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

Courts

Politics

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

U.S.

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)

US-POLITICS-TRUMP

Tariff Ruling Faces Pushback As Trump Blasts ‘Radical Left Judges’

Business

Donald Trump

Tariffs

A Utah judge ruled Friday that cameras, microphones, and still photographers will be allowed inside the courtroom for the murder trial of Tyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graf denied a request from the defense to ban all forms of electronic media coverage, instead requiring reporters to file requests at least two weeks prior to each scheduled proceeding.
Robinson, 23, has been charged with the September 10, 2025, killing and could face the death penalty if convicted.
The defense argued that allowing cameras would jeopardize Robinson&#8217;s “fair trial rights,” telling the judge that restrictions were necessary &#8220;to ensure Mr. Robinson’s rights to due process, to a fair and impartial jury, to counsel, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.&#8221;
At a hearing last month, the defense argued that media coverage in pre-trial hearings had already tainted the jury pool, pointing to several examples of pundits branding Robinson as a &#8220;monster&#8221; and fixating on items pulled from court filings, such as alleged post-shooting texts to his transgender-identifying roommate, rather than the substance of the proceedings.
The prosecution dismissed this argument, arguing that transparency strengthens public trust.
“Mischief lurks in the dark or in secret,” Deputy Utah County Attorney Chad Grunander said. “Conspiracy theories abound, and the antidote is the actual, real proceedings&#8230; Let’s shine a light on these proceedings, a bright light, so the public can have confidence in what happens in this courtroom.”
Utah courts have generally permitted cameras by default for a decade, and no criminal case in the state has been fully closed to cameras, according to the Salt Lake City Tribune.
Graf said the court has implemented several measures to address the defense&#8217;s concerns, including requiring cameras to remain at the back of the courtroom to avoid capturing sensitive materials or conversations.
He also pushed back the preliminary hearing for July 6 through July 10, rejecting the defense&#8217;s request for a six-month delay to sort through the &#8220;voluminous&#8221; discovery materials.

Tyler Robinson

Judge Rules On Cameras In Charlie Kirk Murder Trial

Charlie Kirk

trial

NEW YORK, May 7 (Reuters) &#8211; The U.S. trade court on Thursday ruled against President Donald Trump&#8217;s latest 10% global tariffs, finding across-the-board tariffs were not justified under a 1970s trade law.
The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in favor of small businesses that challenged the tariffs, which took effect on February 24. The ruling was 2-1, with one judge saying it was premature to grant victory to the small business plaintiffs.
The small businesses had argued the new tariffs were an attempt to sidestep a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the Republican president&#8217;s 2025 tariffs ​imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
In his February order, ​Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for duties for up to 150 days to correct serious &#8220;balance of payments ​deficits&#8221; or head off an imminent depreciation of the dollar.
Thursday&#8217;s court ruling found the law was not an appropriate step for the kinds of trade deficits that Trump cited in his February order.
“This decision is an important win for American companies that rely on global manufacturing to deliver safe and affordable products. Unlawful tariffs make it harder for businesses like ours to compete and grow,” said Jay Foreman, CEO of toymaker Basic Fun!
“We are encouraged by the court’s recognition that these tariffs exceeded the President’s authority. This ruling brings needed clarity and stability for companies navigating global supply chains,&#8221; he said in a statement.
The Trump administration had argued that a serious balance-of-payments deficit existed in the form of a $1.2 trillion annual U.S. goods trade deficit and a current account deficit of 4% of GDP. But some economists and trade lawyers argue the U.S. is not on the cusp of a balance-of-payments crisis, making the new duties vulnerable to a legal challenge.
(Reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Editing by Chris Reese and Sonali Paul)

Pacific Container Terminal in Long Beach, California

Court Moves Against Trump Trade Agenda In Major Ruling

A Grand Jury on Tuesday tacked on a fourth charge and formally indicted the man accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents&#8217; Dinner. 
The <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.292088/gov.uscourts.dcd.292088.22.0.pdf">four-count indictment</a> charges Cole Tomas Allen with attempting to assassinate the president, assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon, transporting a firearm and ammunition across state lines with intent to commit a felony, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. 
Allen, 31, was armed with a shotgun, a handgun, and several knives when he charged through a security checkpoint inside the Washington Hilton hotel, where the event was being held.
One floor above the ballroom filled with government officials and reporters, Allen fired one of his weapons, striking a Secret Service agent. Early reports suggested the agent may have been hit by friendly fire, but U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro later confirmed the officer was shot by the gunman.
“It is definitively his bullet, he hit at that Secret Service agent, he had every intention to kill him and anyone who got in his way on his way to killing the president of the United States,” <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2050931107214823724?s=20">Pirro told CNN over the weekend</a>. “This was a premeditated, violent act, calculated to take down the president and anyone who was in the line of fire.”
The indictment and new charges come as a federal magistrate judge expressed deep sympathy for the suspect.
“I’m sorry,” Judge Faruqui told Allen, who was reportedly held in solitary confinement. “Whatever you’ve been through, I apologize for that now.&#8221; 
Jail officials placed Allen on a temporary suicide watch that required 24-hour-a-day placement in a padded cell. The judge complained that those measures were <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/04/cole-allen-dc-jail-00905294?gpp=DBAA">punitive and not based on a medical assessment</a>. 
“Welcome to Washington, DC, where U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui believes a defendant armed to the teeth and attempting to assassinate the president is entitled to preferential treatment in his confinement compared to every other defendant,” <a href="https://x.com/JudgeJeanine/status/2051399246776021500?s=20">Pirro posted on social media</a>.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-issues-stunning-apology-to-accused-trump-assassin?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Judge+Issues+Stunning+Apology+To+Suspected+Wannabe+Trump+Assassin">The Daily Wire previously reported</a> that Judge Faruqui has a soft-on-crime record, including releasing a man who attacked a member of Congress. He has also been a champion of DEI initiatives.
“As the first Muslim Judge to be appointed to the Federal Court in Washington D.C., Judge Faruqui has also devoted much of his career to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts,” <a href="https://wclawyers.org/our-work/advocacy/recent-advocacy/advocacy-on-judicial-nominations/letter-in-support-of-the-honorable-zia-faruqui-nominee-for-appointment-to-the-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia-january-17-2023/">reads a letter from the Washington Council of Lawyers</a> supporting his nomination to the District Court of Columbia.
With the indictment unsealed, the case has been handed over to U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who was nominated by President Trump in 2017, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/accused-correspondents-dinner-shooter-cole-allen-charged-assaulting-federal-officer/">according to CBS News</a>.
Allen is set to be arraigned on May 11. If convicted, he faces life in prison.

Cole Allen

Grand Jury Drops The Hammer On Would-Be Trump Assassin

assassination attempt

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

Crime

shooter

Shooting

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

Menu