President Donald Trump's nomination of Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Taibleson for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has prompted questions about the extent of her alignment with the administration's conservative values, particularly in light of her and her husband's political donations to Democrats.

Trump's first term was undermined by several appointments that did not fully align with the administration's priorities, leading to setbacks in key legal battles and policy implementation. The president admitted that he received "bad advice ... on numerous Judicial Nominations," expressing that he was "very disappointed" with some of those picks.

'She brings an exceptional legal mind and a firm dedication to interpreting the law as written, not bending it to fit a political agenda.'

Mike Davis, a Trump ally and the founder of Article III Project, stated that the president's second administration would not make that same mistake again and instead would focus on selecting judges who are "even more bold and fearless" and have been "battle-tested."

Trump announced Taibleson's nomination in August, writing in a social media post, "It is my Great Honor to nominate Rebecca Taibleson to serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals, for the Seventh Circuit, in the Great State of Wisconsin. Rebecca brings a wealth of EXPERIENCE AND SUCCESS, from her time as Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and, formerly, as Assistant to the United States Solicitor General."

"Rebecca has learned from some of the BEST and most HIGHLY RESPECTED Legal Minds in the Country, having clerked for United States Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Antonin Scalia. Rebecca will make a fantastic Judge who will fearlessly defend the Constitution, and strongly uphold the Rule of Law. Congratulations Rebecca!" Trump added.

While Taibleson, 42, meets all legal qualifications, having earned her J.D. from Yale Law, her background raises questions about her political leanings. In fact, her conservative critics have been quick to highlight that she and her husband have a history of donating to Democrats.

Roman Martinez, Sarah Pitlyk, Rebecca Taibleson, and Porter Wilkinson, former law clerks for Brett Kavanaugh. Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

Taibleson donated in 2022 to Joe Manchin, a former Democratic senator from West Virginia, through ActBlue, and in 2024 to Bridget Schoenborn, a judge nominated by Democratic Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers. However, she also donated to Mike Gallagher, a former Republican representative, and WINRED in 2016 and 2020, respectively.

Blaze News reached out to Taibleson for comment.

Her husband, Benjamin Taibleson, contributed to Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign against Trump, Kamala Harris' Senate campaign in 2015, and Forrest Dunbar, a Democratic member of the Alaska Senate.

Despite these donations to Democrats and other elements of her record that appear to her conservative critics at odds with the administration's priorities, Davis and the Article III Project have expressed their support for Taibleson.

"President Trump continues to deliver on his promise to appoint bold and fearless judges who will defend the Constitution and uphold the rule of law," Davis said. "His latest nomination of Rebecca Taibleson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is a testament to his unwavering commitment to restoring a judiciary grounded in constitutional principles and judicial restraint. She brings an exceptional legal mind and a firm dedication to interpreting the law as written, not bending it to fit a political agenda."

"As President Trump further reshapes the federal judiciary with judges who understand their role is to interpret the law, not make it, the Article III Project stands ready to support Taibleson through every step of the confirmation process. We are committed to ensuring the American people get the impartial, constitutionally faithful judges they deserve," Davis added.

Justice Antonin Scalia. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Taibleson's conservative supporters have pointed to her experience working as a clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, even advocating for Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination, as proof of her commitment to uphold similar values. However, critics dispute this claim, noting that Scalia was known for hiring counter-clerks, or politically liberal clerks, and that Kavanaugh has been suspected of employing a similar practice.

For example, Department of Justice lawyer Danielle Sassoon opposed Trump's attempt to dismiss charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Law professor Rachel Barkow stated that Trump's "use of the pardon power is part of his effort to put the country on an authoritarian path." Former Judge Michael Luttig described Trump as "a clear and present danger to American democracy." Notably, all four individuals were former clerks for Scalia.

Some of Taibleson's conservative supporters also point to her time with the Solicitor General's office beginning in the first Trump administration. However, she remained on with the Biden administration through 2022, including defending Biden's student loan forgiveness policy in a lawsuit brought by the Brown County Taxpayers Association.

As Taibleson's confirmation process unfolds, various aspects of her record will likely spark ongoing debate about whether she fully embodies the bold constitutionalism Trump has pledged for his judicial nominees, or whether potential misalignments could mirror the challenges faced during his first term.

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

Liberals take to the sea, target Chief Justice Roberts' island home

Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his 2024 year-end report that the independence and legitimacy of federal courts were under attack. While recognizing passionate reactions to judicial rulings as inevitable and strong criticism as occasionally warranted, Roberts underscored that "not all actors engage in 'informed criticism' or anything remotely resembling it."

The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court noted that types of "illegitimate activity" exist which "threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments."

'The media's coverage of events like these are hypocritical to say the least.'

Roberts stressed that "attempts to intimidate need not physically harm judges to threaten judicial independence" and can take the form of visits to judges' homes.

Over the weekend, a flotilla comprising leftist demonstrators paddled to Roberts' summer home on Hupper Island, just off Port Clyde, Maine, to protest the high court's recent rulings.

While the maritime demonstration was relatively unremarkable — mainland geriatrics reportedly griping about the Supreme Court's rulings in Dobbs, President Donald Trump's immunity case, and cases of interest to non-straight activists — it signaled leftists' continued willingness to apply political pressure to justices where they live.

The protest was reportedly organized by Susan MacNeil-Densmore of the Audacity, a leftist group that claims to oppose "fascism, bigotry, and violence in the second age of Trump."

Win McNamee/Getty Images

MacNeil-Densmore told the Midcoast Villager ahead of the maritime demonstration that a federal and local police presence was expected on the island and that protesters were instructed to keep their messaging nonviolent.

However, the statement provided by the kayak crew to the paper engaged in the kind of rhetoric that helped set the stage for the attempts on President Donald Trump's life last year.

'What next, serve him an improperly seasoned lobster roll to underscore your incoherent point?'

"United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts presides over the most right-wing Supreme Court in almost 100 years," the statement reads. "Roberts has delivered the majority vote for President Trump's every dictate, even granting him immunity from prosecution for any crimes he commits while he is the president. The Roberts Court is historically unpopular with the public and violated the United States Constitution; Roberts has been the deciding member of the six justices supporting a far-right political agenda. Now is the time to demand resistance to tyranny from people in positions of power, as we move closer to a dictatorship."

Marie Follayttar Smith, a leftist with the Mainers for Accountable Leadership PAC, characterized the protest as a success and suggested that in addition to protesting outside Roberts' home, fellow leftists could purchase property on the island to establish "a resistance head quarters [sic] by the Chief Justice."

Others mocked the elitism and uselessness of the exercise.

Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice, tweeted, "Lol talk about privilege — kayak-based resort protest. What next, serve him an improperly seasoned lobster roll to underscore your incoherent point?"

John Malcolm, vice president of the Heritage Foundation's Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told Blaze News that the protests "are terrible, likely counterproductive, potentially illegal, and highly dangerous, and the media's coverage of events like these are hypocritical to say the least."

"I say they are terrible because they undermine a sense of civility and respect for the judiciary and the rule of law," Malcolm said. "I say they are likely counterproductive because I seriously doubt it will impact how the justices rule in any case or how they conduct their business. I say it is potentially illegal because, for example, 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a) makes it a crime for anyone who, by means of 'any threatening ... communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any ... officer in or of any court of the United States ... in the discharge of his duty.'"

Title 18, Section 1507, of the U.S. Code could also come into play with regard to protests outside justices' homes, as it states that it is illegal to picket or parade in or near a building housing a U.S. court or occupied by a judge, juror, witness, or court officer "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty."

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Malcolm added that "it is highly dangerous because there are unbalanced people out there who will resort to violence if their more-tame forms of protest are ignored, and, shockingly, there are those who will applaud when that happens."

Malcom referenced the case of Nicholas John Roske, the California man who pleaded guilty on April 8 to traveling from Los Angeles to Montgomery County, Maryland, with the aim of killing Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

When police took Roske into custody and searched his belongings outside Kavanaugh's home on June 8, 2022, they reportedly found a firearm; a tactical knife; two magazines, each containing 10 rounds of ammunition; 17 additional rounds of ammunition; pepper spray; zip ties; and a hammer, a crowbar, and other tools evidently intended for use in the thwarted murder plot.

Whereas the media has largely downplayed, excused, or ignored protests outside the homes of Republican appointees to the high court, Malcolm indicated he had "no doubt if such protests occurred outside the homes of Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, or Jackson, stories covering that would blanket the airwaves, and there would be howls of outrage and self-righteous indignation on the left about the threats to judicial independence that such protests pose."

Roberts, who had protests outside his primary residence last year, emphasized in his annual report, "Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed."

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

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."

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.

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."

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."

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.

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."

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."

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."

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."

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!

Trump’s new judge pick: True constitutionalist or hidden Democrat?

Liberals take to the sea, target Chief Justice Roberts' island home

Even Sotomayor bewildered by Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissenting opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The deadly concoction that made Iryna Zarutska’s murder possible

Unite the kingdom: Tommy Robinson leads historic 100,000-strong march to save Britain

Elon Musk-endorsed Harvard philosopher delivers powerful take on healing America’s political divide

Charlie Kirk’s murder wasn’t just an attack on him — it was an attack on us all

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.