Warnock’s ‘Violence’ Smears Against SCOTUS Invite More Leftist Attacks On Its Justices
Leftists will continue to vilify the Supreme Court and mischaracterize its work because they believe doing so will get them what they want: power.Leftists will continue to vilify the Supreme Court and mischaracterize its work because they believe doing so will get them what they want: power.Supreme Court justice SWATTED
Online reports indicate that a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court was the victim of a swatting incident on Wednesday evening.
A recording posted by a self-identified Washington, D.C., photographer purportedly documents a police dispatcher ordering a police response to the home of a "high-priority resident of the county."
'The proper response will be putting the offender in prison for many, many years.'
The dispatcher informs the officer that personnel have been unable to call the complainant back, indicating that it may be a swatting incident.
"Units responding to suspicious noise. Be advised, we have not been able to get an answer on call back to the complainant's phone number. Unknown if it's going to be a swatting situation," she says.
"Just made contact with security that's on scene," a male officer says. "They should be outside in an Explorer. He said he hasn't heard anything. We're just going to meet up with him first, just to go over anything."
The photographer reported that the victim of the swatting incident was Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded to the report but did not appear to confirm it.
"Swatting is an attempt to get an innocent person killed — in this case, a sitting Supreme Court Justice," he wrote. "The proper response will be putting the offender in prison for many, many years."
The Fairfax County Police Department confirmed to Blaze News in an email on Thursday that officers had responded to a swatting incident at the home of a SCOTUS justice but did not identify the justice by name:
Yesterday evening at approximately 9:02 p.m., officers responded to a swatting call at the residence of U.S. Supreme Court justice in Fairfax County.
The call was received through the department’s non-emergency line. Officers immediately coordinated with Supreme Court Police personnel assigned to the residence and quickly determined that the report was fictitious. No additional police resources were utilized.
The SCOTUS public information officer did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Barrett was nominated to the court by President Donald Trump in 2020 during his first term in office.
RELATED: Man who tried to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh identifies as transgender, new docs show
After the president won his second election, members nominated to his Cabinet reported being the victims of swatting incidents in Nov. 2024.
"The FBI is aware of numerous bomb threats and swatting incidents targeting incoming administration nominees and appointees, and we are working with our law enforcement partners," read a statement from the Federal Bureau of Investigation at the time.
This is a developing story.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Barrett Torches Jackson’s ‘Perplexing’ Solo Dissent In SCOTUS Conviction Case
'Betraying the weakness of its criticism, the dissent leans on a source that offers no support,' Justice Barrett wrote.Trump Scores SCOTUS Win In Battle Over Immigration Judges’ ‘Work-Related Speech’
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with the Trump administration on Monday in a dispute involving its policy regulating immigration judges’ “work-related speech.” In its per curiam opinion, the high court vacated and remanded a decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that centered around the government’s rules governing the executive’s immigration courts. The […]Trump’s Supreme Court keeps finding ways to fail his voters
Fifteen months into Donald Trump’s second administration, and after repeated Supreme Court rulings affirming ICE’s authority to detain and deport illegal aliens, lower courts still overrule immigration law every week. The Supreme Court shows little urgency in stopping them.
Yet when a lower court finally follows the law and rules against the Department of Health and Human Services’ approval of a dangerous abortion drug by mail, the Supreme Court suddenly rediscovers its appetite for emergency intervention. Welcome to the vaunted 6-3 conservative majority, now better understood as a 7-2 majority against most conservative priorities — and against the court’s own recent precedents.
The so-called conservative majority increasingly looks like a bloc that exists to disappoint conservatives more politely than the left would.
We finally found a case in which the justices were eager to stay a lower-court injunction against a political policy. Last week, the Supreme Court paused a Fifth Circuit injunction against mail-order and telehealth access to the abortion drug mifepristone. The expansion of mifepristone to mail distribution was plainly unlawful, yet only Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have left the injunction in place.
That tells you a great deal.
They’re becoming so predictable
Start with the legal question, then consider the political implications and the court’s larger hypocrisy.
In 2023, several doctors opposed to abortion on moral and religious grounds challenged the FDA’s original 2000 approval of mifepristone. They argued that the agency had unlawfully approved the drug under Subpart H regulations meant for serious or life-threatening illnesses, on the absurd premise that pregnancy is an illness.
They also argued that the Biden administration’s later expansion of the drug to mail-order use and prescription without an in-person visit violated the Comstock Act. The statute explicitly bars mailing any “drug ... for producing abortion” and makes it a felony to use “any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service” to ship “any drug ... designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.”
After the doctors won in a Texas district court and secured a partial victory in the Fifth Circuit against the mail-order expansion, the Supreme Court reversed and tossed the claim.
More recently, the Fifth Circuit sided with Louisiana in a separate challenge to mifepristone. The state argued that the entire mail-order abortion-pill regime violates Dobbs, which returned authority over abortion to the states. Under the FDA’s policy, a resident of a state such as Louisiana can still receive abortion pills in the mail even though abortion is banned there.
RELATED: Conservative SCOTUS justice restores access to abortion drug — for now
By staying that injunction last week, the three Trump appointees made one thing painfully clear: They will overrule conservative lower courts even when the law and recent Supreme Court precedent are on the conservatives’ side.
This is the classic Republican move: one step forward, one giant leap backward.
Thomas and Alito stand fast
Planned Parenthood may be on the ropes in some states, but Trump’s own administration sided with the abortion lobby to preserve Biden’s expansion of the abortion pill. That dangerous drug has made Dobbs functionally hollow by turning every mailbox into an abortion mill. By 2023, 63% of all abortions were already chemical abortions, and that number has almost certainly risen since.
Republicans cannot celebrate the Dobbs decision while refusing to fight mifepristone. In Trump’s case, his administration is not merely refusing to fight. It is siding with the abortion industry. What they call “pro-life” politics is a gross exercise in sophistry and perfidy.
Then comes the broader hypocrisy of the Republican appointees, with Thomas and Alito the lone exceptions.
For the past 15 months, liberal district and circuit judges have nullified immigration law, invented new rights and due-process claims for illegal aliens, and ignored Supreme Court precedent. Yet the high court shows no comparable eagerness to slap them down.
Nearly every day, lower courts order ICE to release criminal aliens on bond, even though Jennings v. Rodriguez made clear that such claims violate the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Supreme Court stayed some injunctions against Trump’s cancellation of Temporary Protected Status for certain nationalities, but it has refused to issue a categorical ruling that would end the lower-court cat-and-mouse game. Earlier this month, another federal judge still managed to block Trump’s cancellation of TPS for Yemeni nationals.
The worst example may have come earlier this month, when U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick ruled against Trump’s travel ban, absurdly suggesting that the murder of a National Guardsman by an Afghan national was not enough reason to stop visas from similar countries. But Trump v. Hawaii already held that the plain language of the INA allows the president to suspend visas from any country whenever he deems it in the national interest. Courts are not supposed to second-guess that determination.
This ‘conservative’ court?
The same pattern holds elsewhere. The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled last month that the president must accept asylum claims at the border, despite his clear authority under Section 212(f) of the INA to suspend entry. Yet none of these lower-court judges gets the Fifth Circuit treatment.
The same goes for guns. After the Bruen decision, blue states still restrict where common firearms may be carried and what magazines may be owned, in plain defiance of the requirement that modern gun regulations align with the nation’s historical tradition. The Supreme Court refused to hear challenges to Maryland’s ban on common semiautomatic rifles and Rhode Island’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
In both cases, Gorsuch joined Thomas and Alito in dissent. Kavanaugh and Barrett said nothing.
RELATED: Funding is useless if Democrat judges can still hold ICE hostage
Remember the Harvard affirmative-action ruling that was supposed to end race-based admissions? Discrimination remains rampant, and lower courts keep blessing open bias against white and Asian students. In a 2024 dissent from denial of certiorari, Alito — joined, of course, only by Thomas — warned that the court had “twice refused to correct a glaring constitutional error that threatens to perpetuate race-based affirmative action in defiance of Students for Fair Admissions.”
No meaningful follow-up has come since.
So what, exactly, is conservative about this court? What is it trying to conserve?
It is not defending the rule of law. It is not disciplining rogue lower courts. It is not protecting states’ authority on abortion, border security, gun rights, or equal protection.
Thomas and Alito still understand the assignment. The rest of the so-called conservative majority increasingly looks like a bloc that exists to disappoint conservatives more politely than the left would.
SCOTUS drops landmark 9-0 ruling impacting semi-truck crash victims
The Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday in a high-stakes trucking case that impacts the legal recourse available to crash victims and their families.
Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II involved a December 2017 collision between two semi-trucks: one operated by the plaintiff, Shawn Montgomery, and the other by an individual employed by Caribe Transport II, a small motor carrier hired by freight broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide.
‘Today’s unanimous decision is a landmark victory for road safety and for every family that has suffered the devastating consequences of negligent freight brokering practices.’
While parked on the shoulder of an interstate highway in Illinois, Montgomery claimed his truck was rear-ended at high speed, causing severe and permanent injuries, including the amputation of his leg. Montgomery filed his lawsuit against the driver, the carrier, and the freight broker. He accused C.H. Robinson of “negligent hiring,” citing Illinois common law.
C.H. Robinson argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act pre-empted Montgomery’s claim. A spokesperson for the company previously told Blaze News that “a single, uniform federal framework” is vital for road safety, while “a patchwork of state tort laws” would ultimately “undermine that system.”
The issue before SCOTUS was whether the FAAAA pre-emption provision blocks state common-law claims against freight brokers for negligently hiring unsafe trucking carriers or whether such claims are saved under the statute’s safety exception that preserves state authority.
After hearing oral arguments in the case two months ago, SCOTUS unanimously sided with Montgomery on Thursday, determining that C.H. Robinson’s counterargument was “unpersuasive” and that the FAAAA does not pre-empt state common-law negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers.
“Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim thus falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption,” SCOTUS’ majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, reads.
“Even if the FAAAA otherwise preempts Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim against C.H. Robinson, the safety exception saves it. The relevant text provides that the FAAAA’s preemption provision ‘shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles,’” it continues.
Rena Leizerman, from the Law Firm for Truck Safety and co-counsel for Montgomery, told Blaze News, “Today’s unanimous decision is a landmark victory for road safety and for every family that has suffered the devastating consequences of negligent freight brokering practices. The Court reaffirmed that bad actors cannot escape responsibility for the harm they cause.”
C.H. Robinson stated that it is “disappointed” with SCOTUS’ 9-0 decision.
“Our hearts continue to go out to the victims of truck accidents,” Dorothy Capers, chief legal officer at C.H. Robinson, said in a statement provided to Blaze News. “Safety is foundational to who we are — our employees and their families travel these same roads, and our business depends on safe freight delivery. While we are disappointed in the Court’s decision, we will continue to operate responsibly, support stronger federal enforcement, and work constructively with regulators, carriers, and customers to strengthen the national safety system and support safe, reliable transportation across the country.”
“As Justices Kavanaugh and Alito stated in the concurrence, ‘Importantly, the Court’s decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents,’” Capers said, quoting a concurring opinion from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito.
American Truckers United, which previously filed an amicus brief supporting Montgomery, stated that it is “profoundly grateful to God for this miracle,” calling the ruling “a major victory for hardworking American truck drivers and the communities they serve.”
“This ruling clearly recognizes that highway safety demands full accountability from every participant on our nation’s roadways,” the ATU said in a statement provided to Blaze News. “For years, an unfair ecosystem was allowed to flourish because certain profiteers operated behind a shield of presumed immunity. This imbalance pitted Main Street trucking companies against Wall Street freight brokers, undermining fair competition, costing countless American trucking jobs, devastating responsible trucking companies, and contributing to an untold number of preventable deaths on our highways.”
Louie Cook, a lawyer who specializes in brokerage liability, told Blaze News that he is “grateful” for the high court’s decision, stating that it will “act as a safeguard to highway safety, critical American infrastructure, and ensure a fair playing field in the transportation industry.”
“This is part of what makes our country special, that one man named Shawn Montgomery through conviction of right and wrong can make the world a better place,” Cook said. “This ruling means that families all across the country will finally have the opportunity to hold the main benefactors of chameleon carriers accountable.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Judge Lagoa Shows How SCOTUS Should Rule On Birthright Citizenship
How might recent Supreme Court decisions have been resolved had Barbara Lagoa been appointed instead of Amy Coney Barrett?By Exploiting Her Kids, WaPo Sinks To New Low In Latest Bullying Campaign Against Justice Barrett
The Post demonstrated just how low it's willing to go — even if it means dragging a justice's kids into the fray.Journalist exposes explosive insider details of SCOTUS meltdown that almost killed Dobbs: ‘The walls were shaking’
Mollie Hemingway is the editor in chief at the Federalist and is known for her in-depth reporting on the Supreme Court.
On a recent episode of “Relatable” with Allie Beth Stuckey, Hemingway shared insider information about the wild circumstances leading up to the Dobbs decision — the landmark U.S. case that overturned Roe v. Wade and pushed abortion back to the states — including the Supreme Court justice who threw an epic tantrum behind closed doors.
“Everyone knew that [Roe v. Wade] was a problem. Everyone knew from the moment it was decided,” Hemingway says. “Even people on the left admitted this case, this decision isn’t even trying to be constitutional law. ... But then because the left so greatly wanted to believe that they had a right to kill unborn children, they just moved heaven and earth to keep that decision, even when it shouldn't have really been lasting for one year, much less 50 years.”
When the Court finally decided to hear the long overdue case, five justices were in favor of overturning the ruling. Justice Samuel Alito was assigned by Clarence Thomas to write the majority opinion.
What Alito produced was a “masterpiece work” — so much so that the dissenting judges were “shocked by how exhaustive it was.”
“There was no argument left standing,” Hemingway says.
Three months after the initial distribution, however, Alito’s draft opinion was infamously leaked, igniting a furious uproar among the left.
“We know that immediately the justices faced death threats, serious threats on their lives. They all had to be moved or be under a great deal of protection, increase their security posture,” Hemingway says, “because if any one of them had been killed ... that would have meant that the Dobbs decision would not have been handed down in the way it was. There would no longer have been a majority there.”
Allie and Hemingway speculate that this could have been the sinister intention of the leaker — to either get a justice killed or “gin up” enough outrage to pressure the weaker judges to join the dissent and eliminate the majority.
But none of the majority justices relented, despite the threats on their lives.
After the leak and the subsequent threats, the dissenting justices still hadn’t written their dissent.
“They were delaying the dissemination of this,” Hemingway says.
This was problematic because the majority justices were facing death threats.
“Alito asks if they can wrap it up because left-wing activists have a motivation to kill them, and that’s a concern to the conservative justices, and they wouldn’t,” Hemingway recounts.
Justice Neil Gorsuch requested that the dissenting justices at least give them a date by which they’d have their dissent complete, but they refused.
Justice Stephen Breyer, however, while on the dissenting side, was “the person most likely” to write an opinion that would expedite the process, Hemingway says, because “he was a decent, nice guy who cared about his colleagues.”
“According to my sources, Kagan goes to his chambers and screams at him not to in any way accommodate this request. As one person put it, ‘The walls were shaking,’” Hemingway shares.
Eventually, the dissenting justices relented and agreed to have their dissent ready by June 1.
“Meaning that the [concurring] justices would only have their lives threatened on a continuous day-to-day basis for one month,” Hemingway says.
However, when they finally delivered their dissent, they included a “totally unnecessary” reference to “a New York State rifle decision.”
“So they put that in there just so that they could delay it even further,” Hemingway says, noting that the final Dobbs decision wasn’t released until June 24.
“This is day-to-day attacks on these justices’ lives. You have Amy Coney Barrett having to put on a bulletproof vest in front of her children. You have justices being moved to secure locations or having to greatly increase their security fencing,” she continues, “and it seemed to the justices and their staff that the left-wing justices really didn’t care about what they were going through.”
To hear more of the interview, watch the episode above.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
SCOTUS Weighs Whether US Has To Readmit Green Card Holders Who ‘Committed’ Crimes
Justice Alito posed a hypothetical scenario in which an lawful permanent resident leaves America for France, 'shot somebody' while in France, and then returned to the U.S., questioning whether he must be readmitted.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com