Federal Citizenship Data Tool Cannot Be Used to Screen Voters, Judge Rules

Supreme Court's 'catchy' ruling may signal 'death' of a key right: analysis

On June 2, in an unsigned 6-3 order buried in the Supreme Court's shadow docket, the conservative supermajority quietly did something it had never done before, declaring the Constitution "colorblind." In doing so, Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern warned that the court gave a permanent constitutional guarantee to those seeking to dismantle civil rights protections.The unsigned order reinstated an Alabama congressional map that federal courts had repeatedly struck down for intentionally discriminating against Black voters, handing white voters greater control over the state's congressional map by eliminating a district held by a Black representative.Stern argued the damage runs far deeper than one House seat. The court's decision to constitutionalize "colorblindness," building on April's gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, is already cascading through the legal system, he said. Within a week, Trump's Department of Justice used the ruling to gut disparate-impact protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, instructing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to abandon enforcement that had long shielded workers of color from racially discriminatory employer policies.The phrase "our Constitution is colorblind" was plucked from Justice John Marshall Harlan's 1896 dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, a dissent written to fight Jim Crow, not to dismantle protections for minorities.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, minced no words."It also corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders," she wrote.Stern issued a stark conclusion that the court has built a reality-blind Constitution, engineered to mean the opposite of what it was written to do."They knew that sometimes the government must acknowledge race to battle racism, and left it free to do just that. Now—in voting rights, policing, employment discrimination, and much more to come—the Supreme Court is enlisting colorblindness in the service of racial subordination. 'The colorblind Constitution' is a catchy, memorable way to think about equal protection. It may also be the death of it," he concluded.

Trump DOJ accused of using new mandate to intentionally target Dem cities

President Donald Trump's administration is conditioning nearly $1 billion in public safety grants on local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, a move critics argue is designed to exclude Democratic-led cities. Approximately $700 million flows through the existing COPS grant program. NPR reports this new $300 million Model Cities Initiative will go to just two to four cities, bypassing standard competitive peer-review processes, explained Amy Solomon, senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice and former head of the DOJ's Office of Justice Programs.Any program that impedes or hinders federal immigration enforcement will not receive funding, according to the mandate. This includes failing to honor requests from the Department of Homeland Security. Legal experts warn the approach is highly unusual, with critics predicting only Republican-led jurisdictions will apply, allowing the administration to portray Democrats as soft on crime. Police chiefs have long opposed linking local law enforcement to immigration enforcement, citing erosion of community trust and witness cooperation. Federal data shows over 70 percent of immigrant detainees lack criminal convictions. The DOJ defended the policy, while the first Trump administration's similar tactic was previously challenged in court and reversed under Former President Joe Biden.Watch the video below. Your browser does not support the video tag.

Judge Smacks Down Trump’s Attempt to Get Maryland’s Voter Rolls

President Donald Trump has struck out nine times in court in his quest to obtain voter registration data from states, reports Democracy Docket.On Thursday, a federal judge threw out the Department of Justice’s lawsuit seeking voter data from Maryland.“This Court joins every court to have addressed this issue in concluding that an [statewide voter registration list] is not a record or paper that a state must produce to the United States under the CRA,” District Judge Stephanie Gallagher wrote in the ruling.The DOJ’s quest to weaponize voter registration data as part of its immigration crackdown has not been going too well. So far, it has not prevailed in a single case: The suits have been dismissed in California, Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Arizona, Wisconsin, Maine, and now Maryland.And these dismissals aren’t just coming from Democratic-appointed judges. Five of the nine judges were appointed or renominated by Trump, including Gallagher.The DOJ could still see a victory: It has sued 31 states and Washington, D.C. Outside of lawsuits, the DOJ has sent letters to all states asking for their voter rolls. At least 16 Republican-led states have complied, according to Democracy Docket.The administration’s quest for complete, uncensored voter data is chilling—especially because it won’t provide a legitimate reason for this federal overreach, although some reporting hints at its plans. Over the course of the Maryland lawsuit, DOJ officials refused to answer the judge’s questions about what the agency planned to do with the data.

EXCLUSIVE: If Schumer’s Right, Conservatives Are More Than 60 Percent of Legitimate Voters – Dems Are Less Than 40 Percent

EXCLUSIVE: If Schumer’s Right, Conservatives Are More Than 60 Percent of Legitimate Voter Base While Dems Are Less Than 40 Percent. The post EXCLUSIVE: If Schumer’s Right, Conservatives Are More Than 60 Percent of Legitimate Voters – Dems Are Less Than 40 Percent appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Judge denies effort to have Tyler Robinson’s lover testify in key hearing

A Utah judge denied an effort by Tyler Robinson’s lawyers to have his former roommate and lover be subpoenaed to testify at next month’s preliminary hearing ahead of Robinson’s trial for allegedly killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Judge Tony Graf denied two motions by Robinson’s lawyers in a Utah County court Monday, including one to have […]

Gavin Newsom Cheers As Federal Judge Torpedoes DOJ's Tim Walz Probe

Judge blocks Trump subpoenas targeting Minnesota Democrats

Minnesota's top federal judge on Monday quashed several Trump administration subpoenas for immigration-related records from Gov. Tim Walz (D) and a dozen other state and local officials.Why it matters: The grand jury subpoenas — issued when Operation Metro Surge was at its height — were clearly meant to "coerce Minnesota officials into assisting the federal government with enforcing civil immigration laws," U.S. District Court Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz concluded.What they're saying: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey — one of the subpoena targets — praised the ruling in a statement, calling the attempted probe an "effort to weaponize [U.S. Department of Justice] power against elected leaders who disagree with the federal administration.""The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations into the President's political opponents," added Walz in an X post. "This case was just one example of that."Representatives for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to Axios' Monday afternoon request for comment.The big picture: The Jan. 20 subpoenas also targeted Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarity.County commissioners in both Ramsey and Hennepin counties also challenged the subpoenas.Catch up quick: Four days after the subpoenas arrived, then-AG Pam Bondi sent Walz a letter demanding Minnesota repeal its "sanctuary policies" and hand over voter registration, food stamps and Medicaid records."You and your office must restore the rule of law," Bondi's letter read.Between the lines: Grand juries have broad investigative powers, and it's "extremely rare" for judges to intervene, Ellison said.But Schiltz — a George W. Bush appointee — found "overwhelming" evidence the subpoenas were issued "in order to harass political opponents … a blatantly unlawful and unethical use of the grand jury process."Editor's note: This is a breaking news story and may be updated.

Judge quashes subpoenas targeting top Minnesota Democrats

A federal judge has quashed subpoenas targeting Minnesota Gov.