Even Sotomayor bewildered by Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissenting opinion



A Clinton judge slapped the Trump administration with an injunction on May 22, blocking the president's Feb. 11 executive order aimed at "eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity" and barring 20 executive-branch entities and "any other individuals acting under their authority or the authority of the president" from executing any mass layoffs.

The U.S. Supreme Court gave the administration a big win on Tuesday with an 8-1 order in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees pausing U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston's injunction. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter.

Conservative justices appear to have dropped the pretense that former President Joe Biden's DEI appointee knows what she is talking about.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for instance, suggested in Trump v. CASA Inc. that the arguments in Jackson's dissenting opinion were not tethered "to any doctrine whatsoever" and were "at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself." Barrett also knocked Jackson for her simultaneous critique of an "imperial Executive" and embrace of "an imperial Judiciary."

This time around, the deepest cut against Jackson came from fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who intimated her colleague may have misunderstood the assignment.

In her lone dissenting opinion in AFGE, Jackson picked up where she left off in CASA — insinuating that the president was some sort of power-hungry menace and that those on the bench who failed to stop his "wrecking ball" were sycophantic enablers whose decision was both "hubristic and senseless."

RELATED: Justice Amy Coney Barrett humiliates Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over her apparent ignorance of American law

  Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images

Jackson claimed at the outset of her 15-page opinion that the Clinton judge's injunction — supposedly a "temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo" — was "no match for this Court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture."

"This Court lacks the capacity to fully evaluate, much less responsibly override, reasoned lower court factfinding about what this challenged executive action actually entails," continued Jackson.

She asserted that the high court's decision not to leave "well enough alone" would ultimately "allow an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government to continue apace, causing irreparable harm before courts can determine whether the President has the authority to engage in the actions he proposes."

"This was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground," wrote Jackson.

Sotomayor volunteered a one-paragraph concurring opinion in AFGE to point out the issue with Jackson's long-winded line of attack, namely that the court was not considering the legality of the Trump administration's specific plans.

RELATED: Supreme Court gives Trump major victory on mass federal layoffs

  Photo by JACQUELYN MARTIN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

After signaling agreement that "the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates," Sotomayor noted that Trump's executive order explicitly directs agencies "to plan reorganizations and reductions in force 'consistent with applicable law' ... and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much."

'I'm doing my best work.'

"The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage," continued Sotomayor, "and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law."

Sotomayor was here echoing the court's unsigned opinion, which stated, "We express no view on the legality of any Agency [reduction in force] and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum."

"Imagine how much of a drag it must be to have the DEI justice embarrassing your side," Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said of Sotomayor's response.

Sean Davis, CEO of the Federalist, noted, "I don't know what happened behind closed doors in the Supreme Court over the last month, but it seems like everyone has had more than enough of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nonsense."

"I think I am aware that people are watching," Jackson told ABC News' Linsey Davis in an interview on Saturday. "They want to know how I am going to perform in this job and in this environment, and so I'm doing my best work as well as I can do because I want people to see and know that I can do anything just like anyone else."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Colorado Christian Camp Wins Legal Victory Against State’s Radical Transgender Rules

Camp IdRaHaJe can continue its work in alignment with its Christian stance on biological sex, but Colorado is still pushing trans ideology.

Justice Alito issues reminder of what SCOTUS must do, even if unpopular



Unlike certain recent additions to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito has consistently delivered for God-fearing conservatives and constitutionalists.

This consistency and Alito's resistance to the fads of the day have made him a popular target for Democratic lawmakers and other radical leftists, along with their fellow travelers in the liberal media.

Democrats including Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) have, for instance, pressured Alito to recuse himself from cases of consequence. Other Democrats, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), have painted a target on his back, calling him a "threat to our democracy." Liberal publications such as the New York Times and ProPublica have pushed false narratives framing him as an extremist or at the very least as unethical. A false-flagger who helped the Lincoln Project stage a fake white supremacist rally in 2021 futilely tried to catch Alito saying something damning on tape. A radical even allegedly threatened to assassinate him last year.

Alito underscored in his recent interview with Peter Robinson, host of the Hoover Institution's "Uncommon Knowledge," that the judiciary has a responsibility to resist possession by the zeitgeist and to do what is right, even if unpopular.

In 2022, Alito gave a speech in Rome at a religious liberty summit convened by the Religious Liberty Initiative of the University of Notre Dame's law school, where he underscored that religious liberty is far more than just "freedom of worship."

'Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.'

"Freedom of worship means freedom to do these things that you like to do in the privacy of your home, or in your church or your synagogue or your mosque or your temple. But when you step outside into the public square, in the light of day, you had better behave yourself like a good secular citizen," said the conservative justice. "That's the problem that we face."

RELATED: American de-Christianization: Why it's happening and what it will mean for the republic

 Photo by VCG Wilson/Corbis via Getty Images

When asked in the interview published Wednesday to expound on his suggestion in the Rome speech, Alito told Robinson, "I think it is the problem that we face because support for religious liberty, unfortunately, has cratered in the last 20, 25 years."

After Alito raised the matter of how the U.S. Constitution singles out religion and gives it protection that is not similarly afforded to views that are not religiously based, Robinson said, "I can't remember who it was who said that it's fair to expect the judicial system to ignore the politics of the day but naive to expect the judicial system to remain unaffected by the politics of the era — something like that. And if public support for religion, public practice of religion — if the support, as you just said, is 'cratering' — what can the court do over the long term?"

Alito indicated that the Constitution wouldn't turn on a faithful minority just because the majority turned on faith.

"There's a reason why we're not elected. We are not supposed to do what is popular. We're supposed to do what is right," said Alito. "We're supposed to interpret the Constitution and figure out what it means, and then apply the Constitution. That's the purpose of this institution, the core purpose of this institution."

RELATED: Secularists think they won at the Supreme Court — but they’ll lose in the end

 Photo by CHIP SOMODEVILLA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

While suggesting that America is "basically a democratic country," Alito noted that the Framers, wary of the mob and its impulses, applied "some restraint on things that people might do."

James Madison was among the Founding Fathers aware of the need for checks on the mob, noting in Federalist No. 55 that "passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."

In Federalist No. 51, Madison discussed how the republican government could serve as a check on the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the "rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority."

"We have to stand firm on this, and I think we have done a pretty good job on it," said Alito, "but we have to keep it up because challenges ... will continue to come."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Here’s A Rundown Of The Court Fights The Trump Administration Has Won So Far

The Trump administration has seen some significant wins in addition to many constitutionally untethered rulings.

Lawfare wins again: Judge stops Trump from punishing Mueller-linked firm



President Donald Trump has attempted to deny special privileges to elite law firms directly or peripherally involved in the lawfare waged against him and his allies in recent years. Federal judges have sided with the law firms on every occasion, including on Tuesday in the case of a firm that long employed former special counsel and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

District Judge Richard Leon ruled that the president's order to deny security clearances and government contracts to WilmerHale was "unconstitutional" and "must be struck down in its entirety."

White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said in a statement to Blaze News, "The decision to grant any individual access to this nation’s secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the president."

'My Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms.'

"Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the president's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority," added Harrison.
 

Trump has taken aim in recent months at a number of law firms he reckons cannot be trusted with security clearances and whose "egregious conduct" disqualifies them from receiving taxpayer funds or contracts from the federal government.

After targeting Perkins Coie and the law firm Covington & Burling, Trump issued an executive order on March 27 directing Attorney General Pam Bondi, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and other relevant agency heads to take all lawful measures to suspend active security clearances held by individuals at WilmerHale.

RELATED: Libs previously silent on Dem lawfare decry Trump terminating 'dishonest' law firms' security clearances

  Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Image

In addition to directing the Office of Management and Budget to ensure WilmerHale was not leeching off government resources, Trump ordered federal agency heads to terminate any contracts with the firm "to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law."

"My Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called 'Big Law' firms, that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests," wrote Trump. "Many firms take actions that threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles."

'It likely violates multiple foundational safeguards enshrined in the Bill of Rights.'

Trump suggested that WilmerHale, specifically, "engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race, backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders, and furthers the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote."

The president hinted that there was a personal aspect to his animus toward WilmerHale, noting that the firm "rewarded" and welcomed Robert Mueller to the firm after he "wielded the power of the Federal Government to lead one of the most partisan investigations in American history."

The firm, represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, sued the Trump administration on March 28, calling the executive order both an "unprecedented assault" on the right to counsel and an "undisguised form of retaliation for representing clients and causes he disfavors or employing lawyers he dislikes."

"These 'personal vendetta[s]' are so facially improper that the first court to address the merits of one of these orders concluded that it likely violates multiple foundational safeguards enshrined in the Bill of Rights," said the firm's complaint.

Clement stated at the time of filing, "This litigation is not political. It is about protecting the fundamental independence of the bar."

RELATED: Obama judge permanently blocks Trump order against Perkins Coie law firm in scathing ruling that quotes Shakespeare

  Photographer: Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Judge Leon, who made liberal use of exclamation marks throughout his ruling, claimed that the provisions in Trump's order "constitute a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech!"

"The Order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!" wrote Leon.

"This is the President, in essence, wielding the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the State to punish and suppress WilmerHale's advocacy," he continued.

The judge ultimately issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the order, claiming that "to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!"

Leon's decision is the latest in an unbroken series of similar rulings in favor of law firms that Trump has accused of engaging in "egregious conduct" of a disqualifying nature.

Anjan Sahni, the firm's managing partner, said in a message to alumni, "This is a significant victory — not only for our firm and our clients, but also for the rule of law."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump judge kills Biden requirement that employers accommodate workers' efforts to abort their unborn children



A federal judge killed a controversial Biden Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rule and guidance on Wednesday that both required employers to provide paid leave and other accommodations to employees seeking abortion and restricted their ability to take adverse employment actions against employees' who demanded such accommodations.

U.S. District Judge David Joseph of the Western District of Louisiana, a Trump appointee, ruled that the EEOC "exceeded its statutory authority" when implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and, "in doing so, both unlawfully expropriated the authority of Congress and encroached upon the sovereignty of the Plaintiff States [Louisiana and Mississippi] under basic principles of federalism."

The ruling was in response to consolidated litigation.

The first case was brought by the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, both of which passed near-total abortion bans in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision, on May 13, 2024. The states argued that the Biden regulation violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution.

The second case was filed later that month by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Catholic University of America, and two Catholic dioceses. The plaintiffs argued that the rule not only exceeded congressional authority but required them to knowingly violate their sincerely held beliefs about the "moral evil" of abortion by abetting their employees' efforts to kill their unborn children.

Timothy Broglio, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, noted in an op-ed last May that the original PWFA passed in 2022 was cause for celebration as its "purpose was laudable and obvious: to expand protections for pregnant women in the workplace."

'States have many legitimate interests in regulating abortion, including "respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development."'

Broglio noted, however, that the Biden EEOC "subverted the law's noble goal by turning it into an abortion-accommodation mandate. That is unjust and illegal."

Louisiana and Mississippi similarly suggested the PWFA had been hijacked, noting the Biden EEOC's "Final Rule not only runs roughshod over the PWFA's text, but also runs afoul of Dobbs."

RELATED: Fertility clinic bombing suspect declared war on 'pro-lifers' in alleged manifesto 

  Guy Edward Bartkus. Image Source: FBI. American Reproductive Centers. Photo by GABRIEL OSORIO/AFP via Getty Images

"There, the Supreme Court expressly recognized that the States have many legitimate interests in regulating abortion, including 'respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development,'" the states said in their original complaint. "But the Final Rule contravenes Dobbs by requiring the Plaintiff States to accommodate the very types of abortions that they have chosen, in their sovereign capacities, to proscribe — or else face federal lawsuits for money damages and injunctive relief."

In June, Judge Joseph consolidated the cases and enjoined the EEOC from enforcing its abortion mandate against the Catholic plaintiffs as well as employers located in the two red states.

Joseph torpedoed the abortion accommodation and ordered that any implementing regulations or guidance requiring or suggesting to employees that they are required to provide employees with accommodation for purely elective abortions "are also hereby VACATED and immediately without effect."

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill celebrated the ruling, calling it a "win for Louisiana and for life!"

"This court's decision to deny workers reasonable accommodations for abortion-related needs is part of a broader attack on women's rights and reproductive freedom," said Inimai Chettiar, president of A Better Balance, a liberal activist group that previously opposed President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominees and championed the passage of the regulation. "This court's sudden decision to rewrite those regulations upends workers' and employers' understanding of and reliance on settled precedent."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Wisconsin judge facing 6 years over illegal alien debacle turns to SCOTUS' Trump ruling to avoid consequence



Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury Tuesday on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law. Dugan — who could land up to six years in prison if convicted for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery, get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — pleaded not guilty during her arraignment in federal court on Thursday.

Dugan's attorneys appear to think that the U.S. Supreme Court has provided her with the means to dodge accountability.

They noted in a Wednesday motion to dismiss the indictment obtained by Axios that "the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts. Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset."

Here, attorneys cited the Supreme Court's July 1, 2024, ruling in Trump v. United States, where a 6-3 majority determined that the president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."

This is the ruling that prompted apoplexy among Democrats, demands for conservative justices to be impeached, and accusations that the high court was "consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control."

RELATED: Despite Democrat hysteria, Wisconsin judge accused of thwarting ICE faces 6 years in prison after grand jury indictment

 Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Dugan's attorneys noted that even if "Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution," adding that "judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally."

'Unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.'

The apparent suggestion is that the following actions, which the indictment accuses her of taking, were official acts:

  • Confronting members of an ICE task force and "falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.";
  • Directing all members of the task force to leave the public hallway outside her courtroom and to go to the chief judge's office;
  • Addressing the illegal alien's criminal case off the record while ICE agents were waiting in the chief judge's office;
  • "Directing E.F.R. and his counsel to exit Courtroom 615 through a non-public jury door"; and
  • Advising Flores-Ruiz's lawyer that the illegal alien could appear by Zoom for his next court date.

In Trump v. United States, the high court wrote:

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a "highly intrusive" inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose.

Dugan's attorneys further argued on the basis of this specific assertion by the high court that the Wisconsin judge's "subjective motivations are irrelevant to immunity."

RELATED: Dems condemn Trump admin over arrest of judge who allegedly helped illegal alien escape: 'A red line'

 Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

"The government's prosecution of Judge Dugan is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional," wrote the attorneys. "Judge Dugan reserves her right to seek other relief, including by other motions before and at trial. But the immunity and federalism issues must be resolved swiftly because the government has no basis in law to prosecute her."

When asked about the use of the Supreme Court's ruling in this case, Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told Blaze News, "I don't think the analogy is appropriate in this case," adding, "the dispute is going to be whether she acted in her capacity as a judge."

"The government's response is going to be, 'What you did has nothing to do with judicial decision-making, the management of your court room. You went out; you interfered with federal law enforcement; you came back in, and ushered people out of the courtroom in a way to obstruct justice that had nothing to do with your so-called management in the courtroom,'" continued Fitton. "'This was a crime that was being committed in a courtroom, not by a judge, but by ... a person acting as a citizen, not as a judge.'"

Fitton suggested further that the Trump DOJ would likely appeal a ruling in Dugan's favor, in part due to the administration's "seriousness about protecting their agents and the public from these illegal alien criminals" and the possible emboldening impact such a ruling might have on other activist judges.

"It doesn't matter what line of work you are in. If you break the law, we will follow the facts, and we will prosecute you," Attorney General Pam Bondi said of the case last month.

Dugan, relieved of her duties as a judge last month by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, is next expected in court on July 9. Her trial is reportedly set for July 21.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman will preside over Dugan's case. That's likely good news for Dugan, as the Democratic lawmaker turned Clinton appointee has made no secret of his animus toward President Donald Trump and Republicans.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Federal judge rules Trump cannot use Alien Enemies Act to deport Tren de Aragua terrorists: 'Unlawful'



President Donald Trump issued a proclamation on March 15 invoking the Alien Enemies Act and declaring that Tren de Aragua is "a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization" aligned with the Venezuelan Maduro regime that "is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States."

"I proclaim that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies," added Trump.

A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump's invocation of the AEA through the proclamation was "unlawful" and barred the Trump administration from using it against Venezuelan aliens in the court's judicial district.

The administration deported at least 137 Venezuelan aliens under the law on March 15.

'The Proclamation does not suggest that they have done so through an organized armed attack.'

While claiming at the outset that neither "the Court nor the parties question the Executive Branch's authority and responsibility to enforce federal laws," U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. appears to have done just that.

The judge indicated that Trump's March 15 proclamation satisfactorily placed responsibility for Tren de Aragua's actions in the U.S. on the Venezuelan government — precluding the need to determine whether the terrorist gang represents a foreign nation or government. Rodriguez noted, however, that the activities of the terrorist gang inside the U.S. "do not fall within the plain, ordinary meaning of 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion' for the purposes of the AEA."

While Tren de Aragua terrorists might have illegally entered the nation, "harmed lives in the United States and engage in crime, the Proclamation does not suggest that they have done so through an organized armed attack, or that Venezuela has threatened or attempted such an attack through TdA members," wrote the judge.

Rodriguez concluded that "the historical record renders clear that the President's invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute's claims."

While numerous courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have blocked the Trump administration's deportations under the AEA, Rodriguez is reportedly the first judge to have reached a final decision on the merits.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the lawsuit with the ACLU of Texas to keep suspected foreign terrorists from being deported, celebrated the decision.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement, "Congress never meant for this 18th-century wartime law to be used this way. This is a critically important decision that prevents more people from being sent to the notorious CECOT prison."

Reuters indicated that neither the White House nor the Department of Justice responded to its requests for comment.

On Thursday, Rodriguez also allowed Venezuelans targeted for deportation under the AEA to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the Trump administration, reported WFIN.com.

"The unusual circumstances of this case present a compelling justification to utilize a procedure equivalent to a class action authorized by Rule 23," wrote Rodriguez.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Wisconsin judge accused of helping illegal alien evade ICE relieved of duties



The same day that Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers' Democratic administration issued guidance directing state employees not to immediately cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan allegedly helped a previously deported illegal alien facing three misdemeanor counts of battery get away from ICE.

To the chagrin of Democratic lawmakers and fellow travelers in the judiciary, Dugan was arrested and charged with two federal criminal offenses: obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the U.S. and concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest.

'A judge shall avoid impropriety.'

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued an order Tuesday relieving Dugan of her duties.

"This court is charged in the Wisconsin Constitution with exercising superintending and administrative authority over the courts of this state," said the Badger State's high court. "In the exercise of that constitutional authority and in order to uphold the public's confidence in the courts of this state during the pendency of the criminal proceeding against Judge Dugan, we conclude, on our motion, that it is in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties."

Dugan — who appears to have flouted the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly its requirement that "a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities" — is now barred from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the state until further order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

According to the criminal complaint against Dugan, members of the Milwaukee ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Task Force traveled to the Milwaukee County Courthouse on April 18, 2025, with a warrant to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien from Mexico who was previously deported in 2013.

ICE was aware that Flores-Ruiz was scheduled to attend a hearing in his criminal case overseen by Dugan.

After presenting their identification to courthouse security, ICE agents — accompanied by both FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration agents — were allowed to proceed to the hallway outside Dugan's courtroom where they spoke with the courtroom deputy and agreed that Flores-Ruiz's arrest would take place after the illegal alien's court appearance.

The complaint claims that upon learning from an attorney of ICE's presence, Dugan "became visibly angry, commented that the situation was 'absurd,' left the bench, and entered chambers," while Flores-Ruiz was seated in the gallery of the courtroom.

Dugan and another judge allegedly confronted the immigration agents in the hallway and debated whether they had the appropriate warrant. After disputing the validity of their administrative warrant, Dugan allegedly demanded — across multiple interactions — that the federal agents go speak with the chief judge.

While the second judge led the arrest team away to the chief judge's office, Dugan allegedly looked around the hallway for additional agents, returned to her courtroom, told Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer something to the effect of "come with me," then "forcefully direct[ed]" the duo out the jury door, which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse. Dugan then apparently returned and conducted other hearings on the morning's docket.

'Dugan has committed herself to the rule of law.'

The incident was apparently witnessed by multiple people.

Despite Dugan's alleged obstruction, federal agents were able to apprehend Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse.

Following Dugan's arrest on April 25, Attorney General Pam Bondi noted, "No one is above the law."

The judge's next court appearance is scheduled for May 15. If convicted, Dugan could land up to six years in prison.

Dugan's attorney, former United States Attorney Steven Biskupic, said she will "defend herself vigorously and looks forward to being exonerated," reported ABC News.

"Judge Hannah C. Dugan has committed herself to the rule of law and the principles of due process for her entire career as a lawyer and a judge," stated Biskupic.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump admin appeals ruling granting Associated Press access to 'the President's most intimate spaces'



A federal court granted the Associated Press an injunction Wednesday preventing the Trump administration from excluding it from press events at the White House.

U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ordered White House officials to rescind the denial of the AP's access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other spaces based on the liberal news organization's viewpoints.

"The AP seeks restored eligibility for admission to the press pool and limited-access press events, untainted by an impermissible viewpoint-based exclusion," wrote McFadden.

"That is all the Court orders today: For the Government to put the AP on an equal playing field as similarly situated outlets, despite the AP's use of disfavored terminology," continued the judge. "The Court does not order the Government to grant the AP permanent access to the Oval Office, the East Room, or any other media event. It does not bestow special treatment upon the AP."

The Trump administration is appealing the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

'We're going to keep them out.'

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump directed Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum to "take all appropriate actions to rename as the 'Gulf of America' the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico."

Trump celebrated the name change by declaring Feb. 9 the first ever Gulf of America Day.

Despite the U.S. government's renaming of the body of water, the AP persisted in calling it the "Gulf of Mexico" both in its reporting and in its style guide, which is used by journalists around the world.

This armchair subversion did not go over well with the Trump White House.

Blaze News previously reported that Trump told reporters when asked about restrictions on the AP, "We're going to keep them out until such time that they agree that it's the Gulf of America."

'It also exposes the Associated Press' commitment to misinformation.'

Trump also took shots at "The Associated Press Stylebook," noting, "I do think that some of the phrases they want to use are ridiculous, and I think, frankly, they’ve become obsolete, especially in the last three weeks."

According to court documents, Leavitt told AP chief White House correspondent Zeke Miller on Feb. 11 that "at President Trump's direction, the AP would no longer be permitted in the Oval Office as part of the press pool until and unless the AP revised its Stylebook."

Days later Leavitt noted that the AP was "not invited" to the Oval Office to cover Trump signing a pair of executive orders. Sure enough, AP journalists found themselves barred from other numerous events.

'It does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces.'

When the AP complained, White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich stated, "The Associated Press continues to ignore the lawful geographic name change of the Gulf of America. This decision is not just divisive, but it also exposes the Associated Press' commitment to misinformation."

While there are plenty of examples, Budowich's allusion to "misinformation" may be in reference to the AP's

  • false report about an explosion that took place Oct. 7, 2023, outside the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, which it blamed on Israel as opposed to the Islamic terrorists responsible;
  • false report claiming that U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin "very good friends";
  • deceptive framing of Vice President JD Vance's speech concerning a Georgia school shooting;
  • false election-time claim about Project 2025 being the "Republican blueprint for a second Trump term in the White House"; or
  • its false report that Russia fired a missile into Poland.

"While their right to irresponsible and dishonest reporting is protected by the First Amendment, it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces, like the Oval Office and Air Force One," continued Budowich. "Going forward, that space will now be opened up to the many thousands of reporters who have been barred from covering these intimate areas of the administration."

The AP filed a lawsuit against Trump administration officials on Feb. 21 accusing Budowich, Leavitt, and chief of staff Susie Wiles of "coercing journalists to report the news using only government-approved language."

The lawsuit proved successful.

McFadden noted in his ruling Wednesday that while he was granting the AP its requested injunction, it "does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events."

"It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces," continued the judge. "It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views."

Lauren Easton, a spokeswoman for the AP, stated, "We are gratified by the court's decision."

"Today's ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution," added Easton.

The Trump administration has requested a stay of the injunction pending the outcome of its appeal.

An attorney for the government noted in a court motion Thursday that McFadden's injunction "constitutes an unprecedented intrusion into Executive authority."

"For the first time in history, and inconsistent with D.C. Circuit precedent ... a court issued an order to control access to the President's most intimate spaces: his personal workspace (the Oval Office), his means of transportation (Air Force One), and his personal home (the Mar-a-Lago Club)," wrote U.S. Attorney Brian Hudak.

Hudak further noted that the government has not restricted the AP's speech, just denied it "special access to the president's personal and private spaces."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!