Judge II

The Strange Tradition The Left Is Using To Undermine Republicans

Conservatives

Donald Trump

Judges

Judiciary

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Republicans

A leftist federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama issued an order on Tuesday blocking the Trump administration from cutting funding going toward organizations like Planned Parenthood that end the lives of unborn children. 
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26327752-talwanipppi120225/">ruled</a> that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot cut off Medicaid funding going toward Planned Parenthood. Talwani sided with California and other Democrat-led states that sued to keep Medicaid funding flowing to Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Talwani wrote that HHS failed “to provide clear notice as required by the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution” to the Democrat-led states. Medicaid funding for abortion-promoting entities was cut off for one year by a provision of the GOP-backed “Big, Beautiful Bill.” 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit previously overturned another <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26089904-ppfavkennedyca1091125/">decision</a> from Talwani that sided with Planned Parenthood in a suit over the provision. 
Talwani’s decision was met with criticism from pro-life advocates. 
“The Democrats and their radical activist judges are desperately seeking to thwart the will of the people and bail out the Big Abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is federal law passed by Congress and signed by the president,” said SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser.
“This fight is not over. The pro-life movement will work tirelessly to ensure the Democrats do not prevail and taxpayers are never forced to pay a dime to prop up Big Abortion businesses,” Dannenfelser added. 
Talwani has a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-who-prevented-trumps-deportation-of-500k-migrants-volunteered-for-obama-elizabeth-warren">history of leftist activism</a> and has volunteered for and donated to prominent Democrat politicians, including Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
The federal judge <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Indira+Talwani">donated</a> a total of $1,725 to Democrat politicians and the Democratic Party, including $1,000 to former Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), $350 to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and $100 to Obama. Talwani also gave another $275 to the Democratic National Committee.
Talwani explained on her Senate questionnaire that she also volunteered to knock on doors for Obama in 2008 and volunteered to canvass on behalf of Elizabeth Warren in 2012. 
She has sided against the Trump administration in other rulings, including decisions to revoke Temporary Protected Status for half a million migrants, and a 2019 ruling said Immigration and Customs Enforcement was allowed to arrest illegal aliens on courthouse grounds in the state of Massachusetts.

Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing On Hearing On Judicial Nominations

Leftist Judge Says Trump Admin Cannot Cut Funding To Planned Parenthood

Abortion

California

Courts

Department of Health and Human Services

Planned Parenthood

Pro-Life Movement

Trump Administration

A Biden-appointed judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to the Chicago area amid widespread immigration enforcement operations. 
U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a two-week temporary <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487574/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487574.67.0_2.pdf">restraining order</a> blocking the activation of the National Guard in Illinois. The Trump administration has said the National Guard is necessary to protect federal property, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. Perry concluded at a hearing on Thursday that the Department of Homeland Security had been citing “unreliable evidence” to justify the deployment. 
Perry’s ruling said that the Trump administration was “temporarily enjoined from ordering the federalization and deployment of the National Guard of the United States within Illinois.”
The judge said that allowing the National Guard to be deployed would “only add fuel to the fire that the defendants themselves have started,” <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/chicago-portland-trump-national-guard-deployments-court-hearings-rcna236201">according</a> to NBC. 
A follow-up ruling is scheduled for October 22, when Perry says she will determine whether to extend the injunction another two weeks. The Trump administration has appealed the order. 
The ruling was celebrated by Illinois Democrat Governor JB Pritzker, who has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-deploys-national-guard-to-chicago-as-pritzker-melts-down-over-invasion">likened</a> the deployment to an “invasion.” 
“The court confirmed what we all know: There is no credible evidence of a rebellion in the state of Illinois. And no place for the National Guard in the streets of American cities like Chicago,” he said. 
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson <a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/donald-trump/2025/10/09/federal-judge-set-to-hear-arguments-in-high-stakes-national-guard-hearing">responded</a> by saying that Trump had “exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets” in the face of “ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders like Pritzker have refused to step in to quell.”
“President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” she added. 
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout</a>
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller ripped into the judge over the ruling.
“A federal judge seems not to know that federal troops come from many different states. They are, again, federal troops on a federal protective mission,” he <a href="https://x.com/StephenM/status/1976500349792821503">wrote</a> on X. 
There has been a significant federal presence in the Chicago area for the last few weeks as the Trump administration has been carrying out “Operation Midway Blitz” to crack down on illegal immigration. ICE agents have been targeted in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-arrests-two-after-attack-on-border-patrol-in-chicago?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=FBI+Arrests+Two+After+Attack+On+Border+Patrol+In+Chicago">multiple</a> car rammings, according to DHS.

National Guard Members Guard Ice Facility Near Chicago

Biden Judge Blocks National Guard Rollout In Chicago Amid Immigration Crackdown

Chicago

Illinois

JB Pritzker

Politics

Ever since Donald Trump took office, federal judges have undertaken a concerted effort to suspend the power of the Executive Branch, unlike anything else that&#8217;s ever happened in this country. The words &#8220;judicial coup&#8221; do not begin to describe what&#8217;s been going on. In every case — whether they&#8217;re blocking the Trump administration from deleting trans propaganda on federal websites, or from terminating federal employees, or from deploying the National Guard — these individual, unelected federal judges have determined that the president of the United States had somehow overstepped his authority under the Constitution. 
This is obviously an unsustainable situation. If judges are going to overturn every single significant decision the president makes, then the judges have effectively become president. Eventually, something has to give. That&#8217;s why a lot of commentators, myself included, have called on the White House to simply ignore these rulings. Other than impeaching and removing judges — which is impossible, given that Democrats have too many votes in the Senate — ignoring courts that go rogue seems like the only real option. Andrew Jackson did it before, and Donald Trump (who happens to be a big fan of Andrew Jackson) can do it again.
But there is actually one additional approach that the Trump administration could take, before we decide to simply do away with the court system altogether. And based on recent reports, it looks like the White House is seriously considering this particular route. I&#8217;m talking about invoking the Insurrection Act, the federal law that permits the president to federalize the National Guard and deploy U.S. troops for law enforcement purposes in U.S. cities.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1671-it-s-time-to-crush-the-leftist-insurrection-once-and-for-all?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-976065 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
When the Insurrection Act is discussed in the press, of course, it&#8217;s described as the mother of all power grabs. Democrats pretend it hasn&#8217;t been invoked more than two dozen times in this country&#8217;s history, most recently to suppress the L.A. riots. They don&#8217;t want to talk about the fact that several presidents — including some of their heroes, like JFK and FDR — all invoked the law, mainly to enforce racial integration.
On the other side of the political spectrum, Republicans point out, correctly, that the Insurrection Act is necessary to put down lawlessness in cities like Portland and Chicago — lawlessness that&#8217;s reached almost comical levels of absurdity, as police supervisors have made it clear that their officers should not assist federal agents who are being actively attacked. 
Here&#8217;s audio from the Chicago police scanner, to give just one example. 
Dispatchers told officers not to assist federal agents who were being surrounded by a mob. Listen:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
PLAY THE TAPE.
STOP protecting criminals:
“They were requesting the police—we’re not sending.”
Not only did Chicago’s leaders refuse to send support to federal law enforcement officers in danger, now they’re lying about it.
Disgusting. <a href="https://t.co/7hz1dZOv1B">pic.twitter.com/7hz1dZOv1B</a>
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) <a href="https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1975623141725474964?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @DHSgov/X.com
“They were requesting the police—we’re not sending.” That&#8217;s the decision that&#8217;s been made by local law enforcement in Chicago (or, more accurately, by the Democrats who run the city). It is an admission — which they also put in writing, by the way — that local police are unable or unwilling to maintain law and order. That is, and has always been, a valid justification for invoking the Insurrection Act and sending in the U.S. military. I don&#8217;t need to recount all of the scenes of violence and anarchy because you&#8217;ve probably seen hours of it at this point.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 JUST IN: COUNTLESS anti-ICE “protestors” have now taken over the streets of Chicago
Maybe CHICAGO should be the next city I visit to expose 🤔 <a href="https://t.co/ucucexyOSq">pic.twitter.com/ucucexyOSq</a>
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) <a href="https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1976095784169836607?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 9, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @nicksortor/X.com
ICE officers are being shot at. They&#8217;re being ambushed on the streets, run off the road, boxed in, pelted with objects, and so on. Rioters are blocking federal vehicles on the roadways. Mobs are parading through the streets, preventing people from going where they need to be. The mayor of Chicago, meanwhile, is establishing &#8220;ICE-free-zones,&#8221; in a clear effort to interfere with federal law enforcement:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson just announced he signed an executive order creating &#8220;ICE Free Zones&#8221; to ban ICE agents from city property.
This is SICK. He is aiding and abetting criminal illegal immigrant killers, rapists, traffickers, and gang bangers. <a href="https://t.co/LaMbxaqePP">pic.twitter.com/LaMbxaqePP</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1975210976728518974?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @RapidResponse47/X.com
The red line has always been: state and local governments can decide not to actively assist federal officials, but they can&#8217;t decide to actively interfere with federal officials, either. That&#8217;s how federalism works. It&#8217;s how our whole constitutional system works. But the city of Chicago, and many other cities, have decided to break this covenant. They aren&#8217;t hiding their intentions. As a result, no reasonable person can deny what&#8217;s happening or that the Insurrection Act is the only available remedy to stop the mayhem, as many conservatives have said.
But there is one other major benefit of invoking the Insurrection Act, which a lot of people aren&#8217;t talking about. It would finally force federal judges to openly declare their rebellion against the Executive Branch. The Chicago Police Department has just explicitly declared its own rebellion, as you just heard. And if a single federal judge tries to stand in the way of Donald Trump&#8217;s invocation of the Insurrection Act, then the judiciary would be doing the exact same thing. The judges couldn&#8217;t hide behind legalese or strained interpretations of the law in order to justify their fraudulent decisions. If they attempt to overturn Donald Trump&#8217;s use of the Insurrection Act, the only way they can do it is by admitting that they&#8217;re waging open warfare on a duly elected branch of government.
Here&#8217;s why. The Insurrection Act, by design, leaves no room for judges or lawmakers to intervene. The law is based on the president&#8217;s constitutional authority to act as commander-in-chief of the military, as well as his responsibility to ensure domestic security. 
Article 1, <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C15-1/ALDE_00001077/">Section 8</a> of the Constitution states, &#8220;[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.&#8221; 
And with the Insurrection Act, Congress awarded the president the unilateral authority to decide when an insurrection exists, and how to deal with it. 
You can <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I/chapter-13">pull up the law</a> and read it for yourself. Here&#8217;s the relevant portion.
<blockquote>Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.</blockquote>
That&#8217;s it. There are no qualifiers. There&#8217;s no provision that the president&#8217;s declaration of insurrection has to be &#8220;reasonable&#8221; in the eyes of Congress, or anyone else. There&#8217;s no provision that puts a time limit on the president&#8217;s authority. There isn&#8217;t even a definition of the word &#8220;insurrection.&#8221; It&#8217;s completely up to the president.
If you&#8217;re a blue-haired professor at Berkeley Law School, you might hyperventilate about this. Surely, you might say, there have to be &#8220;checks and balances&#8221; somewhere. But actually, no, there don&#8217;t have to be checks and balances. At some point, one branch of government has to be supreme over the others. There&#8217;s no way to avoid that. It&#8217;s as inevitable as the laws of physics. And the Founders understood that. Yes, they created an intricate system of government, in which the three branches of government serve as a &#8220;check&#8221; on each other&#8217;s power. That&#8217;s the ideal situation. That&#8217;s how things should work. But the Founders also understood that, if things break down, and one branch of government decides to &#8220;check&#8221; another branch into oblivion in an attempt to destroy the entire country and our democratic system of government, then there has to be a failsafe. There has to be a &#8220;break glass in case of emergency&#8221; type of safeguard. And the Insurrection Act — which again, is based very closely on the Constitutional text — is that safeguard. The Insurrection Act says, if things get really, really bad, then the elected president of the United States — who has more of a democratic mandate than any court, or any lawmaker in Congress — can use the military to restore order.
To be clear, undoubtedly, Left-wing judges would try to issue injunctions anyway. I&#8217;m not denying that. But the point is that, like the Chicago police department, they&#8217;d have to be very, very transparent about what they were doing. The Insurrection Act doesn&#8217;t give them any room to weasel out of it. They&#8217;d have to state, essentially, that they don&#8217;t care about the Constitution, or laws passed by Congress, and that they&#8217;re declaring open warfare against the Executive Branch.
Additionally, many of these judges — and all of the Left — are on the record already stating that January 6 was an &#8220;insurrection.&#8221; Several courts, including the Supreme Court of the state of Colorado, attempted to kick Trump off the ballot in the last election, on the theory that he had committed an &#8220;insurrection.&#8221; So they&#8217;ve already gone out of their way to declare, in no uncertain terms, that a group of old ladies wandering around the Capitol for a few hours constitutes an &#8220;insurrection.&#8221; Their standard is that, if a few windows are broken, and someone sits on Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s desk and steals her lectern, then an &#8220;insurrection&#8221; has taken place.
If that&#8217;s the standard, then there is no conceivable way, morally or logically, to argue that cities like Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles aren&#8217;t in a state of open insurrection against the United States. If a mob loitering inside the Capitol for a few hours counts as an &#8220;insurrection,&#8221; then coordinated and violent attacks on law enforcement, endorsed by state and local officials, certainly qualify as well. They have boxed themselves into this corner. There&#8217;s no way around it. 
That&#8217;s why the arguments from the Left are growing increasingly frantic and incoherent. On social media at the moment, various left-wing figures are doing their best to stoke outrage because they suspect a declaration of insurrection is coming. 
Here&#8217;s Robert Reich, for example. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Trump wants to invoke the Insurrection Act to punish anyone who opposes him, and he’s following a four point plan to do it.
Here’s what you need to know about it — and some thoughts on how to respond. <a href="https://t.co/QZZOSM4aON">pic.twitter.com/QZZOSM4aON</a>
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) <a href="https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1976053389143179695?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @RBReich/X.com
This is what their argument is going to be. They&#8217;re claiming that Trump wants to round up his political opponents and anyone else he doesn&#8217;t like. Of course, that&#8217;s precisely what Joe Biden&#8217;s administration did. They jailed every Trump aide — and ultimately Trump himself — in order to prevent a democratic election from taking place. And Joe Biden didn&#8217;t need the Insurrection Act to do any of that.
What people like Robert Reich won&#8217;t do, even though it would solve the whole problem, is admit what they&#8217;re really interested in. In the first Trump administration, the argument from the Left was that he &#8220;put kids in cages&#8221; and &#8220;separated families&#8221; or whatever. That argument never made any sense — families are separated all the time when the parents commit crimes — but it&#8217;s what they went with. This time around, their argument is even more tenuous. They&#8217;re saying that ICE agents are the modern-day Gestapo because they&#8217;re rounding up illegal aliens while wearing masks and making lawful arrests in public places. They say ICE is arresting &#8220;American citizens,&#8221; even though there isn&#8217;t a single case of ICE deporting an actual American citizen, anywhere. (There is a case of an illegal alien taking her children with her, as she was deported, which is obviously a completely different scenario.)
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a></h3>
What&#8217;s really going on here, although no one on the Left wants to say it, is that the Democrat Party demands open borders. They do not want any federal immigration enforcement of any kind. That is their platform. But they never say it out loud, explicitly, because they understand how unconvincing and unpopular it is. So Leftist judges hide behind various legalese, while Democrat activists make outlandish claims with no basis in fact. That&#8217;s what they&#8217;re forced to do. That&#8217;s what&#8217;s been happening for the last 10 months.
As a result, we have arrived at the absolute limit of &#8220;checks and balances&#8221; in our system of government. And if the courts and local governments want to keep pushing things, they will rapidly find out that, under our Constitution, they will lose any one-on-one battle with the Executive Branch. That is how our Constitution was structured. It&#8217;s how the Insurrection Act was structured. In an ideal situation, of course, this failsafe wouldn&#8217;t be necessary. We shouldn&#8217;t have to rely on a final line of defense like this. But at the moment, we do. Democrats are daring the administration to invoke the constitutional response to their lawlessness and depravity. In response, the administration has no other choice but to follow the guidance of the Founders and send in the military to quell an insurrection that has rapidly spiraled out of control.

National Guard To Be Deployed In Portland, Oregon

It’s Time To Crush The Leftist Insurrection Once And For All

Deportations

Federal Government

illegal immigrants

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

insurrection

Portland

On Tuesday, a judge ruled that Luigi Mangione, the murderer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, should not be charged with first-degree murder.
The question was whether there would be <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-tosses-two-terrorism-charges-against-luigi-mangione">another charge</a> of terrorism added; it was dropped.
Clearly, Luigi Mangione shooting Brian Thompson — and leaving a note talking about how this was designed to effectively terrorize people who are part of the health care system — was an act of terrorism. It was a politically motivated murder with the intent of driving terror into the hearts of people who are part of the capitalist system or part of the health care system.
The judge in this case, Justice Gregory Carro, put out a statement explaining why the legal definition of terrorism was not met. The judge stated, “The defendant&#8217;s apparent objective, as stated in his writings, was not to threaten, intimidate, or coerce, but rather to draw attention to what he perceived as the greed of the insurance industry &#8230;”
The judge’s statement is a permission structure for violence. I would ask, how would you define drawing attention to what you perceive as the greed of the insurance industry through murder?
This was definitionally terrorism. If it wasn&#8217;t to “threaten, intimidate, or coerce,” then why was someone murdered?
Mangione didn&#8217;t write an Op-Ed in The Nation about the health care system; he murdered a man. And he murdered a man, yes, with the intent to threaten, intimidate or coerce people who were members of the health care industry.
If you take this judge&#8217;s argument and you extend it to literally any terrorist group around the world, it means that there is no such thing as terrorism. It writes the definition out of existence. You could say, “Radical Islamic terrorist beheads a Wall Street Journal reporter. Well, you know, he wasn&#8217;t really meaning to threaten, intimidate, or coerce others. He was really attempting to draw attention to what he perceived to be Western intolerance.”
What a bunch of absolute garbage. 9/11 terrorists under this definition would not have been terrorists, because obviously, “Osama bin Laden was just trying to draw attention to the predations of American foreign policy in Saudi Arabia” or some such nonsense.
The permission structures for terrorism and violence are there. They are deeply embedded. They&#8217;re embedded. It is largely relegated to the Left, but there are some on the Right who are willing to countenance this sort of stuff. That’s just the reality.
This is why there were crowds outside of the courthouse when it was announced that Mangione will not face life in prison without the possibility of parole. He could easily get out while he is still 50 or 60 years old after shooting a man in cold blood in the back and then in the back of the head.
There were people celebrating that in New York City on the streets. You want to know why Zohran Mamdani could be the mayor of New York City? This is why.
Scavengers, demons. That&#8217;s what this is. There were people on the Right who were angry at me when I said that the capture of Luigi Mangione needed to end with the death penalty for Luigi Mangione, and that anybody who celebrated the death of Brian Thompson was doing something evil. Some people on the Right objected to that, and tried to create permission structures, saying, “Well, yes, he shouldn&#8217;t have done that. But, you know, there are real grievances. And if you ignore those grievances &#8230;”
It was largely relegated to the Left. But there were some horseshoe theory people on the Right who were doing that routine. The Mangione case is a key tipping point case for political violence in the United States.
And you can see those permission structures emerging in the world&#8217;s worst ways on social media. Social media has been a bane on our existence.
Until those permission structures disappear, violence like this may well become more commonplace.

Luigi Mangione Appears In Court To Face NY State Murder Charges

Luigi Mangione And The Permission Structures For Violence

Ben Shapiro

Brian Thompson

Criminal Justice

Health Care

Luigi Mangione

Murder

New York City

A federal judge on Sunday blocked the Trump administration’s plan to return 76 unaccompanied illegal immigrant children found at the U.S. southern border to Guatemala.
U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan sided with attorneys for the children, who argued that returning them to Guatemala would put them at risk. The Justice Department maintained that the children were being reunited with their parents and guardians.
“Here, Plaintiff children have demonstrated clear and irreparable harms if removed to Guatemala,” Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, <a href="https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/LGML-v.-Noem-TRO.pdf">wrote</a>. “Several plaintiffs lack guardians who can provide safety and care. Many fear return and wish to continue pursuing their asylum claims before the immigration courts. Facing risks of persecution and torture. Further, Defendants have failed to comply with legal obligations to ensure safe repatriation to Guatemala.”
Sooknanan claimed that the Trump administration was discriminating against the children based on their nationality and had not given them due process. 
Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-judge-halts-surprising-illegal-alien-minor-repatriation-plan-after-advocacy-groups-sue" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stated</a> that the parents or guardians of the children had requested the return of their children. The kids are being represented by the Young Center for Immigrant Children&#8217;s Rights. 
&#8220;These are not removals under the statute,” he said. “These are repatriations. All of these children have parents or guardians in Guatemala who have requested their return.&#8221;
The Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-unaccompanied-children-trump-deportations-guatemala-3790909d69f19fd8cd8edffb6b3215c3">reported</a> that many of the children set to be returned to Guatemala had already boarded their planes and were awaiting takeoff when the judge’s order came through. 
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller ripped into the judge for the decision. 
“The Biden judge is effectively kidnapping these migrant children and refusing to let them return home to their parents in their home country,” he posted on X. 
Under President Joe Biden, the number of unaccompanied children encountered at the U.S. southern border surged. More than 500,000 children were found at the border under Biden, according to numbers <a href="https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/bombshell-report-confirms-grassley-oversight-of-biden-harris-admins-failure-to-protect-migrant-children">released</a> by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Of those children, the Department of Homeland Security failed to properly track at least 233,000, while tens of thousands were released to unrelated sponsors or distant relatives.

US-MEXICO-POLITICS-IMMIGRATION

Biden Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Returning Unaccompanied Children To Home Country

Guatemala

Joe Biden

The Left’s efforts to preserve their censorship industrial complex just triggered a new low in judicial imperialism — one that imperils free expression everywhere.
The Left-wing activist organization known as Media Matters recently filed a suit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to block it from investigating potential antitrust violations.
Media Matters has been around for decades, attempting (unsuccessfully) to boost the reputation of legacy media by launching spurious attacks against journalists it views as too conservative. Recently, Media Matters was accused of working with major advertising companies to form an economic cartel designed to foreclose market access to conservative media outlets. By targeting online publications like Breitbart, The Daily Wire, and The Federalist, the FTC is concerned that Media Matters is trying to eliminate competition to the benefit of legacy media and to the detriment of American consumers.
If true, such conduct would violate federal antitrust law, which prohibits such anti-competitive schemes. Given the gravity of the allegations, the FTC launched an investigation, as required by Congress. With the kind of lawfare tactics the Left has perfected, Media Matters immediately sued to block the FTC from even inquiring into whether the law had been broken.
It is hard to overstate how ludicrous this suit is. Imagine if drug dealers sued to stop the police from investigating their illicit operations, or if a company running a Ponzi scheme sued the SEC to prevent it from examining its fraudulent contracts.
No rational, law-abiding judge would ever countenance such a claim, especially in light of strong Supreme Court precedent to the contrary.
In Associated Press v. United States and again in Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, the Court ruled that the First Amendment does not constitutionally protect the unlawful actions by news media cartels. Justice Hugo Black famously wrote: “Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not.”
The Media Matters suit is based on a patently absurd argument that the Court has already rejected — twice.
Thus, any judge hearing this case would be obligated to follow Supreme Court precedent, no matter how much she may personally disagree. Unfortunately for the public, Media Matters has managed to land its case before one of the most partisan activists in the federal judiciary.
Despite being just eight months into a lifetime appointment, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan has already drawn criticism from across the political spectrum for her unethical conduct. At her Senate confirmation hearing last year, Sooknanan — a former Big Law attorney who spent a stint in the Biden administration — swore under oath that she was “not lead counsel” in a controversial lawsuit she brought on behalf of a vulture hedge fund against the territory of Puerto Rico.
It is a crime to provide knowingly false testimony to Congress. Sooknanan’s testimony was clearly untrue. It may also have been knowingly false. Her own firm, where she had been a partner, contradicted her testimony and provided evidence that she had indeed been the lead counsel on the case.
Judge Sooknanan is once again playing fast and loose with the law. In flagrant defiance of the Supreme Court, she has issued a preliminary injunction demanding that the FTC immediately cease its investigation into Media Matters.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">End of Summer Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
The harm of such an order cannot be overstated. Media Matters is not the only leftist group alleged to have formed a cartel: other legacy media sycophants like Ad Fontes Media and the Center for Countering Digital Hate have been accused of the same misconduct. If the FTC is judicially prohibited from protecting new media from antitrust violations, then the existence of potentially hundreds of journalistic enterprises — especially those with conservative leanings — is instantly imperiled.
Fortunately, under the strong leadership of FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, the agency has already appealed the lawless actions by Judge Sooknanan.
But there are additional avenues to combat Sooknanan and other renegade judges who fancy themselves as judicial dictators. House Republicans could launch an impeachment inquiry. The Department of Justice could also investigate Sooknanan’s behavior to determine whether she committed perjury at her confirmation hearing. Higher courts could also begin their own inquiries into her refusal to apply the law evenly and fairly.
Media Matters and Judge Sooknanan are counting on not being held accountable for their actions. They are betting that they can nullify Supreme Court precedent and kill the FTC investigation in the cradle. For the sake of our republic and the freedom of the press, let us pray they are wrong.
* * *
Dan Schneider is the Vice President for Free Speech at the Media Research Center.
Tim Kilcullen is the Senior Fellow for Free Speech at the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

E. Barrett Pettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington

A Rogue Judge Just Handed Media Matters Its Biggest Weapon Yet

Censorship

Conservative Media

Free Speech

Leftists

Legacy Media

Media Matters For America

Media Research Center

Washington D.C.

Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial Verdict To Be Delivered

Feminist Rape Hoax Obliterates Lives Of Canadian Hockey Stars

Canada

false accusations

Hockey

Rape

Sexual Assault

trial

The Senate on Tuesday narrowly voted to confirm a Justice Department official who previously defended President Donald Trump during his criminal trials to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Overcoming vigorous Democrat opposition, the Republican-led Senate confirmed acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove to the lifetime judicial position in a 50-49 vote. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Susan Collins (ME) joined Democrats in voting against his appointment. 
“Congratulations to our dear friend Emil Bove on his confirmation to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals! This is a GREAT day for our country,” Attorney General Pam Bondi <a href="https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/1950363578646544696">said</a> on X. “I cannot thank Emil enough for his tireless work and support at [the Justice Department]. He will be missed — and he will be an outstanding judge.”
Bove previously worked as Trump’s lawyer when the Biden administration prosecuted him over his alleged mishandling of classified documents and alleged election interference in the 2020 election. Bove also worked with Trump on the New York hush money case, where Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records but given an unconditional discharge. Before working for Trump, Bove was a federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, working on drug and terrorism cases.
In the weeks after Trump nominated him to the judgeship, Democrats have pointed to numerous complaints against Bove from whistleblowers claiming that he instructed Justice Department officials to ignore judicial orders. Democrats were also critical of Bove’s role in the firing of some of the Justice Department lawyers who led the January 6 prosecutions and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/doj-orders-charges-to-be-dismissed-against-nyc-mayor-eric-adams-on-certain-conditions">dismissal</a> of the federal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. 
Ahead of the confirmation vote, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-exhaustive-efforts-to-vet-emil-boves-nomination-prove-hes-fit-for-the-job">defended</a> Bove, accusing Democrats of trying to “weaponize” the whistleblower process. 
“He has a strong legal background and has served his country honorably. I believe he will be a diligent, capable, and fair jurist,&#8221; Grassley said. “It’s no surprise to anyone who’s followed this nomination that I have serious concerns with how my Democratic colleagues have conducted themselves. The vicious rhetoric, unfair accusations and abuse directed at Mr. Bove by some on this Committee has crossed the line.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) <a href="https://apnews.com/article/emil-bove-confirmation-whistleblowers-trump-republicans-democrats-71f92822cb2e8d57387748c2451fa724">claimed</a> that the confirmation was a “dark day” for the country. 
“It’s unfathomable that just over four years after the insurrection at the Capitol, when rioters smashed windows, ransacked offices, desecrated this chamber, Senate Republicans are willingly putting someone on the bench who shielded these rioters from facing justice, who said their prosecution was a grave national injustice,” he said.

Jury Continues Deliberations In Trump Hush Money Trial

Republicans Push Past Democrat Obstruction To Confirm Trump-Aligned Judge

Chuck Grassley

Chuck Schumer

Congress

Department of Justice

Lisa Murkowski

Senate

Susan Collins

President Donald Trump pushed Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Tuesday to toss a Senate tradition that has empowered Democratic senators to unilaterally block the president’s judicial nominees.
Grassley chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees judicial nominations. The “blue slip” custom on the committee is not required, but was adopted as an internal vetting procedure to encourage communication between the White House and the senators of the state in which the nominee will serve, giving senators influence over appointments in their states.
Democrats have stalled Trump’s nominees by refusing to give their assent with “blue slips,” a blue-colored form given to senators where a federal judicial nominee would serve. If the senator withholds or returns a negative blue slip expressing disapproval, they can use the custom as a tool for obstruction. The tradition&#8217;s enforcement is controlled by the chair&#8217;s discretion.
“Chuck Grassley, who I got re-elected to the U.S. Senate when he was down, by a lot, in the Great State of Iowa, could solve the ‘Blue Slip’ problem we are having with respect to the appointment of Highly Qualified Judges and U.S. Attorneys, with a mere flick of the pen,” <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114938820270436889">said</a> Trump. “Democrats like Schumer, Warner, Kaine, Booker, Schiff, and others, SLEAZEBAGS ALL, have an ironclad stoppage of Great Republican Candidates.”
“Put simply, the President of the United States will never be permitted to appoint the person of his choice because of an ancient, and probably Unconstitutional, ‘CUSTOM,’ that if you have, even one person in the opposite Party serving in the U.S. Senate, he/she must give consent, thereby completely stopping the opposite Party’s Nomination,” he added.
The president said that in states with Democratic senators, his own judicial nominees would have to either be a Democrat or “a weak and ineffective Republican” to receive blue slip approvals.
“I would never be able to appoint Great Judges or U.S. Attorneys in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Virginia, and other places, where there is, coincidentally, the highest level of crime and corruption — The places where fantastic people are most needed!” the president said.
Trump said that former President Joe Biden broke the blue slip custom at least twice during his term, and that previous presidents have also worked around the Senate tradition.
A Grassley spokesman suggested in a statement on Tuesday that, despite the president’s pressure, the Judiciary Committee chair would retain the blue slip custom.
“Chairman Grassley has already successfully moved U.S. Attorneys through committee who have received blue slips from Democrats, including Senators Warner and Kaine of Virginia and Klobuchar and Smith of Minnesota,” the spokesman said, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/07/29/congress/trump-hits-grassley-00483005">Politico</a>. “When a nominee comes out of committee all 100 senators have a say on the nomination and part of their consideration is based on the home state senators’ input.”

Trump Rips ‘Unconstitutional’ Senate Custom That Allows Democrat ‘SLEAZEBAGS’ To Stall Judicial Noms

Executive

A Washington, D.C., judge on Tuesday said President Donald Trump did not have the authority to name the leader of a small, USAID-like agency after an African company sued, citing the hardship of having to lay off its workers.
Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that Trump appointee Pete Marocco, who oversaw the demolition of USAID, was not validly appointed to the African Development Foundation, where he played a similar role, and, therefore, had no authority to terminate grants.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by a consulting firm in Zambia, called Rural Development Innovations Limited, represented by lawyers from the left-wing American group Democracy Forward.
Trump fired the entirety of the African Development Foundation&#8217;s board, and the agency locked its doors to prevent Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employees from gaining access to its books. One of the fired board members sued, but Judge Leon tossed that lawsuit, affirming that the president had the right to fire board members.
In this second lawsuit, though, Leon indicated that Trump likely did not have the power to determine who runs the agency in the board members&#8217; absence. Under the legislation establishing the Foundation, the president nominates board members, but they must be confirmed by the Senate.
Marocco had been named &#8220;acting&#8221; chairman of the board. The chief role of the board is to appoint a president who runs day-to-day operations, and Marocco appointed himself.
The Trump administration <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789.12.0.pdf">argued</a> that &#8220;because the Federal Vacancies Act does not apply to the Foundation, the President has the inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to designate acting members of the Foundation Board until the Senate confirms his nominees to fill full terms&#8230; The President must be able to designate acting officials to fulfill his duty.&#8221;
It is unclear how Leon believes the management of the federal agency should be chosen, since he acknowledges that the agency has no board. The African Development Foundation&#8217;s previous president, Travis Adkins, who was accused of anti-white racism and abuse of employees, resigned before the DOGE takeover.
After Adkins&#8217;s resignation, the role was filled by a committee of the agency&#8217;s three top employees, including Chief Financial Officer Mathieu Zahui. The USAID inspector general presented evidence in court in November 2024 that Zahui steered contracts to a friend in exchange for kickbacks, but he has so far not been criminally charged.
If the group&#8217;s staff is reinstated and its top management structure restored, that would put the subject of a criminal investigation in charge of an agency, instead of the president&#8217;s appointee.
Rural Development Innovations Limited &#8220;offers clients broad expertise in financial management, enterprise development, organizational capacity development, strategy development and implementation, project management, marketing and market access development,&#8221; its lawyers <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789.1.0_1.pdf">wrote</a>.
Yet it doesn&#8217;t actually have any clients except the United States government. They added: &#8220;RDI receives 100% of its funding from USADF and has been awarded a USADF grant that continues through 2028. Yet in April 2025, RDI received notice from Pete Marocco that its grant was being terminated immediately because RDI somehow no longer satisfied USADF’s priorities. As a result, RDI will be forced to shut down entirely by the end of June 2025.&#8221;
Judge Leon wrote that &#8220;RDI has shown irreparable injury&#8230; Traditionally, &#8216;economic loss does not, in and of itself constitute irreparable harm,'&#8221; but an &#8220;exception exists when &#8216;the loss threatens the very existence of the movant&#8217;s business.&#8221; That exception applied because RDI had no customers other than the United States government. RDI argued that America had an obligation not to terminate its funding because Zambian law requires the payment of severance to laid-off employees, which it could not afford to do.
Two African Development Foundation employees were also plaintiffs in the lawsuit. But, unlike the African company, the American workers had no recourse, the judge <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789.26.0.pdf">ruled</a>.
Leon wrote that &#8220;RDI requests that the Court preliminarily enjoin all defendants&#8211;including the President of the United States.&#8221; The court does not have the power to enjoin the president, he wrote, but the <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789.27.0.pdf">injunction</a> blocks Marocco &#8220;from taking actions as the acting chairperson of the United States African Development Foundation&#8217;s board of directors and president,&#8221; and White House, Treasury, and Department of Government Efficiency officials, from &#8220;implementing or giving effect to directives from Marocco.&#8221;
An injunction is a temporary order that gives relief to one side while a final resolution is pending. It is given when the judge believes a party is likely to win the case and will suffer harm in the meantime if it has to wait months.
Typically, a party seeking an injunction is supposed to post a monetary bond that would be used to compensate the opposing party if that party ultimately wins the case. The Trump administration has highlighted the role that such bonds would play in preventing groups from seeking endless injunctions by giving them skin in the game.
But courts have &#8220;discretion&#8230;to determine the appropriate amount of an injunction bond,&#8221; Judge Leon wrote, and he would require no bond at all from the African group, since the Trump administration has &#8220;not argued that they will suffer monetary loss if the Court were to issue an injunction.&#8221;
A four-part Daily Wire series documented significant ethical and financial problems at the African Development Foundation, which former employees said was likely the reason it was so opposed to scrutiny by DOGE:
PART ONE: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/foreign-aid-official-who-resisted-doge-took-secret-payments-after-steering-africa-money-to-friend?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Foreign+Aid+Official+Who+Resisted+DOGE+Took+Secret+Payments+After+Steering+Africa+Money+To+Friend%C2%A0">Foreign Aid Official Who Resisted DOGE Took Secret Payments After Steering Africa Money To Friend </a>
PART TWO: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/african-aid-agency-used-foreign-pass-throughs-to-hide-money-that-went-to-d-c-staff-friends?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=African+Aid+Agency+Used+Foreign+Pass-Throughs+To+Hide+Money+That+Went+To+D.C.+Staff%2C+Friends" target="_blank" rel="noopener">African Aid Agency Used Foreign Pass-Throughs To Hide Money That Went To D.C. Staff</a>
PART THREE: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/aid-agency-pushed-officials-for-profit-pyramid-scheme-on-poor-africans?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Aid+Agency+Pushed+Official%E2%80%99s+For-Profit+Pyramid+Scheme+On+Poor+Africans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Aid Agency Pushed Official’s For-Profit Pyramid Scheme On Poor Africans</a>
PART FOUR: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/them-white-motherf-ers-racist-agency-framed-its-lawyer-after-he-discovered-lawbreaking-he-says?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=Investigation&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=%E2%80%98Them+White+Motherf-ers%E2%80%99%3A+Racist+Agency+Framed+Its+Lawyer+After+He+Discovered+Lawbreaking%2C+He+Says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">‘Them White Motherf-ers’: Racist Agency Framed Its Lawyer After He Discovered Lawbreaking, He Says</a>

Mathieu Zahui, chief financial officer of the African Development Foundation

Judge Orders Foreign Aid Agency Resurrected After African Company Sues

Africa

USAID

MixCollage-17-Jun-2025-04-14-PM-4521

LGBT Judge Lets Child Killer Walk Free In Shocking Court Decision

Children

Drugs

LGBT

Oregon

Prison

Menu