The author contends that the rule of law in the United States is functionally dead, primarily due to the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to apply legal standards to Donald Trump and his administration. This lack of adherence to consistent, repeatable rules undermines the predictability essential for a functioning legal system. The author argues that Trump’s ability to act and threaten without facing consequences, coupled with the expansion of lawlessness to those favored by him, exemplifies the erosion of the rule of law. The central premise is that the existing laws only matter if Trump chooses to abide by them. This renders the application of laws to be inconsistent and unreliable.
Read More
The Epstein case is likely to be considered by the high court, mirroring a previous similar case. Legal experts predict appeals courts will rule in a consistent manner, necessitating Supreme Court review. These persistent legal challenges will maintain media attention on the administration’s actions and the courts’ involvement. Despite potential outcomes, legal efforts will highlight the judiciary’s stance on matters related to accountability.
Read More
Ghislaine Maxwell is seeking to overturn her sex trafficking conviction from 2021, arguing that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein should have protected her from federal charges. Her legal team maintains the government violated this agreement by prosecuting her. Despite a lower court ruling against her, the case has drawn renewed attention, especially after a meeting between Maxwell’s attorney and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. This meeting followed growing pressure for transparency in the Epstein case, including calls to release Epstein files and a request from the former President.
Read More
Ghislaine Maxwell files Supreme Court brief appealing Epstein conviction, and the timing feels…pointed. It’s almost impossible to ignore the speculation surrounding this move, particularly when considering the figures involved. The idea that this appeal is some carefully orchestrated plan, possibly influenced by conversations with certain people close to a former president, is a difficult one to dismiss. The fact that she’s making a play for freedom through the Supreme Court, potentially leveraging the court’s composition, raises serious questions about the integrity of the process.
Ghislaine Maxwell files Supreme Court brief appealing Epstein conviction, and it’s hard not to feel a sense of disbelief at the scope of what this represents.… Continue reading
In a significant legal development, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, upholding a lower court’s nationwide injunction. This decision, reached by a three-judge panel, prevents the administration from denying citizenship to children born to individuals in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The court’s ruling affirmed the district court’s interpretation of the Constitution, while also addressing the issue of nationwide injunctions. The case, which was brought by several states, now moves closer to a potential review by the Supreme Court.
Read More
Following an investigation into an alleged coup attempt, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s residence was raided by federal police. The Supreme Court trial, expected to conclude soon, has led to fears of Bolsonaro fleeing the country to avoid a potential 43-year sentence. As a result, preventative measures have been put in place including an ankle monitor, a curfew, and a ban on communicating with foreign diplomats. The search also revealed $14,000 in cash and a USB drive, while Bolsonaro denies any coup involvement and claims he has no plans to leave Brazil.
Read More
A significant portion of the Justice Department’s Federal Programs Branch, responsible for defending Trump administration policies, has departed or announced their departure since the election. Reuters reported that nearly two-thirds of the approximately 110 lawyers in the unit have left. These departures could pose challenges for the unit, particularly as it faces numerous lawsuits related to controversial policies. The DOJ is actively recruiting replacements and reallocating personnel to maintain its litigation capacity, but the impact on the department’s ability to defend the President’s agenda in court remains to be seen.
Read More
Trump: McMahon will begin the process of dismantling the Education Department after a Supreme Court win, a move that’s already sparking concern.
The reality of defunding education is already evident. In one instance, a state education department saw its annual funding for underserved populations, workforce development, and new immigrants drop from $729 million to zero in a single year. This isn’t an isolated incident; it reflects a larger trend impacting education at all levels across the country. The sentiment is that some conservatives, realizing they couldn’t persuade enough people to embrace their views and impose them through schools, have opted to destroy the system instead.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court has greenlit President Trump’s plan to dismantle the Education Department, allowing the administration to proceed with laying off nearly 1,400 employees. This decision overturned an order from a U.S. District Judge that had halted the layoffs and questioned the broader plan, with the court’s liberal justices dissenting. The ruling enables the administration to resume its efforts to wind down the department, a key campaign promise, despite ongoing legal challenges from education groups and states arguing the plan violates federal law and could cripple the department’s ability to fulfill its responsibilities. Education Department employees, who have been on paid leave since March, now face potential termination, and the legal battles continue.
Read More
A federal judge in New Hampshire has ruled to certify a class-action lawsuit and issue a preliminary injunction against President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. This ruling, which will protect all children affected by the order, follows a Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of nationwide injunctions and gave lower courts a deadline to act. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a pregnant woman and parents of infants, challenges the executive order’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The judge found the government’s arguments unpersuasive and determined that the deprivation of U.S. citizenship would cause irreparable harm.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood