Former CIA Director John Brennan filed a lawsuit against President Trump, the Justice Department, and senior administration officials on Wednesday over the Justice Department's criminal investigation into him.
The post JUST IN: Ex CIA Director John Brennan Sues Trump Administration Over Russiagate Probe – Lawsuit Assigned to Anti-Trump Judge Jia Cobb appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Ruling marks second time that Trump’s plan to restrict mail ballots across the US has suffered a setback in courtA federal judge blocked a proposed restriction on mail-in voting across the US, challenging a crackdown on elections ordered by Donald Trump.Judge Emmet Sullivan of the US district court for the District of Columbia ruled that a US Postal Service (USPS) plan to deny ballots to voters in states that do not turn over their voter rolls to the federal government should not proceed. Continue reading...
The ruling, based on agreements the service made in a 2021 legal settlement, was the second time a judge has blocked new curbs by President Trump on voting by mail.
A federal judge blocked a Virginia law instituting a mask ban for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers hours before the measure would have taken effect on Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Robert Payne, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the Department of Justice. The federal government sued Virginia […]
MAGA followers were livid after first lady Melania Trump issued a rare statement voicing her support for the LGBTQ+ community on Tuesday.Trump shared her comments in a post on X following the Supreme Court's decision to uphold laws in West Virginia and Idaho that bar transgender girls from female school sports. The ruling was considered a setback for the transgender community, according to The Associated Press.In her statement, Trump cited an excerpt from her own self-titled book "Melania" — and the page number."The U.S. Supreme Court has now legally confirmed this opinion: 'Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females? ... The answer is yes.' America, we can support the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and also protect opportunities for female athletes. Respect everyone and keep girls' sports fair. Both ideals are essential," Trump wrote.Loyal MAGA fans expressed their outrage in response to the first lady's comments."What is ideal about men claiming they can become women? What in that do you actually support?" User Debbie, who self-describes as "MAGA," wrote on X."I support the trans community getting the mental health treatment they need to recognize they are not members of the opposite sex," Matt Van Swol, a MAGA commentator and former nuclear scientist for the U.S. Department of Energy with more than 527,000 followers, wrote on X."Wrong," the account The Waitress, which frequently posts MAGA-related content, wrote on X."Respectfully, I don’t want my FLOTUS to support a community of people with a severe mental illness. They need God, and mental help," user JJ, who self-describes as "MAGA" and "America First," wrote on X."I’m thoroughly disappointed with this post. LGTBQ+ (sic) (alphabet soup) is an Anti-God movement. Sorry to say, but I’ve lost respect," user Lori Smith, who self-identifies as a "small business owner" and often shares Trump-related content, wrote on X.
Almost half of states do not prohibit trans girls and women from competing. The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t force them to, but lawmakers and voters could change that.
For years, America’s immigration policy has been determined less by the elected branches of government than by a handful of federal district judges. Presidents proposed policies, Congress enacted statutes, and almost inevitably, a single judge somewhere in the country would issue an order purporting to suspend those policies nationwide.That era may finally be drawing to a close.Federal judges possess neither the democratic legitimacy of Congress nor the political accountability of the president.The Supreme Court’s two immigration decisions issued last week mark an important turning point — not simply because they uphold significant Trump administration immigration policies, but because they reaffirm a more fundamental constitutional principle: Immigration policy belongs primarily to the political branches, not the judiciary.The court’s decisions addressed different questions: Mullin v. Doe concerned the executive’s authority over Temporary Protected Status, while Mullin v. Al Otro Lado involved the government’s ability to regulate when and how aliens arriving at the border may invoke asylum procedures.Both opinions reject the increasingly common assumption that federal judges may freely substitute their policy preferences for those of Congress and the president in matters of immigration.That conclusion should surprise no one familiar with the Constitution or with the current court’s commitment to adhere to its original meaning.Article I gives Congress authority over naturalization and immigration. Article II charges the president with faithfully executing the immigration laws and conducting the nation’s foreign affairs. The judiciary’s role is different. Courts are supposed to resolve concrete legal disputes — not make immigration policy. For too long, however, that distinction has been blurred.Beginning during the first Trump administration and accelerating in recent years, nationwide injunctions or nationwide class actions have become the preferred weapon of litigants seeking to defeat executive policies with which they disagree. A single district judge can effectively veto the actions of the elected branches for the entire nation, often within days of a complaint being filed and long before appellate review. Nothing in the Constitution contemplates such extraordinary judicial power.Federal judges possess neither the democratic legitimacy of Congress nor the political accountability of the president. Their authority extends only to deciding the cases before them and granting relief necessary to protect the specific parties before the court. They were never intended to function as a continuing supervisory council over every major policy dispute in the country. Last week’s decisions reflect a welcome recognition of that important constitutional principle.Immigration, perhaps more than any other area of law, requires political judgment. Decisions concerning border security, humanitarian protection, foreign relations, labor markets, and national sovereignty inevitably involve competing policy considerations that courts are poorly equipped — and constitutionally unauthorized — to balance.RELATED: Trump should force Congress to pass the SAVE America Act — now Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesReasonable people may disagree about how policy judgments in the area of immigration should be resolved. Americans have long debated the proper scope of asylum protections, the wisdom of Temporary Protected Status, and the best means of securing the southern border.But under our constitutional system, such decisions are supposed to occur in Congress, at the White House, and ultimately at the ballot box — not through nationwide decrees issued by unelected trial judges.Critics will undoubtedly portray the Supreme Court’s two rulings as victories for one political party or another. That misses the larger point. The real winner is the constitutional separation of powers.When courts respect the limits of judicial authority, they strengthen rather than weaken the rule of law. Judicial modesty is not judicial abdication. Courts remain fully empowered to decide actual cases, interpret statutes, and enforce constitutional guarantees. What they are not empowered to do is assume responsibility for making national immigration policy, a distinction that protects everyone.The precedents the Supreme Court established will not apply only to Republican presidents or conservative policies. They will constrain future courts considering the actions of Democrat administrations as well. Constitutional principles endure precisely because they are not dependent upon agreement with the policy of the moment.The framers deliberately divided governmental power among three separate branches because concentrated power is dangerous regardless of who exercises it.
