The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky – Northern Division blocked President Joe Biden’s Title IX rewrite, known as the Final Rule. The ruling applies nationwide.

“Because the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceed the Department’s authority under Title IX, violate the Constitution, and are the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment will be granted and the Department’s motion for summary judgment will be denied,” wrote the Court. //

The Final Rule had gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics.

The Department refused to provide a narrow definition of “sex” “to avoid overbroad application of a prohibition on discrimination based on sex stereotypes.” //

The Court stressed that Title IX’s phrase “on the basis of sex” means exactly what it says when Title IX became law: Sex is female or male. Title IX protects human beings born female. Basic biology! //

The Department of Education also threatened to punish those who refuse to use a person’s preferred name or pronouns.

Well, the Court ruled that violated the First Amendment //

The Final Rule violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause since it threatened to withhold funds from schools that did not abide by the rewrite.

Legislation must satisfy a four-prong test to limit federal funds.

The Court found the Final Rule did not satisfy the fourth prong: “the conditions must not induce unconstitutional action.”. //

Bruce Hayden | January 9, 2025 at 3:34 pm
I find interesting the use of vacatur, which, by necessity, is nationwide. If a regulation violates the APA, and is thus void, it makes no sense for it to be void in just the ED of KY. Void is void, and that is what the APA calls for.

This is in contrast to nationwide injunctions issued by a single district court. How does a single district court, in a single district in a single state have the power to issue a nationwide injunction? It doesn’t typically have jurisdiction over most of the parties involved. The use of nationwide injunctions had grown enormously over the last decade or two, and became increasingly controversial by its overreach, esp in suits pushed by the left. Vacatur of regulations subject to the APA is more defensive in nature, merely preventing the government from imposing non-compliant regulations.

To preserve the status quo as this Court awaits resolution by the Eleventh Circuit of the similar Emergency Motion, to prevent irreparable harm arising from the circumstances as described in the current record in this emergency posture, and to permit an orderly and deliberative sequence of events, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Pending resolution of the Emergency Motion filed in the Eleventh Circuit and/or any further direction from the Eleventh Circuit, Attorney General Garland, the Department of Justice, Special Counsel Smith, all of their officers, agents, and employees, and all persons acting inactive concert or participation with such individuals, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2), TEMPORARILY ENJOINED from (a) releasing, sharing, or transmitting the Final Report or any drafts of such Report outside the Department of Justice, or (b) otherwise releasing, distributing, conveying, or sharing with anyone outside the Department of Justice any information or conclusions in the Final Report or in drafts thereof. This Order remains in effect until three days after resolution by the Eleventh Circuit of the Emergency Motion, unless the Eleventh Circuit orders otherwise. //

USA_Proud anon-nn7q
13 hours ago
While it will take a while to change the leadership in the DOJ even after the top gets appointed, it will be very risky for Any DOJ Employee to leak that report. I believe that the Trump Administration would be very likely to collect a few proverbial 'scalps' on defiant DOJ Law deniers early in their Administration, and this would be an excellent test case. The report had material from Grand Jury testimony, that by law, is not releasable. It was collected by a person not eligible by Law to collect it. A Federal Judge ruled against its release. If it does get leaked by a Federal Employee, they not only will be liable for many Criminal charges, they also would be liable to civil charges by the US Citizens illegally disparaged by the leak of this information. That would be grounds for denying their Pension, or having it awarded to those so disparaged. While I would be upset that innocent citizens would be disparaged by its leak, there is some comfort that there would be both punitive and compensatory effects of this leak.

At the end of each year—only hours before a new year begins—Roberts releases his “Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.” Think of it as a written “State of the Judiciary” address. In this latest report, he focused on “four areas of illegitimate activity that … threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends.”

What are those threats? According to Roberts, they’re “(1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.”

Unfortunately, Trump cannot undo Biden’s executive order.

Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), a law established in 1953, states, “the President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the Outer Continental Shelf.”

Trump needs Congress to change the law. That could happen since the GOP controls the House and Senate.

No one can receive a lease to drill for oil, gas, or other minerals in those areas.

OCSLA lacks language that allows a future president to undo an executive order under Section 12(a).

Former President Barack Obama issued a similar executive order on December 20, 2016.

In April 2017, Trump signed an executive order to undo Obama’s order.

Activist groups challenged Trump’s order.

In 2019, US District Court Judge Sharon Gleason, based in Alaska, overturned Trump’s executive order, leaving in place Obama’s protection of the Arctic’s Chukchi Sea and the East Coast of America.

The battle of wits had begun. And Kinzinger clearly went into a gunfight with a spork.

“Just a quick point, both parties have always accepted the presidential election until one, four years ago,” Kinzinger falsely claimed.

Jennings countered, quite simply, “False, they have not."

Curtis Houck @CurtisHouck
·
PANTS ON FIRE: Adam Kinzinger falsely claims Scott Jennings lied in saying this was the first time in our lifetime both parties won't object to a presidential election result.

Kinzinger and Ashley Allison say Jennings mentioning 2000, 2004, and 2016 are why we're so divided

1:36 PM · Jan 6, 2025. //

Democrats have objected to election results in each of the Republican-won elections this century.

In 2000, 15 Democrats, including 12 members of the Congressional Black Caucus at the time, would object to counting Florida’s electoral votes.

This was after then-Vice President Al Gore refused to accept the free and fair election results and would not concede defeat to George W. Bush. He instead tied up the election process through litigation in the courts for months.

Gore consistently lost his bid to overturn the election results in the lower courts and kept fighting in the Florida Supreme Court. He would not concede until mid-December of that year, a month and a half after Election Day.

In 2004, 31 Democrats voted in favor of rejecting electoral votes from Ohio, trying to delegitimize President Bush once again, despite the fact that he won the electoral count by a wider margin and the popular vote count over John Kerry.

In 2016, seven different Democrats objected 11 times to certifying the results of the 2016 presidential election victory for Donald Trump. Additionally, 67 Democrats boycotted Trump’s inauguration, with many claiming “his election was illegitimate.”

There was violence in the streets, and Democrat lawmakers were most assuredly trying to “obstruct, influence, impede or delay” the certification of the presidential election, just as Republicans are accused of doing on January 6.

Never forget. //

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and ten other senators objected to the certification of the 2020 election. It wasn't a unique tactic by any stretch. If anything, Democrats wrote the playbook on election denialism.

Ready2Squeeze
an hour ago
Having experienced this on a very small scale for an organization I work with - the whole concept of contingency fee based lawfare needs to be addressed. We went through a lawsuit where a disgruntled party shows up with a slip and fall lawyer and made ludicrous claims on us owing money for a project. We had the numbers and cancelled checks to prove that the claims were crazy and by the time we were about to go to trial 90% of the original ask of a 7 figure number were thrown out or withdrawn by the plaintiff. Just before going to trial the plaintiffs lawyer offered a deal for a tiny fraction of the original claim. Our trial lawyer indicated that if we went to trial our costs would be close to 6 figures - he was sure that the plaintiffs remaining claims would be denied and that we were more than likely to win on our countersuit for legal fees (this had dragged on for YEARS so they were substantial - again multiple 6 figures) and for shoddy work on the original project which were originally not interested in pursuing for complicated reasons. He also said that even if we won - we would not collect a penny as the plaintiff already had multiple judgements against them and had no assets in their name. So we wound up paying for having been put through this as that amount was a fraction of what a trial would have cost - with no reward for winning.

How did we get to that point - the plaintiffs lawyer had nothing to lose - he just put in some time (very minimal based on what he turned over in discovery) for the possibility of a large chunk of a 7 figure settlement. The amount we wound up paying him probably easily covered his time and expenses. In the meantime - we had to PAY our legal bills and had no way of recovering the costs from the plaintiff - who never would have pursued this lawsuit if he had to pay for his lawyer up front. So the plaintiff swung and missed, the plaintiffs lawyer didn't make a windfall but did alright, and we were f**ked.

Here's the point - in these contingency cases - the lawyer is not just providing legal assistance - they are forgoing payment in lieu of what they hope to be a big payday if they win. If they lose the only thing invested is some time. The lawyer in a contingency case is actually a party to the lawsuit as they have a monetary vested interest in the outcome of the case, therefore they should be on the hook for at least legal costs if they lose and their client can't/won't pay. This would eliminate tons of these lawsuits and make it worthwhile for defendants to aggressively push back and not settle to avoid continuing legal fees.

Nauta and De Oliveira claim that Smith, whose appointment as Special Counsel was ruled unconstitutional by the court, lacks the authority to issue a report under federal regulations. The motion also emphasizes that the report would unfairly influence public opinion and taint any potential jury pool while legal appeals are still pending. Defense attorneys describe the report as a "one-sided narrative" that improperly uses grand jury materials and privileged information. //

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
Could Merrick Garland and his staff, plus other DOJ Officials TBD potentially face criminal investigation for improper access/disclosure of Rule 6(e) materials to Jack Smith after he was DQ'd from the Florida case, and the D.C. case was dismissed?

Violations of Rule 6(e) are subject to a criminal penalty.

If Jack Smith still has access to those materials for purposes of writing his "Report" to the AG, has he been provided unauthorized access in violation of the Rule????
10:00 PM · Jan 6, 2025. //

The defendants argue that the report would serve as an impermissible "public verdict," undermining their right to a fair trial. They further claim that releasing the report would disregard federal grand jury secrecy rules and the court’s previous rulings that disqualified Smith from the case.

With precious few exceptions, American schools are graduating more and more students who are illiterate, innumerate, illogical and ignorant. //

It’s the first case filed against Big Education for “deceptive and fraudulent marketing and sale of products and services” — products that allegedly caused developmental, emotional, and financial injuries.

This complaint goes straight to the heart of the matter: Big Education provides a glaringly defective product that causes undeniable harm and is demonstrably fraudulent — and its consumers, America’s families, are entitled to protection under existing consumer-protection laws. //

The Massachusetts lawsuit focuses on reading and literacy, charging that the plaintiffs have been materially harmed by these curricula — but a win could allow the families’ consumer-protection argument to be deployed more widely. //

The logic of the Massachusetts lawsuit could even be used against damaging social and disciplinary policies in our schools.

For years, Big Education has been pushing diversity, equity, and inclusion principles into every aspect of school life, promising it will bring racial harmony.

Yet systematic meta-analyses of data, capped by a widely cited study from Rutgers University, confirm that DEI has in fact the opposite effect, aggravating overall racial bias and hostility.

Big Education’s multibillion-dollar DEI fraud is ripe for consumer-protection accountability.

looking at Judge Mazzant’s order, which stayed implementation of the statute in question provides some insight into what he found objectionable:

Legislative ingenuity, dispatched to meet today’s problems, is not measured by any other standard than our written Constitution. Modern problems may well warrant modern solutions, but modernity does not grant Congress a roving license to legislate outside the boundaries of our timeless, written Constitution. See, e.g., Louisiana v. Biden, 55 F.4th 1017, 1032 (5th Cir. 2022) (“The Constitution is not abrogated[, even] in a pandemic.”). The Constitution must stand firm. //

At its most rudimentary level, the CTA regulates companies that are registered to do business under a State’s laws and requires those companies to report their ownership, including detailed, personal information about their owners, to the Federal Government on pain of severe penalties. Though seemingly benign, this federal mandate marks a drastic two-fold departure from history. First, it represents a Federal attempt to monitor companies created under state law—a matter our federalist system has left almost exclusively to the several States. Second, the CTA ends a feature of corporate formation as designed by various States—anonymity. For good reason, Plaintiffs fear this flanking, quasi Orwellian statute and its implications on our dual system of government. As a result, Plaintiffs contend that the CTA violates the promises our constitution makes to the People and the States. Despite attempting to reconcile the CTA with the Constitution at every turn, the Government is unable to provide the Court with any tenable theory that the CTA falls within Congress’s power. And even in the face of the deference the Court must give Congress, the CTA appears likely unconstitutional. Accordingly, the CTA and its Implementing Regulations must be enjoined. //

the record before the Court contains sufficient facts to indicate the CTA and the Reporting Rule may violate the Constitution…Absent injunctive relief, come January 2, 2025, Plaintiffs would have disclosed the information they seek to keep private under the First and Fourth Amendments and surrendered to a law that they contend exceeds Congress’s powers. That damage “cannot be undone by monetary relief.” That harm is irreparable. //

The court also held that the CTA was not valid under the commerce clause because “[t]he CTA does not regulate channels of, or instrumentalities in, commerce,” only formation of corporations and reporting about them. And, “[t]he CTA does not regulate an activity—it creates one.” //

Christopher B | January 1, 2025 at 10:42 am
As a board member of a non-profit that would be impacted by this, I’m happy to see the injunction back. We have some folks on our board who have to deal with this in a professional capacity, and their opinion is generally that FinCen and other TLAs want a way to get at this information without having to obtain a warrant since it largely exists in various databases but not under their control.

Pro-life activist Paul Vaughn, the president of Personhood Tennessee tested before the committee about his experience as a defendant changed by Biden's DOJ under the FACE Act.

Vaughn detailed the terrifying events of October 5, 2022 when his home was raided by the FBI for peacefully protesting an abortion facility: //

House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 @JudiciaryGOP
·
Pro-life advocate Paul Vaughn opened his front door to find 3 FBI agents with guns trained on him.

He was arrested without a warrant for his efforts to protect the sanctity of life.

WATCH him recount his story of being victimized by Joe Biden's weaponized DOJ.

2:29 PM · Dec 18, 2024 //

Vaughn, a Chrstian father of eleven children, testified that three of his children were detained and that he was never presented with identification from law enforcement, nor a warrant: //

There is no legitimate reason for it to remain on the books. It is a tool whose sole purpose is to stifle free speech and abuse the rights of Christian conservatives. There is nothing that the FACE Act does that is not already accomplished by state laws across the land.

If abortion is returned to the States, so should the laws governing it. //

veritaseequitas
2 hours ago edited
The agents who did this need to be arrested and prosecuted for infringing upon the rights of these people. I assume they used the same tactics on those who are currently in jail.
Hopefully DJT will pardon these people.

Retired Professor
4 hours ago edited
A big, big part of this was Fani's failure to take a cross-appeal, as well as her prior failure to even preserve a proper record in the trial court for later use on appeal. This underscores what I've been saying for months about how Fani is not a very good lawyer, among her many other shortcomings, such as lack of judgment, etc.

Nevertheless, this is a very good outcome, and further ensures we have heard the last of this sham proceeding, as far as its impact on President Trump is concerned. But I'm sure Fani will continue to waste taxpayer money (as well as costing all the defendants more attorneys fees) by dragging this matter up to the Georgia Supreme Court, just to try to cover her eponymous anatomical part.

I hope all the defendants sue her and Nathan Wade for all they're worth when this is over.

Jake Schneider @jacobkschneider
·
🚨 BIDEN: "We've run a campaign that's basically scandal free. That's hard to do in American politics."

(Except covering up his obvious cognitive decline, peddling his family's influence, hiding classified documents, etc etc etc)

6:39 PM · Dec 15, 2024

It goes without saying that all such claims by the enfeebled president are demonstrably false. Consider: Bidenflation. Botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. Pardon-palooza. Mishandling of classified documents. Weaponizing his Justice Department. Failing to secure the release of the hostages in Gaza.

All of that barely scratches the surface of just how bad of a president Biden has been. The fact is that Joe Biden will go down in history as one of our country's worst, with a recent poll showing his abysmal performance over the past four years has earned him the bottom-most position.

What's a washed up politician to do to save his legacy with scant little time to do it? Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) thinks she has the perfect solution: Make the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) a Constitutional amendment. //

The Sunday version of The New York Times published a grotesque leftist wish list of things a weird assortment of people — Rick Steves and weed? — want Biden to do before he's booted from The White House. The premise? Biden couldn't debase himself anymore than he did by pardoning his own son, so he might as well do all sorts of additional shameful things. //

Gillibrand is running with the idea, writing:

With Republicans set to take unified control of government, Americans are facing the further degradation of reproductive freedom.

Fortunately, Mr. Biden has the power to enshrine reproductive rights in the Constitution right now. He can direct the national archivist to certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment. This would mean that the amendment has been officially ratified and that the archivist has declared it part of the Constitution.

She thinks she's got it all figured out, saying “I’ve never done more legal analysis and work since I was a lawyer.” Here's the gist of it:

Both houses of Congress approved the amendment in 1972, but it was not ratified by the states in time to be added to the Constitution. Ms. Gillibrand has been pushing a legal theory that the deadline for ratification is irrelevant and unconstitutional. All that remains, she argues, is for Mr. Biden to direct the national archivist, who is responsible for the certification and publication of constitutional amendments, to publish the E.R.A. as the 28th Amendment. //

The late Phyllis Schlafly wrote her seminal "What’s Wrong with ‘Equal Rights’ for Women?" essay back in 1972, and every one of her points from then holds true today.

Why should we trade in our special privileges and honored status for the alleged advantage of working in an office or assembly line? Most women would rather cuddle a baby than a typewriter or factory machine. Most women find that it is easier to get along with a husband than a foreman or office manager. Offices and factories require many more menial and repetitious chores than washing dishes and ironing shirts. Women’s libbers do not speak for the majority of American women. American women do not want to be liberated from husbands and children.

Schlafly circa 1972 is pure gold: "The 'women’s lib' movement is not an honest effort to secure better jobs for women who want or need to work outside the home. This is just the superficial sweet-talk to win broad support for a radical 'movement.' Women’s lib is a total assault on the role of the American woman as wife and mother, and on the family as the basic unit of society." //

Devin
10 minutes ago
The deadline the states missed is completely relevant - it was in the amendment itself. So since they didn't meet the deadline, it failed. To pass it, it has to be re-introduced and voted on again

Paxton said that the 20-year-old woman who received the pills ended up in a hospital with complications. It was only after that, the state said in its filing, that the man described as “the biological father of the unborn child” learned of the pregnancy and the abortion. //

Texas laws prohibit a physician or medical supplier from providing any abortion-inducing drugs by courier, delivery, or mail service. Additionally, no physician may treat patients or prescribe Texas residents medicine through telehealth services unless the doctor holds a valid Texas medical license.

Dr. Carpenter knowingly treated Texas residents despite not being a licensed Texas physician and not being authorized to practice telemedicine in Texas. Attorney General Paxton requested the court enjoin Dr. Carpenter from violating Texas law and impose civil penalties of no less than $100,000 for each violation of the law. //

Just Me Here
5 hours ago
If they can mandate on-line sales tax by state they should be able to mandate on-line sales restriction for items based on state laws.
As I type this I remember they do this with many items sold in CA (many restrictions) and for hemp items in various states.
Guess I answered my own question.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered a landmark decision striking down Nasdaq’s board diversity rules, marking a significant setback for corporate diversity initiatives imposed by regulatory bodies.

While the rules aimed to increase representation of women and minorities on corporate boards, the court found them inconsistent with federal securities laws, emphasizing limits on the authority of regulatory agencies to shape corporate governance. The Fifth Circuit's ruling deals a blow to recent, progressive trends in the corporate world - pushed by government agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - calling for more diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) on corporate boards. //

The ruling redefines the landscape for diversity efforts in corporate America. It underscores that DEI goals must be pursued voluntarily and market-driven rather than through regulatory mandates. Nasdaq, acknowledging the court’s decision, stated it would not seek further review. Meanwhile, the SEC is evaluating its response.

Trump campaign lawyer Jim Troupis, who helped guide the alternate electors plan, spoke publicly for the first time as AG files more charges.

The day before the contentious 2020 election, Jim Troupis ranked among the most respected attorneys in Wisconsin. Two years after he represented President Donald Trump in his Badger State election challenges, Troupis says he couldn’t find a lawyer to write his estate plan. A lot of the friends he worked with over his distinguished legal career disappeared faster than a lawsuit against a prosecutor.

“Nothing had changed, I had simply represented Donald Trump,” Troupis told conservative talk show host Vicki McKenna Tuesday afternoon. “This has been unbelievably painful for me and my family.”

The pain got worse Tuesday as Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a highly partisan Democrat with higher political ambitions, announced more criminal charges against Troupis, fellow Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro, and Trump campaign official Michael Roman. The three men are caught up in Kaul’s politically driven electors prosecution, a last-ditch effort to try to lock up allies of President-elect Trump and send a message that the left’s scorched earth lawfare campaign is far from over.

“…as a condition of participating in the modern economy, Americans are forced to disclose details of their private lives to a financial industry that has been too eager to pass this information along to federal law enforcement.”

A report from the House Judiciary Committee and Government Weaponization Subcommittee exposed the FBI for abusing the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to spy on Americans’ bank accounts without a warrant.

“Documents show that federal law enforcement increasingly works hand-in-glove with financial institutions, obtaining virtually unchecked access to private financial data and testing out new methods and new technology to continue the financial surveillance of American citizens,” according to the report.

Afederal judge on Monday granted former President Donald Trump’s request for the appointment of a special master to review the documents seized by the FBI during a raid on his Mar-a-Lago home last month. Presiding Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, further held that the Department of Justice cannot review or use for criminal investigative purposes any material seized pending the review process.

Besides handing Trump a victory in his battle for some oversight of the Biden administration’s digging into his documents, Cannon highlighted several significant facts over the course of her 24-page order that further call into question the DOJ’s targeting of Trump.

Here are the seven top-line takeaways:

1. President Biden Was Directly Involved

The very idea that a blanket preemptive pardon would be handed out is an anathema to the very idea of justice because it would occur before any charges were made. And it would prevent any charges from ever being leveled. As such, the idea of preemptive clemency simply gives one carte blanche to act in any manner he/she sees fit while in office, provided they have the expectation of pardon. //

I don't see how this leads to anything but a pathway to the abuse of political power. //

If you cannot ever have a trial, then a guy like Mayorkas can treat the entire country like his own little fiefdom and forever change the United States culturally, socially, and legally. All on his own. And with a blanket and preemptive pardon, presidential cabinet members, NGOs, and partisan bureaucrats have the freedom to make policy that we didn't vote for and probably never would.

What the progressives could gain, if Markey were to get his Christmas wish, is a short-term insurance policy against prosecution for guys like Mayorkas, or John Brennan, or Mark Milley, but it will set a precedent for long-term abuse by presidents in the future. Trump could employ the same tactics, and while the progs would scream and shout, there wouldn't be much they could do about it legally, not to mention the fact that they were the ones who started rolling that snowball down the hill in the first place. //

Now, for Trump, if he were to find himself in the position where he could not prosecute certain individuals for treason or malfeasance, perhaps he could at least have them investigated. The products of such interrogatories might not lead to any charges because of the pardons, but at least such "fact-finding endeavors" might illuminate what abuses (if any) actually occurred so that we could avoid more in the future. This information would be made public to the electorate, and from that, what happens happens.

Tearing down institutions and traditions tears apart a society, a country. Sure, things can evolve over time, but to rip stuff out by the roots all at once is very reckless. Issuing preemptive pardons before any charges are even leveled prevents justice because we never have an opportunity to find out if it was ever being served in the first place. Did Mayorkas break the border all of his own volition just because he felt like it? Was he instructed to do it? If so, by whom? Who does he report to? Oh...the president. //

Billy Wallace
20 minutes ago edited
Pardoning everyone in your administration will be the new normal if Biden does it

if Biden does it, Trump most certainly will in January 2029, and why wouldn't he? I would

it will just become standard operating procedure, as will issuing an executive order declaring any and all records and documents in your possession to be declassified personal records

During a Monday night panel on Fox News’ Hannity, investigative journalist John Solomon, editor of Just the News, and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett discussed the ongoing risks facing Hunter and the Biden family. //

Solomon said, “You can’t bring criminal charges against Hunter Biden, but there’s nothing that prevents the Trump Justice Department from filing a fraud case and seeking civil remedy and taking money from him and other members of the family on allegations that they reported false information. They committed fraud. Those are things that are still on the table. A pardon doesn’t protect you from civil actions.”

“He no longer will be able to deny or say ‘I don’t want to testify in any proceedings because I invoke my Fifth Amendment right against incrimination.’ The president took that away from him, so he’s going to have to testify if he’s compelled.”. //

The panel unanimously agreed that the pardon was more than just a selfless gesture from a loving father. Its broad immunity, covering the period from January 2014 to December 2024, revealed its true intent. As I mentioned yesterday, 2014 marked the beginning of Hunter’s tenure on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. This was the year the family’s influence-peddling operation ramped up, and the flow of money began.

Tristan Leavitt
@tristanleavitt
·
Follow
🚨 This opinion from the judge overseeing the tax prosecution of Hunter Biden is worth reading every word…
Jerry Dunleavy IV 🇺🇸
@JerryDunleavy
U.S. district court judge takes issue with Biden’s claim in his pardon that no reasonable person looking at the case could reach any conclusion other than that Hunter was targeted because he is the POTUS’s son, noting that federal judges & Biden’s own DOJ rejected that argument.
8:40 PM · Dec 3, 2024

The net effect of Scarsi's order is that the California case against Hunter is now also terminated. But after first noting that Hunter's team botched things by merely providing a hyperlink to the White House press release regarding the pardon rather than filing an accurate copy of the pardon, Scarsi included some delicious parting shots on the matter (emphasis added, citations omitted):

The President’s statement illustrates the reasons for the Court’s disapproval, as representations contained therein stand in tension with the case record.

For example, the President asserts that Mr. Biden “was treated differently” from others “who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions,” implying that Mr. Biden was among those individuals who untimely paid taxes due to addiction. But he is not. In his pretrial filings, Mr. Biden represented that he “was severely addicted to alcohol and drugs” “through May 2019.”...Upon pleading guilty to the charges in this case, Mr. Biden admitted that he engaged in tax evasion after this period of addiction by wrongfully deducting as business expenses items he knew were personal expenses, including luxury clothing, escort services, and his daughter’s law school tuition.

...

According to the President, “[n]o reasonable person who looks at the facts of [Mr. Biden’s] cases can reach any other conclusion than [Mr. Biden] was singled out only because he is [the President’s] son.” But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the President...And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges. In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people.

In short, a press release is not a pardon. The Constitution provides the President with broad authority to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1, but nowhere does the Constitution give the President the authority to rewrite history.