masterofd1saster

[masterofd1saster]

CJ current events 17jul25

Babylon Bee

***

Secret Service personnel actions re Butler

Six Secret Service agents were suspended for failures involving the assassination attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump last July in Butler, Pennsylvania, it was reported. A Department of Homeland Security review of the shooting found that a series of law enforcement breakdowns created an environment that left Trump exposed to a would-be assassin, ABC News reported Wednesday night.*** The disciplined agents — each suspended between 10 to 42 days — ranged from supervisory level to line agent level, a source told the news outlet. They were allowed to appeal the penalties, which were handed down in recent months.***

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/secret-service-agents-suspended/2025/07/10/id/1218266

***

True romance!

BLUEFIELD, WV (LOOTPRESS) — A bizarre and dangerous scene unfolded on Bluefield Avenue Wednesday afternoon when officers stopped a stolen recreational vehicle and discovered the driver and passenger were allegedly naked, impaired, and having sex while the vehicle was in motion. According to Patrolman R.L. Hamm of the Bluefield Police Department, the incident occurred around 12:23 p.m. after he spotted a white RV traveling east with a naked woman straddling the male driver. Hamm activated his emergency lights and sirens, but the RV continued for about half a mile before stopping in the Advance Auto parking lot. As the officer approached the vehicle, a bystander shouted that the occupants had switched seats moments earlier. Hamm then made contact with the now-clothed female in the driver’s seat, later identified as Sharon Bryant, and the male passenger, identified as Matthew McDonnell. When asked what was going on, Bryant bluntly admitted: “We were f***ing.” Both were removed from the vehicle. Bryant appeared highly intoxicated and was unable to be interviewed at the scene, while McDonnell, who did not appear intoxicated, confessed that they were both naked and attempting to engage in sexual activity while driving. He also admitted to instructing Bryant to take the wheel despite knowing she was impaired. A K9 unit alerted to the presence of narcotics inside the RV, leading officers to discover:

Lots & lots of drugs.

Who says true romance is dead?

https://www.lootpress.com/couple-caught-having-sex-while-driving-stolen-rv-through-bluefield/

***

And give back the microwave, too

***

Dead is better?

A 60-year-old Aurora man told police he shot and killed his wife to spare her from homelessness after losing his job and running out of money, according to arrest documents. Phil Atchue dialed 911 on Sunday evening to inform police he shot his wife the previous morning, the arrest affidavit read. He told police he would wait for them on a bus bench near his apartment at 927 S. Ivory Circle and that he was not armed. When Aurora police arrived at the apartment, they found his wife, 61-year-old Kay Page, lying in bed, bleeding from her head. Police saw a handgun on the kitchen table. Page was pronounced dead that evening, police said. When police found Atchue, he agreed to talk to officers without an attorney present, police said. The 60-year-old man told Aurora police he had been fired from his job at American Sign & Barricade Company in May. He said he didn’t tell his wife about his firing, continuing to get up and leave the house at the same time. Atchue said Page worked at Lowe’s but that the couple — who had been together for 20 years — could not survive on one income.*** Atchue told police he suffered from depression and was suicidal. When he bought his gun five years ago, Page told him she thought he was going to kill himself, the affidavit read. Atchue told police Page told him not to kill himself, but that if he did, don’t take her with him, the affidavit read.***

***

Babylon Bee

+++

Don't you love how legalizing weed also legalizes child labor and environmental crime?

Ten illegal migrant youths, most of them unaccompanied, were found at a California marijuana farm during a tense immigration raid on Thursday, prompting federal officials to launch an investigation into possible child labor violations. The youngsters, one just 14 years old, were discovered by federal agents at Glass House Farms in Southern California during a chaotic operation in which one protester appeared to fire a gun at authorities, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott said on X Thursday.***

McLaughlin said the alarming situation “looks like exploitation, violation of child labor laws and potentially human trafficking or smuggling.” Scott announced the child labor probe into the farm in his Thursday night social media post. The farm’s president, Graham Farrar, is a regular donor to Democratic politicians, according to Federal Election Commission records. Farrar has donated to the Santa Barbara County Democratic Central Committee’s federal political action committee and Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif, on multiple occasions, according to the records. He also donated $10,000 to Newsom in 2018, according to California records.***

When immigration and border agents descended on the cannabis farm, they were met by dozens of rioters who tried to block a road between fields. The screaming mob eventually scattered when agents deployed an unknown substance to control the crowd. Several protesters appeared to hurl rocks at the officers, according to ABC 7. A masked man also was seen allegedly firing a few shots as he and other protesters scampered away. The FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for information leading to the alleged shooter’s arrest. The feds set up a blockade with military-style vehicles as they clashed with protesters for four hours. About 200 immigrants were arrested in the raid under suspicions of being in the US illegally, authorities said Friday.***

+++

The Bull Elephant

+++

***

No dumbass like a horny, retired LtCol dumbass

Retired Army LtCol David Slater, 64, a

civilian employee of the U.S. Air Force assigned to the U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) at Offutt Air Force Base pleaded guilty [10jul25] to conspiring to transmit classified information relating to the national defense (National Defense Information) on a foreign online dating platform beginning in or around February 2022 until in or around April 2022.*** According to court documents, Slater attended USSTRATCOM briefings regarding Russia’s war against Ukraine that were classified up to TOP SECRET//SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (TS//SCI). Slater then conspired to transmit classified National Defense Information that he learned from those briefings via the foreign online dating website’s messaging platform to his co-conspirator, who claimed to be a female living in Ukraine on the foreign dating website. The co-conspirator regularly asked Slater to provide her with sensitive, non-public, closely held, and classified National Defense Information and called Slater in their messages her “secret informant love” and her “secret agent.” In furtherance of that conspiracy, Slater did, in fact, transmit classified National Defense Information to her, including regarding military targets and Russian military capabilities relating to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/air-force-employee-pleads-guilty-conspiracy-disclose-unlawfully-classified-national-defense

***

[masterofd1saster]

Irony that the only person serving time for Epstein's crimes is a woman.

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch GTMO - 9/11 trials

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit just decided In re United States of America, No. 25-1009. Decision was 2 - 1.

The defendants in this case were the three most culpable terrorists in the 9/11 attacks, KSM, bin Atash, and al Hawsawi. They are being prosecuted by military commission at GTMO.

These prosecutions were getting old and difficult. SECDEF Austin appointed Brigadier General Susan Escallier U.S. Army to oversee the prosecutions. She offered the terrorists a plea bargain that would spare their lives if they pleaded guilty and accepted life without parole. The whole thing looked like a trial balloon by the last administration. I think the administration was shocked when the American people were outraged by the notion of a plea bargain for the worst terrorists in American history.

Respondents Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin ‘Atash, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi are being tried by military commission at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They are each accused of participating in the planning and execution of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, which killed 2,976 people. At the end of July 2024, each Respondent offered, and the Convening Authority overseeing their cases accepted, pretrial agreements in which Mohammad, bin ‘Atash, and Hawsawi agreed to plead guilty, and the government agreed not to seek the death penalty***

On August 2nd, then-Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III withdrew from each of the agreements. As relevant here, the military commission judge and the United States Court of Military Commission Review (“CMCR”) refused to recognize the Secretary’s withdrawal on the ground that Respondents had begun to perform under the contracts.***

While mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary forms of relief, they are warranted in this case. The Secretary of Defense indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements; the plain and unambiguous text of the pretrial agreements shows that no performance of promises had begun; the government has no adequate alternative remedy to vindicate its interests; and the equities make issuance of the writs appropriate.*** Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the “families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out.” The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment. In light of the clear and indisputable errors committed by the military judge, which implicate issues of immense national importance, we conclude that issuance of the writs is appropriate under these circumstances.***

So now the cases will proceed to trial with the defendants facing the possibility of the death penalty. When, if ever, the death penalty might be executed is anyone's guess.

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch - the DoGE federal employment cuts litigation

Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, 606 U. S. __ (2025) imposed a stay on lower court orders in litigation over cuts to federal employment on 8jul25. Decision was 8 - 1.

The District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 25–cv–3698 had ordered that the federal government couldn't even plan reorganization.

Litigation will continue over whether the government can reorganize as recommended by DoGE. At this point, reorganization is merely in the planning stage.

[masterofd1saster]

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch - judicial overreach

Planned Parenthood v. Kennedy, 25-cv-11913 (D.Mass. Jul. 7, 2025) is the case in which J. Indira Talwani ordered the Sec H&HS & Medicare/Medicaid Admin from "enforcing, retroactively enforcing, or otherwise applying the provisions of Section 71113" of the BBB.

BBB is, of course, an appropriations act.  Section 71113 says "No Federal funds that are considered direct 

spending and provided to carry out a State" Medicare plan may be paid to Planned Parenthood or another entity that "provides for abortions, other than an abortion" for incest/rape, etc.

This is basically like telling a man who owns a dry well that he must pump a certain volume of water from that well.

The complaint alleges violation of "rights secured by the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause and by the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution."

A bill of attainder is legislation that inflicts a penalty without a trial. Losing your funding is not a penalty.

That burdens are placed on citizens by federal authority does not make those burdens punishment. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S., at 470; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S., at 324 (Frankfurter,  J., concurring). Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, 468 U.S. 841, 851(July 5, 1984)

Indeed, Supreme Court had to teach Pres Nixon of limits of the Bill of Attainder Clause:

By arguing that an individual or defined group is attained whenever he or it is compelled to bear burdens which the individual or group dislikes, appellant removes the anchor that ties the bill of attainder guarantee to realistic conceptions of classification and punishment.  His view would cripple the very process of legislating, for any individual or group that is made the subject of adverse legislation can complain that the lawmakers could and should have defined the relevant affected class at a greater level of generality.   Furthermore, every person or group made subject to legislation which he or it finds burdensome may subjectively feel, and can complain, that he or it is being subjected to unwarranted punishment. United States v. Lovett, supra, at 324 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).   However expansive the prohibition against bills of attainder, it surely was not intended to serve as a variant of the equal protection doctrine, invalidating every Act of Congress or the States that legislatively burdens some persons or groups but not all other plausible individuals.  In short, while the Bill of Attainder Clause serves as an important "bulwark against tyranny," United States v. Brown, 381 U.S., at 443,  it does not do so by limiting Congress to the choice of legislating for the universe, or legislating only benefits, or not legislating at all. Nixon v. Adm'r of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 470-471 (1977)

The 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. None of those freedoms are related to a loss of funding.

The 5th Amendment is a little closer in that it protects Due Process and prohibits taking "private property *** for public use without just compensation." Planned Parenthood had all the process due when Congress voted on the appropriations act. Last public funds have never been private property. Saying that a private entity has a private property interest in continued appropriations is grotesque.

If Planned Parenthood has a judicially enforceable right to continued appropriations, the next litigants will be General Dynamics and Raytheon.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/58888740/Planned_Parenthood_Federation_of_America,_Inc_et_al_v_Kennedy_et_al says J. Talwani ordered the "Defendants shall file any opposition to the Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, see Motion 4 , no later than July 14, 2025. The clerk shall set a hearing on the motion for the morning of July 21, 2025."

Planned Parenthood asked to continue the July 21 hearing July 24. Minute order says

 Defendants note further that where a TRO has been entered, the hearing should be scheduled "at the earliest possible time," and that if the hearing is rescheduled, it should be set for July 17 or July 18, 2025, while maintaining existing briefing schedules. *** Where both sides are available for an earlier hearing on July 18, 2025, the clerk shall reset the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 4 for the morning of July 18, 2025. Defendants' time to file an opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 4 remains set for July 14, 2025. 

National Review says

◼ Massachusetts Federal District Judge Indira Talwani, a Barack Obama appointee, has decreed that the federal government must continue to fund Planned Parenthood through Medicaid for two weeks until she can decide whether to order this permanently. This is not just another injunction against a Trump executive action; Judge Talwani reversed an act of Congress, a provision of the OBBBA, on the first business day after it was signed into law. Her “temporary restraining order” is nothing of the sort; rather than preserve the status quo, she is compelling the executive branch to disburse money from the Treasury it cannot easily get back, against the express instructions of Congress. Having rushed to issue the order without waiting to hear the Justice Department’s defense of the law, she didn’t even bother writing an opinion. This is a staggering act of judicial recklessness, seemingly calculated to provoke a constitutional crisis. The president is duty-bound by his oath of office not to disburse these funds before he can appeal. The Supreme Court should back him up—not because it should sanction executive defiance of the courts, but because it should never sanction judicial defiance.

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch 3jul25

SCt granted certiorari in two trans issue cases on 3jul25. Granting cert just means the Court will review the rulings of lower courts. It doesn't mean that it will actually decide those case.

In 24-38 LITTLE, GOVERNOR OF IDAHO V. HECOX, the issue is

Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 24-43 WEST VIRGINIA V. B.P.J., the issues are

Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.

Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.

The dockets are linked above. I think after Skrmetti -

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, we consider whether a Tennessee law banning certain medical care for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.***

The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not “to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of the law before us, *** but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.

- we can see which way the wind is blowing.

[masterofd1saster]

[masterofd1saster]

[masterofd1saster]

[masterofd1saster]

CJ current events 10jul25

Maybe a bit whack....

The man accused of brutally crucifying a rural Arizona pastor has not only admitted to the alleged crime, but said that he planned to kill more than a dozen other Christian leaders.  Adam Sheafe, 51, told FOX 10 in an interview that he murdered Pastor Bill Schonemann, 76, head of the New River Bible Chapel in New River, Arizona.  On April 28, Schonemann was found dead in his bed with his arms spread wide and pinned to the wall behind him. The bizarre display left the community reeling. Sheafe's plan was to crucify 14 more Christian leaders of no particular denomination, he told FOX 10, ascribing his motive to a belief that Christian churches were leading their congregants astray by teaching them to follow Jesus, whom he says is a false God.  He titled his mission "Operation First Commandment."***

https://www.foxnews.com/us/pastors-crucifixion-murder-suspect-says-video-he-planned-kill-14-more

***

It's just a TRO, take it and obey

An off-duty Massachusetts police officer was shot Monday night during a confrontation with a fellow cop as she was being served with a restraining order.  Kelsey Fitzsimmons, 28, an officer with the North Andover Police Department, was home when three police officers arrived to serve the order, Essex County District Attorney Paul Tucker said during a news conference Tuesday. "When one of the officers was escorting Ms. Fitzsimmons during the service of the court order, an armed confrontation took place," Tucker said.  One officer opened fire and struck Fitzsimmons, he said. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/massachusetts-police-officer-shot-colleague-service-restraining-order

She was hospitalized in stable condition.

***

Ricky's been busy

The man suspected of killing a fellow Denver inmate on Monday morning is now accused of two fatal stabbings in Aurora on Sunday morning. Aurora Police said they have obtained an arrest warrant for Ricky Roybal-Smith, 38, of Aurora, who is wanted in connection with two separate fatal stabbings in northwest Aurora. He was already in custody in Denver, where he is being charged with homicide for strangling a fellow jail inmate after being held in a hit-and-run case that injured two pedestrians.*** Royal-Smith previously pleaded guilty to vehicular assault charges in 2016 related to a high-speed chase in December 2015 with Littleton Police that ended in a crash into a parked SUV at South Santa Fe Drive and West Oxford Avenue. Royal-Smith received a 12-year prison sentence for seriously injuring a person and avoiding arrest. Royal-Smith qualified for an early release under Colorado law and was out on parole in 2022 after serving only half of his prison sentence. While on parole, he was arrested on felony menacing charges after swinging a filet knife at a fellow customer in a Walmart store in Englewood. He received a four-year sentence in that menacing case, but was released early on parole in January 2025.***

https://www.denverpost.com/2025/07/03/ricky-roybal-smith-aurora-stabbings-denver-jail-murder

Some people just won't stop criming.

***

Anyone care if we just shoot him now?

Jason Hanif Rehman, 40, of Rockville, MD, was sentenced [18jun25] to 14 years in prison on one count of coercion and enticement after he used the Snapchat application to coerce a minor victim into sending him sexually explicit images of herself over the internet.    Rehman previously pleaded guilty to the charge on Nov. 21, 2024 in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia. According to court documents, in October and November of 2018, [AC1] Rehman communicated with a 15-year-old victim on Snapchat. In Snapchat messages, Rehman directed the victim to produce and send him child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and sent her explicit photographs of himself. This conduct continued over the course of five weeks, during which Rehman coerced the victim into sending him CSAM and, on at least two separate occasions, traveled from Maryland and Washington, D.C. to Virginia to engage in sexual intercourse with her. Law enforcement was notified by a student from the victim’s school about the minor victim’s communication with an adult male whom they subsequently identified as Rehman. During the course of the investigation, other minors disclosed being contacted by Rehman over Snapchat. Rehman was located and admitted to contacting the victim through Snapchat, convincing her to send him explicit photos, and having sexual intercourse with her.***

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/maryland-man-sentenced-14-years-prison-sexually-exploiting-minor-snapchat

***

Shoot him in the face

A former U.S. Army Sergeant whose last duty post was Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) in western Washington pleaded guilty on Wednesday [18jun25] in U.S. District Court in Seattle to two federal felonies, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Teal Luthy Miller. Joseph Daniel Schmidt, 31, pleaded guilty to attempt to deliver national defense information and retention of national defense information. He faces up to ten years in prison when sentenced by U.S. District Judge John C.  Coughenour  on  September 9, 2025. According to records filed in the case, Schmidt was an active-duty soldier from January 2015 to January 2020. His primary assignment was at JBLM in the 109th Military Intelligence Battalion. In his role, Schmidt had access to SECRET and TOP SECRET information. After his separation from the military, Schmidt reached out to the Chinese Consulate in Turkey and later, the Chinese security services via email offering national defense information. In March 2020, Schmidt traveled to Hong Kong and continued his efforts to provide Chinese intelligence with classified information he obtained from his military service. He created multiple lengthy documents describing various “high level secrets” he was offering to the Chinese government. He retained a device that allows for access to secure military computer networks and offered the device to Chinese authorities to assist them in efforts to gain access to such networks. Schmidt remained in China, primarily Hong Kong, until October 2023, when he flew to San Francisco. He was arrested at the airport.***

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-jblm-soldier-pleads-guilty-attempting-share-military-secrets-china

***

See, it's not just MS13 & TdA

On June 13, 2025, the Justice Department secured the denaturalization of a convicted collector and distributor of child sexual abuse material. While still a citizen of the United Kingdom, Elliott Duke enlisted in the U.S. Army. In 2012, while serving in Germany, Duke began receiving and distributing child sexual abuse material via email and the internet. In November 13, 2012, Duke applied for citizenship under a provision that permits U.S. servicemembers to obtain U.S. citizenship. When asked on his naturalization application if he had “ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested,” Duke listed only a speeding ticket. On January 18, 2013, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officer interviewed Duke, and Duke, once more, orally testified that he had never committed a crime or offense for which he had not been arrested. On January 18, 2013, Duke took the Oath of Allegiance and was granted U.S. citizenship. On May 14, 2013, police officers in Louisiana arrested Duke and charged him with receipt and distribution of child pornography. During a police interview and in his plea agreement, Duke confessed to downloading, possessing, and distributing child pornography via his email account and the internet on dates both before and after his naturalization. Law enforcement officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) later found 168 videos and 187 still images on Duke’s computer depicting minor boys and girls engaged in the lascivious display of sexual activity and bestiality. On January 23, 2014, Duke was convicted of receipt and possession of child pornography. On February 19, 2025, the Justice Department filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana seeking Duke’s denaturalization based on his crimes and his failure to disclose them during his naturalization process. On June 13, 2025, the Honorable James D. Cain, Jr, United States District Judge, entered an order revoking Duke’s U.S. citizenship.***

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-denaturalization-convicted-distributor-child-sexual-abuse

***

Good sentence

Two convicted human smugglers were sentenced in a federal court in San Antonio [27jun25] for their prominent roles in the 2022 mass casualty human smuggling conspiracy that resulted in the deaths of 47 adults and six children. U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia for the Western District of Texas sentenced Orduna-Torres to life in prison and a $250,000 fine, and Gonzales-Ortega to 83 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Both defendants were found guilty by a federal jury in March for three counts related to the transportation of aliens within the United States resulting in death, causing serious bodily injury, and placing lives in jeopardy. Following the jury’s verdict at the trial, Judge Garcia set the sentencing date, noting that it would be three years to the day from when the 53 migrants perished as a result of the defendants’ smuggling scheme.*** Felipe Orduna-Torres, also known as Cholo, Chuequito/Chuekito, and Negro, 30, was a leader and organizer, and Armando Gonzales-Ortega, also known as El Don and Don Gon, 55, was a coordinator in the human smuggling organization (HSO) which illegally brought adults and children from Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico into the United States between December 2021 and June 2022.***

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/smuggling-leader-and-top-coordinator-will-spend-remainder-their-lives-prison-following-their

***

Nightmare for the prosecution

An attorney for the Aurora dentist charged with poisoning his wife to death withdrew from the case this week after he was arrested on suspicion of arson — first responders found the lawyer sitting on the porch of his Centennial home as it burned behind him Saturday night. Robert Werking withdrew as counsel for murder suspect James Craig on Tuesday, just two days after his arrest and just 10 days before Craig’s murder trial was set to start in Arapahoe County District Court. It’s the second time that a member of Craig’s legal team has pulled out on the eve of the dentist’s high-profile trial. Werking owned the home that burned with his wife, Lisa Fine Moses, who is also an attorney representing Craig. She did not withdraw from the murder case, and Craig is now represented by Fine Moses and attorney Ashley Witham, who joined the team on June 18.

Fine Moses did not return a request for comment Thursday. Werking could not be reached.*** In a separate case, Werking was also arrested on June 14 and cited with a ticket for prohibited use of weapons related to aiming a firearm, a misdemeanor, court records show. Details about that incident were not available Thursday.*** Craig’s previous attorney, Harvey Steinberg, withdrew from the case in December just before jury selection was scheduled to begin.

At the time, he cited two rules of professional conduct as reasons for his departure from the case: one, that his client was persisting in a course of action that he “reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent,” and two, that his client was insisting on action he “considers repugnant or… has a fundamental disagreement (with),” according to the 18th Judicial District Attorney’s Office. Craig, 47, is charged with first-degree murder in the death of his wife, Angela Craig, 43, who died March 18, 2023, from lethal doses of cyanide and tetrahydrozoline, a decongestant found in over-the-counter eyedrops. Investigators allege James Craig bought arsenic and cyanide days before his wife was poisoned to death, searched online about how to poison someone, was having an affair and faced financial difficulties.***

https://www.denverpost.com/2025/07/03/james-craig-dentist-poisoning-attorney-withdraws-arson

***

In all fairness, those mares dressed like tramps

NEWTON FALLS, Ohio -  A Mesopotamia Township man was sentenced Thursday to five years of probation after pleading guilty to bestiality. Ervin Miller, 28, appeared in Newton Falls Municipal Court, where he was also ordered to pay a $250 fine, undergo a mental health evaluation, and is prohibited from owning animals. The charges stemmed from an October incident at Miller's Donley Road property, where he was accused of engaging in sexual conduct with several horses over ten years. “This has been happening since Mr. Miller was 16 years old over a period of ten years with multiple horses I want to say at least nine plus,” Fabian Pike, the Chief Humane Officer of Trumbull County said. Investigators said Miller did not own the horses but they lived on another property near his home. ***

***

Ever brought a knife to a track meet?

Karmelo Anthony stabbed to death 17 y/o Austin Metcalf on April 2, 2025, at a high school track meet in Frisco, Texas. He is charged with first degree murder.

Don't know why, but I can't find a copy of the indictment just yet. The case has made national headlines because of the racial conflict. Anthony is African American, and Metcalf was white.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/frisco-track-meet-stabbing-indictment-details-stadium-video/3872186/

***

Horrible way to kill someone

A California 7-Eleven employee was left brain-dead after her manager sat on top of her during a “senseless” on-the-job attack — and died Wednesday after she was taken off life support. Jessica McLaughlin, 24, was working at a Los Angeles 7-Eleven on June 24 when her unidentified female manager — who remains at large — “violently and senselessly attacked” her after the pair got into an argument shortly after 2 p.m., the Los Angeles Times reported. During the attack, the deranged Big Gulp slinger pulled McLaughlin’s hair and sat down on her employee’s upper body with her full weight, preventing her from breathing.*** Concerned co-workers tried to pry the madwoman off McLaughlin but became targets themselves, Fox11 reported.*** While they attempted to revive McLaughlin, the manager supposedly ran into the 7-Eleven’s back office and tried to erase security footage, according to the GoFundMe. McLaughlin collapsed while struggling and never regained consciousness.*** Her family decided to take her off life support days after the attack, and she died Wednesday, according to Fox 11.***

https://nypost.com/2025/07/02/us-news/7-eleven-employee-left-brain-dead-after-manager-attack-dies/

***

What's he have to lose?

A Georgia murderer spat at the prosecution team who had successfully argued he receive three life sentences for fatally shooting his daughter’s mother while she held their child. Taco Nash was carried out of a DeKalb County courtroom over his disgusting outburst moments after he was found guilty in the 2022 shooting death of 22-year-old Mi’ckeya Montgomery on Thursday, according to WSBTV footage. “Today was the day that they got to see the real him. The rest was a facade…he’s a sociopath,” Montgomery’s aunt, Jasmine Walters, told the outlet.***

Nash, 25, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional two life sentences and 60 years to serve for murdering Montgomery.*** Daycare staff were aware of the relationship and court orders between Nash and Montgomery and were told to call 911 if the child’s father ever appeared at the business. Nash confronted Montgomery and their daughter outside the daycare before a daycare employee rushed the frightened mother back inside the building while another worker called police.

He *** claimed Montgomery had shot herself. Montgomery’s body was discovered with a single gunshot wound to the head and the gun was placed under her hand. Officials determined she died of homicide because the angle of the gunshot couldn’t have been self-inflicted. Police believe Montgomery was holding her daughter when she was killed.***

https://nypost.com/2025/07/05/us-news/georgia-killer-taco-nash-spits-at-prosecutors-after-three-life-sentences-in-mickeya-montgomery-killing/

***

Merely looking for Scooby snacks

Tuscaloosa PD fb page.

Hey gang! We need your help solving a mystery. This individual in a Scooby-Doo suit broke into the Quick Stop on Highway 82 in Duncanville. Officers responded to the store after the security alarm activated at 3:45 a.m. Sunday. The suspect took cash and coins, but no snacks. He appears to be a white male, around 5’9”.

If you're the suspect and you confess, please, please, please say I would've got away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids.

***

Border Patrol under fire

Ryan Louis Mosqueda, 27, armed with a rifle and tactical gear was shot and killed by Border Patrol agents in McAllen, Texas. "This morning an individual opened fire at the entrance of the United States Border Patrol sector annex in McAllen, Texas," a representative of the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, wrote Monday in a statement to Newsmax, which was also posted to DHS's X account. "Both Border Patrol agents and local police helped neutralize the shooter. "Two officers and a Border Patrol employee were injured, including one shot in the knee. All three have gone to the hospital. This is an ongoing investigation led by the @FBI." Federal agents returned fire at Mosqueda, who had an assault rifle and was carrying a utility vest, McAllen Police Chief Victor Rodriguez told reporters Monday morning. The shooting took place at a Border Patrol facility across the street from McAllen International Airport. Law enforcement said they found another rifle and more ammunition. Rodriguez said the man’s motive is currently unknown. One officer was injured in the shooting***

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/terrorist-shooter-border-patrol/2025/07/07/id/1217860

***

Epstein memo

FBI released a memo on Jeff Epstein. The key part about his suicide says

Video 1: https://www.justice.gov/video-files/video1.mp4

Video 2: https://www.justice.gov/video-files/video2.mp4

***

Ok, Megan, you're lucky you're alive

State and federal officials announced on Monday that 10 people were arrested for engaging in a "planned ambush" on an ICE detention facility in Texas over the Fourth of July holiday. The individuals were charged with attempted murder of a federal officer, according to court records. The incident occurred at the Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas, on Friday, according to Nancy Larson, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas. At approximately 10:37 p.m., 10 to 12 individuals dressed in black, military-style clothing began shooting fireworks and engaging in acts of vandalism at the facility, Larson said during a press conference. Larson said the incident "was a planned ambush with the intent to kill ICE corrections officers." Some individuals drew correction officers out of the facility using the fireworks while others damaged vehicles and vandalized the facility with graffiti, Larson said. When an Alvarado police officer arrived on the scene, one of the individuals shot him in the neck. Another individual shot 20 to 30 rounds at the facility correction officers, according to Larson. All assailants fled the scene, though all have since been apprehended, the U.S. attorney said. Bradford Morris, who goes by Megan, was one of the suspects that allegedly fled the scene, according to court records. He was stopped a short while later, with a magazine clip and Kevlar vests.***

Law enforcement found 12 sets of body armor, spray paint, a flag saying "resist fascism, fight oligarchy," flyers saying "fight ice terror with class war free all political prisoners," more fireworks, weapons and cell phones across multiple searches over the weekend. Police also found two AR-15s nearby, according to court records. No employees at the Prairieland Detention Facility were harmed during the shooting incident and the officer who was shot is expected to recover, according to Josh Johnson, the acting field office director for ERO Dallas.***

https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-arrested-after-ambush-texas-ice-detention-facility/story?id=123555164

***

Diddy's sentencing range

I think Diddy was convicted of or two counts of 18 U.S.C. §2421. Transportation generally. (2025). The sentencing guideline should be §2G1.1.  Promoting a Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct with an Individual Other than a Minor (2025). That says his base offense level is 14.

Apparently, his only prior convictions are

1996: Combs is convicted of criminal mischief after he allegedly threatened a photographer with a gun.

April 16, 1999: Combs and his bodyguards are charged with attacking Interscope Records music executive Steve Stoute in his New York office in a dispute over a music video. Combs is sentenced to an anger management course.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-timeline-of-diddys-career-and-legal-troubles So, his criminal history category should be 1. https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2024-guidelines-manual/annotated-2024-chapter-4#4a11 Accordingly, the sentencing table calls for 15 to 21 months on each count. Generally speaking, https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2024-guidelines-manual/annotated-2024-chapter-5#5g12, the sentences should be concurrent.

***

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch - lower courts must comply with Supreme Court orders

SCt decided Department of Homeland Security v. D. V. D., 606 U. S. __ (2025) today. Decision was 7 - 2.

On April 18, 2025, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily enjoined the Government from removing “any alien”

unless the alien had a chance to show he might be tortured.

On June 23, we stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction pending disposition of any appeal and petition for writ of certiorari. Later that day, however, the District Court issued a minute order stating that the May 21 remedial order “remain[ed] in full force and effect,” “notwithstanding” our stay of the preliminary injunction. ECF Doc. 176. The only authority it cited was the dissent from the stay order.***

Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.

In other words, the District Court must comply with the orders of appellate courts. Who knew?

The rule of law depends on lower courts complying with the orders of appellate courts. Anything less is lawlessness.

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch - trans cases sent back for reconsideration

SCt sent a tranche of trans cases back to lower courts on 30jun25. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063025zor_7647.pdf

United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U. S. ___ (2025) said there is no denial of Equal Protection when states forbid gender transition for minors. SCt returned the following cases to lower courts to reconsider their rulings in the following cases

24-90 CROUCH, SEC., WV DHHR, ET AL. V. ANDERSON, SHAUNTAE 24-99 FOLWELL, DALE, ET AL. V. KADEL, MAXWELL, ET AL. In Crouch the issue was whether public funding was required for "surgical treatments for gender dysphoria." The issue was more or less the same in Folwell with regard to health insurance plans.

24-631 HAMSO, MAGNI V. M. H., ET AL. asked "whether failing to provide Medicaid coverage for sex-reassignment surgery discriminates on the basis of sex or transgender status and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause"

24-801 STITT, GOV. OF OK, ET AL. V. FOWLER, ROWAN, asked "Whether the Equal Protection Clause requires a State to alter its official certificate documenting a person’s sex at birth to represent that person’s current gender identity."

[masterofd1saster]

Against pride & insolence

Sirach says

7 Odious to the Lord and to mortals is pride, and for both oppression is a crime.***

9 Why are dust and ashes proud? Even during life the body decays.

10 A slight illness—the doctor jests; a king today—tomorrow he is dead.

11 When a people die, they inherit corruption and worms, gnats and maggots.

12 The beginning of pride is stubbornness in withdrawing the heart from one’s Maker.

13 For sin is a reservoir of insolence, a source which runs over with vice;***

18 Insolence does not befit mortals, nor impudent anger those born of women.

19 Whose offspring can be honorable? Human offspring. Those who fear the LORD are honorable offspring. Whose offspring can be disgraceful? Human offspring. Those who transgress the commandment are disgraceful offspring.***

23 It is not right to despise anyone wise but poor, nor proper to honor the lawless.***

28 My son, with humility have self-esteem; and give yourself the esteem you deserve.***

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch - the age verification porn case

SCt decided Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, 605 U.S. ___ (2025) on 27jun. Decision was 6 - 3.

Texas, like many States, prohibits the distribution of sexually explicit content to children. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §43.24(b) (West 2016). But, although that prohibition may be effective against brick-and-mortar stores, it has proved challenging to enforce against online content. In an effort to address this problem, Texas enacted H. B. 1181, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §129B.001 et seq. (West Cum. Supp. 2024), which requires certain commercial websites that publish sexually explicit content to verify the ages of their visitors. This requirement furthers the lawful end of preventing children from accessing sexually explicit content. But, it also burdens adult visitors of these websites, who all agree have a First Amendment right to access at least some of the content that the websites publish. We granted certiorari to decide whether these burdens likely render H. B. 1181 unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. We hold that they do not. The power to require age verification is within a State’s authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content. H. B. 1181 is a constitutionally permissible exercise of that authority.***

H. B. 1181 requires a covered entity to “use reasonable age verification methods . . . to verify that an individual attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older.” §129B.002(a). To verify age, a covered entity must require visitors to “comply with a commercial age verification system” that uses “government-issued identification” or “a commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data.” §129B.003(b)(2). The entity may perform verification itself or through a third-party service. §129B.003(b). *** H. B. 1181 is not the only law of its kind. At least 21 other States have imposed materially similar age-verification requirements to access sexual material that is harmful to minors online.

“‘From 1791 to the present,’” certain “‘historic and traditional categories’” of speech—such as “obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct”—have been understood to fall outside the scope of the First Amendment. United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 468 (2010) ***. States generally may prohibit speech of this kind without “rais[ing] any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571–572 (1942). Such prohibitions are subject only to rational-basis review, the minimum constitutional standard that all legislation must satisfy. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 628, n. 27 (2008). Under that standard, a law will be upheld “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis” for its enactment. FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. 307, 313 (1993). B History, tradition, and precedent recognize that States have two distinct powers to address obscenity: They may proscribe outright speech that is obscene to the public at large, and they may prevent children from accessing speech that is obscene to children.***

Consistent with this history, our precedents recognize that States can impose greater limits on children’s access to sexually explicit speech than they can on adults’ access.*** When regulating minors’ access to sexual content, the State may broaden Miller’s “definition of obscenity” to cover that which is obscene from a child’s perspective. Ginsberg, 390 U. S., at 638. To be more precise, a State may prevent minors from accessing works that (a) taken as a whole, and under contemporary community standards, appeal to the prurient interest of minors; (b) depict or describe specifically defined sexual conduct in a way that is patently offensive for minors; and (c) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.***

In sum, two basic principles govern legislation aimed at shielding children from sexually explicit content. A State may not prohibit adults from accessing content that is obscene only to minors. Butler, 352 U. S., at 383. But, it may enact laws to prevent minors from accessing such content.***

H. B. 1181 is an exercise of Texas’s traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective. To the extent that it burdens adults’ rights to access such speech, it has “only an incidental effect on protected speech,” making it subject to intermediate scrutiny.***

Obscenity is no exception to the widespread practice of requiring proof of age to exercise age-restricted rights. The New York statute upheld in Ginsberg required age verification: It permitted a seller who sold sexual material to a minor to raise “‘honest mistake’” as to age as an affirmative defense, but only if the seller had made “‘a reasonable bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of [the] minor.’”***

On its face, the statute regulates only speech that is obscene to minors. That speech is unprotected to the extent the State seeks only to verify age. And, the statute can easily “be justified without reference to the [protected] content of the regulated speech,” because its apparent purpose is simply to prevent minors, who have no First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to them, from doing so.*** Adults have the right to access speech that is obscene only to minors. Butler, 352 U. S., at 383–384. And, submitting to age verification is a burden on the exercise of that right. But, adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification, and the statute can readily be understood as an effort to restrict minors’ access. Any burden experienced by adults is therefore only incidental to the statute’s regulation of activity that is not protected by the First Amendment. That fact makes intermediate scrutiny the appropriate standard under our precedents.***

accessing material obscene to minors without verifying one’s age is not constitutionally protected, any burden H. B. 1181 imposes on protected activity is only incidental, and the statute triggers only intermediate scrutiny.*** A statute survives intermediate scrutiny if it “advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.” Turner II, 520 U. S., at 189. H. B. 1181 readily satisfies these requirements.*** Texas’s interest in shielding children from sexual content is important, even “compelling.” *** H. B. 1181 furthers that interest by preventing minors from easily circumventing a prohibition on their accessing sexual content.

H. B. 1181 is also sufficiently tailored to Texas’s interest. Under intermediate scrutiny, a regulation is adequately tailored so long as the government’s interest “would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation” and the regulation “does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further that interest.”*** H. B. 1181 simply requires established verification methods already in use by pornographic sites and other industries. That choice is well within the State’s discretion under intermediate scrutiny.

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch - Big Win for religious freedom

SCt decided Mahmoud v. Taylor, 605 U.S. ___ (2025) on 27jun. Decision was 6 - 3.

The Board of Education of Montgomery County, Maryland (Board), has introduced a variety of “LGBTQ+- inclusive” storybooks into the elementary school curriculum. These books—and associated educational instructions provided to teachers—are designed to “disrupt” children’s thinking about sexuality and gender. The Board has told parents that it will not give them notice when the books are going to be used and that their children’s attendance during those periods is mandatory. A group of parents from diverse religious backgrounds sued to enjoin those policies. They assert that the new curriculum, combined with the Board’s decision to deny opt outs, impermissibly burdens their religious exercise. Today, we hold that the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 218 (1972). And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction. Based on these principles, we conclude that the parents are likely to succeed in their challenge to the Board’s policies.***

As one email sent by MCPS principals reflects, the Board selected the books according to a “Critical Selection Repertoire” that required selectors to review potential texts and ask questions such as: “Is heteronormativity reinforced or disrupted?”; “Is cisnormativity reinforced or disrupted?”; and “Are power hierarchies that uphold the dominant culture reinforced or disrupted?”***

The books were the usual left wing drivel about sex.

An MCPS official has made clear that “[t]eachers cannot . . . elect not to use the LGBTQ-Inclusive Books at all.” Ibid. The Board also contemplated that instruction involving the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks would include classroom discussion.***

If a student claims that a character “can’t be a boy if he was born a girl,” teachers were encouraged to respond: “That comment is hurtful.”*** In March 2023, less than a year after the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts were introduced, the Board issued a statement declaring that “[s]tudents and families may not choose to opt out of engaging” with the storybooks and that “teachers will not send home letters to inform families when inclusive books are read in the future.”***

At the time when this lawsuit was filed, petitioners Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat had three children enrolled in MCPS, including one who was still in elementary school. Mahmoud and Barakat are Muslims who believe “that mankind has been divinely created as male and female” and “that ‘gender’ cannot be unwoven from biological ‘sex’—to the extent the two are even distinct—without rejecting the dignity and direction God bestowed on humanity from the start.” Id., at 165a–166a. Mahmoud and Barakat believe that it would be “immoral” to expose their “young, impressionable, elementary-aged son” to a curriculum that “undermine[s] Islamic teaching.” Id., at 532a. And, in their view, “[t]he storybooks at issue in this lawsuit . . . directly undermine [their] efforts to raise” their son in the Islamic faith “because they encourage young children to question their sexuality and gender . . . and to dismiss parental and religious guidance on these issues.”*** Petitioners Jeff and Svitlana Roman also had a son enrolled in an MCPS elementary school when this lawsuit was filed. Jeff Roman is Catholic, and Svitlana Roman is Ukrainian Orthodox. They believe that “sexuality is expressed only in marriage between a man and a woman for creating life and strengthening the marital union.” *** The Romans further believe “that gender and biological sex are intertwined and inseparable” and that “the young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created.” **** The Romans understand that their son “loves his teachers and implicitly trusts them,” and so they fear that allowing those teachers to “teach principles about sexuality or gender identity that conflict with [their] religious beliefs” would “significantly interfer[e] with [their] ability to form [their son’s] religious faith and religious outlook on life.”***

Multiple other plaintiffs with religious objections.

At this stage, the parents seek a preliminary injunction that would permit them to have their children excused from instruction related to the storybooks while this lawsuit proceeds. To obtain that form of preliminary relief, the parents must show that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an injunction would be in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008). The parents have made that showing.***

In light of the record before us, we hold that the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks—combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs—substantially interferes with the religious development of their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable. To understand why, start with the storybooks themselves. Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.***

Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot “condition” its “availability” on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise. Ibid. Moreover, since education is compulsory in Maryland, see Md. Educ. Code Ann. §7–301(a–1)(1), the parents are not being asked simply to forgo a public benefit. They have an obligation—enforceable by fine or imprisonment—to send their children to public school unless they find an adequate substitute. §§7–301(a)(3), (e).10 And many parents cannot afford such a substitute.***

the dissent asserts that, under its approach, the parents would “remain free to raise objections to specific material through the” democratic process. Post, at 28. In making this argument, the dissent seems to confuse our country with those in which laws enacted by a parliament or another legislative body cannot be challenged in court. In this country, that is not so. Here, the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of judicial review protect individuals who cannot obtain legislative change. The First Amendment protects the parents’ religious liberty, and they had every right to file suit to protect that right.***

If the Board can structure the “Family Life and Human Sexuality” curriculum to more easily accommodate opt outs, it could structure instruction concerning the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks similarly. The Board cannot escape its obligation to honor parents’ free exercise rights by deliberately designing its curriculum to make parental opt outs more cumbersome. The Board also suggests that permitting opt outs from the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks would be especially unworkable because, when it permitted such opt outs in the past, they resulted in “unsustainably high numbers of absent students.” Id., at 12. But again, the Board’s concern is self-inflicted. The Board is doubtless aware of the presence in Montgomery County of substantial religious communities whose members hold traditional views on marriage, sex, and gender. When it comes to instruction that would burden the religious exercise of parents, the Board cannot escape its obligations under the Free Exercise Clause by crafting a curriculum that is so burdensome that a substantial number of parents elect to opt out. There is no de maximis exception to the Free Exercise Clause.***

The Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion. The parents have therefore shown that they are likely to succeed in their free exercise claims. They have likewise shown entitlement to a preliminary injunction pending the completion of this lawsuit. In the absence of an injunction, the parents will continue to be put to a choice: either risk their child’s exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. As we have explained, that choice unconstitutionally burdens the parents’ religious exercise, and “‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” ****** Furthermore, in light of the strong showing made by the parents here, and the lack of a compelling interest supporting the Board’s policies, an injunction is both equitable and in the public interest. The petitioners should receive preliminary relief while this lawsuit proceeds. *** Specifically, until all appellate review in this case is completed, the Board should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch - end of Oct24 term cases

SCt decided United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U. S. __ (2025) on 18jun25. Decision was 6 - 3.

In March 2023, Tennessee joined the growing number of States restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity, S. B. 1, 113th Gen. Assem., 1st Extra. Sess.; Tenn. Code Ann. §68–33–101 et seq. (SB1). While the State’s legislature acknowledged that discordance between a minor’s gender identity and biological sex can cause “discomfort or distress,” §68–33–101(c), it identified concerns regarding the use of puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria in minors. In particular, the legislature found that such treatments “can lead to the minor becoming irreversibly sterile, having increased risk of disease and illness, or suffering from adverse and sometimes fatal psychological consequences,” §68–33–101(b), and that minors “lack the maturity to fully understand and appreciate” these consequences and may later regret undergoing the treatments, §68–33–101(h).***

Three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor (plaintiffs) brought a pre-enforcement challenge to SB1. Among other things, the plaintiffs asserted that SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.***

The Biden Administration joined the suit. SCt ruled that the since SB1 treated boys and girls equally, it did not deny Equal Protection.

This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not “to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of the law before us, Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 313, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.***

***

SCt also decided Trump v. CASA, Inc, 605 U.S. ___ (2025) on 27jun25. Decision was 6 - 3, and J. Barrett wrote for the majority. The substantive issue in the case is birthright citizenship, but the only issue decided by the Court was procedure.

The United States has filed three emergency applications challenging the scope of a federal court’s authority to enjoin Government officials from enforcing an executive order. Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone. These injunctions—known as “universal injunctions”—likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts. We therefore grant the Government’s applications to partially stay the injunctions entered below.***

A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power. The Judiciary Act of 1789 endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over “all suits . . . in equity,” §11, 1 Stat. 78, and still today, this statute “is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies,” S. Bray & E. Sherwin, Remedies 442 (4th ed. 2024). Though flexible, this equitable authority is not freewheeling. We have held that the statutory grant encompasses only those sorts of equitable remedies “traditionally accorded by courts of equity” at our country’s inception.***

We said it before, see supra, at 5, and say it again: “[E]quity is flexible.” Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 322. At the same time, its “flexibility is confined within the broad boundaries of traditional equitable relief.” Ibid. A modern device need not have an exact historical match, but under Grupo Mexicano, it must have a founding-era antecedent. And neither the universal injunction nor a sufficiently comparable predecessor was available from a court of equity at the time of our country’s inception. See id., at 333. Because the universal injunction lacks a historical pedigree, it falls outside the bounds of a federal court’s equitable authority under the Judiciary Act.

There was more analysis of the law and precedent. Then J. Barrett responded to J. Jackson:

The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity. JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a “mind-numbingly technical query,” post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to “order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.”***

We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.***

Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” post, at 3, she seeks to answer “a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?” Ibid. In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.***

The upshot is that the district court orders in this case are effective only between the parties. The issue of birthright citizenship will be litigated at a different date.