that justices attack the argument, not the man. But for Sotomayor, identity politics is the only North Star, even if it means suggesting a colleague is too &#8220;privileged&#8221; to understand the plight of the working man.
Of course, this isn&#8217;t Sotomayor’s first time playing the role of the &#8220;grating&#8221; colleague. Her history on the bench is littered with instances where her peers—on both sides of the aisle—have cringed at her antics. Even the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a fellow traveler on the Left, was known to <a href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/supreme-court/is-sotomayor-finding-her-voice-or-alienating-her-colleagues/#:~:text=(His%20entire%20concurrence%20is%20a,for%20Jim%20Crow%20%22shameful.%22">trade barbs</a> with Sotomayor in footnotes, frequently questioning her interpretation of the law.
In the Schuette case, Sotomayor’s fifty-eight-page dissent was so vitriolic that Chief Justice John Roberts felt compelled to write a separate concurrence just to call her out for making legal disagreements personal. At the time, even The New York Times admitted her voice was grating on her colleagues. Antonin Scalia was even less diplomatic, famously labeling her comparisons of certain modern policies to Jim Crow as &#8220;shameful.&#8221;
The Supreme Court relies on &#8220;institutional glue&#8221;—the handshake, the shared meals, the omertà of the conference room—to function. Sotomayor, however, seems intent on dissolving that glue. While Justice Amy Coney Barrett <a href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/engaged-in-a-common-enterprise-u-s-supreme-court-justice-amy-coney-barrett-reflects-on-judicial-independence-transparency/#:~:text='An%20act%20of%20the%20will,do%20with%20time%20spent%20together.%E2%80%9D">recently noted</a> that collegiality is an &#8220;act of the will,&#8221; Sotomayor appears to have willed herself into a state of permanent grievance. By publicly slamming Kavanaugh’s character, she has signaled that she is no longer interested in being a judge among peers, but rather an activist-in-exile, writing children’s books and airing dirty laundry because she can&#8217;t win the legal argument.

The Constitutional Court Celebrates Women’s Day

‘Wise Latina’ Sotomayor Breaks SCOTUS Protocol To Trash Kavanaugh’s Pedigree In Public

Brett Kavanaugh

Sonia Sotomayor

Meta has begun scrubbing ads offering legal help for damages related to social media addiction and the associated harmful behaviors.
According to a <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/04/09/meta-social-media-addiction-ads">report</a> from Axios on Thursday, Meta has begun pulling ads — from both Facebook and Instagram — that provide users with information about getting legal advice or taking legal action against social media platforms.
Axios quoted an example of one of the ads that was pulled: &#8220;Anxiety. Depression. Withdrawal. Self-harm. These aren&#8217;t just teenage phases — they&#8217;re symptoms linked to social media addiction in children. Platforms knew this and kept targeting kids anyway.&#8221;
Meta has acknowledged that some ads are being removed from the social media platforms, saying that the law firms placing such ads should not be allowed to benefit from the use of Meta&#8217;s platforms while claiming at the same time that Meta was responsible for creating addicts and causing mental health problems.
&#8220;We&#8217;re actively defending ourselves against these lawsuits and are removing ads that attempt to recruit plaintiffs for them. We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful,&#8221; a Meta spokesperson told the outlet.
The report comes just two weeks after a California jury found that both <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/verdict-reached-in-landmark-social-media-media-addiction-trial">Meta</a> and YouTube had contributed to a number of mental health problems — including addiction and related behavior — in a landmark case before the California Superior Court.
A Meta spokesperson protested the verdict, saying at the time, &#8220;We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.&#8221;
As The Daily Wire previously reported, social media platforms — including Meta and YouTube — have often touted online safety features in recent years, such as Instagram’s “Teen Accounts” and YouTube “Kids,” which are meant to create safer and more controlled experiences for children. Critics argue that kids — sometimes with willing parents or other adults helping them — are able to bypass those controls and gain access to the full platforms anyway.

Social Media

Meta Shuts Down Ads From ‘Trial Lawyers’ Targeting Social Platform Over Addiction

Meta Doesn't Want Users To Know They May Be Able To Sue For Social Media Harm

Big Tech

MixCollage-15-Sep-2025-04-51-PM-6957

Inside The Twisted Confession Tyler Robinson Is Accused Of Sending His Boyfriend

assassination

Charlie Kirk

Murder

Tyler Robinson

Menu