Category: Attack the Judiciary

Federal Prosecutors Subpoena Minnesota Democrats on Immigration

Federal prosecutors issued subpoenas on Tuesday to at least five Minnesota Democratic officials, including Governor Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, State Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty. The subpoenas demanded documents related to their policies on immigration enforcement and represent an expansion of the Department of Justice investigation into their response to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations in the state.

The investigation centers on whether elected officials in Minnesota conspired to impede federal immigration agents who have been deployed to the state since last month. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused Frey and Walz of “encouraging violence against law enforcement” and referred to their actions as “terrorism,” though there is no evidence either man incited violence or engaged in terrorist activity. The subpoenas do not cite a specific criminal statute, but prosecutors are examining the officials’ public statements and conduct regarding the federal crackdown.

The investigation follows the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good, an unarmed mother of three, by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis this month. The shooting triggered sustained protests against federal agents in the city, prompting Frey to publicly demand that agents leave and Walz to criticize their conduct. The Justice Department has vowed to arrest anyone impeding the agents’ mission.

The inquiry into the Minnesota officials’ speech and conduct targeting federal immigration enforcement directly examines political expression protected by the First Amendment. The investigation’s expansion to include state and county prosecutors suggests the Trump administration intends to use federal law enforcement to punish Democratic officials for criticizing immigration operations. The Department of Justice has previously initiated investigations into Walz and Frey regarding allegations they conspired to impede Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations through public statements.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/20/us/politics/subpoena-minnesota-democrats-immigration.html)

Trump Appeals Judge’s Ban on ICE Retaliation Against Protesters

President Trump’s administration appealed a federal court order issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez that restricts Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from retaliating against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis. The order prohibits federal agents from arresting protesters engaged in peaceful demonstration, using crowd-dispersal weapons like pepper spray, or detaining drivers without reasonable suspicion of obstruction. The appeal was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, with the administration seeking relief from the Eighth Circuit, a panel dominated by Republican-appointed judges.

Judge Menendez, a Biden appointee, issued the protective order following escalating protests over ICE operations in the city and multiple incidents in which federal agents killed or seriously injured people. The ruling specifically addressed the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, who was shot by a federal agent while attempting to drive around agents attempting to box in her vehicle. The order explicitly bars agents from retaliating against persons observing or documenting federal operations designated “Operation Metro Surge.”

Trump responded to the court order with a False statement on Truth Social, praising Menendez as a “highly respected judge” while simultaneously misrepresenting her ruling by claiming she had “declined to block ICE operations.” In reality, the judge imposed significant restrictions on federal agent conduct, directly contradicting Trump’s characterization. This occurred one day after Trump claimed Menendez had delayed her decision to allow the Justice Department time to respond, framing her judicial independence as a favor to his administration.

The appeal reflects the Trump administration’s resistance to judicial oversight of federal law enforcement tactics during immigration enforcement operations. By appealing to the Eighth Circuit, Trump’s Justice Department seeks to overturn protections for peaceful protesters that federal courts determined were necessary following documented harm. The move demonstrates the administration’s pattern of challenging state and local criticism of ICE operations, including investigating state officials who have publicly opposed the deployment.

(Source: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2674908994/)

Trump Halts Federal Funding to States Harboring Sanctuary

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that beginning February 1, he will withhold federal funding from states that contain local governments limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Trump made the declaration during a speech at the Detroit Economic Club, stating that sanctuary jurisdictions “protect criminals at the expense of American citizens” and that the administration would cease payments to “anybody that supports sanctuary cities.” When pressed by reporters on which funding programs would be affected, Trump declined specifics, saying only “You’ll see. It’ll be significant.”

This represents an expansion of Trump’s previous threats, which targeted sanctuary cities directly rather than entire states housing them. The Justice Department published a list identifying roughly three dozen states, cities, and counties as sanctuary jurisdictions—a list dominated by Democratic-controlled areas including California, Connecticut, New York, Boston, and Cook County, Illinois. No strict legal definition of “sanctuary city” exists, though the term generally refers to jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Courts have blocked Trump’s funding cutoff attempts twice before. In 2017, during his first term, federal judges rejected similar efforts. Last year, a California-based federal judge struck down an executive order directing federal officials to withhold money from sanctuary jurisdictions, despite government arguments that it was premature to halt the plan when no concrete action had been taken. The administration has already begun targeting specific states through other agencies, with the Department of Health and Human Services halting childcare subsidies to five Democratic-led states over unspecified fraud allegations—a decision a court has placed on hold.

The Trump administration is simultaneously executing broader funding freezes across multiple programs. The Justice Department’s sanctuary cities working group lost all members amid Trump pressure, and the Department of Agriculture has threatened to reduce administrative funds for states refusing to provide Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program data. Minnesota faces particularly aggressive action, including a threat to withhold $515 million quarterly—equivalent to one-fourth of federal Medicaid funding—for fourteen programs labeled “high risk” after the state rejected the administration’s corrective action plan.

Border Patrol operations continue under Trump’s aggressive immigration policies, with the administration weaponizing federal agencies to coerce compliance from state and local governments. State officials are mounting legal challenges to these actions, though the cumulative effect of simultaneous funding threats across healthcare, nutrition assistance, and childcare programs creates immediate pressure on Democratic-controlled jurisdictions.

(Source: https://abc7.com/post/trump-threatens-halt-federal-money-next-month-sanctuary-cities-states/18398676/)

Donald Trump Erupts Against Supreme Court

Donald Trump has publicly erupted against the Supreme Court as it deliberates his authority to impose tariffs. He expressed his frustration on his social media platform, Truth Social, questioning why he, as president, can enact measures as drastic as stopping all trade with a foreign nation but cannot impose tariffs for national security. This startling assertion reflects his misunderstanding of the foundational principles underpinning U.S. governance.

The Supreme Court recently began hearing arguments challenging Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify his tariffs, prompting skepticism among the justices about the legality of his claims. This critical judicial review suggests a growing concern regarding Trump’s interpretation of executive power and trade regulation, leading to increased public speculation about the possible outcomes.

Trump’s panicked response indicates significant anxiety over the potential judicial ruling against his tariff policy, which he has boasted is beneficial for American business. His erratic declarations imply that he views tariffs as essential for national economic health, despite the legal challenges they pose. This reflects his tendency to conflate policy success with personal legacy, often disregarding established legal frameworks.

In a fit of rage, Trump lamented that other nations can impose tariffs on the U.S. but not vice versa, suggesting a perceived bias in the judicial system. His failed logic demonstrates his ability to manipulate facts to mount a defense, even as the legal grounds for his actions remain dubious. The justices’ skepticism could lead to a decisive ruling undermining his administration’s tariff policies.

As the court weighs its options, Trump’s volatility raises questions about the implications of his policies. The outcome could potentially reshape his economic agenda and alter the trajectory of U.S. foreign trade relations. The anxious rhetoric Trump uses reflects an increasingly authoritarian grip on power, undermining the established checks and balances intended to preserve American democracy.

DOJ Places Two Prosecutors on Leave After Jan. 6 Memo Filing

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has placed two federal prosecutors, Carlos A. Valdivia and Samuel White, on administrative leave shortly after they submitted a sentencing memo for Taylor Taranto, a pardoned Jan. 6 rioter. Taranto, a Washington state resident, was convicted of illegal firearm possession and making bomb threats while livestreaming. In addition to the legal issues stemming from his recent convictions, the prosecutors’ sentencing memo included a description of Taranto’s participation in the January 6 Capitol riot, which has led to their suspension.

Taranto was convicted in May for carrying two firearms and possessing ammunition unlawfully. In June 2023, he livestreamed threats claiming to be working on a detonator with intentions to detonate a car bomb. His arrest revealed the bomb threat was a hoax but uncovered further serious offenses, including the possession of a machete and multiple firearms. Prosecutors recommended a 27-month sentence followed by supervised release.

In their sentencing memorandum, the prosecutors characterized the riot as a mob attack on the U.S. Capitol while Congress was certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. The memo emphasized Taranto’s involvement in the riot, claiming it was a “flatly accurate description” of the events, which has since been highlighted by legal analysts.

Following the submission of the memo, both Valdivia and White were locked out of their governmental devices and informed of their administrative leave, which became effective after the conclusion of a government shutdown. While it remains unclear why the prosecutors were put on leave, their action aligns with a pattern of the DOJ taking significant measures regarding personnel connected to Jan. 6 cases during the Trump presidency.

Previous reports indicate that the Trump administration has dismissed various prosecutors involved with January 6-related investigations, raising questions regarding the potential political motivations behind such personnel decisions. The DOJ has not commented on this recent action or provided any rationale for placing the two prosecutors on leave.

Stephen Miller Attacks Judges, Declares ‘Legal Insurrection’

Stephen Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, faced intense scrutiny regarding his inflammatory remarks about U.S. District Court judges. In a recent press briefing, he provocatively labeled a legal ruling as a “legal insurrection,” prompting a reporter to question whether he was suggesting President Trump should take punitive action against judges with whom he disagrees. Miller’s response was adamant, claiming that such judicial rulings constitute a usurpation of powers intended for the presidency, which he described as an “illegal insurrection.”

Miller’s comments followed a specific court ruling made by Judge Karin Immergut, who denied Trump’s directive to deploy troops to the Oregon city. Amidst his confrontation with the press, Miller dismissed the authority of district judges, arguing that they have issued numerous “flagrantly unlawful and unconstitutional” rulings that contradict the laws and Constitution of the United States. This rhetoric, steeped in a blatant disregard for judicial oversight, raises concerns about the Trump administration’s commitment to uphold democratic principles and the rule of law.

Critics were quick to condemn Miller’s assertions as dangerous, viewing them as an attack not only on Judge Immergut but on the judiciary as a whole. This reflects a broader trend within the Trump administration, where there is a troubling pattern of undermining checks and balances essential for maintaining a healthy democracy. Such dismissals of judicial authority are symptomatic of authoritarian tendencies, aligning with a disturbing strategy to delegitimize any opposing legal interpretation as a threat.

In defending his position, Miller contended that there has been an “ongoing legal insurrection” facilitated by judges challenging Trump’s policies. These comments echo a fascistic undercurrent prevalent in current Republican discourse, where authority is often challenged and attacked rather than respected. This continual rhetoric may further incite division and hostility toward the judicial system, emboldening supporters to disregard legal rulings that conflict with their agenda.

Ultimately, Miller’s defiance underscores a worrisome trajectory for American governance, as the erosion of respect for judicial processes threatens the foundations of democracy. As Trump’s administration pushes back against institutional norms, it becomes increasingly clear that the commitment to an equitable legal framework is being sacrificed in favor of maintaining authoritarian control over dissenting voices.

Trump Attacks Court Ruling as Partisan After Tariffs Declared Illegal

President Donald Trump has aggressively criticized a federal court decision declaring that most of his tariffs are illegal, demonstrating his continued defiance of judicial authority. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a 7-4 ruling stating that Trump’s unilateral imposition of tariffs overstepped his authority under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. This ruling emphasized that the power to impose tariffs lies exclusively with Congress, a core principle clearly outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

In a reaction posted on his social media platform, Trump called the court “highly partisan,” perpetuating his long-standing narrative of undermining judicial independence. He incorrectly asserted that all tariffs remain in effect, despite the court’s ruling. Trump claimed that any abolishment of these tariffs would lead to financial disaster for the country and asserted that they are vital for preventing trade deficits. The erroneous notion of a direct link between tariffs and national strength epitomizes the misguided economic strategies associated with his administration.

Trump’s comment that “the USA will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits” reflects his obsession with a zero-sum view of international trade—one which has failed to recognize the complexities and interconnected nature of global economies. His reliance on tariffs as a primary instrument of economic policy reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of trade dynamics, which can alienate allies and escalate costs for American consumers.

The court’s ruling has been temporarily stayed until October 14, allowing Trump’s administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Trump’s bravado in declaring that the courts will eventually support his position illustrates an alarming tendency to disregard the rule of law. His framing of tariffs as a weapon to “Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again” showcases an ideological commitment to protectionism that threatens international trade relationships.

Overall, Trump’s reaction not only showcases his characteristic combative nature but also highlights a broader pattern of disregarding legal parameters in pursuit of a narrow political agenda. Such actions are detrimental to the principles of democracy and governance, revealing an authoritarian streak deeply embedded in his political identity, further contributing to a climate of chaos in American political discourse.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-lashes-out-at-highly-partisan-court-that-just-ruled-his-tariffs-illegal/)

NOAA Officials Suspended Amid Trump Administration’s Stranglehold

Recent reports reveal that two senior officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Steve Volz and Jeff Dillen, were placed on administrative leave. Both played key roles in the investigation of the controversial “Sharpiegate” incident, where President Trump misleadingly altered a hurricane map to suggest a threat to Alabama.

The decision to remove Volz and Dillen arises amid tensions with the Trump administration. It is suspected that their departure coincides with the upcoming Senate Committee vote on Neil Jacobs, nominated by Trump to lead NOAA. Inquiries into why their leave was timed with this critical moment raise serious questions about integrity and political interference in scientific matters.

A former NOAA employee has noted the questionable timing, suggesting that it appears aimed at silencing those who previously held the administration accountable for altering scientific findings. The NOAA spokesperson cited performance issues for Dillen’s leave and a separate matter for Volz, yet both officials hinted their removals may be strategic to facilitate policies contrary to NOAA’s mission.

Volz’s service history and advocacy for maintaining NOAA’s operational integrity conflict with current administration plans to privatize some of its satellite operations. This privatization is outlined in Project 2025, a Republican initiative advocating for significant changes in NOAA’s operations, hinting at broader GOP strategies to commercialize and undermine scientific integrity in public agencies.

The departure of these officials not only raises concerns about the politicization of NOAA but also reinforces the administration’s pattern of purging those who challenge its directives. As recruiting and maintaining Trump loyalists continues to shape federal agencies, the alarming precedent set here threatens to erode the independence of scientific research and policy-making foundational to American democracy.

(h/t: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/noaa-sharpiegate-investigation-trump-b2796556.html)

Trump Accuses Obama of Crimes in Evasive Conspiracy Rant

In a recent outburst, Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of engaging in “criminal acts” during remarks made to reporters. This tirade was part of a wider effort by Trump to divert media attention from the ongoing scrutiny surrounding his administration’s connection to deceased sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. The controversy was exacerbated by a recent document release from the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, which Trump aimed to undermine through his accusations against Obama.

Trump’s strategy appears to involve shifting the narrative away from himself amid rising pressures related to Epstein. The former president voiced his belief that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity could be beneficial for Obama, stating, “It probably helps him a lot,” while simultaneously reasserting his claims of wrongdoing against him. Trump’s remarks reflect a desperate attempt to distance himself from the implications of Epstein’s scandal, even as the evidence continues to emerge.

During the interaction with White House correspondent Jon Decker, Trump’s insistence on Obama’s alleged criminality further exemplified his ongoing need to deflect scrutiny. He described the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity as potentially advantageous for Obama, reinforcing the idea that while Obama may avoid legal repercussions, those surrounding him may not be as fortunate. Trump’s perverse sense of gratitude for this immunity ruling indicates his recognition of its potential implications, especially amid allegations against himself.

Trump’s rhetoric serves not only as a tactic to escape accountability but also as a threat to democratic norms, employing baseless allegations as a weapon against political rivals. By continually promoting conspiracy theories and unverified claims, he undermines legitimate discourse and fosters an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. This cycle of attack mirrors tactics often employed by authoritarian leaders, further signaling a departure from democratic principles.

As highlights of Trump’s conspiracy-fueled discourse intensify, it is evident that his actions are not just political posturing but a manifestation of an ongoing campaign to destabilize trust in the political system. The focus should remain firmly on the serious issues surrounding Epstein and the implications of Trump’s actions, rather than indulging in his distraction-laden narratives aimed at deflecting from his own accountability.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-flat-out-accuses-obama-of-criminal-acts-in-new-conspiracy-rant-to-reporters/)

Maurene Comey Fired Amid Controversy Surrounding Trump and Epstein

Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey and a prominent prosecutor of high-profile cases, was recently dismissed from her role in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office. Known for her work on the Jeffrey Epstein case, Maurene’s termination raises questions about the motives behind the decision, especially amid ongoing investigations involving her father, who has been a target of President Donald Trump’s administration.

In her nearly decade-long tenure, Maurene Comey prosecuted both Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking. Her firing follows increased scrutiny of the Justice Department for its handling of Epstein-related documents, an issue that has fueled partisan attacks, particularly from Trump loyalists. Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi have faced public backlash for not releasing additional files that could shed light on Epstein’s alleged criminal activities.

The exact reason behind Maurene Comey’s dismissal remains unclear, with speculation suggesting her firing could be linked to her father’s contentious history with the Trump administration. James Comey’s role in investigating ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia has long placed him at odds with Trump, who has consistently disparaged the former FBI Director.

Notably, Maurene has also endured public criticism from Trump’s alt-right allies, with figures like Laura Loomer calling for her dismissal over the handling of Epstein-related documentation by the Justice Department. These coordinated efforts highlight the political weaponization of law enforcement, aiming to undermine those associated with investigations of powerful individuals.

The dismissal has led to unrest within the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, mirroring a broader trend of turmoil that started when the acting U.S. attorney and other prosecutors resigned following orders to drop a corruption investigation into New York City Mayor Eric Adams. On her last day, numerous colleagues at the U.S. Attorney’s office showed their support for Maurene Comey by accompanying her out, signaling a united front against what they perceive as politicized justice.

(h/t: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/16/maurene-comey-fired-doj-00458921)

1 2 3 … 9