Mark Fuhrman is dead, but his question still hangs over America



Los Angeles Police Department Detective Mark Fuhrman, who died last week at 74, played a central role in the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial. But even now, more than 30 years on, that needs clarification. Simpson, the former NFL star and actor, stood trial for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. In the courtroom, however, the real defendant often seemed to be Fuhrman.

Fuhrman collected key physical evidence, including the bloody glove. So Simpson’s defense team made the detective, not the accused killer, the trial’s main target. Fuhrman had denied using the “N-word,” but the defense proved otherwise and, from that point, argued that he could have planted evidence. On the other side, prosecutor Marcia Clark looked overmatched, and Christopher Darden did little better.

Mark Fuhrman can rest in peace knowing he was right all along.

As a stringer for the Washington Times, I was at the courthouse for the verdict. An airplane circled above towing a banner that read, “If it does not fit you must acquit — bulls**t.” I believed Simpson was guilty, but when the acquittal came down, I felt some relief. This was Los Angeles, where many people believe police do nothing but harass, beat, and kill black people. When that narrative takes hold, the default response is to burn down the city. The gangs were ready. For plenty of others, the verdict was a joke.

Jay Leno joked about Simpson’s new show, “My So-Called Knife,” while others volunteered to help O.J. “find the real killer.” As Fox News later noted, Fuhrman was convicted of perjury, making him the only person connected to the case who was convicted of a crime related to the trial. Yet many of his colleagues still regarded him as a strong detective, and later events helped explain why.

In 1998, Fuhrman published “Murder in Greenwich: Who Killed Martha Moxley?” The victim, a 15-year-old girl, was beaten to death with a golf club in 1975. Fuhrman showed how Greenwich police had effectively acted as a private security force for the wealthy Skakel family. They were also badly out of their depth on a murder case and botched the investigation, especially the crime scene.

The murder weapon, a 6-iron, came from a set owned by the Skakels. The evidence pointed strongly to someone in the family. Michael Skakel, then 15, had a reputation for violent behavior, giving Martha reason to fear him. In 2002, he was sentenced to 20 years to life for her murder.

But the Skakels are related to the Kennedys, and in 2003 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a lengthy article for the Atlantic arguing that Michael was innocent and his conviction and imprisonment were “a miscarriage of justice.”

RELATED: Former LAPD detective: Political correctness and justice are not compatible

KEN LUBAS/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

In 2018, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned Skakel’s conviction, ruling that his attorney had failed to present alibi evidence effectively. In 2020, a state prosecutor announced that Skakel would not be retried, and the murder charge was dropped.

Skakel then sued the prosecution, and in 2026 he is still denouncing “bold-faced lies.” The Moxley family have never wavered in their belief that Michael Skakel killed Martha, much as the Goldman family never wavered about O.J. Simpson.

In 1997, a jury found Simpson liable in a civil wrongful-death case. In 2007, a federal judge awarded the Goldman family rights to “If I Did It” to help satisfy the $38 million judgment against Simpson. Simpson died in 2024 at 76.

The Moxley case led Fuhrman to ask whether America has “two systems of justice in this country, one for the rich and another for the rest of us.” The same question hovered over the Simpson case.

Mark Fuhrman can rest in peace knowing he was more right than wrong.

The Gray-Haired ‘Free DC’ Crowd Wants To Free The Capital From Law And Order

While Navy Yard sees street brawls and property damage, Capitol Hill activists are protesting the National Guard from the comfort of their seven-figure homes.

Red-state inaction is the soft underbelly of border politics



Fourteen months into Trump’s second term, the verdict is in. No mass deportations. No major immigration reform. And if Democrats return to power, they will rip the doors off the hinges again.

Trump did slow the flow and put a dent in some outdated visa programs. But the results remain too small relative to the scale of what came before him and what may come after him.

One day, red states will need to enact these deterrents. The only question is timing.

That leaves one durable partial solution: Use red-state supermajorities to deter illegal aliens from settling in those states when the next wave comes. States may lack the power to deport illegal aliens outright, but they can make daily life harder. They can deny jobs and benefits, impose criminal penalties, and create a lasting deterrent that survives any one presidency.

Ron DeSantis appears to understand this in Florida. Almost no other Republican governor does.

Idaho offers the clearest example of the problem. On paper, it looks like the kind of state where serious immigration enforcement should be easy. Republicans hold 61-9 and 29-6 majorities in the House and Senate. Conservatives gained ground in the House thanks to the Freedom Caucus. Yet when the time came to pass meaningful reforms, the GOP establishment folded.

The House moved several bills. The Senate is quietly killing them. Gov. Brad Little (R) remains publicly silent, apparently hoping the issue dies in committee while he cruises to re-election under Trump’s preemptive endorsement and keeps his donor class happy.

The bills now stalled in Idaho expose the fraud.

H704 would mandate E-Verify for all public and private employers and give the state attorney general real enforcement power. It passed the House 43-26 despite opposition from 17 Republicans. It now sits dead in the Senate State Affairs Committee under Chairman Jim Guthrie and Senate President Pro Tempore Kelly Anthon.

H700 would make it a misdemeanor knowingly to hire illegal aliens without using E-Verify. That bill is also dead in the Senate, and 22 House Republicans opposed it.

H659 would require all counties and cities to cooperate with ICE through 287(g) agreements. In a state with barely any elected Democrats, one might assume mandatory ICE cooperation would be the easiest of calls. Instead, the bill passed the House 41-27, with 18 lukewarm Republicans joining Democrats in opposition, and now sits dead in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

H660 would require police to inquire about immigration status after a lawful arrest and would mandate a twice-yearly report on crimes committed by illegal aliens. By definition, this involves people already suspected of some other offense. Even so, the bill passed only 40-30 and is now being blocked in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

RELATED: The TSA showdown reveals a brutal truth about our politics

Blaze Media Illustration

H764 would create a state analogue to the federal statute that penalizes anyone who knowingly or recklessly conceals, harbors, transports, or materially assists illegal aliens. It includes misdemeanor and felony penalties, license revocations, and forfeiture provisions. In other words, it would build precisely the kind of standing deterrent red states will need when Democrats reopen the border. It has not even advanced out of committee.

S1318 would audit refugee-resettlement contractors in Idaho, including the number of refugees served, their demographic and language data, participation in language programs, housing use, geographic distribution, and relevant public-health statistics. It would also require disclosure if those entities aided illegal aliens. It remains blocked in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

H592 would require the state to track how many illegal aliens receive hospital services and how much that costs taxpayers. It would not deny care. It would merely quantify the burden. A similar law in Florida led to a drop in illegal-alien use of the health care system. Idaho’s bill has not moved.

H656 would do the same basic thing in schools by auditing the number of illegal aliens enrolled. It has gone nowhere.

How does this happen in a state so red? The answer is simple: Many Republican officials remain functionally progressive on immigration.

Little is deeply unpopular with the grassroots, but he neutralized the threat of a primary by securing Trump’s endorsement. Everyone knows he opposes these bills. He simply does not want to say so out loud. Better to let them die quietly in committee than risk angering the base or the business interests that still demand cheap labor.

Call it political Murphy’s law. DeSantis is term-limited in Florida. Brad Little gets a third term.

RELATED: Memo to Trump: Stop negotiating and ramp up deportations

DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images

Even Florida has not gone far enough. It already has E-Verify, but lawmakers failed to remove the 25-employee exception. Similar attempts to strengthen E-Verify have failed in West Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, all solidly red states.

A few bright spots remain.

Tennessee may pass some worthwhile bills, though lawmakers gutted legislation to charge illegal aliens tuition. Arizona’s legislature is close to passing SB 1421, which would bar illegal aliens from opening bank accounts, cashing checks, or obtaining loans by prohibiting financial institutions from accepting foreign ID cards or ITINs as sole identification. It would make life in the United States much harder without legal status. The bill passed the Senate and awaits a House vote. Unfortunately, Arizona has a Democrat governor who will likely veto it.

That only raises the harder question: Why is this not already law in the 22 Republican trifecta states?

The same problem appears in commercial trucking. Amid the rash of crashes involving illegal-alien drivers, very few states have acted seriously. Oklahoma alone passed a law requiring proof of citizenship to reciprocate out-of-state commercial driver’s licenses. Florida appears to be the one state seriously enforcing the English-language requirement and checking for illegal aliens at truck stops.

Iowa let a bill die in committee that would have required driver’s license exams to be administered only in English. Indiana passed an English-only testing bill, but still failed to address out-of-state CDLs, even after two illegal aliens killed Indiana residents in separate incidents in less than two weeks in February.

One day, red states will need to enact these deterrents. The only question is timing. Will Republicans build them now, during the lull, or will they wait until hundreds of thousands of new invaders flood back in under a future President Gavin Newsom?

That choice will tell us whether Republicans ever meant a word they said about immigration.

The next big Supreme Court shift might not be abortion or guns



Qualified immunity, a doctrine the Supreme Court created in 1967, bewilders ordinary citizens who run headlong into it after government officials trample their constitutional rights. In plain English, the doctrine often blocks lawsuits against officials unless a prior court decision “clearly established” that the specific conduct at issue violated the Constitution. That standard leaves many victims without a remedy and lets many constitutional wrongs go unanswered.

That is not right. The Constitution exists to protect individual rights, not to insulate officials who violate them from accountability.

Qualified immunity can turn constitutional protections into paper rights — recognized in theory, unavailable in practice.

Recent years have also supplied fresh reasons to question the doctrine’s scope. Abuses tied to the weaponization of law enforcement and the criminal justice system have come to light with unsettling regularity. Think of Crossfire Hurricane, where senior officials used a discredited dossier — commissioned by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and funded through political channels — to pursue surveillance warrants and to monitor an opposing campaign before and after the 2016 election.

Or consider Arctic Frost, the childishly named operation (Arctic Frost is a type of orange, as in “Orange Man Bad”) that targeted hundreds of Americans, including one of the co-authors (Eastman) and relied on sweeping demands for private communications and records in search of a predicate offense in hopes of derailing President Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Episodes like these, and others, zero in on a basic question: When government power crosses constitutional lines, who answers for it?

Qualified immunity often supplies the answer: nobody.

Now the Supreme Court appears to be taking an unusual look at the doctrine — at least if its recent handling of three qualified immunity petitions offers any clue.

What’s different this time

In prior years, the court has frequently disposed of qualified immunity petitions quickly, sometimes through summary action with no explanation. This term looks different. Three cases involving qualified immunity have sat on the court’s docket far longer than the usual pattern would suggest. The justices have repeatedly requested responses and, in several instances, called for lower-court records. The court has also rescheduled cases for conference after conference without issuing a decision.

That process does not prove the court plans to revisit the doctrine. But it does suggest heightened attention.

Case 1: Smith v. Scott

The petition for writ of certiorari in Smith v. Scott was filed nearly a year ago. The case arises from a tragic encounter that began as a call for help. A 65-year-old man contacted police because he believed intruders lurked outside his apartment. Officers arrived, found no intruders, and then attempted to handcuff him. The encounter escalated. Officers restrained him on the ground, and an officer allegedly applied pressure that impeded his breathing until he died.

Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity. The officers then asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The respondent (Scott’s estate) initially waived a response, which commonly happens in cert-stage litigation. The court did not let the waiver stand. It called for a response after the case’s first conference last May. After a later conference, the court requested the record. Since then, it has repeatedly relisted the petition — an astounding 13 times — without resolving it.

Case 2: Zorn v. Linton

Zorn v. Linton involves a protest at the Vermont State House. Demonstrators occupied the chamber floor to protest government policy. Most left when the building closed. Shela Linton stayed and refused to leave. Officers removed her using a rear wristlock. She sued, alleging unreasonable force that caused pain, injury, and trauma.

The district court granted qualified immunity. The Second Circuit reversed and denied qualified immunity. The petition reached the Supreme Court in September. Once again, the respondent waived a response, and once again the court requested one. The case then cycled through conference after conference before the court requested the lower-court record on February 27.

This case matters for another reason. Many qualified immunity disputes involve fast-moving encounters where officers make split-second judgments. This one involves an interaction with warnings, time, and repeated opportunities to comply. It tees up an issue courts often sidestep: the obligations citizens assume when they knowingly violate a lawful order and force officers to escalate to removal. Does a protester’s refusal to leave reduce the scope of what counts as “unreasonable” force, so long as officers use measured escalation? Put differently: Were Linton’s rights even violated?

Case 3: Villarreal v. Alaniz

Villarreal v. Alaniz sits at the intersection of qualified immunity and the First Amendment. Police arrested journalist Priscilla Villarreal under a state statute that barred solicitation of nonpublic information. The reporter argued that the arrest violated her First Amendment rights.

The procedural history highlights the doctrine’s power. The district court granted qualified immunity. A Fifth Circuit panel denied it. The full Fifth Circuit later granted it en banc. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision for further consideration. The Fifth Circuit again granted immunity.

Judge Andrew Oldham, in a concurring opinion, made an observation that cuts to the heart of qualified immunity’s justification. Courts often defend the doctrine by pointing to the realities of policing: officers must act quickly, sometimes under threat, with incomplete information. Oldham questioned whether that rationale “makes sense” in a case involving time to find a statute, plan an arrest, consult counsel, and investigate facts. Under those circumstances, why should immunity hinge on whether a prior case matches the fact pattern with near-photographic precision?

The cert petition was filed last July. The Supreme Court requested a response in August. It later requested the record after multiple conferences.

What the Supreme Court might do next

No outsider can know what the justices plan. But these three cases, taken together, give the Supreme Court a menu of options.

The court could reinforce qualified immunity, especially in excessive-force cases, and use the term’s docket to signal more protection for officers facing a rising tide of litigation.

The court could narrow qualified immunity — particularly in cases where officials have time to deliberate, plan, and consult — because the “split-second decision” rationale does not apply.

RELATED: The common-sense case for nationalizing US elections

Douglas Rissing via iStock/Getty Images

The court could also recalibrate the doctrine without overruling it: clarify what counts as “clearly established” law, tighten the inquiry, or distinguish between scenarios that demand rapid judgment and those that involve considered decisions.

In the abstract, “immunity from liability for violating rights” begins to resemble artificial judicial indemnification. Modern society does not grant that kind of blanket protection to most other professions. A surgeon, an engineer, or a corporate executive cannot avoid accountability because no prior case warned that the precise mistake at issue would cause harm. The law often holds them to general standards of care, not hyper-specific precedent.

Qualified immunity operates differently. It can turn constitutional protections into paper rights — recognized in theory, unavailable in practice.

Whatever the court’s destination, the road looks different this term. The extended consideration, repeated relists, and requests for records in multiple cases point to sustained attention. That alone marks a change.

If the court means to revisit qualified immunity, even in part, the consequences will ripple far beyond these three cases. Federal courts hear thousands of civil rights claims each year. The doctrine shapes whether citizens can vindicate constitutional rights at all.

At minimum, one conclusion now seems hard to avoid: The Supreme Court is looking closely. And when the court looks closely, doctrine can move significantly.

Trump’s prison order draws a line that reality should have drawn first



When the news broke that President Trump followed through on his promise to bar taxpayer-funded gender surgeries in federal prisons, the coverage quickly pivoted to one question: How will this affect transgender-identifying inmates?

As a former inmate — I served five years at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla — I kept thinking about the people the headlines keep skipping: the women forced to endure confinement while male inmates encroach on their privacy.

Women in prison deserve the dignity to heal without being sacrificed to an ideology.

After I did my time, I re-entered civil society and founded a nonprofit to help women build sustainable lives after prison. Not long after I got out, women still inside California’s prison system began calling me with alarming reports: Administrators were moving men into women’s prisons.

At first, I couldn’t believe it. No sane person should view placing males in a women’s prison as a “compassionate” policy. It only makes sense if you ignore what prison actually is — or if you want to impose a sinister ideology no matter who gets hurt.

Some of these males claim a female identity because women’s prisons tend to be less violent than men’s prisons. In some cases, they don’t even claim to be women. They claim to be “nonbinary” and gain admission anyway. These men do not always come with minor offenses or nonviolent histories. Some are rapists. Some are child molesters. Some committed brutal, unthinkable crimes.

For years, Bureau of Prisons policies on transgender health care moved forward with little acknowledgment of the harm they impose on incarcerated women. Women like me watched administrators apply sweeping ideological rules to an environment where the stakes involve physical safety, privacy, and survival.

Under the approach that dominated the last several years, officials treated the feelings and demands of men as more important than the safety and dignity of the women forced to live beside them.

Prison has never been, and never will be, a place for “one-size-fits-all” social experiments. Every decision inside a facility affects real human beings in extremely close quarters. Housing assignments, medical decisions, and institutional accommodations cannot follow slogans or pressure campaigns from outside groups. They must prioritize the safety and well-being of the people who live there.

Anyone who has lived inside prison understands how this plays out on the ground. Women cannot leave their cells without permission. They cannot lock their own doors. They cannot choose their cellmates. They shower under supervision, change clothes in shared spaces, and sleep just feet away from strangers. Many entered prison after surviving domestic violence, sexual assault, or trafficking.

Where is the compassion for those women — women trying to rehabilitate while they relive their trauma?

The system has told them, again and again, that their trauma doesn’t matter, their fear doesn’t matter, and their right to privacy doesn’t matter. Instead, officials tell them to prioritize the identity claims of men. Give an inch and the activists will take a mile — especially when you put men with histories of violence against women and children into living arrangements that involve showers, sleeping quarters, and constant proximity.

RELATED: Groomed for violence? The dark world of furries and transgenderism in America’s classrooms

Blaze News Illustration

President Trump’s executive order barring taxpayer-funded gender surgeries in federal prisons signals a shift away from treating prisons like laboratories for social experimentation. The order supports women and supports safety.

For incarcerated women, it means they no longer have to watch men receive treatments and accommodations designed to make them “feel like a woman,” while the women themselves lose basic standards of privacy and dignity the moment they enter custody.

Incarcerated people deserve humane treatment. That includes access to medical care, mental health care, and dignity.

But dignity cannot mean denying reality.

If you’ve lived behind the walls, you know what the outside world often forgets: These policies shape the daily lives of thousands of women. Their chance at rehabilitation suffers when officials force them to live in fear, relive trauma, and navigate needless threats of real violence. Women in prison deserve the dignity to heal without being sacrificed to an ideology.

I walked away from California Democrats to keep my sanity



It used to feel good to be a Democrat in California.

Emphasis on used to — and President Trump’s recent State of the Union address illuminated exactly why I left the party.

California is not failing because it cares too much. It is failing because it confuses caring with governing.

In Silicon Valley, voting blue often feels like the default setting.

In many professional circles, especially in technology and venture communities, political alignment is assumed. Fundraisers double as social gatherings.

It feels compassionate, enlightened, on the right side of history.

But that night, the president challenged any member of Congress to stand who believes that the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. Shockingly, Democrats remained seated, providing a stunning visual of the current values of the Democratic Party.

What changed my mind was not the rhetoric. It was the outcomes. California is the glaring example of the failure of liberal policies.

Three areas illustrate the pattern.

Elections: Confidence is a safeguard

California does not require photo identification to vote in person. A voter provides a name and address and signs the roster. More than 30 states require some form of voter ID, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Countries such as Canada, France, and Germany require identification to vote. A 2023 Gallup poll found roughly three-quarters of Americans support requiring photo identification at the polls, including majorities across party lines.

Even if large-scale fraud is difficult to quantify, administrative failures and inconsistent verification practices fuel public doubt. Visible safeguards deter misconduct and preserve confidence in the system.

When California Democrats treat voter ID as ideological heresy, they weaken the legitimacy of the system they claim to defend.

Family: When the state becomes the decision-maker

Under California law, minors ages 12 and older may consent to certain mental health services without parental notification if deemed mature enough by a provider. State law also allows minors to access reproductive health services confidentially. Recent legislation has expanded confidentiality protections in sensitive areas.

The justification is protection, but the effect is state supremacy in decisions that belong to parents.

The Supreme Court has long recognized parental rights as fundamental. Family authority is the first layer of civil society.

When the state positions itself as the confidential decision-maker in significant medical and psychological matters involving minors, it undermines that sovereignty.

It is not compassionate to expand state authority at the expense of parental sovereignty. It is government overreach into the most intimate sphere of civil society. As the co-founders of Moms for Liberty have put it, “We do not co-parent with the government.”

Compassion cannot justify dissolving the family as the primary unit of accountability.

Fiscal reality: Math still applies

California’s budget rests on a narrow and volatile base. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has documented that the top 1% of earners account for close to half of the state’s personal income tax revenue. That revenue is heavily tied to capital gains and is therefore inherently unstable.

Instead of broadening and stabilizing that base, state leadership has repeatedly targeted it. Wealth-based tax proposals focus on the very taxpayers who fund a disproportionate share of state commitments. Capital is mobile. IRS data shows sustained net out-migration of high-income households from California to states such as Texas and Florida over the past decade.

Then comes execution.

California’s high-speed rail project, approved in 2008 at an estimated $33 billion, is now projected to exceed $100 billion and remains incomplete. Florida, by contrast, expanded Brightline passenger rail through a public-private partnership model that attracted private capital and delivered major segments on time.

Between 2019 and 2023, California spent roughly $24 billion on homelessness programs. During that same period, homelessness rose statewide. In 2024, the California state auditor found the state failed to consistently track whether billions in spending produced measurable results.

The pattern is simple.

Spend expansively. Measure loosely. Promise morally. Deliver inconsistently.

The issue is not the stated goals, but the absence of discipline.

In each case, the rhetoric was noble, and the result was dysfunction.

RELATED: Gavin Newsom’s California is looting Medicaid in broad daylight

Photo by Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images

This is the governing model Kamala Harris rose within and that Gavin Newsom refined over time. Not because they lack intelligence, but because the system they represent rewards virtue-signaling over measurable performance. It resists basic electoral safeguards despite broad public support. It expands state authority into the family. It builds budgets on volatile revenue while accelerating out-migration. It spends billions without demanding outcome verification.

If that framework scales nationally, the consequences will be dire.

I did not leave the Democratic Party because I stopped caring about vulnerable people. I left because I care about institutional durability. Compassion matters. But governing requires discipline. California is not failing because it cares too much. It is failing because it confuses caring with governing. Compassion without competence becomes institutional rot.

If you are a Democrat in California who feels uneasy but cannot quite articulate why, I understand. I defended the language long after I stopped believing in the results. At some point, loyalty to outcomes must matter more than loyalty to a label. It did for me.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

How Federal Law Enforcement Rescued Memphis From Third-World Murder Stats

The National Guard and law enforcement officers have overwhelmingly benefited people in Memphis.

America has immigration laws — just not in these courtrooms



If Donald Trump put on a black robe tomorrow and issued an opinion in an intellectual property dispute between two tech companies, no one would treat it as binding law. So why are we expected to treat judicial policymaking on immigration and national security as untouchable — especially when lower courts now openly defy higher courts?

One of the most damaging misconceptions in American government holds that the Supreme Court is “supreme” over the political branches in all things. At most, its supremacy runs within the judicial hierarchy: It can overrule lower federal courts. The same goes for the courts of appeals, which are supposed to bind district courts within their circuits.

If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?

That system, however, increasingly operates as a one-way ratchet for left-wing political outcomes.

On February 6, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finally reaffirmed a basic legal principle: Illegal aliens seeking admission are not entitled to enter the country, demand release, and then litigate their way into residency while living freely inside the United States. The court upheld long-standing precedent and the plain text of U.S. immigration law, which requires detention of inadmissible aliens pending disposition of their cases.

Congress enacted that provision in 1996 for an obvious reason: to prevent people from entering illegally, receiving a notice to appear, and then disappearing into the interior.

Unlike American criminals who are entitled to bond hearings, illegal aliens are not being prosecuted for a crime. They can always voluntarily depart and live freely in their home countries. Being detained is a consequence of their initial invasion and their desire to litigate their way into our country.

Then came the district courts.

Just three days after the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, Judge Kathleen Cardone, an El Paso-based George W. Bush appointee, ordered the release of aliens in five cases on the theory that they had “established roots” in the United States. What, then, was the point of the Fifth Circuit ruling? Cardone claimed in one case that it “has no bearing on this Court’s determination of whether [the petitioner] is being detained in violation of his constitutional right to procedural due process.”

Likewise, on February 9, Judge David Briones, an El Paso-based Clinton appointee, reached a similar conclusion. “The Court reiterates its original holding that noncitizens who have ‘established connections’ in the United States by virtue of living in the country for a substantial period acquire a liberty interest in being free from government detention without due process of law,” Briones wrote — about an illegal alien who entered the country in 2024.

Pause there.

The Fifth Circuit had just ruled that detention is mandated by statute even in cases involving aliens who entered long ago (including plaintiffs from 2001 and 2009). Yet a district judge somehow concluded that ruling does not apply to someone who crossed illegally in 2024. Worse, how can a district judge claim the Fifth Circuit did not account for the “constitutional” question when the appeals court’s ruling necessarily presumes ICE’s conduct is constitutional?

RELATED: The Fifth Circuit cracks down on the asylum excuse factory

ozgurdonmaz via iStock/Getty Images

These judges are cherry-picking language from select Supreme Court opinions about aliens with “established ties” while ignoring the far stronger body of law recognizing that illegal entrants have no right to remain in the country against the national will. The idea that someone can break into the country, evade enforcement long enough to create “ties,” and then use that evasion as a legal shield makes a mockery of popular sovereignty and of the Declaration’s first principles.

This also demonstrates, again, why the Trump administration cannot comply its way out of judicial supremacism. Even when it wins in higher courts, lower-court judges can repackage the same result in a new case and keep obstructing enforcement. Why should Trump defer reflexively to congressionally created judges who refuse to defer even to their own superiors within the judiciary?

That point came into focus in Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s dissent from his court’s decision to halt the deportation of a Peruvian family while the appeal proceeds. Referring to the Ninth Circuit as a “wackadoo” court, VanDyke described what he said has become an automatic practice: granting stays of removal even when Supreme Court immigration precedent clearly points the other way.

In effect, he argued, the court uses procedural orders and an ever-expanding shadow docket to nullify precedent without formally issuing rulings that openly defy it.

Because of the circuit’s heavy caseload, VanDyke wrote, judges adopted a “convenient, but unwritten, practice” of granting preliminary relief in the form of administrative stays pending review. Those stays often remain in place until the merits are decided. The result, he said, is a system that “disregard[s] Supreme Court precedent and award[s] automatic, extended stays of removal in utterly meritless immigration appeals.”

Defenders of the Ninth Circuit might say the court is overloaded and must rely on lengthy interim stays. VanDyke’s point, however, is that this indulgence appears uniquely generous in deportation cases. As he put it, the Ninth Circuit’s internal dialogue sounds like “a judicial Oprah Winfrey, confused by her own popularity.”

His satirical version of the court’s approach was devastating:

We are… ("You get a stay!")… sincerely shocked… ("You get a stay!")… by the… ("You get a stay!")… number of… ("You get a stay!")… utterly… ("You get a stay!")… meritless… ("You get a stay!")… immigration petitions… ("You get a stay! And you get a stay! And you get a stay!")… that are filed… ("You get a stay!")… in our court. ("Everyone gets a stay!").

That is the point. When it comes to many liberal judges — who still dominate too many panels — law is often just a vehicle for politics. They will reach the result they want by whatever procedural route is available. You cannot simply “out-appeal” a judiciary willing to ignore controlling law while pretending not to.

RELATED: We escaped King George. Why do we bow to King Judge?

Valerii Evlakhov via iStock/Getty Images

A Politico review of thousands of ICE detention cases found that at least 360 judges rejected ICE’s broader detention policies in more than 3,000 cases, while just 27 judges backed those policies in about 130 cases. The overwhelming pattern is plain: Judges are sidelining the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Supreme Court’s plenary power doctrine, which affirms broad executive authority over the detention and removal of illegal aliens.

No Supreme Court ruling, by itself, will stop judges committed to creative procedural sabotage.

Lawlessness begets lawlessness. It is grimly fitting that in an era when invaders are encouraged to dictate terms to citizens, inferior courts now side with them while dictating terms to superior courts.

If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?

A blasphemy-light bill arrives in Virginia — and the ACLU clams up



Zohran Mamdani has wasted no time turning religious language into shocking political branding. This month, he invoked Muhammad while defending Democrats’ mass-migration posture. He also became the first New York City mayor to skip the installation of a Catholic archbishop.

Public officials can practice any faith. They can speak openly about it. The line gets crossed when government starts treating one religion as a protected political category — especially through the criminal code.

To overthrow liberal democracy, the far left needs Islam’s numbers, while Islam needs the far left’s organization.

That line is about to be obliterated in Virginia.

A Bangladesh-born Democrat state senator, Saddam Azlan Salim, introduced SB624, a bill aimed at writing a formal definition of “Islamophobia” into Virginia’s assault and battery laws. The bill would single out Islam for special treatment. No other religion would receive the same statutory carve-out.

The bill defines Islamophobia as “malicious prejudice or hatred directed toward Islam or Muslims.” The definition applies “regardless of whether the victim is actually a practitioner of Islam, provided that the perpetrator targeted such victim based on a perceived adherence to such faith.”

Is it Islamophobic to walk a dog or eat bacon or spread the gospel in the presence of a devout Muslim? If not, why not? And do we really want to test it?

People use Islamophobia as a cudgel to silence legitimate criticism of doctrine, immigration policy, and jihadism at home and abroad. A vague, politically loaded term does not belong in criminal law. It invites selective enforcement. It chills speech. It hands politicians a ready-made pretext to jail dissenters.

Call it what it is: one more step toward a blasphemy-style speech regime, enforced by the state.

In a world in which leftists — and even some conservatives — believe “hate speech isn’t free speech,” Salim’s bill should set off alarm bells for any civil liberties group that claims to defend the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

And yet the American Civil Liberties Union has remained resolutely silent.

The ACLU’s “Religious Liberty” page claims it exists “to safeguard the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty by ensuring that laws and governmental practices neither promote religion nor interfere with its free exercise.”

Given that Islam commands the erasureany kind of secular and sectarian division, you’d think the ACLU’s rabid dogs would be on guard against its encroachment.

Instead, the ACLU maintains a page dedicated to opposing “anti-Muslim discrimination,” while boasting of its opposition to a Jewish charter school in Oklahoma.

RELATED: Free speech in Britain is worse than you think

Photo by Lab Ky Mo/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

The “red-green alliance” between domestic communists and Muslim invaders is the greatest threat currently facing Western countries today.

In a talk at Oxford University’s Student Union, Peter Thiel laid out the stark choice between the West continuing to flounder under the illusion that clean energy policies would drive global prosperity and the Islamic worldview, which prioritizes domination.

To overthrow liberal democracy, the far left needs Islam’s numbers, while Islam needs the far left’s organization. They have a common enemy — conservatives defending the countries their ancestors built for them — but without that enemy, these groups should actually despise each other.

The same day Mamdani invoked the name of the warlord Muhammad in the cause of open borders, the ACLU’s Instagram page shared a post about how hard it is to be “a queer teen in Idaho!” (Strangely enough, no mention about how hard it is to be a queer teen in any of the more than 50 countries that have been enslaved by Islam.)

This year we will mark the 10th anniversary of the Pulse Night Club shooting, when Omar Mateen — a Muslim Democrat — murdered 49 gay people and wounded 50 more. But in the ACLU’s response, the organization refused to mention Mateen’s name and indeed warned that his massacre of sexual minorities fit a “more politically convenient narrative fed by anti-Muslim fear and hate.”

What a reassuring thing to say to all the affected families in Orlando!

The ACLU is not an organization that subscribes to any kind of moral code. At best, it is a drive-by lawsuit factory. At worst, it is a legal arm of terrorists that openly welcomes foreign donations, which undermines American sovereignty. All the ACLU cares about is power — which, come to think of it, is something the group truly has in common with jihadists.

We don’t have to live this way



Last year, I lived for nearly five months in an extended-stay hotel across from a major teaching hospital in Aurora, Colorado.

It was my third extended stay there in three years. In total, I have spent more than 10 months in that community during my wife’s hospitalizations.

Disorder becomes permanent when citizens treat it as background noise.

That is long enough to know the difference between an exception and a pattern.

A sign at the city limits reads, “Welcome to Aurora — America’s City.”

At first, it seemed ironic. By the time I left, it read like an indictment.

Near the hospital, everyday life felt needlessly strained.

The grocery store lines were enormous. Entire banks of self-checkout lanes sat dark. Staffed lanes were closed, allegedly because of staffing shortages. This store belongs to one of the largest grocery chains in the country.

Resources were not the issue. Priorities were.

Basic necessities sat locked behind glass: detergent, deodorant, toothpaste. To buy them, I had to find a manager and request access.

Two armed police officers stood near the checkout lanes.

Then I reached for a bag.

Colorado charges for shopping bags. Fine. Charge for them. But none were available. I stood there with paid-for groceries and no way to carry them, scanning for an employee who could authorize the privilege of buying one.

Charge for the bag if you must. But if you charge for it, make it obtainable.

I speak Spanish well and know a few phrases in several other languages. While useful in Aurora, requesting una bolsa did not make one appear any faster.

Outside, carts sat scattered across the parking lot. Trash gathered along the curbs. Panhandlers approached vehicles at the entrance. Customers moved quickly, eyes down.

The hotel where I stayed was a national chain: key-card entry, corporate standards. The staff were decent, hardworking people. They were not hired to enforce the law. Yet I watched them physically confront individuals who slipped into the building and helped themselves to the breakfast buffet without apology and without fear of consequence.

RELATED: I came to the US legally. What we have now isn’t immigration — it’s chaos.

nzphotonz / Getty Images

When behavior is brazen, it signals confidence that no one will stop it.

Walking across the street to the hospital, I passed men and women sprawled on sidewalks, drug paraphernalia near bus stops, people shouting into empty air. While living there, I heard more gunfire than I hear during hunting season where I live in Montana.

Live somewhere for 10 months, and you start to feel the pulse of a place. It is a community living inside lowered expectations.

Standards rarely collapse in a single moment. They erode when enough people decide they are optional. At what point did we accept that this was simply how modern American cities function?

If Aurora is "America’s City," then we no longer agree on what America means.

Years ago, my wife and I launched a prosthetic limb outreach in Ghana. I have seen clinics there operate with greater cleanliness and clearer systems than the community surrounding one of America’s premier teaching hospitals.

That is not meant to be an insult to Ghana. It is a warning to us.

Compassion and order are not enemies.

A society can care for the vulnerable and still insist on standards. In fact, it must. Compassion without structure becomes chaos, and chaos harms the very people it claims to protect.

Government exists to protect life and property. That is not partisan. It is foundational.

The reflexive answer to visible disorder is often another funding package. But public officials are not spending their own money. They are allocating earnings entrusted to them by citizens who expect order in return. When outcomes deteriorate while budgets expand, the issue is not funding. It is stewardship.

For more than 40 years, I have navigated surgeons, pain specialists, prosthetists, and hospital systems while advocating for someone who cannot afford substandard care. In those settings, standards are measurable, not merely aspirational.

One does not respect what one does not inspect. When professionals know their work will be reviewed, outcomes improve. When oversight weakens, so do results.

When an area becomes known for disorder, the mystery is not the criminals. It is the complying silence surrounding those charged with enforcing law and order. Those entrusted with authority must themselves be examined.

Advocacy is rarely glamorous or lucrative. It is repetitive, exacting, and sometimes unwelcome. But when the advocate steps away, small failures compound, and the vulnerable suffer more.

RELATED: ‘Phase one’ was quality control. ‘Phase two’ needs to be quantity control.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

A healthy society requires the same vigilance from its citizens.

Unenforced borders invite unlawful crossings. Unenforced laws embolden lawlessness. Unenforced standards always open the door to mediocrity and worse.

This is not complicated. It just requires will.

As I walked past those police officers, groceries in the bags I finally managed to buy, I said plainly, “We don’t have to live this way.”

They shrugged. They did not argue.

A deserter was once brought before Alexander the Great for judgment. Asked his name, the soldier nervously replied, “Alexander.”

The general paused.

“Either change your conduct,” he said, “or change your name.”

Names imply standards. So do cities.

If a city claims to be "America’s City," its conduct should reflect it.

We should expect more — of ourselves, of our communities, of our elected officials, and of our courts.

America is not a nation of voiceless citizens. If standards are collapsing, enough of us have abdicated oversight and responsibility.

Disorder becomes permanent when citizens treat it as background noise.

The first act of resolve is refusing to call dysfunction normal.

We do not need another commission. We need resolve.

We don’t have to live this way.