A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama has been identified as the official caught having sex in her chambers with a high-ranking law enforcement officer during business hours.
Citing a person familiar with the investigation, Bloomberg Law <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/eleanor-ross-of-atlanta-is-judge-reprimanded-for-sex-in-chambers-94">reported</a> Thursday that U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-gets-slap-on-wrist-after-chambers-sex-scandal-with-police-officer?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=4&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Federal+Judge+Gets+Slap+On+Wrist+After+Chambers+Sex+Scandal+With+Police+Officer">received</a> a “private reprimand” from the court’s disciplinary panel for engaging “in an extramarital affair with a high-ranking law enforcement officer.” 
The panel said the judge had “sexual intercourse in the judge’s chambers during business hours within hearing distance of staff,” but did not identify Ross by name. 
Ross was <a href="https://x.com/MarcoPolo501c3/status/2060041718410416290">first identified</a> as the judge involved by Marco Polo, a watchdog organization known for publishing material related to Hunter Biden&#8217;s laptop. 
The Atlanta-based judge did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Wire. 
An investigation into Ross began in September 2025 after a court clerk reported hearing “kissing sounds and other noises consistent with intimate activity” and “sounds of moaning” coming from judicial chambers. 
That investigation found that Ross maintained a sexual relationship with the law enforcement officer for two years, placing herself in jeopardy of extortion and blackmail. Ross was also found to have lied about the relationship and attended a partisan political event in violation of court guidelines. 
The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, which reviews complaints against judges, later affirmed the findings. 
Ross received a private reprimand along with an order to write apology letters to former clerks. She was also barred from becoming chief judge or serving on Judicial Conference committees. 
Obama appointed Ross to the federal bench in 2014. She was <a href="https://www.congress.gov/nomination/113th-congress/1231">confirmed</a> after advancing through the Senate with bipartisan support. 
During her confirmation hearing, Ross <a href="https://www.c-span.org/person/eleanor-louise-ross/75256/">called</a> her husband her “rock and source of inspiration in all of my professional and personal endeavors.” In her judicial questionnaire, she <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ross%20Responses.pdf">wrote</a> that “the most important attribute of a judge is integrity.”
As a judge, Ross has overseen several high-profile election-integrity cases and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/reality-stars-todd-and-julie-chrisley-sentenced-to-prison" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sentenced</a> reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley to 12 and 7 years in prison, respectively. They were later pardoned by President Donald Trump. 
Todd Chrisley <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DY0ud-IlrMp/?hl=en&amp;img_index=1">called</a> for Ross to be impeached, writing on Instagram that “this corrupt judge who couldn’t focus on our case because she was to (sic) busy clapping dem cheeks in her chambers per the articles that are surfacing in the last few hours, she needs to be impeached and we will work with Congress and our legal team to see that this happens.”
During the 2020 election, Ross <a href="https://apnews.com/general-news-f7ef69c7f79ddc036a14f76a00a4870d" target="_blank" rel="noopener">extended</a> the deadline for receiving absentee ballots to three days after Election Day. That ruling was later blocked by a higher court.

MixCollage-28-May-2026-12-31-PM-3045

Obama-Appointed Judge Caught Fornicating In Chambers Within Earshot Of Clerks

Atlanta

Courts

Georgia

A federal judge received only a “private reprimand” after admitting to having sex with a high-ranking law enforcement officer within judicial chambers and within “hearing distance” of court staff. 
The body that oversees disciplinary complaints against federal judges <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/c.c.d.-no.-26-01-may-22-2026.pdf">affirmed</a> a lower panel <a href="https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judicial_complaints/11-25-90212%20Judicial%20Council%20Order_0.pdf">finding</a> that a federal judge in the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals engaged “in an extramarital affair with a high-ranking law enforcement officer” and had “sexual intercourse in the judge’s chambers during business hours within hearing distance of staff.”
The decision from the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability found that the judge also lied about the relationship to investigators and attended a partisan political event in violation of court guidelines. Investigators did not reveal the name of the sanctioned judge, who only received a slap on the wrist for the actions. 
After a clerk reported hearing “kissing sounds and other noises consistent with intimate activity” and “sounds of moaning” coming from judicial chambers, an investigation was launched in September 2025. That investigation involved a forensic test on “one of the cushions on a sofa in the Subject Judge’s chambers” because it “was stained in a manner that was consistent with being caused by semen.” The test later came back negative.
Both the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability and the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit substantiated the findings that over the course of two years, the judge had sex with the officer in violation of judicial rules of conduct. They also found that the judge lied about the relationship when first confronted by investigators and attended a blatantly political event for a person running for district attorney. These actions made the judge vulnerable to extortion and blackmail, the Judicial Council said. 
Investigators also said that the judge did not oversee any cases directly involving the law enforcement officer.
The only disciplinary actions the judge received were a private reprimand, an order to write apology letters to former clerks, plus a ban on becoming chief judge and serving on any Judicial Conference committee. 
The Judicial Council said it did not recommend a more “severe sanction” because the judge “corrected the false statements” and was “candid” after being caught lying, the relationship with the officer had ended, the judge promised to attend no more partisan political events, and the judge had otherwise rendered exemplary service to the court.”
That decision not to give a more severe punishment was affirmed by the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, with the panel saying the punishment was “appropriate and proportional.&#8221; 
The investigation into the judge entailed numerous interviews, reviewing security footage, checking over visitor sign-in logs, and reviewing court documents.

A bronze statuette of Lady Justice, depicted with a blindfold and holding the scales of justice in her outstretched hand. The figure is sharply focused against a bright, blurred background, highlighting its symbolic details.

Federal Judge Gets Slap On Wrist After Chambers Sex Scandal With Police Officer

Federal Judge Gets Slap On The Wrist After Having Sex In Chamber With Police Officer

WASHINGTON, May 26 (Reuters) &#8211; The U.S. Department of Justice&#8217;s Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit against the University of California, Los Angeles on Tuesday, claiming it tolerated a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.
In its complaint, the Justice Department accused UCLA of violating Title VI &#8211; a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance &#8211; &#8220;through its deliberate indifference to this pervasive on-campus antisemitism.&#8221;
The lawsuit pointed to an encampment that was built on the university&#8217;s campus in April 2024. The Justice Department described the move as illegal and said that Jewish students were attacked.
&#8220;Universities have an obligation to maintain safe and inclusive campuses for all students,&#8221; said Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California.
&#8220;Universities that violate our nation’s civil rights laws by repeatedly failing to shield Jewish students from antisemitism will be held accountable.&#8221;
UCLA REJECTS ALLEGATIONS
UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk rejected the allegations, saying the university had taken concrete steps to combat antisemitism on campus.
&#8220;Let me be direct: the suggestion that UCLA has been passive in the face of antisemitism is simply wrong,&#8221; Frenk said in a statement. &#8220;Combating antisemitism is a moral imperative — one rooted, for me, in personal history that makes indifference unthinkable.&#8221;
Frenk said the university had recruited an associate vice chancellor for campus and community safety, reorganized its civil rights office, appointed a Title VI officer, and strengthened policies to protect free expression and campus safety.
Frenk had introduced a campus-wide initiative to combat antisemitism, which issued a report in May outlining a roadmap to address campus antisemitism and bigotry.
In February 2025, the university suspended two leftist student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Graduate Students for Justice in Palestine, over their involvement in a protest at the home of University of California regent Jay Sures. The following month, the university recommended revoking SJP&#8217;s status and suspending GSJP for four years.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CRACKDOWN ON ANTISEMITISM
The Justice Department announced the lawsuit shortly after a federal appeals court earlier on Tuesday partially upheld an injunction that required it to restore grants awarded to the University of California that the Trump administration had terminated last year because it perceived they supported diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI.
The lawsuit is the latest legal action taken by the Trump administration to crack down on what it has described as antisemitism at U.S. universities in the wake of Hamas&#8217; October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.
The 2023 attack, which resulted in the deaths of more than 1,200 people, launched the Israel-Gaza war.
Hundreds of students across the United States and Europe held demonstrations in the wake of the war, calling for a ceasefire to end it. In some cases, students occupied campus buildings.
(Reporting by Daphne Psaledakis and Jasper Ward in Washington; Editing by Caitlin Webber and Sonali Paul)

Police Clear Student Encampment on UCLA Campus

Trump DOJ Sues UCLA Over Treatment Of Jewish Students

antisemitism

California

Los Angeles

Los Angeles (UCLA)

Students for Justice in Palestine

U.S.

UCLA

Two police officers who defended the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, are suing the Trump administration in an attempt to block a new $1.8 billion Justice Department compensation fund designed to provide relief to Americans the administration says were targeted by politically motivated Biden-era prosecutions.
Former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges filed suit this week against President Donald Trump, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, claiming the administration lacks the authority to establish what critics have labeled an “anti-weaponization” fund without congressional approval.
The lawsuit argues the fund could ultimately compensate some January 6 defendants and members of “paramilitary groups,” with the officers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/20/us/politics/jan-6-officers-lawsuit-trump-fund.html">warning</a> it could embolden political violence.
 “In the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, President Donald J Trump has created a $1.776bn taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name,” the complaint states.
The Trump administration, however, has framed the program very differently — not as a reward system for rioters, but as a mechanism to compensate Americans who faced politically selective prosecutions and excessive legal punishment under the Biden administration.
Vice President JD Vance defended the program during a White House press briefing on Tuesday, accusing the media of distorting the fund&#8217;s purpose. 
“This is about compensating Americans for the lawfare that we saw under the last administration,” Vance said. “Anybody can apply for it. Republicans can apply for it, Democrats can apply for it.”
Vance also rejected claims that the fund would personally benefit Trump or his family. 
“Is $1 of this money going to the Trump administration? No. Is $1 of this money going to Donald Trump personally? No,” he said.
When pressed on whether individuals convicted in connection with January 6 could potentially receive compensation, Vance said the administration would review claims individually rather than issue blanket exclusions. 
“We’re not trying to give money to anybody who attacked a police officer,” Vance said. “We’re trying to compensate people where the book was thrown at them, they were mistreated by the legal system.”
The vice president argued the fund is part of a broader effort to “turn the page” on what the administration views as politically motivated prosecutions during the Biden years. 
“Let’s not prosecute people because they said the wrong thing, or because they had the wrong political candidate, or because they had the wrong viewpoint,” Vance said.
Critics of the program point to the more than 1,500 pardons and commutations Trump issued for January 6 defendants earlier this year, arguing the compensation fund could become another avenue for rewarding political allies. 
Supporters of the initiative, however, argue that many defendants faced disproportionate charges, financial ruin, and years-long legal battles tied to what they view as prosecutions they believe were politically driven.
The lawsuit comes as the administration continues to make anti-weaponization and transparency efforts a central political theme heading into the 2026 midterms.

January 6

J6 Officers Sue Trump Over $1.8B ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Fund

Capitol Police

Capitol Riot

Politics

A California federal jury nixed billionaire Elon Musk&#8217;s lawsuit against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Monday, concluding that Musk filed his claims after the statute of limitations had expired.
The jury <a href="https://www.npr.org/2026/05/18/nx-s1-5822366/musk-altman-openai-jury-verdict-claims-dismissed">returned its verdict</a> after deliberating for just 90 minutes following a three-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the case, said that she agreed with the jury&#8217;s unanimous decision.
&#8220;I&#8217;ve always said I would accept the jury&#8217;s verdict. I think there&#8217;s a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury&#8217;s finding,&#8221; Gonzalez Rogers said.
Legal experts said the jury likely focused on whether Musk waited too long to file suit under California law.
Vincent Joralemon, a senior fellow at UC Berkeley law school, told <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/05/18/business/elon-musk-loses-lawsuit-against-openai-in-unanimous-verdict/">The New York Pos</a>t that California imposes a three-year statute of limitations for breach of charitable trust claims and a two-year limit for unjust enrichment claims.
&#8220;I’m guessing the jurors got into their room and said, ‘Does it seem like Musk knew about this in 2019?’ and everyone said ‘yes’ and then they go, ‘we’re done,'&#8221; he said.
Musk brought the case in 2024, accusing Altman and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman of betraying the organization&#8217;s original nonprofit mission by changing OpenAI to a profit-driven enterprise.
OpenAI was founded in 2015 as a nonprofit focused on developing artificial intelligence in a manner that would benefit humanity. Musk, who helped launch the organization and donated roughly $38 million before ultimately leaving the board in 2018, said OpenAI&#8217;s leadership abandoned that principle for financial gain.
The SpaceX founder asked for $150 billion in damages — and promised to appeal when the jury decided against him.
&#8220;Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge &amp; jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality,&#8221; Musk said in an X post on Monday.
&#8220;There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman &amp; Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity,&#8221; he added. &#8220;The only question is WHEN they did it! I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America.&#8221;
Musk&#8217;s attorney Marc Toberoff also vowed to appeal the decision: &#8220;I have a one-word reaction: Appeal. This war is not over.&#8221;
Toberoff argued that OpenAI improperly raised money as a publicly subsidized nonprofit before later restructuring into a for-profit operation &#8220;where the officers and directors of the charity enrich themselves to the tune of billions.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Elon Musk’s lawyer, Marc Toberoff, on today’s verdict in the OpenAI case:
“I have a one-word reaction: Appeal. This war is not over. We firmly believe what happened with OpenAI was wrong on a very basic level that you can&#8217;t raise millions of dollars in a publicly subsidized… <a href="https://t.co/D6x1Ja43mB">pic.twitter.com/D6x1Ja43mB</a>
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) <a href="https://twitter.com/SawyerMerritt/status/2056477364134044055?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 18, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Elon Musk and OpenAI

Jury Nixes Elon Musk’s OpenAI Lawsuit In Under Two Hours

Jury Nixes Elon Musk's OpenAI Lawsuit In Under Two Hours

Artificial Intelligence

Charity

Elon Musk

OpenAI

Sam altman

Virginia Democrats just found out the Supreme Court is not in the mood for election-year do-overs.
In a decision that could ripple far beyond the Commonwealth, the United States Supreme Court slammed the brakes on a Democrat-backed effort to redraw Virginia’s congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterms, and it did it without a single justice publicly objecting. No fiery dissents. No dramatic explanation. Just a quiet little order that dropped like a hammer.
The fight centered around a voter-approved map Democrats hoped would help flip four Republican-held House seats and possibly tilt control of Congress. Virginia voters narrowly approved the new map in April after Democrats pushed through a complicated workaround to sidestep the state’s bipartisan redistricting system.
Republicans immediately cried foul, arguing the process violated Virginia’s constitution because lawmakers jammed the proposal forward after early voting had already started in a required election cycle.
Virginia’s Supreme Court agreed in a razor-thin 4-3 ruling, tossing the map out entirely and saying the process was too compromised to stand.
Democrats raced to the nation’s highest court begging the justices to step in and save the plan before the midterms heat up.
But the Supreme Court basically responded with a cold shrug.
Why does this matter? Because this is not just about Virginia. It is part of a nationwide political cage match over congressional maps as both parties scramble to redraw districts before November.
Texas Republicans already moved to strengthen their map. California Democrats fired back with their own redraw.
Now Virginia has become another major battlefield in the redistricting war that could decide who controls Washington.
Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both the House and Senate, and both parties know a few district lines can change the balance of power overnight.
Even more wild? Nearly $100 million was dumped into the Virginia referendum fight alone.
To most Virginians, it probably looked like just another random ballot question buried halfway down the page.
To both parties, though, it was political gold.
But in modern politics, maps are power.
And Friday’s ruling was a reminder that sometimes the most important election battles happen long before anyone actually votes.

GettyImages-1448513952

Supreme Court Has Final Word On Dem Hail Mary Over Virginia Map

Redistricting

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Virginia

NEW YORK, May 15 (Reuters) &#8211; Harvey Weinstein&#8217;s third trial in New York over allegations he used his Hollywood clout to prey upon and sexually abuse women ended in a mistrial on Friday, after a jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on a charge he raped the aspiring actress Jessica Mann.
Weinstein, 74, is expected to remain behind bars due to his convictions in other cases.
Weinstein was a top Oscar-winning film producer until sexual misconduct allegations led to his downfall and fueled a wider social movement that encouraged women to come forward with accounts of sexual abuse by powerful men.
His most recent trial centered on Mann&#8217;s allegation that Weinstein raped her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 while Mann resisted and repeatedly said &#8220;No.&#8221;
It was not immediately clear whether prosecutors would seek to try the case for a fourth time.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office brought the case, said his office was disappointed but respected the jury system.
&#8220;We will consider our next steps in consultation with Ms. Mann,&#8221; Bragg said in a statement.
Defense lawyer Marc Agnifilo told reporters outside the courthouse that he would encourage prosecutors to drop the case, saying nine jurors voted not guilty and three voted guilty.
&#8220;In my view they were lucky to have won over three jurors,&#8221; Agnifilo said of the prosecutors.
Mann said she told the truth but did not clearly indicate how she wanted to proceed.
&#8220;I deserve justice,&#8221; Mann said in a statement.
FIRST CONVICTION OVERTURNED
Weinstein had pleaded not guilty to one count of third-degree rape and has denied assaulting anyone or having non-consensual sex. His lawyers have argued that Mann fabricated the rape allegation after regretting that her consensual romance with Weinstein failed to advance her film career.
At his first trial in New York in 2020, Weinstein was convicted of raping Mann and assaulting onetime production assistant Miriam Haley in 2006. But the state&#8217;s highest court overturned the conviction and Weinstein&#8217;s 23-year prison sentence after concluding he did not get a fair trial.
A Manhattan jury then convicted Weinstein of sexually abusing Haley at a trial in June 2025, but found him not guilty of assaulting former model Kaja Sokola.
That jury deadlocked on the third-degree rape charge accusing Weinstein of assaulting Mann, leading Justice Curtis Farber to declare a mistrial on that count.
The retrial began in April.
&#8216;HOPELESSLY DEADLOCKED&#8217;
During their third day of deliberations on Friday, jurors sent Farber a note saying they were deadlocked. The judge urged them to keep trying to reach a verdict.
Farber said outside the presence of the jury that it was clear they were &#8220;hopelessly deadlocked&#8221; and that there was no reason to keep them any longer.
He told lawyers for both sides to return for a hearing on June 25.
Juror Josh Hadar, 57, told reporters outside the courthouse that he voted not guilty over what he said were &#8220;contradictions&#8221; in Mann&#8217;s testimony.
Weinstein was also convicted of rape in California in 2022 and is serving a 16-year prison sentence. He is appealing that conviction and sentence.
The Miramax studio co-founder will face up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced for abusing Haley.
(Reporting by Jack Queen and Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Rod Nickel and Bill Berkrot)

Former Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein appears in Manhattan Supreme Court for the retrial of his rape case, in New York City

Disgraced Hollywood Mogul’s Latest Rape Trial Ends Without Verdict

Alvin Bragg

Harvey Weinstein

Hollywood

MeToo

New York

New York City

Rape

Kouri Richins, the Utah woman who wrote a children&#8217;s book on processing grief after her husband&#8217;s death, went on a 40-minute rant as she was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison without the possibility of parole for killing him with fentanyl. 
In March, a jury found the 35-year-old guilty of aggravated murder for lacing her husband Eric Richins’ drink with five times the lethal dose of fentanyl, poisoning him with what&#8217;s known as a Moscow Mule cocktail,<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kouri-richins-murder-trial-sentencing-fa8c4b159827eef080cfa104a316454c"> according to the Associated Press.</a> Jurors also convicted the mother of three on four additional felonies, including insurance fraud, forgery, and attempted murder for giving her husband a fentanyl-laced sandwich on Valentine&#8217;s Day. 
Judge Richard Mrazik imposed the maximum sentence, rejecting the possibility of parole.
“A person convicted of those things is simply too dangerous to ever be free,” Mrazik said. 
Eric Richins, 39, was found dead in bed on March 4, 2022, at the couple&#8217;s Park City home. An <a href="https://abcnews.com/US/utah-mom-kouri-richins-set-sentenced-fatally-poisoning/story?id=132889104&amp;cid=social_twitter_abcn">autopsy report</a> determined he died from fentanyl intoxication. The sentencing coincided with what would have been his 44th birthday.
According to the Associated Press, Kouri Richins, a real estate agent who operated a house-flipping business, was millions of dollars in debt and romantically involved with another man. She had taken out multiple life insurance policies on her husband without his knowledge, believing she would inherit more than $4 million after his death.
The victim&#8217;s father, Eugene Richins, urged the court to impose the maximum penalty to protect his grandchildren from their mother. 
“This sentence is important so Eric’s three sons never have to live with the fear that the person responsible for taking their father could ever harm them again,” he said during the sentencing hearing,<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kouri-richins-murder-trial-sentencing-fa8c4b159827eef080cfa104a316454c"> according to the Associated Press. </a>
Speaking to her young children at the sentencing, Richins broke into a 40-minute rant where she insisted she was innocent while admitting that she is &#8220;not perfect.&#8221; 
&#8220;I know that today you don&#8217;t want to speak to me, have a relationship with me,&#8221;<a href="https://abcnews.com/US/utah-mom-kouri-richins-set-sentenced-fatally-poisoning/story?id=132889104&amp;cid=social_twitter_abcn"> she said, according to ABC.</a> &#8220;You may think you hate me, and that&#8217;s okay. I will never be angry at you for your feelings. When the day comes that you&#8217;re ready, I will be here for you, waiting for you, and loving you.&#8221;
&#8220;I have succeeded and I have failed as a person, as a wife, as a parent &#8212; we all do,&#8221; she added.
Richins&#8217; arrest drew national attention, in part due to the children&#8217;s book she published. Released a year after her husband’s death, “Are You With Me?” aimed to help her boys process the loss of their father. The book, which has fewer than two stars in reviews, drew a wave of outraged responses.
&#8220;This is horrifying, writing a book about grief to then be the one who murdered your husband? How can you do that to someone?&#8221; one social media user said.
&#8220;What an absolute psychopath!&#8221; another person said.

Husband Killer And Children’s Grief Author Breaks Into 40-Minute Monologue

Fentanyl

Murder

Utah

Virginia Democrats are gaslighting the American public after losing big on their redistricting gamble by attempting to sell a big lie to save face.
Prominent Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are publicly complaining that because the Virginia Supreme Court issued its ruling — invalidating the newly-gerrymandered congressional map — after the referendum was over, the court should be under scrutiny for overturning the will of the people. What they are not saying is that Virginia Democrats demanded — in litigation filed with the court — that no ruling be issued until after the referendum was over.
&#8220;What is extremely disturbing about what has happened in Virginia is this court overturned the will of three million Virginians,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez told reporters. While 3 million Virginians did vote on the referendum, only a little over half (1.6 million) voted in favor of the measure.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
AOC: What is extremely disturbing about what has happened in Virginia is this court overturned the will of three million Virginians. They can say what they want about the ballot initiative, but they explicitly chose to issue this ruling after the election happened. They had all… <a href="https://t.co/NC7kUsMikB">pic.twitter.com/NC7kUsMikB</a>
— Acyn (@Acyn) <a href="https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/2054357562620010862?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 13, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;They can say what they want about the ballot initiative, but they explicitly chose to issue this ruling after the election happened. They had all the time in the world to issue an opinion or an injunction before allowing this election to happen,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;They did not overturn a map — they overturned an election &#8230; It is the power of the American people that should be the ultimate check on all three branches.&#8221;
<a href="https://x.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/2052823708662649095">Adam Parkhomenko</a>, who served as an adviser to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, amplified a Bluesky account making the same argument. That argument was that the court, in waiting until after the election, was making its ruling — and thus invalidating the new map — after gaining only one new piece of information: how the people would vote on the issue.
&#8220;The best argument re: Virginia decision I’ve heard is this,&#8221; he said.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) issued a statement immediately after the ruling, trashing the Virginia Supreme Court for overturning the will of the people.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The decision by the Virginia Supreme Court to overturn the will of more than three million voters will not stand. <a href="https://t.co/ZtayVJRw4T">pic.twitter.com/ZtayVJRw4T</a>
— Hakeem Jeffries (@RepJeffries) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepJeffries/status/2052776800984416429?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 8, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
But as Justice D. Arthur Kelsey wrote in his May 8 opinion, the delay had been the Democrats&#8217; idea. In fact, they had presented several legal arguments in favor of it, citing precedent and saying that the court could not lawfully rule on the validity of the measure until it was adopted.
&#8220;It is fair to ask whether we could have or should have reviewed the constitutionality of the proposed amendment prior to it being presented to the voters,&#8221; Kelsey wrote. &#8220;Throughout this litigation, the Commonwealth has insisted that we cannot lawfully decide this case prior to the referendum. In its motion for a stay in this case, the Commonwealth argued that longstanding Virginia precedent, Scott v. James, was &#8216;virtually indistinguishable&#8217; from this case and that it clearly held that &#8216;courts cannot interfere to stop any of the proceedings while this permanent law is in the process of being made,&#8217; and &#8216;[o]nly ‘upon the completion of the proceedings, [if] the validity of the amendment is assailed[] on the ground that the several provisions of the Constitution have not been complied with, then the courts can pass upon the validity of the amendment.'&#8221;
Kelsey also made it clear that the court was well aware that Democrats would attempt to turn the argument back on itself if they did not get their way, adding, &#8220;Having successfully insisted (over the objection of the Claimants)13 that we postpone judicial review of the constitutional amendment until after the election process, it might be tempting for the Commonwealth to think that the final vote implicitly stacks the deck in its favor — perhaps enough so that the exercise of any judicial review could be viewed as an ultra vires effort to overturn the will of the people.&#8221;
He concluded that Democrats were essentially attempting to set up a situation in which precedent prohibited the court from ruling before the referendum passed and &#8220;the will of the people&#8221; barred the court from ruling afterward — thus nullifying the court&#8217;s ability to act at all.
And Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez are quickly proving him right.

US-ENVIRONMENT-CLIMATE-DIPLOMACY

Democrats Try To Gaslight America After Redistricting Faceplant

Democrats Attempt To Sell Big Lie In Virginia

Media

Virginia Democrats

Virginia Democrats are desperate to grab onto anything that could potentially resurrect their gerrymandered 10-1 congressional map before the 2026 midterm elections — and the panic is really starting to show.
In the days since the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the map — over irregularities in the process by which it was adopted — Democrats have explored several avenues by which they might make their fever dream a reality.
An attempt to appeal to the United States Supreme Court, for example, was so rushed that the first page of the filing listed the wrong court.
&#8220;Good News: Dems managed to spell Virginia correctly. Bad News: They sent their emergency application to SCOTUS to the wrong court. Baby steps,&#8221; former Attorney General Jason Miyares (R-VA) posted via X, sharing a screenshot of the page.
Although the &#8220;Supreme Court of the United States&#8221; was named at the top of the page, across the bottom of the frame, it read, &#8220;ON EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Good News: Dems managed to spell Virginia correctly. Bad News: They sent their emergency application to SCOTUS to the wrong court. Baby steps. <a href="https://t.co/Izi5FeKgbo">pic.twitter.com/Izi5FeKgbo</a>
— Jason Miyares (@JasonMiyaresVA) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonMiyaresVA/status/2054155473763393573?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Others pointed out that the word &#8220;senator&#8221; was misspelled as &#8220;sentator&#8221; and even the name of the state was misspelled as &#8220;Virgnia&#8221; in the rushed filing.
The case was ultimately filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts has instructed Republicans to file a response to the Democrats by Thursday at 5 p.m. ET.
In addition to their appeal to the highest Court, Democrats in Virginia have also considered an even more dramatic move to force their map on the people: a complete dismantling of the state Supreme Court.
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrats-float-dramatic-shakeup-that-could-force-out-virginias-entire-supreme-court">previously reported</a>, Virginia Democrats have considered lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges on the state&#8217;s highest court just enough to force the entire bench to retire. Then, with a Democratic governor and a Democratic super-majority in the legislature, they could ensure an entirely new bench that would be far more likely to rule in their favor.

Jay Jones

Dems Desperate To Force New Map On Voters Mark Case For Wrong Court

WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) &#8211; The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for Alabama Republicans to pursue a congressional voting map more favorable to the GOP ahead of November&#8217;s midterm elections, the latest fallout from the court&#8217;s seismic voting rights ruling.
The justices lifted a lower court&#8217;s decision that had blocked state Republicans&#8217; preferred map as racially discriminatory and for illegally diluting the voting power of black Alabamians.
Federal courts had previously ruled Alabama&#8217;s map likely violated the Voting Rights Act by failing to create a second majority-black district in the state.
The Supreme Court said the lower courts must reconsider previous rulings in light of the high court&#8217;s recent decision in the Voting Rights Act case, Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down a majority-black district in that state as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling limited how race can be used in drawing congressional districts under the Voting Rights Act. President Donald Trump called on states to redraw maps after that decision.
Alabama is expected to revert to a map passed in 2023, which would reduce the number of districts where black voters comprise a majority or near-majority from two to one of the state&#8217;s seven U.S. House districts.
<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-clears-path-alabama-redraw-congressional-map/">According</a> to CBS News, the ruling &#8220;appears to be 6 to 3.&#8221; Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, broke with the majority in a written dissent, arguing the lower court&#8217;s conclusion that Alabama deliberately discriminated against black voters should remain in place. Sotomayor was the only justice to disclose their vote publicly, The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5873190-supreme-court-alabama-redistricting/">reported</a>.
The ruling could reshape control of the U.S. House by allowing states to redraw maps to reduce minority-opportunity districts.
Alabama is one of several red Southern states attempting to redraw its congressional map before the November midterms.
Tennessee lawmakers approved a congressional map expected to hand Republicans control of all nine of the Volunteer State&#8217;s congressional districts. The map, signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, spreads out the heavily Democratic population centers in Memphis and Nashville across multiple Republican-favorable districts and is likely to eliminate the state&#8217;s lone Democratic seat, currently held by Rep. Steve Cohen of Memphis.
In Florida, Republicans led by Gov. Ron DeSantis passed new congressional district boundaries projected to give the GOP four additional House seats.
Lawmakers in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi are also reviewing potential redistricting plans that could further shift seats to Republicans.
Before the Supreme Court decision last week, Alabama had been required to maintain one majority-black district and a second with a near-majority black population under an interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that has now been ruled an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. After the ruling, Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, <a href="https://www.alabamaag.gov/attorney-general-marshall-applauds-momentous-supreme-court-redistricting-decision/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the state would move quickly to ensure its maps “reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.”
“The Court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,” Marshall stated.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Rally over voting rights and redistricting outside the state capitol in Montgomery

Supreme Court Move Puts Alabama Redistricting Back In Play

Alabama

Voting Rights Act

NEW YORK, May 8 (Reuters) &#8211; The Trump administration on Friday appealed a court ruling that found a 10% global tariff imposed in February was not justified under a 1970s trade law.
The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on Thursday in a 2-1 decision that Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act was not meant to address trade deficits that occur when the U.S. imports more goods than it exports. The court, however, only blocked the tariffs for three importers that sued &#8211; two small businesses and the state of Washington.
While the ruling applies to a set of levies due to expire in about two months, it marks another setback for Trump&#8217;s global tariff ambitions and comes a week before he is due to discuss trade tensions with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing.
It also sets the stage for another protracted legal battle over billions of dollars&#8217; worth of tariff refunds, three months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck ​down Trump&#8217;s sweeping global tariffs imposed under a national emergencies law.
Trump blamed the trade court decision on &#8220;two radical left judges&#8221; when speaking to reporters on Thursday. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on Friday the Trump administration expects to prevail in the appeal, although he also expressed confidence in earlier tariffs that were ultimately invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled in February that Trump had no authority to impose the earlier tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, leading Trump to impose replacement tariffs of 10% on all imports using Section 122 of the Trade Act.
The new tariffs were a temporary replacement, and they were due to expire on July 24 unless extended by Congress.
The Trump administration still plans to impose broader tariffs on major trading partners by invoking ⁠a third law that has withstood numerous legal challenges, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which covers unfair trade practices. It has three Section 301 tariff investigations underway due for completion in July.
(Reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Editing by Rod Nickel and Sanjeev Miglani)

Menu