An Ohio company was ordered to pay $22.5 million to a woman whose baby died after her company denied her request to work from home during a high-risk pregnancy.
Per <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-firm-must-pay-225-million-mom-whose-baby-died-was-denied-work-hom-rcna264321?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&amp;taid=69bc55cb9ac2060001303ea5&amp;utm_campaign=trueanthem&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter">NBC News</a>, Chelsea Walsh requested to work from home beginning on February 15, 2021, for her job with Total Quality Logistics, but was denied. Walsh had just undergone an operation on her cervix when she made the request and was recommended to be put on bed rest due to the high risk nature of her pregnancy.
A <a href="https://www.woltermanlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-03-18-Larkin-v.-Total-Quality-Logistics-press-release-1-2.pdf">press release</a> from Walsh’s attorney said her doctors “instructed her to limit activity, remain on modified bed rest, and work from home.”
“TQL presented Walsh with an impossible choice — work at the office and put additional strain on her child, or take an unpaid leave of absence and lose the income and health insurance she needed,” the lawsuit said.
Her husband Joel Walsh then had a conversation with the company’s human resources manager, who is friends with an executive at TQL, the lawsuit says. The unnamed executive allegedly said, “Thank you … you just saved us a lawsuit.”
This led to Walsh’s request being granted on February 24, which is the same day she went into premature labor and gave birth to a daughter, named Magnolia. The baby was born at 20 weeks and four days.
&#8220;Magnolia had a heartbeat, was breathing, and exhibited fetal movement,&#8221; the lawsuit says, per NBC. &#8220;Magnolia was placed on Walsh’s chest so that Walsh could hold her. Magnolia died in Walsh’s arms approximately one hour and thirty minutes later.&#8221;
The jury ruled in Walsh’s favor and ordered the company to pay $22.5 million in damages for what they determined to be a wrongful death.
“This is a heartbreaking outcome for a young family,” one of Walsh&#8217;s lawyers said in a statement. “The evidence showed that Chelsea Walsh was following her doctors’ instructions for a high-risk pregnancy and simply asked to work from home.&#8221;
&#8220;The jury found that TQL’s denial of that reasonable request led to the death of her daughter,” he said.
Julia Daugherty, a rep for TQL, said the company disagreed with the verdict, arguing that “the way the facts were characterized at trial&#8221; were not accurate. “We are evaluating legal options and remain committed to supporting the health and well-being of our employees,” the rep said.

Baby feet

Firm Must Pay $22.5M To Woman Whose Baby Died After Work-From-Home Request Denial

Business

Courts

Death

Lawsuit

Motherhood

Ohio

U.S.

Planned Parenthood’s Illinois chapter has agreed to pay $500,000 after the federal government investigated allegations that the branch discriminated against its white employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said there is reasonable cause to believe the organization segregated its employees by race into “affinity networks.”
Many firms have “affinity networks,” which allow employees to join employee groups with those to whom they feel similar. However, at other companies, these networks are voluntary, not mandatory. Planned Parenthood had mandatory &#8220;affinity caucuses” segregated by race, and employees of other races were not allowed to participate.
Every week, staff were required to attend one- to two-hour sessions of segregated racial affinity caucuses or DEI training. At DEI training sessions, white employees were reportedly the target of harassment and derogatory statements such as: they “are white and do not feel racism the same way that non-white patients feel” and “white supremacy is exerted at every level of oppression.&#8221;
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said, “Segregating employees by race violates the core promise of our nation’s civil rights laws.” Lucas added in her statement that Title VII guarantees equal treatment for every employee and “those protections equally apply to white workers.”
Planned Parenthood employees alleged that the company even restricted the benefits of white employees. “Planned Parenthood also denied white employees access to time off that it granted only to black employees,” the report read. Along with the $500,000 settlement, Planned Parenthood fired the manager responsible for the misconduct that the investigation uncovered. The EEOC says the investigation was prompted after multiple employees brought forward their concerns.
The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-illinois/newsroom/statement-in-response-to-august-21-article-from-buzzfeed-news-statement-in-response-to-august-21-article-from-buzzfeed-news?utm_source=chatgpt.com">obtained</a> a press release from the Illinois Planned Parenthood affiliate that may have been the start of the organization’s discriminatory practices.
Planned Parenthood of Illinois said in a response to a BuzzFeed News article, &#8220;Despite not having the details of this particular incident, we recognize that Planned Parenthood has been complicit in upholding systemic racism. Moving forward, [Planned Parenthood of Illinois] is deeply committed to being anti-racist and ensuring that our work is not performative, that there is no divide between our words and actions.”
They added, “As part of this work, we’ve created spaces for honest conversations about race and are providing multiple channels through which staff have opportunities to share their lived experiences with leadership.”
The Illinois Planned Parenthood is not the only affiliate to release statements on racism in their organization. Nineteen out of the 49 Planned Parenthood affiliates have issued statements.
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest said, “We must confront how white supremacy of the past and present continues in the institutions we are a part of today including our own organization.&#8221;
The Virginia affiliate said that they acknowledge “our past and our present participation in white supremacy and are committed to stopping, learning, growing and living our values through the hard and uncomfortable work of progress.”
None of the statements released by the Planned Parenthood chapters specifically addressed discrimination allegations against white employees or white patients.

Bill Tompkins  Planned Parenthood signage Archive

Planned Parenthood Chapter Hit With $500K Settlement Over Discrimination Against White Employees

Abortion

Discrimination

Planned Parenthood

Racism

A pro-life group challenged a Detroit ordinance creating a speech buffer zone around abortion facilities, arguing that the city’s policy violates the First Amendment.
The group Sidewalk Advocates for Life sued Detroit in federal court on Wednesday over an ordinance it passed instituting a 15 foot buffer zone around all abortion facilities where pro-life advocates cannot enter. The ordinance also creates an eight foot floating buffer within 100 feet of an abortion facility for any client.
“The Ordinance, which is enforceable through criminal penalties, violates the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Freedom of Assembly Clauses of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the Michigan Constitution,” said the <a href="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63d954d4e4ad424df7819d46/69bb229374c5d96c3dd7e4c6_DE%201-Complaint_SAFL%20v%20City%20of%20Detroit.pdf">lawsuit</a>, which was filed by the Thomas More Society.
Kevin Hammer, a member of Sidewalk Advocates, said that the ordinance bans him from handing out pro-life literature while holding a sign reading “Ask Me About Free Ultrasounds and Pregnancy Tests” outside of the Scotsdale Women’s Center in Detroit, Michigan.
“Our Sidewalk Advocates stand on public sidewalks offering a gentle word and information to women who are willing to receive it—that is what this ordinance criminalizes,” said Lauren Muzyka, the president and CEO of Sidewalk Advocates for Life.
The suit points out that a recent <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/brown-v-city-pittsburgh/">decision</a> from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a similar ordinance implemented by Pittsburgh. The court said that the buffer zone ordinance was overly burdensome on free speech.
Detroit’s ordinance was passed in 2024 and <a href="https://mcclibraryfunctions.azurewebsites.us/api/ordinanceDownload/10649/1365639/pdf">says</a> that “no person, within a 100-foot radius of any entrance door to a healthcare facility, shall knowingly approach within eight feet of another person for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling with such other person in the public right-of-way unless such other person consents.”
The suit says that this stipulation substantially burdens speech and does not serve a compelling government interest.
“This ordinance does not protect anyone,” said Thomas More Society head of litigation Peter Breen. “It makes it a crime to stand on a public sidewalk and offer a woman a choice. The government cannot wall off the public square so that women never hear they have alternatives to abortion.”

Supreme Court Issues Last Rulings Of Its Term

The Fight Over Free Speech Heats Up. Women In Crisis Could Pay The Price.

Detroit

First Amendment

Michigan

Pro-Life Movement

A federal appeals court on Monday largely upheld a ruling that blocked a &#8220;sweeping and unprecedented&#8221; freeze on trillions of dollars in government financial assistance that President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration instituted early last year.
A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia in finding that the White House&#8217;s budget office had directed federal agencies to implement a categorical freeze on funding that was likely improper.
Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron said the Office of Management and Budget &#8220;directed the agency defendants to freeze such funds without considering an obvious aspect of the problem &#8212; namely, the reliance interests of the recipients of the obligated federal funds that were to be frozen.&#8221;
The judge, who like the other panel members was appointed by a Democratic president, pointed to a lower-court judge&#8217;s conclusion that the agencies failed in carrying out OMB&#8217;s directive to assess whether such payments were legally required or appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
While the appeals court largely upheld Rhode Island-based U.S. District Judge John McConnell&#8217;s March 2025 injunction blocking the policy, it overturned part of it to the extent it required agencies to make payments to the states that sued.
It did so citing a ruling last year by the U.S. Supreme Court in a different Trump-era case that indicated lawsuits seeking to recover money owed by the government under contracts and grants must be pursued in a different, specialist court.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
The state attorneys general sued after the OMB in January 2025, shortly after Trump returned to the White House, issued a memo directing federal agencies to temporarily pause spending on federal financial assistance programs.
That memo said the freeze was necessary while the administration reviewed grants and loans to ensure they are aligned with Trump&#8217;s executive orders, including ones ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs and directing a pause on spending on projects seeking to combat climate change.
The freeze implicated up to $3 trillion in federal funding.
OMB later withdrew that memo after it became the subject of two lawsuits, including the one before McConnell. But the states argued the memo&#8217;s withdrawal did not mean the end of the policy itself.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Lincoln Feast.)

Donald Trump

Trump Admin Cannot Implement ‘Sweeping’ Funding Freeze, Court Rules

Executive Orders

Money

Politics

Trump Administration

Two Florida teenagers accused of plotting a grisly “blood ritual” killing at their high school will remain jailed without bond after prosecutors revealed disturbing details about the alleged plan, including an obsession with the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
Authorities say the suspects, 15-year-old Isabelle Aurelia Valdez and 14-year-old Lois Olivios Lippert, <a href="https://www.wftv.com/news/local/police-id-lake-brantley-students-accused-plotting-kill-classmate/SWJFTRVPFJCO7LSOMIUTN6NKWY/">were arrested in January</a> after a tip reported that a student known as “Jimmy” planned to kill a classmate at Lake Brantley High School in Altamonte Springs, Florida. Investigators later determined “Jimmy” was an alias used by Valdez, according to police reports.
<a href="https://www.wftv.com/news/local/sandy-hook-obsession-led-seminole-county-high-school-murder-plot-report-says/ULOFHQQLJNFKRLDVKHSGP2OXYA/">Prosecutors say</a> Valdez believed murdering a classmate who reminded her of Adam Lanza, the gunman responsible for the 2012 massacre in Sandy Hook Elementary School, would create a supernatural “blood bond” that would resurrect him from the dead.
Valdez allegedly planned to ambush the victim inside a school restroom and either stab him in the stomach or cut his throat with a knife she brought to campus. Investigators say Lippert assisted with the plan by bringing gloves and helping sharpen and test the blade in a bathroom beforehand. The pair allegedly intended to leave flowers at the scene after the killing and smoke a cigarette afterward.
The alleged plot was uncovered after a student reported what they heard through the state’s <a href="https://getfortifyfl.com/Tip.html">FortifyFL</a> tip system. Police searched Valdez’s backpack the next day and reportedly discovered a knife that she admitted she planned to use in the attack.
The teens’ communications included Discord messages in which Valdez wrote that she was planning a “blood ritual for Adam Lanza.” Investigators also say Lippert drew disturbing sketches depicting the intended victim dead and hanging from a rope.
Video shown in court during the bond hearing also captured the two teenagers laughing and joking in the back of a patrol car after their arrest. The video was later procured by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/teens-accused-plotting-twisted-blood-ritual-school-killing-giggle-cruiser-about-glam-shot">Fox News</a>.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
SINISTER BEHAVIOR: Two teens accused of plotting a “blood ritual” killing at their high school were caught on video laughing and joking about their mugshots in the back of a police cruiser after their arrest, newly released video shows. <a href="https://t.co/70FPiMkGti">pic.twitter.com/70FPiMkGti</a>
— Fox News (@FoxNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/2032831273740235217?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 14, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In the footage, Valdez joked that she had wanted to “do my makeup” before getting her mugshot, while Lippert responded that she was glad she didn’t “look too bad today.” The two also laughed about potentially becoming a “lesbian couple in jail.”
<a href="https://abcnews.com/US/florida-teens-charged-alleged-murder-plot-laughing-patrol/story?id=131000052">At one point</a>, Valdez told officers she did not feel guilty about the alleged plot. “I don’t feel guilty for my actions,” she said, adding that the only people she felt sorry for were their mothers.
Prosecutors argued the footage showed that the teens still pose a serious threat to the community. A judge agreed, ordering both defendants held without bond while the case proceeds.
Both teenagers have pleaded not guilty, and both are being charged as adults in order to allow longer-term incarceration options than would be available in the juvenile justice system.
Officials also credited the anonymous tipster whose report helped stop the alleged attack before anyone was harmed. Seminole County Public Schools said in a <a href="https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/2-lake-brantley-students-arrested-student-threat-knife-found-backpack-police-say">statement</a> following the pair&#8217;s arrest, “We are so thankful to the individual who used our anonymous reporting tools to share what they heard and prevented a possible crime. The safety of our students and staff is our highest priority, and it takes all of us working together to keep our schools and communities safe. It is critically important to remember, if you see something, please say something. We are also grateful for the incredible partnership between our schools and law enforcement, and for their quick response to this tip and the actions that followed.”
The case remains active in circuit court, and both defendants are expected to be tried together. No trial date has been set.

Prosecutor Says Teens Planned ‘Blood Ritual’ Murder To Resurrect Sandy Hook Killer

Crime

Florida

Murder

A Georgia prosecutor said Friday that he has dropped the vehicular homicide charge against a teenager who struck a high school teacher with his car during a late-night prank gone wrong.
Hall County Prosecutor Lee Darragh confirmed the dismissal to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charges-dropped-georgia-teens-fatal-high-school-prank-rcna263433">NBC News</a>.
The family of Jason Hughes, 40, the math teacher at North Hall High School who was killed, had previously said they wanted the charges dropped, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-high-school-prank-turned-deadly-now-the-victims-family-wants-charges-dropped">previously reported</a>.
“This is a terrible tragedy, and our family is determined to prevent a separate tragedy from occurring, ruining the lives of these students,” the family <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/08/us/georgia-teacher-killed-prank.html">said</a> in a statement to The New York Times last week. “This would be counter to Jason’s lifelong dedication of investing in the lives of these children.”
Darragh also dismissed reckless driving, criminal trespass, and littering charges against Jayden Wallace, 18, as well as criminal trespass and littering charges against four other 18-year-olds who were participating in the prank.
The Wallace family attorney said the situation was “an extremely sad and devastating accident,” not a crime, according to NBC News. He also thanked Hughes’ wife for her “remarkable compassion and spirit of forgiveness in the face of the tremendous loss of her husband.”
Hughes, a father of two, died on March 6 after being run over by a teen driver who was there with other students toilet-papering his trees. Hughes slipped near the car because of rain and was accidentally struck by the vehicle, according to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-georgia-teacher-killed-prank-gone-wrong-want-charges-teens-drop-rcna262482">NBC News</a>.
The teens stopped immediately and tried to administer first aid, but Hughes died of his injuries.
The prank was a tradition at the school, Hughes’ family <a href="https://abcnews.com/video/130894885/">told</a> ABC News in a statement. Hughes knew the students were coming and was excited to catch them.
“The family wants to make clear that they knew these kids and they loved them, and these kids loved the Hugheses,” the family said. “This was not a malicious act.”
A <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/in-memory-of-jason-hughes-support-his-family-4zzkn">GoFundMe</a> for the Hughes family has raised almost $490,000 as of Saturday.
“We are thankful for the outpouring of prayers and support as we grieve the loss of Jason,” the family told ABC. “We ask that you continue to pray for our family and also for the students involved in the accident along with their families. Please join us in extending grace and mercy to them as Christ has done for us.”

Photo of a blue metal lockers along a nondescript hallway in a typical US High School. No identifiable information included and nobody in the hall.

Prosecutor Drops Charges Against Teens In Tragic Prank-Gone-Wrong Death

Georgia

Law Enforcement

Tragedy

Nine defendants in the anti-ICE Prairieland Detention Center riot last Independence Day in Texas were convicted in federal court on Friday.
The defendants were convicted on a range of charges including rioting, “providing material support to terrorists,” “conspiracy to use and carry an explosive,” and &#8220;using and carrying an explosive&#8221; in the North Texas Antifa Cell attack that left a local police officer shot in the neck.
In a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/antifa-cell-members-convicted-prairieland-ice-detention-center-shooting" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>, FBI Dallas Special Agent in Charge R. Joseph Rothrock described the incident as a “coordinated attack” on the facility where illegal immigrants were being held before deportation from the United States.
Two individuals were also convicted of “conspiracy to conceal documents.”
According to the Department of Justice, Benjamin Song was considered the attack’s “leader,” who gave out firearms and recruited people for the effort. Song was convicted of attempted murder of federal officers for the “unlawful attempt to kill with malice aforethought the Alvarado Police Officer” and for unlawful discharging of a firearm in “the attempted murder of two correctional officers and an Alvarado Police Officer,” as he was the one who shot the officer in the neck.
Song successfully fled the scene but was arrested on July 15, 2025, while law enforcement arrested most of the other individuals involved “shortly after,” the DOJ <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/antifa-cell-members-convicted-prairieland-ice-detention-center-shooting">said</a>.
Song could face up to life behind bars, with a minimum of 20 years, according to a Department of Justice press release. Seven of the individuals could get 10-60 years in prison, and Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada could be sentenced to up to 40 years in prison.
“These guilty verdicts and convictions rightly reflect the vicious, armed attack that these Antifa cell members planned and executed against law enforcement and detention center officers on the night of July 4 last year,” U.S. Attorney Ryan Raybould said in a statement.
“Their terrorist acts, attempted murder, vandalism, and explosives launched at a detention facility were a far cry from some peaceful protest or First Amendment expression. Because of the prompt action of first responders that night and tenacious work of our law enforcement partners in tandem with the prosecutors in my office, sixteen people have been brought to justice for these violent acts and their attempts to conceal them. We will continue in this mission to hold others accountable who perpetrate such violence and fund these ANTIFA groups in the Northern District of Texas.”
Notably, the attackers used &#8220;monikers&#8221; in group chats to plan the riot. The attackers also used fireworks and committed acts of vandalism, including spray-painting “F*ck You Pigs” on a building.

Portland Antifa

America’s First Antifa Terrorism Trial Just Reached A Verdict

Antifa

Department of Justice

Immigration

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Texas

Illegal immigrants have found a new way to get released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers, throwing a massive wrench into the Trump administration&#8217;s deportation plan.
Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, illegal immigrants have filed more than 18,000 habeas petitions challenging their detention in federal courts, ProPublica <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/habeas-petitions-immigrant-detentions-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> last month. It&#8217;s more than the number of such challenges filed over the last three administrations put together.
&#8220;It&#8217;s kind of a perfect storm,&#8221; Scott Mechkowski, former ICE deputy field office director in New York, told The Daily Wire. &#8220;You have increased enforcement, increased mandatory detention, and an increased perception of judicial bias that&#8217;s driving the habeas rates out the window.&#8221;
In Arizona, United States Attorney Timothy Courchaine said his office went from receiving 10 habeas petitions in immigration cases to &#8220;nearly a thousand&#8221; since Trump returned to the White House. Border states like Arizona are inundated right now because they have a larger share of illegal immigrants in ICE detention.
&#8220;It is definitely a new trend &#8230; Now, those aren&#8217;t all just the bond hearings, but that&#8217;s the vast, vast, vast majority,&#8221; Courchaine told The Daily Wire.
&#8220;In most of them, they are [granting bond] &#8230; so we&#8217;ve been losing almost all of these and the folks will be released,&#8221; he added.
The habeas petitions move detainees&#8217; cases out of the immigration court system and into the district court docket, where judges have &#8220;a lot more remedies to give them than an immigration judge,&#8221; Courchaine said.
&#8220;They can get a whole lot more relief than they would ever be due in immigration court,&#8221; he said, adding that &#8220;district court judges &#8230; have their own ways of running their courts, and they can issue their own orders.&#8221;
Mechkowski described district courts as &#8220;favorable&#8221; venues for illegal immigrants &#8220;because &#8230; they don&#8217;t necessarily understand immigration law.&#8221;
It also buys illegal immigrants more time in the United States, according to Mechkowski.
&#8220;In a detained hearing, you usually get a hearing within a month or two and in a non-detained setting in New York, we were scheduling hearings out four years. So that&#8217;s why they fight tooth and nail to get out of a detained docket and to get on a non-detained docket because it buys them years of time before their hearing comes up,&#8221; Mechkowski said.
&#8220;And in those years, you can accrue all kinds of equities that influence your court proceedings,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;You can have kids, you can clean your record &#8230; you can put four years between you and a crime.&#8221;
Dallas-based attorney Dan Gividen has shifted his practice from fighting removal cases before immigration judges to solely arguing for his clients&#8217; release in district courts.
Roughly 40% of new habeas cases are being filed in Texas, <a href="https://www.aila.org/library/ice-memo-interim-guidance-regarding-detention-authority-for-applications-for-admission" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to ProPublica.
Since Gividen began his practice in 2019, he had roughly &#8220;three or four&#8221; habeas cases, he told The Daily Wire. Since July, he&#8217;s had &#8220;close to 100.&#8221;
Gividen said the tactic &#8220;has been absolutely successful&#8221; in freeing his clients from ICE detention centers &#8220;particularly in places like the Western District of Texas, the Southern District of Texas &#8230; in Oklahoma and New Mexico, Colorado.&#8221;
&#8220;We&#8217;re having constant success in those cases. It&#8217;s literally the only way to get someone out of ICE detention it feels like these days,&#8221; Gividen, who previously served as ICE&#8217;s assistant chief counsel, said.
Immigration lawyers often file habeas petitions after it becomes clear their clients either have no chance of getting bond from immigration judges or have been denied a bond already.
In doing so, they&#8217;re taking &#8220;two bites of the apple,&#8221; Mechkowski said, adding &#8220;because you essentially have the immigration judges already rendered that that person&#8217;s on bond eligible or not going to give them a bond.&#8221;
&#8220;And so it gives them a second bite to ask a different judicial body to release them,&#8221; he said, adding that he&#8217;s often fighting for the release of his clients who are &#8220;not a danger&#8221; or &#8220;flight risk,&#8221; but who nevertheless don&#8217;t have &#8220;a snowball&#8217;s chance in hell&#8221; to make bond.
Gividen said there was one federal judge who did not grant their habeas petitions, so he has looked to other jurisdictions to fight for his clients&#8217; release.
Mechkowski said the&#8221;forum shop&#8221; is all too common in such cases.
Courchaine described the surge in habeas petitions as a &#8220;systemic burden&#8221; on his office, which has been forced to divert criminal prosecutors to work habeas immigration cases.
&#8220;We&#8217;ve had to pull criminal prosecutors off of their caseloads and put them into civil [cases]. We&#8217;ve had to shift around criminal prosecutors&#8217; workloads and investigations, so they could take this on. Even my criminal chief, who&#8217;s in charge of more than 60 federal prosecutors up in Phoenix, Arizona, has had to volunteer to take cases,&#8221; Courchaine said.
The same goes for Minnesota, where a government attorney was recently let go after candidly ranting to a federal judge that &#8220;the system sucks, this job sucks,&#8221; <a href="https://apnews.com/article/julie-le-job-sucks-minnesota-dhs-ice-b0affbb6c394c39184a813c8f597d5a2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to the Associated Press. The lawyer was reportedly brought in to help with the influx of habeas petitions.
A Justice Department spokesman said &#8220;there wouldn&#8217;t be an &#8216;overwhelming&#8217; habeas caseload&#8221; &#8220;if rogue judges followed the law in adjudicating cases and respected the government’s obligation to properly prepare cases.&#8221;
The Trump administration ordered federal immigration authorities to institute a policy of mandatory detention &#8220;for the duration of their removal proceedings&#8221; and to deny bond hearings to illegal immigrants in July.
&#8220;They made millions of people mandatory detention, which is not how we ever operated &#8230; and I think that&#8217;s driving a lot of this in addition to criminal alien enforcement,&#8221; Mechkowski said.
Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit handed the Trump administration a victory in a challenge to that policy.
&#8220;We&#8217;re gonna see what that does, but we&#8217;ve already had a judge or two follow that 5th Circuit decision. So I&#8217;m hopeful if that will start to change hearts and minds, but even still, even if it does, we&#8217;ll be left with the crush of responding to all of these,&#8221; Courchaine said.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s gonna go anywhere particularly soon until the Supreme Court speaks on it,&#8221; Courchaine said.
While the illegal immigrants still must fight deportation in immigration cases despite being released, it buys them more time in the United States than if they were locked up.
It can prolong their cases from weeks to years, according to Mechkowski.
&#8220;There&#8217;s a lot more time,&#8221; Gividen said. &#8220;You&#8217;re able to get your own documents, you&#8217;re able to call people. Here&#8217;s all sorts of advantages to preparing for your final case out of detention versus in.&#8221;

USA-ICE-IMMIGRATION-PORT ISABEL-DETENTION-CENTER

Illegal Immigrants Found A New Way To Get Released From ICE Detention

Illegal Immigration

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Democratic lawmakers are twisting the federal judiciary’s arm to restore a controversial climate science chapter that was recently removed from its flagship reference guide for judges, a move that comes amid broader scrutiny over the intersection of climate litigation, judicial education, and political advocacy.
At stake is not merely a single chapter in a reference book, but the perception of neutrality in how federal judges are trained to evaluate complex scientific claims, particularly when those claims sit at the center of high-dollar, politically charged litigation campaigns still unfolding in courts across the country.
According to reporting from <a href="https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2026/03/02/democrats-urge-judicial-group-to-restore-deleted-climate-chapter-cw-00804211">Politico</a>, a group of Senate Democrats led by Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent a letter Friday urging the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to reinstate a deleted climate chapter from the latest edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The lawmakers argued that removing the chapter “sends a clear and chilling message that the federal judiciary is susceptible to partisan political pressure.”
The FJC is the research and education wing of the judicial branch. It guides and trains federal judges, gives resources, publishes materials, and maintains resources on federal judicial history and procedures.
The Reference Manual is widely used by federal judges as a guide to evaluating complex scientific and technical evidence. The now-removed climate section had drawn objections from a group of state attorneys general who argued that it adopted contested climate attribution methodologies and liability theories that mirror arguments currently being advanced in active climate lawsuits against energy companies. Critics contended that including such material in an official judicial reference guide risked lending institutional credibility to one side of ongoing litigation.
The FJC has not publicly characterized the removal as politically motivated, but the timing followed the objections, prompting Democrats to frame the move as capitulation to outside pressure.
Senator Wyden’s advocacy for restoring the chapter has also drawn attention because of his financial and public ties to a climate litigation attorney whose courtroom tactics have faced scrutiny.
<a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Roger+worthington&amp;contributor_state=OR">Federal Election Commission records</a> show Wyden has received approximately $11,000 in campaign contributions from Roger Worthington, an Oregon-based attorney involved in climate liability cases.
Worthington has been associated with legal strategies seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate-related damages. He has also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns and causes in the reliably blue state over his career.
Worthington’s litigation conduct has itself become a point of ethics concerns. As reported by <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/lead-counsel-in-52-billion-big-oil-lawsuit-facing-ethical-misconduct-allegations-over-climate-activism/">National Review</a>, a court filing alleged that Worthington introduced scientific studies in litigation that he had helped fund without disclosing his involvement, presenting them instead as independent research. During a hearing on the matter, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Benjamin Souede rebuked the lack of transparency, stating, “It is not acceptable to submit a declaration by an expert that is based in part on a reliance on a scientific article that plaintiff’s counsel helped to fund without pointing out to the Court that that is so.”
The judge added that “no lawyer in the history of American jurisprudence thought it appropriate to submit an expert declaration relying on an article that the plaintiff’s lawyer helped buy.”
Additional <a href="https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/celebrity-scientist-michael-mann-co-authors-paper-partly-funded-attorney">reporting</a> noted that a draft of a climate liability study appeared on Worthington’s firm&#8217;s website prior to publication and was later cited in court filings. The draft contained a watermark reading “DO NOT DISTRIBUTE UNDER REVIEW” while the link was later removed, the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250923213615/https://www.worthingtoncaron.com/documents/Carbon-majors-and-the-scientific-case.pdf">archived version</a> is accessible online to verify this. The motion cited in that reporting argued the circumstances suggested involvement beyond that of a neutral observer.
As an attorney with a specialized background in climate litigation, Worthington has much to gain, as do other donors like him, from the reinstatement of the chapter. This dense web of donations, misdirection, and unethical behavior forms just a small part of the broader national backdrop to the dispute over the climate chapter’s inclusion in the Reference Manual.
The core question now confronting the judiciary’s education wing is whether incorporating new, novel, and actively litigated climate liability theories into official guidance risks blurring the line between neutral scientific explanation and advocacy-aligned framing.

US-POLITICS-CONGRESS-ENVIRONMENT-CLIMATE

Fight Over Climate Chapter Exposes Tensions Between Judicial Neutrality And Activist Lawfare

Democrats

Environmentalism

On Monday, in a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocked a New York trial court order that would have required redrawing a congressional district ahead of the 2026 election.
By granting a stay requested by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis and state election officials, the Court’s conservative majority sent a clear message: state courts cannot use the pretext of &#8220;vote dilution&#8221; to mandate simple racial discrimination or justify actions that violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The case centers on New York’s 11th Congressional District, encompassing Staten Island and southern Brooklyn. Activists attempted to use the state constitution to force the creation of a &#8220;crossover&#8221; district, specifically designed to ensure that minority voters — who comprise approximately 30% of Staten Island&#8217;s population — could elect their preferred candidates.
In January, Justice Jeffrey Pearlman of the New York Supreme Court, a trial-level court, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/supreme-court-grants-republicans-request-to-pause-order-to-redraw-new-york-congressional-map/">sided</a> with these activists. He prohibited the use of the existing congressional map and ordered the Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw the lines based on explicit racial targets. Critics of the order argued that it amounted to a race-based gerrymander targeting the only Republican representative in New York City, prioritizing identity politics over neutral districting.
Justice Samuel Alito cut through the legal jargon to identify the trial court&#8217;s order for what it was: a violation of the 14th Amendment. Alito made clear that a state court cannot authorize redistricting for the &#8220;express purpose&#8221; of producing race-based outcomes.
Citing its 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, the Supreme Court reiterated that the government may only engage in race-based action under &#8220;extraordinary&#8221; circumstances, such as remediating specific, identified past discrimination. In granting the stay, the majority suggested that neither the lower court nor the challengers provided sufficient justification. As Alito noted: &#8220;A state law cannot authorize the violation of federal rights.&#8221;
The Supreme Court’s decision is good news for Republican leaders in states like Texas and Louisiana, where Democrats and civil rights groups have argued that the states must draw more &#8220;opportunity districts&#8221; to account for minority population growth.
By granting the stay, the Court signaled skepticism toward making special &#8220;crossover&#8221; districts to achieve race-based electoral outcomes. That reasoning could make it more difficult for groups to demand new maps based predominantly on racial demographics.
The Court also dealt with the Purcell principle, the doctrine cautioning against judicial changes to election rules too close to an election. Usually, judges aren&#8217;t supposed to change voting rules right before people vote, which could cause confusion.
Now, the Supreme Court is saying this &#8220;no-changes zone&#8221; starts much earlier — even four to eight months before the election. This acts like an emergency brake, stopping lower-court judges from forcing states to change their maps at the last minute. It keeps things stable and focuses on fair rules instead of meeting racial quotas.
This ruling is a win for those who believe the Constitution is colorblind. It stops what critics viewed as a partisan attempt to use race as a tool for political gain and ensures that New York’s 2026 elections proceed under established, legislatively enacted maps rather than experimental racial quotas.

Sign outside New York Congressman Nicole Malliotakis office

Supreme Court Slaps Down New York Judge’s Attempt to Redraw GOP District For ‘Racial Fairness’

gerrymandering

New York

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court sided with a group of parents challenging a California policy that allowed schools to keep kids&#8217; so-called gender transitions a secret.
In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the justices said that California policies that block schools from notifying parents about their child’s desire to change their sex and be referred to by incorrect pronouns likely violate their religious liberty. The ruling comes after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a lower court’s ruling siding with parents challenging California’s policies.
“We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim,” the Supreme Court majority <a href="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63d954d4e4ad424df7819d46/69a61b347a7b680a9027a546_25A810.pdf">wrote</a>. “The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs. California’s policies violate those beliefs.”
The California Department of Education has argued that the challenge should be considered moot because they claim that a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240113000622/https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/di/eo/faqs.asp">frequently-asked-questions</a> page posted by the department has been edited to show that they do not mandate parental exclusion, and so there is no more cause for complaint. The FAQ page included a line that said, “with rare exceptions, schools are required to respect the limitations that a student places on the disclosure of their transgender status, including not sharing that information with the student’s parents.”
While that guidance was deleted, policies that kept parents in the dark about their children were still promoted in statewide teacher trainings, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-officials-lied-about-secret-gender-transitions-in-schools-documents-show">according</a> to documents uncovered by the Thomas More Society.
Policies prohibiting local school districts from passing measures requiring teachers to inform parents about a student’s identity were signed by Governor Gavin Newsom.
“Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours. These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children,” the majority wrote.
They added that “the intrusion on parents’ free exercise rights here—unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud.”
Mahmoud was a case from last year where the court ruled that a Maryland county violated the rights of parents who wanted to opt their kids out of instruction related to LGBT content.
Paul Jonna, special counsel at the Thomas More Society and partner at LiMandri and Jonna LLP, said the ruling was a major victory for parents.
“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” she said. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back. The Court’s landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country.”
The court&#8217;s liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — wanted to block the parents’ challenge.

MixCollage-02-Mar-2026-06-37-PM-4583

Supreme Court Slaps Down California Policy On Gender-Confused Kids

California

Gavin Newsom

Religious Liberty

Transgender

Luigi Mangione, the man who is accused of gunning down former UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, will not face the death penalty after prosecutors decided not to appeal a Manhattan judge’s ruling.
The Department of Justice said in a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/luigi-mangione-death-penalty-federal-prosecutors/">letter</a> Friday that it “will not seek interlocutory review” of the judge’s decision.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett dismissed two of the four charges against Mangione, including use of a firearm to commit murder, which made him eligible for the death penalty.
Garnett said she dismissed the charges “solely to preclude the death penalty as an available punishment when the jury determines if the Defendant caused Brian Thompson’s death,” The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-says-prosecutors-cant-pursue-death-penalty-against-luigi-mangione">reported</a> at the time.
The federal charge against Mangione that made him eligible for the death penalty accused him of “using a firearm to commit murder in furtherance of a crime of violence.”
In her ruling, Garnett said the stalking offense did not constitute a “crime of violence,” and prosecutors would need to show Mangione killed Thompson while committing another “crime of violence,” NBC <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/luigi-mangione-death-penalty-rcna261080">reported</a>.
Mangione still faces two counts of interstate stalking. If convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole.
Mangione has pleaded not guilty to all federal and state charges.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi previously directed prosecutors to seek the death penalty last year after Mangione was arrested for the murder of Thompson.
“Luigi Mangione’s murder of Brian Thompson — an innocent man and father of two young children — was a premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America,” Bondi said at the time.
Thompson was gunned down from behind in Midtown Manhattan on December 4, 2024, as he was walking to a hotel during his company’s annual investor conference. Mangione’s fingerprints allegedly matched those found on shell casings at the murder scene.
Mangione was arrested at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, following a five-day manhunt, and police found a firearm, suppressor, and what appeared to be a manifesto in the man’s backpack.
Opening arguments for the trial are scheduled to begin in October, with jury selection set for September 8.
In addition to the federal charges, Mangione faces nine counts, including second-degree murder, in a separate state case scheduled to begin June 8, NBC reported.

Luigi Mangione

DOJ Drops Fight For Death Penalty In Luigi Mangione Assassination Case

Pam Bondi

Menu