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!

How a Hollywood hairstylist's murder by wife's ex-porn star lover revealed secrets, lust, and desire for life insurance payday



More than eight years have passed since a popular Hollywood hairstylist was stabbed to death on the patio of his home in an affluent San Fernando Valley neighborhood outside Los Angeles, California.

Now a high-profile murder trial has opened — and it has revealed secrets, lust, and a desire for a huge life insurance payday, all stemming from a deadly love triangle.

'Deny everything and don’t talk.'

Celebrity hairstylist Fabio Sementilli, 49, was found bleeding to death on the patio of his Woodland Hills home on Jan. 23, 2017. His 16-year-old daughter Isabella called 911 while trying in vain to save her father.

Sementilli suffered seven sharp force wounds to his face, jawline, chest, neck, arm, and thigh — and his wounds proved fatal.

Initially, police believed the stabbing death was connected to burglars who had committed a string of home thefts in the San Fernando Valley. The bedroom of Sementilli's home was ransacked, and his Porsche was stolen. The vehicle was found abandoned two days after his murder about five miles from the crime scene.

However, detectives noted that the alleged burglars didn't steal the Hollywood hairstylist's $8,000 Rolex watch — it was still on his wrist.

A neighbor's security camera also captured video of two hooded figures running near Sementilli's house around the time of the slaying.

In addition, on the day Fabio Sementilli was murdered, a neighbor's security camera caught his 52-year-old wife, Monica Sementilli, driving her black Ford F-150 pickup truck. Prosecutors said she drove to a Target retail store, and video appeared to show an individual getting into her truck in the parking lot.

Prosecutors accused Monica Sementilli of making a trip to Target to establish her alibi, according to CBS News.

Another man emerges

Detectives discovered that Monica Sementilli had a close relationship with Robert Louis Baker — a former porn star and convicted sex offender.

The pair reportedly met at the West Hills L.A. Fitness, where Baker was a racquetball coach.

Police said Monica Sementilli and Baker were seen together in cars, bars, a comedy club, and on two trips to Las Vegas, as well as an excursion to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

LAPD detectives hatched a plan to secretly listen to Monica and Baker from a van parked near the home she previously shared with her late husband.

With that, police pulled over the pair when Baker was driving Monica's black Ford Mustang GT on June 14, 2017 — less than six months after the murder. Officers allegedly told the couple that the car they were in might have been stolen. Monica and Baker were handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a police cruiser.

But little did the pair know that cops had wired the police vehicle to record their conversation.

Monica was recorded telling Baker, "Somebody must have talked. Somebody is doing this to us."

She also reportedly told him, “Deny everything and don’t talk.”

'Prosecutors have argued that Monica Sementilli "was the mastermind" of the plot to kill her husband, a Canadian hairstylist and executive of the German hair-care giant, Wella.'

The pair was arrested and taken to the LAPD Van Nuys Station for questioning.

On the day of her arrest, a detective told Monica that Baker's blood was found inside her home.

She allegedly said she "cracked" Baker on the finger with a racquet and he bled all over a racquetball court. Monica added that she gave him a towel and then brought that bloody towel home with her.

Investigators allegedly found DNA belonging to Baker at the crime scene. What's more, his DNA already was in a police database because he was a registered sex offender after being convicted for lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor in 1993.

According to prosecutors, Baker cut his left index finger when he killed Fabio.

The Los Angeles Times reported, "In more than 50 days of trial, prosecutors have argued that Monica Sementilli 'was the mastermind' of the plot to kill her husband, a Canadian hairstylist and executive of the German hair-care giant, Wella. Her goal was to pocket $1.6 million in life insurance and avoid the complications of getting a divorce, prosecutors allege."

Prosecutors also pointed out that Monica Sementilli upgraded the security camera system at her home six months before Fabio's brutal murder — but the upgrade allegedly allowed her to remotely access her surveillance cameras from her cell phone.

Prosecutors accused her of forwarding the security camera system's log-in credentials and user manual to Baker on the same day of the upgrade.

At the time Fabio Sementilli was killed, phone records reportedly showed Monica Sementilli's iPhone was connected to her home's IP address and that the phone was consuming a large amount of data consistent with streaming live video.

Prosecutors allege that she was watching live video from her home security cameras.

According to the indictment, detectives discovered thousands of phone calls and text messages exchanged between Monica and the ex-porn star.

During a grand jury hearing in August 2017, friends of Monica Sementilli and Baker testified that they went out on double dates and saw affectionate behavior between the pair.

Baker also allegedly admitted to buying burner phones — one of which was in Monica’s purse when she was arrested in her Ford Mustang GT.

Deputy District Attorney Beth Silverman spotlighted that Monica Sementilli actually used the burner phone during her late husband's funeral proceedings in his hometown of Toronto, Canada.

Baker also allegedly admitted that Monica Sementilli sent him naked photos of herself with her wedding ring still on her finger shortly after her husband's murder.

“Everyone grieves differently,” Baker proclaimed.

At the conclusion of the grand jury hearing, Monica Sementilli and Baker both were indicted for murder and conspiracy, and they both pleaded not guilty to the murder of Fabio Sementilli.

However, Baker on July 7, 2023, changed his plea in connection with the hairstylist's murder from not guilty to no contest.

Baker was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

An alleged accomplice surfaces

Police determined that Christopher Austin, a parole officer in Oregon, was Baker's accomplice in killing Fabio.

Detectives said Baker transferred money between two of his bank accounts for Austin. Baker also bought an airline ticket for Austin to travel from Anchorage, Alaska, to Los Angeles before the slaying, according to the police.

Austin was arrested in October 2024 and then convicted of second-degree murder in connection with his role in the killing.

He is scheduled for sentencing next month and is facing up to 16 years in prison.

Austin said he and Baker had been to Sementilli's house before and knew the layout — and Austin also told the jury that Baker revealed to him a crucial piece of information.

He said Baker "told me ... she is gonna leave the door unlocked," and Austin allegedly testified that he opened the patio door and grabbed Fabio Sementilli by the mouth to muffle any screams while Baker repeatedly stabbed him.

In addition, Austin reportedly told the jury that the hairstylist’s widow “wanted him dead” so she could collect the life insurance payout and avoid a messy divorce.

But Baker testified at Monica Sementilli's trial last week that she had nothing to do with her husband's murder.

“I murdered him because I wanted her,” Baker told jurors in a Los Angeles courtroom. "She had nothing to do with it."

You can view video here of Baker explaining in court why he killed Fabio Sementilli.

Monica Sementilli’s attorney, Blair Berk, said during opening statements that there was no evidence that her client plotted to kill Fabio Sementilli.

"There is no statement, no text, no recorded phone call,” Berk said, adding that Monica Sementilli was “duped into believing that Robert Baker” didn’t do it.

Despite Baker being in prison, the pair reportedly continued to communicate via three-way calls using a third-party number.

"Baker acknowledged that in one secret message sent to him in prison, Monica Sementilli asked him to send her something personal of his," the Los Angeles Times reported. "Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies later seized a toothpaste tube that contained Baker’s semen, and prosecutors say he intended to have it delivered to the defendant."

Monica Sementilli, through her attorneys, has maintained her claim that she had no part in her husband's death.

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

Woke Biden judge blocks Trump ban of transvestites in military, fueling concerns over judicial overreach: 'Lunacy'



Democrat-appointed activist judges appear eager to prevent the democratically elected president from exercising his constitutional authority and realizing his popular agenda.

In the latest instance of judicial overreach, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a Biden-appointed lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy — decided to indefinitely block the implementation of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military, suggesting it likely violated their constitutional rights.

At issue in Talbott v. Trump, a case brought by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is Trump's Jan. 27 executive titled "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness" and the resulting Pentagon guidance.

Trump underscored in his order that the military's policy to establish "high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity" is incompatible with the accommodations sought and health constraints faced by gender-dysphoric individuals.

Trump added that those "expressing a false 'gender identity'" at odds with their actual sex "cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service" and cannot satisfy the soldier's "commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."

The Pentagon's new guidance states:

Military service by Service members and applicants for military service who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service. Service by these individuals is not in the best interests of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security. Individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are no longer eligible for military service.

Reyes, formerly of the Feminist Majority Foundation, acknowledged in her Tuesday ruling that Trump has the "power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness." However, she figured that it was nevertheless her job to interfere, both characterizing Trump's exercise of presidential authority as an attempt to "deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving" and glossing over the military's prohibition on other medically and mentally compromised individuals enlisting, including those found to be on medications, women with abnormal uterine bleeding, men with deformed genitals, those with chronic anxiety, those who have committed self-harm, and those who have met in the past with psychiatrists.

Reyes suggested in her ruling that it was her responsibility as a judge to keep the executive branch in its proper place, despite acknowledging the "pernicious" nature of judicial overreach.

'Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be.'

Reyes suggested further that the "Military Ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact."

Reyes clearly did not bother shrouding her animus toward the Trump administration in the ruling or during past hearings.

The foreign-born judge previously suggested that Trump, through his executive order directing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to update military policy to effectively ban medical and cosmetic transvestites from the military, was "literally erasing transgender people." In addition to claiming that Pete Hegseth, a recipient of two Bronze Stars, had no military experience, Reyes also tried to dunk on the administration with a bizarre distortion of Christian teaching, asking Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch how Jesus Christ would respond to Trump's order — prompting a misconduct complaint.

Fresh off condemning one Obama judge for preventing President Donald Trump from deporting terrorists under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and another Obama judge for "appoint[ing] himself king of foreign policy," Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, asked, "Is there no end to this madness?"

After noting that district court judges "have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces," Miller likened the actions taken by Reyes and other activist judges to "Marxist university professors being able to unilaterally veto, edit or override the exercise of presidential authority."

"Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief," wrote Miller. "Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration. Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness. It is the gravest assault on democracy. It must and will end."

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk noted, "We either have a presidency or we have a rule by 677 gavel-wielding dictators."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded, "We don't play 'Hail to the Chief' when they enter the courtroom."

An analysis of nationwide injunctions issued between 2001 and 2023 published last year in the Harvard Law Review revealed that Democrat-appointed judges zealously tried to hamstring the first Trump administration. Of a total of 96 injunctions issued across four administrations, the Trump administration was slapped with 64. Of those 64 injunctions, 59 were issued by judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Over 50% of all injunctions issued since 1963 were issued against Trump administration policies.

It appears that Reyes and some of her peers are keen to pick up where their fellow travelers left off.

When the first Trump administration passed a ban on transvestites in the military, the Supreme Court let it take effect in 2019. It did not, however, rule on its constitutionality. Reyes' latest effort to undermine the president may pave the way to such a ruling.

The Pentagon has until Friday to ask a higher court to stay Reyes' order. Failing that, it can appeal.

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

Judicial Org Ignored Threats To Judges Until ‘Threats’ Affected Constitution Haters

There are too many examples of judicial corruption for anyone to believe the judiciary is the one segment in the world free of malfeasance.

Blaze News original: 'Barbaric' attacker destroys elderly pro-lifer's face outside Planned Parenthood. Victim awaits justice.



Mark Crosby's life changed forever on May 26, 2023.

On that day, a then-unknown assailant brutally attacked Crosby and fellow pro-life advocate Dick Schaefer outside a Planned Parenthood in downtown Baltimore.

The attacker's attorney added that his client 'didn’t mean to hurt them that bad' and 'made a mistake,' the Banner reported.

Both men had been praying, holding pro-life signs, and offering pro-life materials to people entering the abortion facility, Catholic Review said, adding that Crosby and Schaefer — both retired — do that five days each week between 9 and 11 a.m.

The bearded suspect, who was arguing with Schaefer about abortion, is seen on surveillance video charging into Schaefer — who was 84 years old at the time — and tackling him backward him into a flower pot. According to WBAL-TV, a witness said the attacker knocked Schaefer out cold "for several minutes."

The video shows Crosby — who was 73 years old at the time — running over to help Schaefer, but the suspect easily knocks Crosby down to the sidewalk before punching Crosby in the head, kicking Crosby in the face, and then walking away. You can view a video report here about the attack.

Local pro-life advocate John Roswell told LifeSiteNews at the time that Crosby’s “plate bone in his upper right cheek is completely fractured” and that he “is bleeding from some unidentified area behind his eye, and the bone eye orbit is completely shattered and will have to be replaced with metal.”

Crosby told Blaze News in an interview this month that he was blind in his right eye "for nine days" after the attack, spent three days at the Maryland Shock Trauma Center, was "spitting blood," and that a piece of his iris is missing.

He also told Blaze News he still experiences foreign body sensation, which is a "feeling that something's in your eye and you can't get it out. But I can live with that. Babies are being murdered. I give it up for them."

Finally, an arrest — more than a year later

On July 1, 2024 — more than a year later — police arrested Baltimore resident Patrick Brice in connection with the attack on Crosby and Schaefer.

Brice was indicted on charges of first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and assault on an elderly person 65 and over, according to the American Center for Law and Justice. He was released on his own recognizance, Catholic Review said.

The criminal trial for Brice took place earlier this month in Baltimore Circuit Court. The Baltimore Banner reported that Brice, 28, exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and did not testify.

But his attorney — Assistant Public Defender Matthew Connell — argued that his client didn't intend to cause serious physical injury, which is needed to support a conviction for first-degree assault, the Banner said.

'Mr. Brice is a grown man. He’s not a child. He knew what he was doing.'

Connell also called Schaefer and Crosby “old white men” who say “the most vile things” to women and see themselves as “religious martyrs," Catholic Review reported.

“Somebody snapped on them,” Connell argued, according to the Banner.

The attacker's attorney added that his client “didn’t mean to hurt them that bad" and “made a mistake," the Banner reported.

Crosby told Blaze News that video of Brice's beatdown of Crosby and Schaefer was shown in court and that one juror was "crying," while "others were looking away" from the violence onscreen.

Assistant State’s Attorney Ashley Sudberry in her opening remarks called Brice's attack “brazen, callous, barbaric behavior," Catholic Review said. Sudberry noted throughout her closing argument that "you saw what you saw, and you heard what you heard," the Banner reported.

Sudberry added that "Mr. Brice is a grown man. He’s not a child. He knew what he was doing," the Banner said.

Hung jury on most serious charge for attack on Crosby

The jury deliberated for about two hours and convicted Brice on two counts of second-degree assault and reckless endangerment for his attacks on Schaefer and Crosby, the Banner said.

However, jurors acquitted Brice on one count of first-degree assault against Schaefer, the paper said.

As for the first-degree assault charge against Brice for attacking Crosby — knocking him to the ground, punching him in his head, and kicking him in his face while he was on his back on the sidewalk — the Banner said the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

Attorney Terrell Roberts — retained by the Thomas More Society to assist Crosby amid deliberations — told Blaze News that as things stand, Brice could walk away from all of this with nothing but probation.

Crosby told Blaze News that he's prayed for Brice and has 'forgiven him,' but he wants prosecutors to go for the first-degree assault conviction for the violence he carried out: 'We're waiting for Brice to go to jail.'

Brice's convictions for second-degree assault and reckless endangerment — both misdemeanors — in Maryland carry maximum jail sentences of 10 years and five years, respectively.

Roberts added to Blaze News that sentencing guidelines for second-degree assault and reckless endangerment don't include jail sentences, and the Banner reported that Brice has no previous criminal record. Roberts told Blaze News that while Brice's attack on Crosby was a "pretty egregious act," there's a "good chance" a judge may not sentence Brice to any jail time.

Which is why Roberts told Blaze News it's "so important" that Brice is found guilty of the first-degree assault charge against Crosby. It's a felony and a "serious offense," Roberts said, and means "intent to cause serious bodily injury," which could land Brice in jail for 25 years. Roberts also told Blaze News that the sentencing guideline for first-degree assault does call for a jail sentence.

Now what?

The Banner reported that it wasn't immediately clear whether prosecutors intend to retry the first-degree assault charge against Brice.

James Bentley, a spokesperson for the Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Office, told the paper that it's “reviewing the matter and will take whatever action we believe is warranted following that review and consultation with the victim.”

Roberts told Blaze News he believes there's sufficient evidence to find Brice guilty of first-degree assault and that he's pressing the prosecution to retry the charge and argue the case in court.

But so far there's been "no progress," Roberts said, adding to Blaze News that he was supposed to hear back from prosecutors on Feb. 21, but as of the late afternoon that date, he had not.

Brice is scheduled to be sentenced March 20 on his second-degree assault and reckless endangerment convictions, the Banner said.

Crosby told Blaze News that he's prayed for Brice and has "forgiven him" but wants prosecutors to go for the first-degree assault conviction for the violence he carried out: "We're waiting for Brice to go to jail."

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

Brooklyn Jail Apparently Overflowing With Fan Mail For Accused CEO Killer Beloved By Leftists

'Overwhelming generosity'

Penn Professor's Fight for Free Speech Heads to Federal Court

Amy Wax, the tenured law professor who was sanctioned for her controversial remarks about racial issues, sued the University of Pennsylvania on Thursday for breach of contract and race discrimination, putting a dispute over tenure and academic freedom that has dragged on for almost three years into the hands of a federal court. The complaint comes after Wax was suspended for a year at half-pay and stripped of her named chair, penalties the lawsuit says are "illegal multiple times over."

The post Penn Professor's Fight for Free Speech Heads to Federal Court appeared first on .

Trump Receives No Penalties in New York Hush Money Case

President-elect Donald Trump will face no jail time or financial penalties in his New York hush money case, as the judge presiding over the trial issued an unconditional discharge on Friday.

The post Trump Receives No Penalties in New York Hush Money Case appeared first on .

Judiciary nicely tells Democrats to pound sand — Justice Thomas will not be referred to DOJ



Democrats and their allies in the press have worked feverishly in recent years to neutralize conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court. Owing to the justices' resilience and the toothless nature of Democrats' attacks, these efforts have all been in vain — including the attempt by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) to have Thomas referred to the Department of Justice for imagined violations of the Ethics in Government Act 1978, which was thwarted Thursday by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Thomas and his relatives reportedly sold an old single-story home and two vacant lots in Savannah, Georgia, at market rate to one of Texas billionaire Harlan Crow's companies in 2014. Crow, who has been Thomas' family friend for over two decades, said in a statement that his intention was to "one day create a public museum at the Thomas home dedicated to telling the story of our nation's second black Supreme Court Justice, who was born in Pin Point, Georgia and later raised in Savannah."

ProPublica — an investigative journalist outfit that has received donations from Laurene Powell Jobs and her leftist Emerson Collective, from George Soros' Foundation to Promote Open Society, and from Crankstart Foundation, Lincoln Project donor Michael Moritz's family foundation — published a report on April 13, 2023, suggesting that Thomas failed to disclose his family's sale of the property and may have violated a federal disclosure law in the process.

'Potential violations of disclosure laws by officers of the highest court merit serious investigation.'

ProPublica also made a fuss about the justice's inadvertent failure to note in financial filings that Crow provided him with food and lodging in 2019 at both an Indonesian hotel and at a private club that year in California. Thomas later noted these in his financial disclosure report for 2023.

Just as Democratic lawmakers would later use the New York Times strategic reports about flags to attack Justice Alito, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Hank Johnson were quick to weaponize the ProPublica report, penning a letter to the Judicial Conference on April 14, 2023, requesting that it refer Thomas to Attorney General Merrick Garland for investigation.

The Democrats suggested that there was "reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas willfully failed to file information required to be reported under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978."

"Justice Thomas's failure to report this transaction is part of an apparent pattern of noncompliance with disclosure requirements," said the letter. "Potential violations of disclosure laws by officers of the highest court merit serious investigation, and it is well past time for the Supreme Court to align with the rest of the government on ethics requirements."

Coinciding with Whitehouse and Johnson's publication of their letter, the New York Times editorial board ran a condemnatory piece echoing both the scandal-plagued leftist group Fix the Court in calling the Supreme Court "the least accountable part of our government" and Democratic lawmakers in calling for the establishment of an ethics office at the high court.

The Democratic lawmakers received a reply this week after 20 months of waiting. Apparently unmoved by the the letter and the editorial in the Times, Judicial Conference secretary Robert Conrad Jr., an Article III federal judge with senior status on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, effectively told Whitehouse and Johnson that theirs is a nonissue and to pound sand.

Conrad noted in his Thursday letter that the judiciary's financial disclosure requirements have been in flux over the past few years.

For instance, in early 2023, the Financial Disclosure Committee issued guidance that the personal hospitality gift reporting exemption applies only to food, lodging, or entertainment — such as what was received by Thomas from Crow in 2019. As for disclosures regarding gifts of transportation, Conrad noted that the committee issued guidance in March 2023 precluding the need for retroactive application past 2022.

'The provision in fact contains a suggestion to the contrary.'

Conrad pointed out that Thomas "has filed amended financial disclosure statements that address several issues identified in your letter. In addition, he has agreed to follow the relevant guidance issued to other federal judges, which would include the guidance mentioned above. We have no reason to believe he has done anything less."

The secretary also indicated that it was not altogether clear whether the Judicial Conference's referral authority applies to justices of the Supreme Court, stating that "there is reason to doubt that the Conference has any such authority."

"Because the Judicial Conference does not superintend the Supreme Court and because any effort to grant the Conference such authority would raise serious constitutional questions, one would expect Congress at a minimum to state any such directive clearly," wrote Conrad. "But no such express directive appears in this provision. The provision in fact contains a suggestion to the contrary."

Conrad indicated not only that the Democrats' request might be legally unworkable but that it was moot on account of the lawmakers' direct appeal to Garland on July 3 to have a special counsel investigate these matters.

In a separate letter, the Judicial Conference shut down a similar request from the Center for Renewing America to refer Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the DOJ for failing to "disclose required information regarding her husband's medical malpractice consulting income for over a decade." Conrad noted that Jackson has amended her disclosure to include the previously omitted income from her husband.

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

'Pardons for me, no justice for thee': Biden vetoes bill that would have let Trump nominate much-needed judges



President Joe Biden appears keen to maximize consequential, controversial, and costly decisions in his final days as president.

Following President-elect Donald Trump's landslide victory last month, Biden and his administration undermined the Republican's goal of peace in Ukraine and risked turning America's proxy war with Russia into a direct nuclear conflict with the authorization of use of long-range American missiles; took steps to "Trump-proof" the federal bureaucracy; gave his felonious son Hunter Biden an "unconditional" blanket pardon and commuted the sentences of child-killers, grifters, and other loathsome convicts; rushed through DEI-satisfying judges; and set high-reaching greenhouse gas emission targets.

Par for the course, Biden — set to end his presidency with a record-low approval rating — vetoed a bipartisan bill on Monday that would have created 66 new judicial seats in the coming years in understaffed federal courts across the country.

While the 82-year-old Democrat suggested that there remained unanswered questions about the potential allocation of judges, legal experts and lawmakers who championed the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024 indicated Biden's concerns were unfounded. Critics suggested Biden simply wanted to preclude his popular Republican successor from nominating dozens of new judges over the course of his second term.

'The President is more enthusiastic about using his office to provide relief to his family members who received due process.'

Reuters noted that had the bill been enacted, Trump would have been able to fill 22 permanent and three temporary federal judgeships in his second term in addition to the over 100 judicial appointments he is already expected to make.

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored the initial Senate bill with Democratic Sen. Chris Coons (Del.), noted on X, "Issuing this veto is partisan politics at its worst. The JUDGES Act is a fair bill with strong bipartisan support that would have created 66 judgeships over three presidential terms to address our judicial backlog."

"The President is more enthusiastic about using his office to provide relief to his family members who received due process than he is about giving relief to the millions of regular Americans who are waiting years for their due process," continued Young. "Biden's legacy will be 'pardons for me, no justice for thee.'"

The authors of the legislation noted that by the end of fiscal year 2022, district courts were overwhelmed and in many cases understaffed: "As of March 31, 2023, there were 686,797 pending cases in the district courts of the United States, with an average of 491 weighted case filings per judgeship over a 12-month period."

Although authorized by Article III of the U.S. Constitution to establish judgeships in district courts, Congress has not done so since 2003. The Judicial Conference of the United States recommended to Congress in March 2023 the creation of new district and court of appeals judgeships to address the workload demands facing certain courts.

The JUDGES Act of 2024, which embraced the conference's recommendations, passed the Senate in October with an amendment by unanimous consent — back when Democrats figured they would have fellow traveler Kamala Harris making the judicial nominations.

'This veto is about power, not justice.'

Weeks after Trump won the election, Biden threatened to veto the bill.

The Federal Judges Association and Federal Bar Association implored the geriatric Democrat and members of the House to get over their doubts and similarly pass the bill, stressing in a Dec. 11 statement that it would add judges "in a non-partisan manner and through its creative staggered approach to creating these new judgeships, offers the best chance in three decades for addressing the increasing judicial caseload crisis."

Judge J. Michelle Childs of the FJA and Glen McMurry, president of the FBA, noted further in their joint statement, "Failure to enact the JUDGES Act will condemn our judicial system to more years of unnecessary delays and will deprive parties in the most impacted districts from obtaining appropriate justice and timely relief under the rule of law."

The House of Representatives passed the bill on Dec. 12 in a 236-173 vote.

Following the bipartisan embrace of the JUDGES Act in Congress, Democratic Rep. Lou Correa (Calif.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) penned a letter to Biden urging him to reconsider his veto threat, noting that "addressing the needs of our judiciary is not a partisan issue but a national imperative."

The requests by judges and lawmakers of various stripes evidently fell on deaf ears.

In his veto announcement Monday, Biden stated, "The House of Representative's [sic] hurried action fails to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the new judgeships are allocated, and neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate explored fully how the work of senior status judges and magistrate judges affects the need for new judgeships," according to a White House transcript.

Biden suggested further that the "efficient and effective administration of justice" requires that these questions undergo further study and insinuated that helping courts meet workload demands — a problem recognized by members of both major parties — was not the "true motivating force behind the passage of this bill."

Judge Robert Conrad Jr., the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said in response, "The president’s veto of the JUDGES Act is extremely disappointing. Providing additional judgeships is essential to improving access to the courts and necessary for the efficient and effective administration of justice."

Conrad noted that Biden wasn't just spiking a carefully considered bill that was based on thorough analysis but breaking from a custom he appeared previously happy to uphold.

"This veto is a deviation from the long historical pattern of approving judgeship bills that awarded new judgeships to sitting presidents. The president's veto is contrary to the actions of Senator Biden who helped pass many of those bills," wrote Conrad. "It is regrettable that the administration failed to support the federal judiciary and rejected this bipartisan, bicameral, and interbranch agreement. The president’s veto will contribute to the pattern of growing caseloads and increasing backlogs that hurt litigants and weaken public confidence in our courts."

Rep. Issa called the veto "a petty, partisan, and pointless act by a presidency that can't end soon enough."

"Very disappointed President Biden has vetoed the JUDGES Act, despite strong bipartisan support in Congress," tweeted Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.). "This decision leaves countless individuals struck in a backlogged legal system without the judges needed to address delays."

Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming emphasized that Biden's veto was purely a partisan maneuver, noting, "The JUDGES Act of 2024 was 'necessary' until the point Republicans would hold a trifecta. This veto is about power, not justice."

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