But beyond the legal arguments there is a pressing moral argument about citizenship and nationhood that lies at the heart of our current debates about the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. The moral argument engages a different and arguably more important set of questions. What is an American? Who is America for? What is the purpose of immigration? What do immigrants or would-be immigrants owe to the native-born population? //

Contrary to what has been drilled into most of us since grade school, not everyone can really become an American. Being an American means more than simply assenting to live by our laws and paying taxes, because America is more than an idea. (As others have noted, if America is just an idea we can write it down and send it overseas, and foreigners need not come here at all.)

Simply put, America is a nation. We have a common language and a shared history. We have a certain way of life and customs. We have a distinctly American identity. Our system of government is founded explicitly on Christian claims about God and man. For most of our history, Christian morality has been the basis of our civic life. We are bound together by family ties, by our connections to the land, by shared experience, by what Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address called the “mystic chords of memory.”

Every foreigner who comes here understands what this means as it applies to their own homeland. It has been a grave error that we have insisted for so long that none of it applies to us. Making a case against birthright citizenship will mean making a case against the pernicious ideology of multiculturalism, which we have been taught makes us strong but in reality makes us weaker and poorer.

It will also mean asserting that it’s not actually the case that someone whose parents emigrated to America from a foreign country, and whose family has only been here a single generation, is “just as American” as someone who traces their ancestry to the American Revolution. It will mean admitting that America would be much better off not only with zero illegal immigration but with only a very low level of legal immigration, which would help preserve our cultural and community cohesion, and encourage the complete assimilation of all newcomers.

We have to get comfortable saying these things and defending them. Yes, the legal and constitutional arguments against birthright citizenship are very strong, and they might in the end win the day. But regardless of the outcome of the legal battle over the 14th Amendment, we have to insist, without apology, on a fuller understanding of the American nation and the American people. An American is not just someone who happens to be born here. For a foreign national to become an American, he has to thoroughly adopt our culture, language, and way of life — and resolve to pass all of those habits and customs onto his posterity, here in his adopted homeland. Nothing less than his complete allegiance and complete assimilation will do.

Why do I say this? Because America itself is first and foremost for native-born Americans. It’s the only homeland we will ever have or ever can have. As such, our immigration policy should exist solely to benefit us, the American people. Indeed, because the only legitimate purpose of immigration is to create new Americans, our immigration regime should be narrowly tailored to serve the interests of our people. Businesses, especially multinational corporations, should have no say in it whatsoever, nor should legal resident noncitizens or family members of immigrants, whether legal or illegal.

All of these arguments are not really about immigration policy, but about what a nation is and how to preserve it.

On inauguration day, President Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of the approximately 1,550 defendants convicted for their involvement with the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. He also ordered DOJ to dismiss all other pending indictments. Most of them, about 900, were for non-violent misdemeanors such as trespass and disorderly conduct. He granted the clemency all at once, and did not begin with pardoning the non-violent misdemeanor defendants first and then examining the remaining defendants on a case-by-case basis as he and others previously had suggested.

Meanwhile, on the very same day, just 15 minutes before he left office, President Biden issued the last set of his own pardons. He granted them to members of his family, most notably his brothers, sister, and in-laws, as well as to members of his administration such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and General Mark Milley, and even to political supporters like the congressional January 6 committee members. Biden's pardons followed thousands of pardons he issued this month to what he claimed were non-violent federal offenders and commutations of virtually all federal death penalties.

Many Democrats and media outlets have criticized Trump's mass clemency for the January 6 defendants, even as they casually ignored President Biden's. But let's put aside the hypocrisy for a moment to examine the real differences between the two sets of pardons, regardless of one's views of their merits.

First, Biden granted pardons and commutations to more than 8,000 individuals, which is more than any other modern president. Thousands of Biden's clemency grants were to serious criminals, including murderers, child killers, child abusers, and the biggest municipal embezzler in history, Rita Crundwell. Several of the grants benefitted well-connected Democrats. In both 2022 and 2024, Biden abused his pardon power to achieve mass sentencing reductions that Congress refused to pass by law. President Obama did the same thing when he issued mass commutations of drug sentences. //

Second, it's obviously not principle but politics that drove Biden's pardons; Biden's post-election mass death row commutations did not follow his self-proclaimed opposition to the death penalty. He left three men on death row whose commutations would have politically harmed Democrats. He did not commute the sentences of Dzhokar Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon bomber), Dylann Roof (murderer of nine black churchgoers in Charleston), and Robert Bowers (murderer of 11 worshippers a synagogue in Squirrel Hill, PA). Biden's alleged opposition to the death penalty also did not prevent DOJ from filing capital murder charges against Luigi Mangione.

Third, President Biden needs to pardon his family, officials, and allies only because he fears the very lawfare that he invented. Biden's DOJ broke more than two centuries of history to prosecute a former president and the candidate of the major opposition political party. He is like an arsonist who demands more spending on fire departments. Because of his stated fear of retaliation, Biden pardoned his family and associates before prosecutors ever launched investigations. These pardons were to Biden's own benefit, as their reciipients are much less likely to disclose any information that directly implicate President Biden to the family's alleged "pay to play, 10 percent for the Big Guy" schemes.

Contrast that with Trump's clemency, which did not directly benefit him or his family, and covered defendants who were actually convicted or charged, unlike Biden's preemptive pardons that covered up to 10 years' worth of potential and actual criminal activity for his family and allies. //

Democrats have resorted to pardons because they appear to expect lawfare to continue. DOJ released Jack Smith's special counsel J6 report even though Trump had won the election and DOJ could no longer pursue charges. It is even trying to release the special counsel report about the Florida classified documents case, even though Trump's co-defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Both President Trump and Attorney General–designate Pam Bondi are positioned to stop the lawfare, but only if the Democrats abjure their politicization of criminal justice. Lawfare can descend on Democrats as easily as on Republicans.

SteveAR Mark the CPA
an hour ago
The "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase is more important than people realize. The only question will be if Roberts and Barrett, and perhaps Kavanaugh, understand that.

Jim Stewart Scholar
an hour ago
On May 30, 1866, Republican Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Senate and defined the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” by stating:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Oops, Mr. Howard underestimated the stupidity of judges.

NightStalker Mark the CPA
11 minutes ago
Question: If the child of non-citizens is not denied citizenship by the phrase ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’’ then what child born in the United States would be denied citizenship by that clause? If no child born in the United States can be denied citizenship then what was the purpose of the phrase?

SteveAR Mark the CPA
an hour ago
The "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase is more important than people realize. The only question will be if Roberts and Barrett, and perhaps Kavanaugh, understand that.

mopani NightStalker
5 minutes ago
It was just a flourish to use up the extra space and get rid rid of useless ink.

Always ask yourself, why would the writer add seemingly pointless details? They are important. Especially so when reading Scripture. //

Scholar
an hour ago edited
So the court shopping has started. What does one expect from a judge in Seattle? He is a moron because an originalist by looking at the historical background could easily infer that the purpose was not to allow any baby born in America become a citizen, automatically. The purpose was to end the controversy of any doubt about blacks born in the United States.

Never before has the Department of Justice, prior to the conclusion of criminal proceedings against a defendant—and absent a litigation-specific reason as appropriate in the case itself—sought to disclose outside the Department a report prepared by a Special Counsel containing substantive and voluminous case information. Until now. According to the Department, this camera disclosure to four members of Congress is necessary right now—before the conclusion of criminal proceedings—because Attorney General Garland has “limited time” left in his tenure as the head of the Department and wishes “to comply with the historical practice of all Special Counsel,” and also because there is “legislative interest in information about Special Counsel investigations, in order to consider possible legislative reforms regarding the use of special counsels” [ECF No. 703 p. 3 n.2].11 These statements do not reflect well on the Department. There is no “historical practice” of providing Special Counsel reports to Congress, even on a limited basis, pending conclusion of criminal proceedings. In fact, there is not one instance of this happening now [see Tr. 21, 26]. During argument before this Court, counsel misleadingly referenced Congressional testimony by Special Counsel Weiss in 2023 as a purported example of such “historical practice” [Tr. 26]. But Special Counsel Weiss—after opposition by the Department—ultimately agreed to testify on limited matters, repeatedly refusing to answer questions regarding ongoing litigation in order to prevent prejudice to “the rights of defendants or other individuals involved in these matters.”12 13 [Tr. 40–41]. Here, there has been no subpoena from Congress to the Department for Volume II. There is no indication of pending legislative activity that could be aided by the proposed disclosure of Volume II to the specified members of Congress. There is no memorialization of any conditions of confidentiality as referenced by the Department. Indeed, there has been no record provided of an official request by members of Congress for review of Volume II in the manner proposed by the Department.14 To the contrary, some of the same members to whom the Department wishes to present Volume II have urged Attorney General Garland to release Volume II to the public immediately, even if doing so requires dismissal of the charges as to Defendants Nauta and De Oliveira. Supra n.10. In short, the Department offers no valid justification for the purportedly urgent desire to release to members of Congress case information in an ongoing criminal proceeding. //

Meanwhile, on the other side of the balance, there are two individuals in this action, each with constitutional rights to a fair trial, who remain subject to a live criminal appeal of this Court’s Order Dismissing the Superseding Indictment. 11th Cir. Appeal No. 24-1231. The Department has not sought leave to dismiss that appeal, initiated by the Special Counsel, and there has been no indication by any government official in this case that the Department will not proceed on the Superseding Indictment should it prevail in the Eleventh Circuit or in subsequent proceedings.15 These Defendants thus retain—as all parties agree—due process rights to a fair trial that would be imperiled by public dissemination of Volume II. Yet the Department nevertheless insists upon disclosure of Volume II to members of Congress now, promising that conditions of confidentiality, “contingent on their good faith commitment,” will protect against the potential for prejudice [ECF No. 703 p.5]. And if Volume II gets released in whole or in part to the public in contravention of those promises, the Department assures, then Defendants need not worry because this Court can “cure” any damage caused by crafting jury instructions in the future and/or dismissing the charges [ECF No. 703 pp. 5–6]. These assertions flounder on multiple levels and do nothing to detract from the obvious. Given the very strong public interest in this criminal proceeding and the absence of any enforceable limits on the proposed disclosure, there is certainly a reasonable likelihood that review by members of Congress as proposed will result in public dissemination of all or part of Volume II. //

This Court lacks any means to enforce any proffered conditions of confidentiality, to the extent they even exist in memorialized form. And most fundamentally, the Department has offered no valid reason to engage in this gamble with the Defendants’ rights. The bare wishes of one Attorney General with “limited time” in office to comply with a non-existent “historical practice” of releasing Special Counsel reports in the pendency of criminal proceedings is not a valid reason. And surely it does not override the obvious constitutional interests of Defendants in this action and this Court’s duty to protect the integrity of this proceeding. Even less clear is why the Department would defend this position notwithstanding its own Justice Manual, which expressly directs against disclosing substantive case information in a criminal case “except as appropriate in the proceeding or in an announcement after a finding of guilt.” //

Prosecutors play a special role in our criminal justice system and are entrusted and expected to do justice. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 696(2004); Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General of the United States, Speech to the U.S. Department of Justice, The Federal Prosecutor (Apr. 1, 1940), available athttps://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches-attorney-general-robert-houghwout-jackson. The Department of Justice’s position on Defendants’ Emergency Motion as to Volume II has not been faithful to that obligation.

This case will certainly go before the Supreme Court, and however it is decided, the case will carry implications that will affect American immigration policy for many years — and if the court finds for the plaintiffs, we should note that ending birthright citizenship will require a constitutional amendment. A lot is riding on this for both sides.

Birthright citizenship is generally not the rule in most of the world, but in the Americas, it seems to be widely accepted; Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and indeed most of the New World seem to have some form or another of birthright citizenship. We should note, though, that most of these countries aren't beset with millions trying to gain illegal entry to take advantage of these policies. //

WilliamRD
7 hours ago
Indians and their children didn't get citizenship until 1924 when congress passed the Indian citizenship act. . There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Snowblind WilliamRD
6 hours ago
Except Indians born on a reservation are not born in the US.

Snowblind WilliamRD
2 hours ago
But they were sovereign nations unto themselves at the time the 14th was ratified.

The Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 ended that, but again, at the time of the 14th amendment they were not. //

Mike Ford
5 hours ago edited
"...subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..."
Jurisdiction thereof has TWO components:

1. Legal jurisdiction and;

2 Sovereign Jurisdiction or citizen allegiance.

If my buddy Ward goes to Germany and walks into the Hürtgen Forest with his trusty guide gun and attempts to get himself a boar, the Politzi will arrest him.

1. He will be charged under German Law, which has legal jurisdiction over that act in Germany (and he also may be subject to U.S. law (especially if he is a Soldier and outside SOFA boundaries)).

2. He will NOT lose his citizenship...ie, the U.S. retains SOVEREIGN jurisdiction over him.

Now...let's take a Colombian couple who dash across the border and evade ICE. She (not he..."he's" can't do that) drops a baby on U.S. soil. The baby is a Colombian citizen. Period. Full Stop.

Why? Because the couple and the baby are not subject to the full/complete (legal AND sovereign, jurisdiction of these United States.

This issue has been made needlessly complex by leftists and their lawyers.

It's time to end this travesty...by specific legislation or a SCOTUS decision that defines a U.S. citizen as anyone who is born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen on the date of that birth.

I'm sorry for the bad acts of Democrats that have resulted in children who were born here and know no other country. That ain't our problem.

Send their parents and them back to country of origin. If they want to come here, get in line like the mother of my children, my sisters-in-law (from Central America) and a brother-in-law from Austria...all of whom own businesses,, employ folk and pay way too many taxes.

This isn't hard. We are making it so. //

MN-Gal2022 ConservativeInMinnesota
6 hours ago
Hey!

i think it was you who had posted some context from the authors of the amendment.

If I recall correctly they specifically said this did not apply to those here illegally.

do you still have the text of that explanation?

ConservativeInMinnesota MN-Gal2022
2 hours ago
It was. Here it is for reference:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

What it means in the words of Senator Jacob Howard who co-authored the 14th Amendment:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

What it means in the words of Senator Trumbull who co-author the 14th Amendment on the “subject to the jurisdiction”:

not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. //

David135
5 hours ago
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens....

If being born on USA soil was sufficient, the line would simply be....
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens..

Obviously, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something besides the accepted understanding of birthright citizenship.

John Q. Public David135
4 hours ago
People trying to suggest that they wasted the ink and calligraphy on that line for absolutely no reason are insane.

Milley, the retired Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who on several occasions subverted orders from his Commander-in-Chief, had his portrait removed from the Pentagon within two hours of President Donald Trump's inauguration.

The portrait's removal has been confirmed by CNN and Reuters. It had been revealed just 10 days ago. //

Of those pardoned by Biden, Milley stands out as having taken actions that could reasonably be described as treason. It is far from hyperbole in the case of the former Joint Chiefs Chair.

Milley, according to a book titled "Peril," assured his counterpart, General Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army of China, in the final days of Trump's first term that the United States military would not strike the communist country. Even if Trump ordered such actions based on his assessment they were in the best interest of the defense of America.

Perhaps most astonishing was the quote from that book, which shows Milley was willing to warn China — a hostile foreign nation — if an attack was in the works. //

Trump's nominee for FBI Director, Kash Patel, in an exclusive interview with RedState, suggested Milley contravened authorization from then-President Trump regarding the deployment of the National Guard on January 6th.

Milley had claimed the National Guard was deployed to the Capitol at “sprint speed.”

However, congressional testimony from Brig. Gen. Aaron R. Dean II, then the Guard’s adjutant general, suggested the deployment was stalled for the sake of optics, as evidenced by several calls to Ryan D. McCarthy, the Secretary of the Army at the time, to commence deployment going "directly to voice mail.". //

MyDogsMum TXavatar
7 hours ago
Does the pardon exempt him from a dishonorable discharge?

Mike Ford MyDogsMum
6 hours ago edited
Yes. A dishonorable requires conviction by a General Court Martial. A GCM is part of the same federal “sovereign.”

The Biden pardon precludes that
Streiff and I had that phone conversation earlier today.

Having said that, the pardon removes his self incrimination protection and do he can be compelled to testify regarding anything he has done prior to the Biden pardon.

Carey J Dolfin9999
6 hours ago
The Fifth Amendment only protects you from self-incrimination, which requires legal jeopardy. The pardon removed the legal jeopardy, making it impossible for him to incriminate himself. Therefore, he can be required to testify about ANYTHING he has knowledge of, or face Contempt of Court/Congress charges. If he lies under oath, he is subject to perjury charges.

this is a final moment of shame for what is now inarguably the worst presidency in modern history. He has deeply abused his power to protect people from the repercussions of the law while repeatedly claiming to be "defending democracy." Does handing out pardons like candy for unspecified crimes while claiming the recipients didn't do anything wrong sound like defending democracy to you? This is the move of a third-world dictator, not a President of the United States. //

polyjunkie
an hour ago
Posted elsewhere but germane here:

What FJB has just set precedent for is utterly corrupt and may bring down our Republic.

Consider this: Now a President’s minions can do anything he wants them to do and be pardoned for it. For example, a future president could order the assassination of political rivals, then pardon the assassin. If there are objections by Congress or the Courts, a few more assassinations and pardons will solve that problem. FJB has just set the stage for a future president to end his political opposition because he is effectively untouchable. Now executive branch members are effectively above the law. They can lie to Congress, the Courts, the public, and there are no consequences.

FJB, you despicable a$$hole. //

jester6 polyjunkie
an hour ago edited
This is several orders of magnitude worse than the presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. US that the left freaked out about.

And it's not just that Biden did it, it's that a significant part of the country supports it. Politics is the art of the possible. The scenario you describe above is not only possible, it is more or less likely at this point. //

Ed in North Texas anon-shh5
an hour ago
Not at all a precedent. Been done before, will be done again. Pardoning people who have not been criminally charged goes back to George Washington and on to Ford's Nixon Pardon (Nixon had not been criminally charged, not even with an Article of Impeachment introduced or passing the House).

CNN was found liable on Friday for defaming U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young.

Following roughly eight hours of deliberations, jurors found CNN both “committed defamation per se” and “committed defamation by implication.”

Jurors awarded Young $4 million in economic damages and $1 million in emotional damages and agreed that punitive damages are warranted, prompting phase 2 of the trial. Punitive damages will be awarded to Young to dissuade CNN and other networks from doing what CNN did.

The case arose after CNN aired a segment in November of 2021 on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” that falsely framed Young as exploiting Afghans by offering evacuations from Afghanistan on a “black market.” A court later found Young did nothing illegal. Young alleged the segment “rendered Young permanently unemployable” because the use of the term “black market” in the chyron implied Young was engaged in illegal conduct — something his defense contracts expressly prohibited.

Archivist of the United States Dr. Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko released the following statement today on the Equal Rights Amendment and the constitutional responsibilities for administering the ratification process:

“As Archivist and Deputy Archivist of the United States, it is our responsibility to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process and ensure that changes to the Constitution are carried out in accordance with the law. At this time, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.

“In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.

“The role of the Archivist of the United States is to follow the law as it stands, ensuring the integrity of our nation’s governing institutions. Personal opinion or beliefs are not relevant; as the leaders of the National Archives, we support established legal processes and decisions.

nebraskared
an hour ago
So let me get this straight...Jack Smith, who should never have begun a case, seeks by any means possible, mostly inuendo, to put Trump in jail gets to release his "report" and nobody named in the report for any reason can defend themselves from Smith's, largely, slander. Smith gets to resign with what he would consider clean hands even though once again he failed to complete his assignment in terms of law, but succeeds to rub people's reputations in the mud. Makes you wonder if Biden will give Smith a pardon,...or maybe a Medal of Freedom,... with distinction.

bk
38 minutes ago
What happened to the idea of "the fruit of the poisoned tree" given his appointment was not legit?

DaveM bk
26 minutes ago edited
To date Cannon is the only Court that has ruled Smith's appointment unlawful.
And if it gets appealed the 11'th Circuit Appeals Court will uphold his appointment.
Not once has the 11'th circuit Appeals Court ruled against Smith or in favor of Trump and his co-defendants.

Hogan testified Friday that the story he green-lit prior to publication did not include the term “black market,” and that it was Jake Tapper who included that term.

“The text of the story did not do that,” Hogan testified. “The banner and Jake Tapper’s lead-in did that.”

Nonetheless, Hogan later testified that he thought describing the situation as a “black market” was “accurate” and disputed the allegation that “black market” has a “negative connotation.”

Young alleges the use of the term “black market” to describe his evacuation efforts “rendered Young permanently unemployable” because it implied Young was involved in illegal conduct. Young later testified that his defense contracts expressly prohibited involvement in “black markets.” Notably, a court also found Young did not commit a crime. //

Young had previously testified that he needed more than two hours to respond to the inquiry to seek guidance from other individuals and organizations he worked with. Young also said in messages to Marquardt that the two-hour deadline was “definitely not a realistic deadline” but that “in any case, I can tell you for sure, some of your facts/assertions [are] not accurate, and if they are published, I will seek legal damages.”

CNN still aired the segment, shared it on social media and CNN’s website, and re-aired the segment before later issuing an apology months later. Young is seeking punitive damages.

A federal judge ruled Friday that American Airlines's pension fund had violated the law by making investment decisions using criteria other than the interests of the plan beneficiaries. The decision by Judge Reed O'Connor, a George Bush appointee serving the Northern District of Texas, comes from a decision by American Airlines management to allow the pension fund to be managed by BlackRock, which in turn used Environmental, Social, and Governance principles rather than financial performance to guide investment. //

For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the facts compellingly demonstrated that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to loyally act solely in the retirement plan’s best financial interests by allowing their corporate interests, as well as BlackRock’s ESG interests, to influence management of the plan. However, the facts do not compel the same result for the duty of prudence. Defendants acted according to prevailing industry practices, even if leaders in the fiduciary industry contrived to set the standard. This is fatal to Plaintiff’s breach of prudence claim. //

The day before Judge O'Connor ruled that BlackRock had sacrificed the pension payout to plan beneficiaries on the altar of ESG investing, BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, with $11.5 trillion in assets under management, announced its withdrawal from Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, an international group of asset management companies "committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner."

This makes BlackRock the latest asset manager to reconsider the business model of screwing over investors in exchange for invitations to all the right events. //

The exits are clearly linked to the American Airlines lawsuit, which imposes liability for damages on asset managers for breaching their fiduciary responsibility. One can't ignore the effect of an incoming Congress that is skeptical of ESG. Last summer, the House Judiciary Committee labeled the ESG movement as violating antitrust law.

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.