California gender-secrecy law for students suffers another legal defeat in SoCal city

Declassified COVID Cover Up Docs Show That Democrat Candidate for California Governor Should Lawyer Up

DOJ new slush fund move amounts to telling federal judge 'to go pound sand': legal expert

The Department of Justice is refusing to swear that the Trump slush fund is dead in a new court filing flagged by a legal analyst.Last week, federal judge Leonie Brinkema indefinitely blocked the $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund, which critics worried would have paid Trump allies, and gave the DOJ until June 19th to file a declaration swearing it wouldn't move forward with the fund under penalty of perjury.DOJ lawyer Andrew Block submitted a new court filing on June 19th, but "not the one the judge instructed, not the one that she wanted," Legal AF host Michael Popok said in an update.Instead, the DOJ "created a new piece of paper to effectively go tell the judge to go pound sand," Popok said, also describing it as a "Go F yourself submission."Brinkema wanted the signatures of acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward on that declaration, "the three people who created the anti-weaponization fund," Popok noted.According to the filing, a declaration not to move forward with the slush fund is "unnecessary and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns."It goes on to argue, "The Acting Attorney General has testified before Congress that the Fund is 'not going forward, period.'""That should be enough, right?" Popok joked. "Judge Brinkema said a version of, yeah, we're in a courtroom. You need to bring in evidence. We operate on evidence and testimony, not on statements made outside the courtroom."Trump Squeals and Has AG Blanche Refuse to Testify to Federal Judge! by Legal AFRead on Substack

Appeals court SLAPS DOWN California on parental rights and trans-identifying students

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction Friday against a California law that allowed children to hide their transgender status from their parents.The law required teachers and others to withhold information from parents related to their children identifying as transgender or asking to be called by a different name.'The Constitution is clear — parents have the right to know what is happening with their children and make decisions regarding their mental health, and no state law can override that fundamental protection.'The three-judge panel initially rejected the lawsuit from residents of Huntington Beach but relented after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a similar case on the side of parental rights.The appeals court recognized that the law would likely violate parents' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.America First Legal, the organization that represents the parents, called the ruling a major victory in a statement on its website."California cannot use state law to force schoolteachers and administrators into a conspiracy of silence against parents," AFL senior counsel Nick Barry said. "California's law, and similar school policies, use state coercion to intentionally interfere with the parent-child relationship and separate a child from their parent. That is wrong and unlawful."AFL added that the state of California "sought to prevent parents from obtaining information about 'gender transitions' of their own children without the child's consent."Proponents of these types of laws say they are necessary to protect children who may have feelings that would lead them to identify as transgender from parents who may oppose their wishes. Critics say cutting out parents puts children at risk of grooming and abuse by far-left teachers and other school officials.RELATED: Supreme Court sides with Catholic parents against California on student gender notification — for now "The Constitution is clear — parents have the right to know what is happening with their children and make decisions regarding their mental health, and no state law can override that fundamental protection," Barry continued.California Attorney General Rob Bonta has not commented on the ruling yet. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Mamdani-backed democratic socialist candidate’s ice cream giveaway raises election law concerns

Darializa Avila Chevalier, a 32-year-old democratic socialist running for Congress, is pushing an ice cream giveaway for early voters in New York’s 13th Congressional District, raising eyebrows as a legally dubious campaign effort. Election experts warn that the giveaway, which promises a free ice cream from a local business, violates federal election law. Sean Cooksey, […]

Schiff silent on Biden-era Newsom probe report as California AG claims DOJ 'weaponization'

California AG Bonta claims Trump weaponized the DOJ against Gov. Newsom, calling the federal probe political persecution despite California origins.

Disbelief as California drivers can’t buy cheaper gas blend that state legalized last year

California drivers were promised a cheaper fuel option. They’re still waiting. Nearly a year after state lawmakers legalized E15 gasoline, not a single station in California is selling the fuel blend, despite estimates it could reduce prices at the pump by up to 30 cents per gallon. The delay comes as California continues to post...

'Moron': White House attacks yet another female reporter as she calls deal 'humiliation'

A pro-Trump commentator triggered a White House attack after she called President Donald Trump's preliminary deal with Iran a humiliation for the United States.Batya Ungar-Sargon, a self-described "MAGA lefty" who hosts a weekend show on NewsNation, broke with the administration over the memorandum of understanding Trump signed with Iran.Ungar-Sargon is an Orthodox Jewish commentator and vocal Trump supporter who has repeatedly championed his presidency. But the Iran deal crossed a line she said she could not defend — particularly after Vice President JD Vance began blaming Israel for the region's instability."This is an utter humiliation of the United States, and everybody knows it," Ungar-Sargon told NewsNation's Elizabeth Vargas. "Everybody knows it, but especially Iran knows it. They are celebrating this."She went further with Vance."JD Vance is out there criticizing Israel, making up fantasies about how it is Israel's fault," she said. "It is the complete Tucker Carlsonification of the Vice President of the United States, and it is utterly deplorable."The White House's official rapid-response account fired back with a vicious personal attack."The only humiliation here is Batya desperately begging for an additional brain cell because her failing TV show is even more irrelevant than the likes of Kaitlan Collins and Fake Tapper," wrote Rapid Response 47 on X. "Only a moron of her caliber could still doubt President Trump's leadership."The attack made no mention of the Iran deal or Vance's comments on Israel.The reply also invoked CNN's Kaitlan Collins as a benchmark for irrelevance — notable given that Trump himself has repeatedly attacked Collins, calling her "the worst reporter" after she questioned him about the Epstein scandal.The White House's response fits a broader pattern. Trump and his administration have repeatedly targeted women journalists with personal attacks — on their intelligence, their appearance, and their careers — rather than engaging with their reporting.In May, Trump called one woman reporter "a dumb person" and told another she was "a stupid person" during a single South Lawn exchange. He previously called Bloomberg's Catherine Lucey "piggy" on Air Force One after she asked about the Epstein files."VP JD Vance just brought the US to its knees with a humiliating deal weeks before our 250th birthday," Ungar-Sargon wrote on X, "and he has the audacity to blame … Israel!"

Businesses with ties to Jeffrey Epstein saw norms, share prices suffer

A new study found a link between connections to Epstein and C-suite misconduct