Even Trash Isn’t Safe from California’s Regulatory Overkill
The Golden State’s overreach extends to the garbage, but these policies ignore the real trash.The Golden State’s overreach extends to the garbage, but these policies ignore the real trash.Trump's birthright citizenship order may not fly — but activist judges could soon find themselves grounded
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in the case Trump v. CASA Inc., along with the related cases Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey, concerning President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.
The court was focused on procedural questions — particularly with regard to federal judges' apparent efforts to direct U.S. policy through the imposition of nationwide injunctions — rather than the constitutionality of the order, although its legality came up on occasion.
The court, which is expected to render its decision by late June or early July, may end up blocking the order but possibly also reining in meddlesome federal judges.
Background
Trump issued the executive order ending birthright citizenship on Jan. 20.
Days later, a Seattle-based U.S. district judge, responding to a lawsuit brought by four Democrat-led states, deemed the order "blatantly unconstitutional," and slapped it with a nationwide injunction — one among the 40 issued in recent months that have prompted accusations of a "judicial coup." A Biden judge and an Obama judge similarly blocked the order before courts ruled on the legal merits.
Denied additional sets of eyes on the matter by federal appeals courts, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court in March for a partial stay but also drew the high court's attention to the efforts of district judges to "govern ... the whole Nation from their courtrooms."
'Enough is enough.'
Attorneys for the government noted in their application for a partial stay that "such universal injunctions, though 'a relatively new phenomenon,' have become ubiquitous, posing 'a question of great significance that has been in need of the Court's attention for some time.'"
The Congressional Research Service indicated there were at least 17 cases of national injunctions between Jan. 20 and March 27. That number has since risen to at least 40 — including 35 from the same five judicial districts. According to the government's application, district courts issued more nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders in the month of February than through the first three years of the Biden administration. Throughout the entirety of Barack Obama's presidency, only 19 were issued.
RELATED: Will the Supreme Court rein in rogue judges — or rubber-stamp them?
Attorneys for the government argued further that nationwide injunctions, which have "reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration," transgress constitutional limits on courts' powers; are incompatible with foundational limits on equitable jurisdiction; are bad for the rule of law; risk the perception of the federal courts as an apolitical branch; and "compromise the Executive Branch's ability to carry out its functions, as administrations of both parties have explained."
"This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts' burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched," wrote the government's attorneys. "Only this Court's intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable."
The ask: Narrow down injunctions to the actual parties in the case.
Dr. John C. Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, noted in a Blaze News op-ed Thursday that both conservative and liberal justices on the high court have previously criticized the practice of single federal district courts lobbing nationwide injunctions to block policies enacted by the political branches.
Justice Elena Kagan, for instance, reportedly suggested, "It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for ... years."
On Thursday, the government appeared keen to draw out those outstanding concerns.
Showtime
There was some discussion during oral arguments about the legality of the order, what it would look like if partially implemented, and the government's primary contention that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment related to the children of former slaves, not those of illegal aliens who — as U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer put it — "weren't even present as a discrete class at that time."
Sauer assigned more energy, however, to hammering home the point that the nationwide injunctions are a "bipartisan problem" that exceed the judicial power granted in Article III of the Constitution; require judges to make "rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions"; require the "government to win everywhere while the plaintiffs can win anywhere"; and "prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions" in the lower courts.
His efforts were not in vain.
'We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions.'
The justices seriously considered the legal basis for and impact of scrapping universal injunctions as well as alternative tools for expeditious legal action, including class action and certiorari before judgment.
After expressing a desire to temporarily "put out of our minds the merits of this and just look at the abstract question of universal injunctions," Justice Samuel Alito suggested that there are 680 district court judges, and while dedicated and scholarly, "sometimes they're wrong."
"All Article III judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that 'I am right and I can do whatever I want,'" said Alito.
RELATED: The legal case against anchor-baby citizenship revisited
Whereas colleagues on a multimember appellate court could keep that "occupational disease" at bay, Justice Alito suggested that a trial judge is relatively unbounded and unchecked as "the monarch of that realm."
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represented the states challenging Trump's order, characterized nationwide injunctions as inconvenient, potentially frustrating but necessary — something that should not be "categorically off the table."
Justice Clarence Thomas noted, however, that "we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions."
'At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of the last election.'
Chief Justice John Roberts added that in recent months, the Supreme Court was able to take expeditious action — the suggestion being a nationwide injunction is unnecessary to achieve a similar end.
Justice Neil Gorsuch cast doubt on the relative timeliness of a class action, noting that certifying a class takes time, and the process involves other hurdles, reported SCOTUSBlog.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that if Sauer was right in his assertion that Article III precludes universal injunctions, then class actions would similarly be illegal, a suggestion Sauer disagreed with "profoundly."
While the conservative justices' receptivity Thursday to the government's arguments is no guarantee of a partial win on the matter of nationwide injunctions, it is a hopeful sign for critics such as Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, who asked earlier this year, "Is there no end to this madness?"
Eastman noted, "Whatever the court decides, the consequences will ripple through the hundreds of lawsuits filed against the president’s executive actions. At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of the last election — and whether unelected district judges can override the policies chosen by the American people."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump DOJ tells courts to pound sand, not their place to order MS-13 member back to US
An Obama judge ordered the Trump administration on April 4 to bring a deported MS-13 member — found by more than one immigration court to be a "danger to the community" — back to the United States. Days later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court's ruling in part, noting that the administration must "facilitate" Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return.
The Trump administration, ever defiant, effectively told the federal courts to pound sand, which is for the best because Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele said Monday that he does not intend to release Abrego Garcia.
Attorneys for the government indicated in a Sunday filing that while the high court had instructed the Trump administration to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return, "reading 'facilitate' as requiring something more than domestic measures would not only flout the Supreme Court's order, but also violate the separation of powers."
The Supreme Court previously recognized that some of the language in U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' order was "unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority," adding that the lesser court "should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."
'They've done nothing.'
The attorneys for the government suggested in their Sunday filing that this deference on foreign policy matters should be more or less total, noting, "The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner."
"That is the 'exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,'" continued the government lawyers. "Such power is 'conclusive and preclusive,' and beyond the reach of the federal courts' equitable authority."
The plaintiffs in the case want the Trump administration to issue demands to the Salvadoran government and send American personnel to a foreign nation and an aircraft into a foreign nation's airspace to recover a citizen of that nation.
"All of those requested orders involve interactions with a foreign sovereign — and potential violations of that sovereignty," said the government lawyers. "A federal court cannot compel the Executive Branch to engage in any mandated act of diplomacy or incursion upon the sovereignty of another nation."
The Hill reported that Xinis was enraged Friday upon learning of the administration's continued refusal to comply with her order.
"Have they done anything?" the vexed Obama judge asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign.
"Your honor, I don't have personal knowledge," said Ensign.
"OK, so they've done nothing," said Xinis.
Michael Kozak, senior bureau official in the State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, confirmed in a sworn statement Saturday that Abrego Garcia "is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. He is alive and secure in that facility. He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador."
Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, stole into the U.S. illegally and without inspection in 2011.
He was summoned in March 2019 to appear in removal hearings. During a bond hearing, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement revealed that a confidential informant flagged Abrego Garcia as an active member of the terrorist organization Mara Salvatrucha. The illegal alien's bond was denied, with the court finding he "was a danger to the community."
The following month, Abrego Garcia appealed the ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals but was once again recognized as a gang member as well as a flight risk.
The judge stated, "The fact that a 'past, proven, and reliable source of information' verified the Respondent's gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion."
Abrego Garcia's lawyers maintain that the gang label is false.
Although found removable, Abrego Garcia managed to secure a form of relief called withholding of removal in October 2019.
As a result, he avoided removal until March 12, when ICE agents in Baltimore notified Abrego Garcia that his "status has changed," then arrested him.
Government attorneys indicated that after his initial detention, the illegal alien was questioned about his gang affiliations, transferred to a detention center in Texas, then removed to El Salvador.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
House tries to limit overreach by activist federal district judges: 'We're shutting down the judicial coup'
The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 passed the U.S. House in a 219-213 vote along party lines on Wednesday.
The bill would amend chapter 85, title 8 of the U.S. Code to prohibit a U.S. district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties of the particular case before the court.
Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican who introduced the legislation in February, noted that the Trump-endorsed bill "would impose important limits on nationwide injunctions, which activist Federal courts are weaponizing in an attempt to undermine President Trump's legitimate powers under Article II of the Constitution."
While the legislation will likely fail in the U.S. Senate, where a handful of Democrats would have to come on board in order to reach the 60-vote threshold, the passage of the bill in Congress nevertheless signals mounting frustration with judicial overreach, particularly by Democrat-appointed district judges such as:
- Ana Reyes, a Biden-appointed foreign-born lesbian judge who worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy and issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking the implementation of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military;
- James Boasberg, an Obama judge who temporarily blocked summary deportations of apparent Tren de Aragua terrorists by the Trump administration under the Alien Enemies Act;
- Leo Sorokin, an Obama judge who blocked the Trump administration's enactment of the president's birthright citizenship order;
- Brendan Hurson, a Biden judge who issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Trump's executive orders targeting federal funding for the promotion of gender ideology; and
- Loren AliKhan, a radical Biden judge who temporarily blocked Trump's federal spending freeze.
The Congressional Research Service indicated in a March 28 report that the "Department of Justice had identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, 19 issued during Barack Obama's presidency, and 55 such injunctions issued during the first Trump administration" as of February 2020.
'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.'
The CRS said there had already been at least 17 cases of national injunctions during the second Trump administration between Jan. 20 and March 27.
Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, is among the louder critics of this apparent effort by Democrat-appointed judges to prevent the execution of the president's agenda. He asked in the wake of one district judge's injunction, "Is there no end to this madness?"
"Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief," Miller wrote last month. "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 may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan.'
The House Judiciary GOP noted that the No Rogue Rulings Act "limits activist judges' power and ensures policy decisions stay with elected officials, not unelected judges."
"No more district court activist judges silencing millions and hijacking the President's constitutional powers," wrote Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas). "We're shutting down the judicial coup."
While Democrats uniformly voted against the bill in the House and may do so again in the Senate, Issa made clear that activist judges and judicial overreach could be a problem for everyone eventually.
"In recent years, it has become glaringly obvious that federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds," Issa said on the House floor Tuesday, reported Politico. "This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan."
It appears Democrats are thinking short-term, content to let judges set federal policy.
"Here's a message: if you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable."
"When a ruling goes against the Administration, injunctions work as a check and balance against an administration bent on bullying the bench to its will," said Maryland Rep. Glenn Ivey (D). "This isn’t baseball; it can be a matter of life and liberty versus incarceration and impoverishment and should be a matter for serious and thoughtful consideration."
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!
Blaze News original: Let us never forget how COVID lockdown lunacy, tyranny, and hypocrisy harmed all of us
Earlier this month, Blaze News took a deep dive into the left's reprehensible behavior toward fellow Americans who refused COVID jabs.
Now we're looking at the immense harm that COVID lockdown lunacy, tyranny, and hypocrisy brought upon us all.
'We will crash your party. You will pay a big fine. And we will name & shame you until EVERYONE gets this message into their heads.'
One of the curious parallels within numerous lockdown scenarios in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic was the number of officials, particularly governors, who used the phrases "save lives" and "saving lives" to explain why everybody had to stay home. It's uncanny — as if they were parroting a script. We've bolded such utterances in the forthcoming vignettes.
Then there was the hypocrisy of such elected officials who ignored their own edicts while enforcing them for the rest of us. Such as the Democrat governor who told people to "stay home except for essential activities" — and then was spotted at a wine bar without a mask. Or the Democrat Chicago official caught violating lockdown rules at his restaurant. Or the Democrat mayor of Austin, Texas, who apologized after sending a "stay home" message — from his Mexico vacation spot. Or San Francisco's then-Democrat mayor who said more severe COVID-19 restrictions were on the way after she was caught dining at a fancy restaurant. Or then-mayor of Philadelphia Jim Kenney — as far left as they come — getting called out after he was seen dining inside a Maryland restaurant while eateries in his own city "suffer" from his ban on indoor dining.
Can we go on? You bet we can.
Among the most egregious instances of political leaders' COVID lockdown hypocrisy occurred when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was busted using a shuttered salon for services despite a lockdown in San Francisco. The far-left politician actually claimed she was "set up" by the salon, and that she was owed an apology rather than the other way around. In the same neck of the woods, photos emerged of far-left California Gov. Gavin Newsom dining unmasked with a large party at a ritzy Napa restaurant. And who can forget when then-Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot got a haircut after banning barbers and salons from opening during the early months of the pandemic. She defended the move by telling critics, "I'm the public face of this city." Then Lightfoot broke her own rules again — and again.
In the meantime, churches and business shut their doors — and many never reopened. Not being able to go outside and being prevented from earning a living and getting cut off from human interaction led to dire consequences. Young people seriously considered suicide. Some carried out the act. Parents' resources were stretched to the limit when their children no longer could attend school in person.
In the end, numerous experts gave lockdowns a failing grade. Johns Hopkins researchers concluded that lockdowns had "little to no effect" on COVID-19 deaths but "imposed enormous economic and social costs." A Stanford medical school professor declared that COVID-19 lockdowns were the "biggest public health mistake we've ever made." Then-U.S. Attorney General William Barr said COVID-19 lockdowns were the "greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history" besides slavery.
All that said, get ready for more "fun" — and take a look back at some of the worst behavior by those in power against everyday people amid COVID-19 lockdowns.
Never forget.
Michigan suspends license of elderly barber who vowed to keep his shop open until 'Jesus comes.' He was operating in defiance of left-wing Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's COVID lockdown edict.
Michigan state regulators suspended the license of 77-year-old barber Karl Manke in May 2020 after he reopened his Owosso shop in defiance of Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's stay-at-home orders. Manke had previously vowed to keep his business open until "Jesus comes," his attorney said the state's actions were out of "pure retribution," and it became a national story.
The elderly barber attracted a lot of defenders. Michigan militia members promised to guard him from arrest, and a Shiawassee County Circuit Court judge refused to sign a temporary restraining order against him without first holding a hearing.
When state regulators suspended Manke's license, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel argued that "it is paramount that we take action to protect the public and do our part to help save lives." Nessel later ripped Manke as "not a hero to me" and "not a patriot."
But Manke was undeterred. He told demonstrators on the steps of the state Capitol during "Operation Haircut" — a protest he inspired that featured barbers and stylists giving free haircuts in defiance of Whitmer's social distancing requirements — that the governor's lockdown was akin to Nazis tricking Jews to get into "cattle cars" during Holocaust.
Whitmer also was undeterred. In October 2020 she actually told Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press" that "if you're tired of lockdowns, or you're tired of wearing masks, or you wish you were in church this morning or watching college football or your kids were in-person instruction, it is time for change in this country, and that's why we've got to elect Joe Biden."
The day after Whitmer's campaign stop with Todd, criminal charges against Manke for reopening his barber shop were dropped. By March 2023, Whitmer admitted that her lockdown measures didn't "make a lot of sense" and that "maybe that was a little more than what we needed to do."
New Jersey orders — cough, cough — tulip farm to cease drive-thru tours because it violates left-wing Governor Phil Murphy's COVID executive orders
In April 2020, Dalton Farms in Swedesboro said in a Facebook post that "we were ordered to cease all operations by an Assistant Prosecutor from the State of New Jersey."
At issue was Dalton Farms' popular tulip tours at its 99-acre property, the Cherry Hill Courier-Post reported, adding that the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office ordered the shutdown because the tours violated Democrat New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy's coronavirus executive orders.
Murphy defended his lockdown policy: "The fact of the matter is this is about saving lives, and we're going to do what we can to save lives."
A week prior to the tulip farm kibosh, Murphy told Fox News' Tucker Carlson that he "wasn't thinking of the Bill of Rights" when he issued an executive order banning gatherings of more than 10 people to stem the tide of COVID-19 — including religious services — which resulted in multiple arrests.
"We are really damned unhappy" about disobedient residents "and we're going to take action," Murphy declared earlier in April 2020, according to the Atlantic City Press. He added to the paper there are "too many people not paying attention" to his order and "we've about had it."
To wit:
- Also in April 2020, a woman who organized an anti-lockdown protest outside the New Jersey State House in Trenton was charged with violating Murphy's stay-at-home orders.
- Police busted attendees of a bonfire party on the banks of the Pennsauken Creek in Cinnaminson in April 2020 for defying Murphy.
- Cops shut down a "corona party" in Rumson in April 2020 featuring 30 middle-aged folks assembled on the front lawn of a house — and spilling into the street — listening to a pair of guitarists perform songs by famed British rock band Pink Floyd.
- In late March 2020, police arrested a man for hosting a "corona party" with 47 guests in his 550-square foot apartment in Ewing. "NO CORONA PARTIES. They're illegal, dangerous, and stupid," Murphy declared. "We will crash your party. You will pay a big fine. And we will name & shame you until EVERYONE gets this message into their heads."
- Earlier in March 2020, two state residents were arrested for hosting gatherings of over 50 people in defiance of Murphy's executive order. One of the gatherings was a pop-up wedding held at a resident's home.
- Brian Brindisi — owner of Lakeside Diner in Lacey Township — in August 2020 told the Asbury Park Press there's no way authorities will stop him from providing indoor service at his establishment despite Murphy's executive orders. "There's only two ways they're going to get me out of here ... in handcuffs or a body bag," Brindisi said, according to the paper.
Oh, and in November 2020, a pair of women cursed out Murphy — who just extended his executive order for COVID-19 restrictions — while he was dining with his family outside a restaurant.
Church members get $500 tickets for sitting in their vehicles with windows closed in church parking lot during radio broadcast of service
In April 2020, members of Temple Baptist Church in Greenville, Mississippi, stayed in their vehicles with the windows rolled up in the church parking lot to listen to Pastor Arthur Scott's sermon on the radio.
They figured that counted as abiding by coronavirus social distancing guidelines — but one couple said police issued them a pair of $500 tickets for not leaving the parking lot. Yes, there's video of police laying down the law.
Democrat Mayor of Greenville Errick Simmons issued an executive order that all church buildings are to be closed for both in-person and drive-in services — and that the Temple Baptist parking lot service was in direct defiance of that order, the Delta Democrat-Times reported.
"It's all about trying to save lives," the mayor added to the paper. "If people continue to gather, it's going to spread."
Patrol boats actually chase ocean paddleboarder — then sheriff's deputies arrest him for defying left-wing California Gov. Gavin Newsom's stay-at-home order
A Malibu paddleboarder was chased down April 2, 2020 — among the earliest days of COVID lockdowns all over America — by patrol boats and arrested for defying California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom's stay-at-home order. You can view the rather over-the-top video here of the chase and arrest.
By October 2022 — well over two years later — Newsom was still saying that "throughout the pandemic, we’ve been guided by the science and data – moving quickly and strategically to save lives."
Police issue citation, fine woman who was just 'going on a drive' amid coronavirus stay-at-home order
Pennsylvania State Police cited a woman in March 2020 for going on a leisurely drive amid the coronavirus outbreak. According to Pennlive, 19-year-old Anita Shaffer went for a drive just to get out of her house. On her way back, a pair of troopers stopped Shaffer.
During the stop — which the troopers initiated over a faulty taillight and dark window tint — Shaffer told the troopers she was just "going for a drive." The officers responded by writing her a ticket fining her more than $200 for violating Pennsylvania's stay-at-home order.
Then-Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, said in May 2020 that “our actions, our collective decisions to stay at home and avoid social contact – we know that all of that saved lives."
Far-left New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio rules 'no swimming' at beaches for Memorial Day — and anyone caught will ‘be taken right out of the water’
"If you want to walk on the beach, fine," New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said during a May 18, 2020 news conference regarding the upcoming Memorial Day weekend. "But no swimming, no lifeguards, no parties, no barbecues, no sports." He also warned, "Anyone tries to get in the water, they'll be taken right out of the water."
It wasn't immediately clear why swimming, among all beach activities, drew the ire of de Blasio. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no evidence that COVID-19 can be spread to people through bodies of water. Though the mayor did add that swimming is dangerous because lifeguards won't be around.
During a March 2020 news conference on COVID-19, de Blasio said, "Our job is now to focus on what we need to do to save lives."
Dallas salon owner sentenced to 7 days in jail, hit with thousands in fines for refusing to close amid COVID-19 — but she gets the last laugh
Shelley Luther, owner of Salon a la Mode, reopened her business on April 30, 2020, in violation of Texas' statewide lockdown of nonessential businesses during the early days of COVID-19. She argued that she was behind on her mortgage and that the government has no right to prohibit citizens from working to provide for their families. In the end she was sentenced to seven days in jail and fined thousands of dollars.
But things soon began to turn in Luther's favor in early May: A GoFundMe page for her received nearly $500,000 in donations after her jailing. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Gov. Greg Abbott called for her release. Within days Luther was set free.
Soon after her release, Luther entered politics. After initial defeats, Luther — a Republican — won the Texas state House seat for District 62 in November 2024.
California city dumps 37 tons of sand into skate park to prevent kids from skating during coronavirus lockdown
The city of San Clemente, California, filled a skate park — at taxpayer expense — with 37 tons of sand in April 2020 to prevent kids from skating amid the coronavirus lockdown.
"Some kids are very blessed and come from great homes, but on the flip side there are kids who don't come from good homes and there are some skaters who might fall into that category," said Stephanie Aguilar, president of the San Clemente SkatePark Coalition, in a follow-up interview with Blaze News. "For those kids, the skatepark was an outlet."
Cops arrest Idaho mother of 2 for taking her kids to a park that was closed over COVID lockdowns
— (@)
Police in Meridian, Idaho, arrested a mother of two in April 2020 after she violated the city's ban against using playground equipment at a local park amid the COVID outbreak. The arrest was caught on cellphone video. Sara Brady was charged with one count of misdemeanor trespassing.
Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck interviewed Brady on his radio program, and she posed the following question: "How can someone like me be considered a criminal because I just wanted to take my kids to the park?"
Interestingly, while Republican Gov. Brad Little issued a stay-at-home order in March 2020, listed among "essential activities" — i.e., permitted — was "outdoor activities." However, gatherings of more than 10 people were not allowed.
New Mexico's Democrat governor fines churches $10,000 each after videos of Christmas Eve services go viral; governor's spokesperson implies pastors are 'pro-virus'
New Mexico's Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham fined two churches $10,000 each in December 2020 for violating the state's social distancing requirements, and her communications director released a statement accompanying the fine implying that the pastors involved were "pro-virus."
Legacy Church and Cavalry Church — described as "megachurches" by KOAT-TV — both attracted attention after they posted videos on their respective social media sites showing hundreds of attendees gathered singing Christmas carols during Christmas Eve services. Those videos garnered significant attention on social media and ultimately led to news stories from local media outlets, which seems to have prompted the governor's actions.
In November 2020, Grishman stated in regard to her latest COVID stay-at-home order that "I want to save lives."
Sheriff's deputies get ridiculously testy with mother in her yard for letting her daughter 'play at other people's home' amid coronavirus lockdown
A pair of sheriff's deputies in Wisconsin got testy after they showed up outside a woman's home in the spring of 2020 and began lecturing her about the coronavirus — and for your entertainment, the rather unbelievable verbal sparring was all captured on cellphone video.
"Are you aware that we're in a stay-at-home order right now?" the first deputy asked the woman, addressing her as "Amy."
"Yeah, obviously," the woman responded, clearly astounded by the elementary question.
"By the government of Wisconsin?" he continued.
"Yes, I am aware," she replied.
"OK, you're aware of that? So I don't need to explain that to you?" he persisted.
"No, you don't need to explain that to me," she replied before the deputy cut her off and added, "OK, because I can if you need me to."
Soon she forced him to end his bullying Q&A by inquiring why he was with another deputy — neither or whom were wearing masks or gloves — in her driveway that was adorned with children's chalk drawings.
He replied, "'Cause your daughter is going to play at other people's home, and you're allowing it to happen."
The deputy's vocal tone soon got quite ornery as he informed the mother that she can either acknowledge that she's been warned or continue arguing. Smartly she said she'd acknowledge the warning.
"OK," the deputy replied angrily. "Stop having your kid go by other people's home!"
The other deputy asked the mother for her last name for their records, after which Amy wondered why that piece of information was necessary — and the first officer blurted out, "Because you're violating a state order."
But the mom wouldn't budge — and wasn't willing even to disclose her middle initial to the inquiring deputy. "Are we done here?" she asked.
"No, we're not," the second deputy shot back. "Your middle initial and last name."
After the first deputy appeared to extract the necessary information over his radio, the second deputy actually told the mom "that'll be documented, too, that you were uncooperative."
Democrat Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers said in an April 2020 news release about COVID-19 restrictions that "Safer at Home is saving lives."
New Jersey gym owners arrested for defying left-wing Gov. Phil Murphy's lockdown order
The owners of embattled Atilis Gym in Bellmawr, New Jersey, were arrested on the morning of July 27, 2020, for opening in defiance of Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy's lockdown order. You can view video of the arrest here.
The arrests came after a Superior Court judge ruled that the governor had the authority to shut the gym down and that co-owners Ian Smith, 33, and Frank Trumbetti, 51, were in contempt of court for attempting to keep it open. Smith and Trumbetti were charged with one count of fourth-degree contempt, one count of obstruction, and one count of Violation of a Disaster Control Act, according to NJ.com.
The gym made headlines in May after the owners refused to shut down after Murphy's executive order called on all "nonessential" businesses in the state — including gyms — to close. Things heated up fast, particularly when five cops arrested one person outside the gym. But the owners refused to back down — and just a week after their July arrests, Smith and Trumbetti literally kicked down the government-installed barriers on their gym's doors to reopen again.
Things were far from over, though. Bellmawr's all-Democrat borough council revoked the gym's license. By December 2020 Smith said he'd received $1.2 million in fines, and ripped the "petty tyrant" governor. The following month Smith was sentenced to one year of probation for defying Murphy's lockdown orders. Finally, a New Jersey court in 2024 dismissed with prejudice all the municipal charges against Smith.
Los Angeles County mercilessly mocked for telling residents they can snitch on businesses that don't fall in line with coronavirus stay-at-home orders
On May 14, 2020, Los Angeles County issued the following post on X: "We know that businesses are working hard to adhere to the #SaferAtHome orders, but if you need to report a business for non-compliance, please call 888-700-9995 Monday-Friday (8 am-5 pm)."
Here's a sampling of the mocking comments that followed:
- "I'd like to report @CountyofLA for violation of the Constitution..."
- "OK Karen!"
- "#LosAngeles where illegal aliens have sanctuary but legal businesses have punishment."
- "Businesses are working hard to survive and be safe, but not as hard as you're working to turn us into East Germany."
- "1984 was a warning, not a textbook."
By September 2020, the county health department decreed that trick-or-treating was unsafe and would be illegal for Halloween — along with all carnivals, festivals, and parties with "non-household members." In a guidance document published by KABC-TV, the health department added that "gatherings or parties with non-household members are not permitted even if they are conducted outdoors."
Oregon's leftist governor tells residents to call cops on neighbors who violate her new COVID lockdown edicts
The week after Oregon's far-left Democratic governor Kate Brown declared strict new COVID-19 lockdown orders in November 2020, she then called on state residents to rat out their neighbors who might violate her new edict that limited social gatherings.
Besides limiting faith-based organizations to 25 people indoors and 50 people outdoors, Brown also banned groups of more than six people gathering together in private homes.
As for snitching on neighbors, Brown said in an interview that it's "no different than what happens if there's a party down the street, and it's keeping everyone awake. What do neighbors do? They call law enforcement because it's too noisy. This is just like that. It's like a violation of a noise ordinance."
Brown also said people should understand that her new commands were "about saving lives."
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot threatens anyone who disobeys coronavirus lockdown: 'We will arrest you, and we will take you to jail'
— (@)
In early May 2020, then-Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot threatened to issue citations and even arrest anyone who violated coronavirus stay-at-home orders.
"We will shut you down, we will cite you, and if we need to, we will arrest you, and we will take you to jail," Lightfoot said. "Don't make us treat you like a criminal, but if you act like a criminal, and you violate the law, and you refuse to do what is necessary to save lives in this city in the middle of a pandemic we will take you to jail, period."
The far-left mayor added, "If you host a party, promote a party, or go to a party, we are not playing games. We mean business, and we will shut this down one way or another. The time for educating people into compliance is over. Don't be stupid. We're watching you, and we're going to take decisive action."
Then-Police Superintendent David Brown said, "We have given enough warning. We're getting to the point where we're trying to save lives and if our message is not resonating with people who are promoting parties, or coming out to parties, we have to take that next level of enforcement to make sure that we save lives."
Lightfoot and Chicago police also encouraged residents to anonymously submit tips about anybody breaking the lockdown rules, including throwing house parties.
Speaking of overreach, the commissioner of Chicago's Department of Public Health in early August 2020 trumpeted that officials would use social media postings as evidence to issue fines against visitors violating the city's quarantine order.
Left-wing Los Angeles mayor orders utilities shut off for TikTok influencer's mansion due to lockdown-defying parties
In August 2020, then-Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti ordered utilities cut off at a mansion where large parties were being held in defiance of social distancing guidelines. The New York Times reported that the mansion belongs to TikTok stars Bryce Hall, Noah Beck, and Blake Gray.
Garcetti previously said that the city would consider shutting off the utilities for nonessential businesses that were found defying the coronavirus lockdown orders.
Critics of the Democratic mayor noted that he had been photographed without a mask with a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters — despite stating in an April 2020 briefing that staying at home, along with other COVID restrictions, "is the way we will save lives."
Cops drag away woman holding 'We Are Free' sign while she sits on beach: 'This is a power trip. This has nothing to do with the virus.'
A woman holding a "We Are Free" sign while sitting on the sand in Miami Beach in May 2020 was dragged away by police who arrested and charged her with violating an emergency order, trespassing, and resisting an officer without violence. Kimberly Falkenstine, 33, was protesting coronavirus-related beach closures and refused to leave after officers confronted her, WTVJ-TV reported.
The entire event was captured on video by a man speaking to Falkenstine as she walked to the beach with her sign. Approaching the beach's entrance, she marveled at the "ridiculous" number of officers patrolling the otherwise empty beach: "This is a power trip. This has nothing to do with the virus."
Other demonstrators at a South Beach park on the same day demanded that local officials reopen beaches.
Teachers' union leader says 'white supremacy' fuels coronavirus reopening efforts — and concerns over lockdown suicides are 'white privilege'
The leader of a teachers' union in Washington state faced criticism in January 2021 after he said that coronavirus reopening efforts were fueled by "white supremacy" — and concerns over lockdown suicides were "white privilege."
"We must not ignore the culture of white supremacy and white privilege. We have seen it in the 'free to breathe,' reopen everything, rodeos and rallies that received county commissioner support. The same county commissioner directs our health," Scott Wilson, president of the Pasco Association of Educators, said at a school board meeting, according to the Tri-City Herald.
"No one wants remote learning, but it is the right thing to do. We know the equity concerns, virus transmission is high, heading higher, with so many ignoring and avoiding measures to stop the spread, remote learning is the right decision," he added.
'Super-Spreader Task Force' detains over 900, arrests and fines nearly 100 revelers during New Year's Eve raids
A "Super-Spreader Task Force" — courtesy of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department — cracked down on 2020 New Year's Eve parties, resulting in hundreds being detained, arrested, and fined.
The coronavirus lockdown enforcers crashed five large NYE parties in Los Angeles, Malibu, Hawthorne, and Pomona. The "illegal" celebrations were held in speakeasy locations such as upscale homes, vacant warehouses, a DoubleTree hotel, and shuttered businesses.
One frustrated New Year's Eve reveler told KTTV-TV, "We're tired of closing this s**t down, my people have lost businesses and all that s**t, and we really just wanted some fresh air, man, that's what's going on we wanted some fresh air, they come out with the tanks and all, man, s**t is crazy."
A month prior, then-Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti told his constituents to expect more COVID-19 lockdowns, going so far as to say, "It's time to cancel everything."
Judges order ankle monitors for those exposed to COVID who refuse to stay home — even if they haven't tested positive
Judges ordered at least four people in Louisville, Kentucky, to wear ankle bracelets for repeatedly refusing to isolate themselves after being in contact with coronavirus patients. CNN reported in early April 2020 that two of the people fitted with the monitors haven't tested positive for the coronavirus.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Community notes slap FBI's Martin Luther King Jr. commemorative post with reminder the bureau sought his ruin
The FBI joined other government agencies Monday in noting their newfound appreciation for civil rights legend Martin Luther King Jr., for whom the day was made a federal holiday in 1983. Now with Twitter under different management and X's community notes feature fully engaged, there was little chance of the bureau's commemorative post squeaking by unscathed.
"This #MLKDay, the #FBI honors one of the most prominent leaders of the Civil Rights movement and reaffirms its commitment to Dr. King's legacy of fairness and equal justice for all," said the Jan. 15 post.
The post was promptly slapped with community notes painting the FBI as the villain in King's story.
"The FBI engaged in surveillance of King, attempted to discredit him, and used manipulation tactics to influence him to stop organizing," said the community note. "King's family believe the FBI was responsible for his death."
While a jury determined in 1999 civil case that "government agencies" had been party to a conspiracy to assassinate King, the community note insinuating the FBI specifically had a hand in King's death does not appear to have been substantiated. The other damning claims about the FBI are, however, a matter of record.
The FBI's commitment
The FBI began surveilling MLK in December 1955 during his involvement with the Montgomery bus boycott, according to an FBI memorandum. Despite its understanding that King was an advocate of nonviolence, the bureau continued to execute covert operations against the civil rights leader for the remainder of his short life, which ended with his assassination on April 4, 1968, at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was especially antipathetic to King, suggesting in one memo that he acted like "a tom cat with obsessive degenerate sexual urges," reported the New York Times.
Hoover's intense dislike for King appeared to have less to do with the activist's adultery and more to do with fears the activist might align himself with the Communist Party, according to MLK documentarian Sam Pollard.
Although King had a communist attorney and other leftists in his orbit, the FBI obtained evidence that King regarded communism as an "alien philosophy." Nevertheless, the bureau painted King as a "whole-hearted Marxist who has studied it [Marxism], believes it and agrees with it, but because of his being a minister of religion, does not dare to espouse it publicly."
The Senate's Church Committee on U.S. intelligence overreach later reported in the 1970s that "rather than trying to discredit the alleged Communists it believed were attempting to influence Dr. King, the Bureau adopted a curious tactic of trying to discredit the supposed target of Communist Party interest — Dr. King himself."
According to the Senate report, the big fear was that King would become a political "'messiah' who could 'unify, and electrify,' the movement."
After King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963, an FBI characterized him as "the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country," reported Newsweek.
The committee also confirmed in 1975 that the FBI was responsible for the so-called "suicide letter" in 1964, which denigrated and dehumanized King, told him the "end is approaching," and stressed, "there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is."
— (@)
The bureau ultimately sought to prevent King from speaking, teaching, writing and publishing, and meeting — a tradition the FBI has continued to this day. For example, the FBI has in recent months and years targeted conservative Christians as "potential domestic terrorists" and apparently worked to suppress undesirable speech online.
Social media justice
The community notes on the FBI Martin Luther King Jr. Day post were widely celebrated.
Among those who found this check on the FBI amusing was All-American, all-female swim star Riley Gaines, who wrote, "X is the only platform where a government agency like the FBI can be fact checked in real time by regular ole people ... too good."
Matt Welch, the editor of the libertarian publication Reason, responded, "The only comment you should ever make on this holiday is an apology."
Doug Stafford, chief strategist for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), wrote, "In honor of #MLKDay the @FBI would like you to know they now spy on all Americans, not just civil rights leaders."
After getting ridiculed and mocked over its X post, the FBI told Fox News Digital, "The FBI has long acknowledged the abuses of power that took place under Director J. Edgar Hoover and the deplorable actions taken against Dr. King and others involved in the civil rights movement."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Levin: Why we MUST dismantle the FBI
Rather than serving the American people, the FBI seems to be serving the Democratic Party — and Mark Levin is fed up.
“When we have Republican presidents, they sabotage the Republicans. They’ll investigate them. They’ll leak against them. When we have Democrat presidents, you don’t see that kind of behavior,” Levin explains.
Levin believes that the Durham report is a perfect example of this.
“This report right here, the Durham Report, is actually very, very important because it gives the official seal to what is the American Stasi at every step of the way.”
He says the “FBI ignored evidence, did not get corroborating evidence, had no evidence, did everything it could to protect Hillary Clinton, and did everything it could to destroy Donald Trump.”
Because of this and the Mueller investigation, Levin calls Trump “the greatest victim in American political history.”
“The Republicans on Capitol Hill need to understand this administration, this FBI, this Department of Justice is targeting them,” he says.
Levin mentions the whistleblower who claimed there was a document within the FBI’s possession that says Joe Biden took bribes — but the FBI still won’t submit to oversight.
“The FBI is no good; it’s gone rogue,” he says.
However, he believes that if the tables were turned and it were Donald Trump who allegedly took bribes, the bureaucracy would leak the document just as it did his tax returns.
“So, the FBI needs to have their budget slashed. It needs to be broken down and rebuilt,” Levin says.
But, Levin says, “the Democrats are perfectly fine with a Stasi because it’s their Stasi. The New York Times, the Washington Post, you know. What are they going to do, turn back their Pulitzers?”
“They’re perfectly fine with the Stasi too. It is only we conservatives anymore who believe in civil liberties. Trust me on this, it’s true.”
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
Trump Restored Showerhead Freedom, Now Let’s Fix The Sneaky Regulation Process