Tag Archive for: The Courts

Dems Fight Trump’s Push to Secure Mail-In Ballots

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

After a year-long redistricting blitz, Republicans have moved on to phase two of their election strategy: securing Americans’ ballots. After the Supreme Court delivered a surprising blow to the GOP in June, allowing mail-in votes to be counted almost a week after Election Day, there’s an understandable concern that the upcoming midterms will be ripe for fraud. While conservatives are making a desperate push for the SAVE America Act to address some of that panic, that’s not the only play in the Right’s book.

President Trump, frustrated by the tight margins in the House and Senate that are bogging down these bills, has gotten creative with the problems plaguing our elections — issuing several executive orders and rules that would close the loopholes Democrats are using to undermine legitimate voters. Of course, the courts have put the brakes on some of the White House’s ideas, including one very interesting plan to involve the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).

Piggybacking on a March 31 EO, the administration instructed the USPS to oversee and streamline the states’ mail-in ballots, putting it in charge of “standardiz[ing] envelope design for mailed ballots” and helping states use “a unique barcode to track ballots, thus significantly reducing the chain-of-custody problem” that makes it easier to cheat. “The rule would also create, for the first time, a standardized, nationwide auditing mechanism for mail-in voting,” Alabama’s attorney general’s office points out.

Part of Trump’s order also required state governments to provide their voter rolls to the federal government. “This provision will help determine adherence to federal law and facilitate law enforcement efforts,” USPS noted. “For example, the provided lists will evidence how many ballots have been mailed, and allow law enforcement officials to compare the total number of mailed ballots to the total number of received ballots to detect potential issues meriting further investigation.” If a blue state refused to comply, it wouldn’t have access to mail-in ballots.

A federal judge in Washington claimed that the order would give the federal government too much control over elections and put the order on ice. That infuriated several state attorneys general, who argue that mail-in voting has compromised election results and destroyed trust. Led by Alabama’s Steve Marshall, 13 of those AGs rallied behind the rule in a letter that emphasizes the USPS’s role in protecting ballots across the country.

“States are the leaders in regulating elections,” Marshall underscored, “and yet despite our best efforts to enact policies to deter and detect fraud, voter fraud continues to be a problem. We appreciate the federal government lending a helping hand to shore up our elections and help states provide Americans with confidence in our system,” he and his counterparts continued. “We support the Service’s proposed rule in full. It addresses real vulnerabilities inherent in mail-in voting, responds to legitimate and widespread public concerns about federal election integrity, and equips states with tools that strengthen their own oversight capabilities without displacing their authority. We urge the Service to promptly finalize the rule.”

Katherine Robertson, the chief counsel to AG Marshall, lamented that this is remotely controversial. “I think it’s very clear by the litigation against this rule so far that it has really become a red state, blue state issue,” she told “Washington Watch” guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice. “And you hate to think that election integrity is so polarizing and so partisan, but that is clearly the case. You saw a bevy of blue states immediately come in and sue. And you have to ask yourself, why is that? Why is it that the red states want election integrity, and the blue states don’t? And I think, you know, unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that.”

As FRC Action’s Matt Carpenter told The Washington Stand, “Mail-in ballots are the main area of concern for Americans worried about the integrity of our elections. During the COVID era, we saw their use increase dramatically as emergency rules were implemented to expand access to them. Since then,” he continued, “we have seen proposals, and in some states, new laws, to enhance voter identification for those using mail-in ballots, and now we have a solid proposal to enhance the chain of custody issues at the heart of fraud with mail-in ballots. This move by Attorney General Marshall would immediately give Americans who choose to use mail-in ballots confidence that their votes will not just make it into the final count, but also will not be offset by potentially fraudulent mail-in ballots.”

Incredibly, 24 blue and purple state AGs are going to the mat to stop the USPS — or any government agency — from safeguarding the midterm elections in court. Oregon’s Dan Rayfield (D) griped that “President Trump wants to turn letter carriers into election gatekeepers,” and according to him, “that’s not a role the Postal Service was built for.”

Robertson disagrees, explaining that this is one of the powers the president has. “You know, he’s waiting on Congress to act on the SAVE Act, but he’s got tools at his disposal as the leader of our executive branch of government. And so, this particular rule is designed to utilize the authority of the United States Postal Service to strengthen the integrity of that part of voting. Obviously,” she acknowledged, “lots of ballots are cast by mail, absentee ballots, and otherwise. And so, what he’s proposed to do is to keep a national list, a national voter registry, that has to be checked before a ballot can be mailed out. And then he has proposed a barcode system that would help track ballots to ensure that they’re getting from point A to point B in a way that maintains ballot security. The states’ reaction to that — or at least the 13 states that joined our letter, is to say, ‘Thank you for being willing to do the part … that we cannot secure on our own.’”

In the meantime, multiple lawsuits over the idea are already in process in the most radically leftist states. “So there’s a long road ahead,” Robertson concedes. “[And] what’s interesting about this rule is that it is still in the comment period. This rule has not even been finalized yet. And yet, they’ve rushed in to prejudge.”

Regardless, she and others persist. “I think the goal would be to get this rule implemented and implemented quickly. But this is a fight not just for the next election. It’s a fight for future elections. … So we’re here for the long run,” Robertson vowed.

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Platner Drops Out of Maine Senate Race following Sexual Assault Allegations

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Dems’ Seat-Stealing Scheme Backfires, Reviving GOP Midterm Hopes

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Politics can turn on a dime, and no one is more painfully aware of that than Democrats. After a euphoric April that saw the party pull off a stunning congressional map heist in Virginia, the party of Minority Leaders Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) and Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) has come crashing back to earth — hard. In a matter of 10 days, not only has the state supreme court struck down that referendum Democrats spent $64 million on, but the U.S. Supreme Court tossed a favorite tool of the Left — racial gerrymandering — triggering a massive race to redraw the entire red South. Suddenly, the plans for a November victory parade seem surprisingly premature.

On Friday, in a decision that several legal experts expected, the Commonwealth’s justices ruled that “the legislative process employed” to advance the referendum was unconstitutional and “incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy.” It was an outcome that former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli predicted, noting that there were at least four violations of the state constitution in the process that led to the Democrats’ narrow win at the ballot box. And to many, that win, a squeaker at 51-49%, proved why the purple state should have never been redrawn in the first place.

For Republicans, who were furious at the power grab in Governor Abigail Spanberger’s (D) state, the ruling gives voice to millions of disenfranchised voters who stood to lose four seats in the U.S. House. “This is the correct decision, and it was always going to end up this way,” Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) agreed. “Democrats broke laws that they helped write in the first place, blew through deadlines, wrote a biased and misleading ballot question, and lied to the voters in all of their advertising to support the referendum. The voters of Virginia banned gerrymandering six years ago, and that ban remains in effect today,” he reiterated. “This is a great day for fair elections and the rule of law, and it’s a great day for the Commonwealth of Virginia.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who already has an uphill climb for the midterms, cheered the result as “a victory for democracy.” “[It] ensures Virginians have fair representation in Congress,” he said.

On the Left, Jeffries and company decried the decision as “shocking,” while Virginia House Speaker Don Scott (D) issued a statement saying, “We respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia. … We respect the court. But we will keep fighting for a democracy where voters — not politicians — have the final say. Because in Virginia, power still belongs to the people,” he argued.

And while Democrats complain about the “unfairness” of the decision, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said it didn’t take a legal genius to see that this was a possibility. “They didn’t pay attention to the fact that they had to follow the Virginia Constitution. And they rushed it through. And they made a number of mistakes [by not following the letter of the law].” But “they’re still complaining that, ‘Well, it went to the voters in the referendum, and those people’s votes didn’t count.’ Well,” Griffith said on Friday’s “Washington Watch,” “they should have anticipated that and gotten all of the i’s dotted, and the t’s crossed. When you do something in an unconstitutional manner under the Virginia Constitution, you’ve got to expect that the court will take action against it. Whether a million people voted in the referendum or 1,000,006 voted in the referendum is not the issue. The issue is, did you follow the rules?”

Frankly, he suspects, “In their heart of hearts, deep down, when they’re not playing politics, I think even the Democrats know that they were pushing the envelope and trying to get by with one quickly. They thought the referendum would basically cow the court into doing it. … And I give the court credit for having the fortitude to recognize that they’re going to irritate the legislature, which appoints them.” Yet, at the end of the day, “The court did its job. It was tough for them to do it. Some of them are likely not to be reappointed by the legislature because of it. But they did the right thing anyway. And I just have great respect for the Virginia Supreme Court for doing the right thing.”

Meanwhile, the setback on the Democratic map is a huge blow heading into November, Axios admits. While a lot of pundits have been crowing that the GOP is on the verge of a midterm bloodbath, the reality is that this is “a huge boost to Republicans’ chances of keeping the House,” the outlet notes. “Even some Democrats now concede that they basically need to run the table in November.”

It also drives home just how much work the Left has to do in agenda-setting. They can’t rely on anti-Trump sentiment carrying the day, as one anonymous House Democrat conceded. “[We] cannot take a midterm victory for granted,” the member told reporters. “Relying too much on the administration’s unpopularity and not enough of their own positive agenda could put an otherwise sure victory at risk.”

With the 10-1 edge in Virginia off the table, Democrats will struggle to make up a lot of ground in the redistricting arms race that has launched in earnest in the South after the U.S. Supreme Court’s rollback of racial gerrymandering. As Punchbowl News warns the Left, “As many as 10 seats could now swing toward Republicans in a worst-case scenario for Democrats,” while adding, “this all remains very fluid.”

Already, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi have rocketed out of the gates to redraw their maps after the justices’ ruling in Louisiana v. Callais — some states even postponing their primary elections to make sure they get their new districts approved first.

The governors of one of those states, Louisiana’s Jeff Landry (R), agreed it was about time that the stranglehold of the Voting Rights Act was loosened. “I think that the Supreme Court has finally helped untangle Louisiana and many states, especially across the South, [from] a nasty wave of litigation that’s been going on since the 90s. … Louisiana has been engaged in 27 federal lawsuits since the 1990s, which has basically taken away the legislature’s power to draw congressional districts.” No longer, he continued, can Democrats “blame the Civil Rights Act for losing elections. That’s the bottom line.”

Finally, Landry told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, “The Supreme Court has instilled fairness and cemented the rule of law in our election process and the way we draw districts in the United States for the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Fellow Louisianan Mike Johnson echoed that sentiment, pointing to a GOP pick-up of at least eight to 10 seats. “It depends on how many states get in on this,” he stressed to Perkins. “And this trend was long overdue. I mean, for years, we argued … that the common sense reading of the Constitution says you cannot use race as a determining factor [to draw districts]. You can’t discriminate against voters of any skin color. And that’s what the previous regime, the previous kind of rules, had done. So the Supreme Court has finally set that right. And you see a number of states jumping in to correct that.”

In Tennessee, mayhem broke out on the floor of the state House when the general assembly passed a map that turned all nine of the congressional districts red. Governor Bill Lee (R) called lawmakers back into a special session after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Callais to right what many see as a long-time wrong. The state’s House speaker, Cameron Sexton, defended the move on “Washington Watch,” calling out the “aggressive, vile protestors” and Democratic caucus for creating chaos in the Capitol. “We’ve gone through that before,” he shrugged. “We powered through it. We passed it out, and now it’s law.” If the other side sues, Sexton isn’t worried. “We’re prepared. … I feel comfortable that we’re going to win it in the long term, and then the maps will be upheld at some point.”

Ultimately, the entire landscape is changing, David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for the Cook Political Report, underscored to “Washington Watch” guest host Jody Hice. “Keep in mind that by 2029, we could see states across the Deep South sending zero Democrats or black representatives to Congress from states that have some of the highest black populations in the country. … This is going to have the effect of eradicating Democrats from red states, and blue states eradicating Republicans from their delegations.” Places like Illinois could pass a map, he warned, with 17 Democrats and zero Republicans by drawing downstate of Chicago. “Same thing in California. Democrats could draw [a] 52-to-0 map. And so, this is further polarizing Congress.”

At the end of the day, he explained, “What it means is that the battle for control of the House is going to come down to a small group of states with neutral maps that were installed by courts or commissions. And that’s why the bulk of the toss-ups in our chart right now are in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, [and] Iowa — states where neither party dominates this process.”

And that’s just fine with most Americans, whose biggest concern is a fair and level playing field. “We [need] maps that accurately reflect the population of [our] states,” Johnson insisted to Perkins. “And this is the genius of the Founders, how they set up the three branches of the federal government for checks and balances. And you can’t allow political issues to be the main driving factor in making sure that people are fairly represented in their states,” he argued. “The court has to look at this objectively. They have to evaluate these ideas on the basis of the Constitution. I think they did the right thing here, and it was a long time coming.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats Move To Remove and Replace the Virginia Supreme Court

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Dems Face Political Identity Crisis That Even Midterm Elections May Not Resolve

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

This year’s midterm elections will likely shape the future of the Democratic Party and determine whether the Democrats continue their trend toward radical, far-left, neo-Marxist policies or return to the more center-left position the party popularized before the end of the Second World War.

In the wake of the 2024 presidential election that returned President Donald Trump to the White House, voters reported that they considered then-Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris “too extreme.” Her policies included open borders, unrestricted abortion promotion, gender transition procedures for children, a borderline-socialist economic agenda, and more. According to NBC News exit polls, 48% of voters classified Harris’s policies as “too extreme,” while nearly 60% of voters told Fox News that they were “concerned” that Harris’s agenda is “too extreme.”

Of the more-than-one-quarter of Americans who described their 2024 presidential vote as against a candidate, rather than for a candidate, nearly 60% said that they were voting against Harris. Such survey results — in addition to Trump’s capture of both the electoral college and popular vote — seemingly indicated that far-left Democratic Party policies like those Harris championed were unpopular with the American public — unpopular enough to cost the Democrats the White House, at any rate.

Off-year elections in 2025, however, yielded mixed messaging for Democratic strategists and policymakers. Newly-elected Virginia Governor Abigal Spanberger (D) campaigned as a moderate Democrat, decisively defeating Republican opponent and ex-Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears. (Despite Spanberger’s “moderate” image, she quickly began enacting far-left policies upon taking office earlier this year.) Meanwhile, avowed socialist and pro-immigration radical Zohran Mamdani not only won the Democratic nomination for the New York City mayorship, but bested former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, running as an Independent after losing the Democratic nomination to Mamdani and became the first Muslim mayor of New York City. Socialist Katie Wilson (D) won the mayorship of Seattle, St. Paul elected a mayor who admitted to being an illegal immigrant, and Downingtown, Pa. elected an openly-transgender-identifying mayor.

Now, with midterm elections looming and the specter of 2028 not far off, the Democratic Party faces a dilemma. Some strategists are pressing to distance candidates from the radical policies that crippled Harris’s 2024 White House bid, while others point to the success of figures like Mamdani and Wilson, coupled with growing discontent over the Trump administration’s handling of affordability issues, as evidence that socialism and ultra-progressive social policies appeal to voters.

Option One: Move to the middle. Sunday and Monday, the Democrat-aligned think tank Third Way hosted its “Winning the Middle” conference in South Carolina, urging Democrats to take a more centrist approach and not nominate a socialist presidential candidate in 2028. According to Axios, Third Way President Jon Cowan called the Democrats’ far-left wing “out of touch,” warning that the party would face almost certain defeat if it were to nominate someone in the mold of socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), singling out ultra-progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as a potential successor to Sanders politically.

Cowan observed that groups linked to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have “flipped zero” contentious seats in the House of Representatives since 2018, but a spokesman for Justice Democrats, the organization predominantly responsible for Ocasio-Cortez’s election, responded that progressive groups are more focused on launching primary challenges against “corporate Dems in deep-blue seats” than on targeting Republican-held congressional districts.

Option Two: Lean into the far-left. Various ultra-progressive organizations are trying to persuade Ocasio-Cortez to launch a bid for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, again according to Axios. “One big reason: They see no clear alternative. Bernie Sanders (84) is too old — and no other Sanders-like pol with national punch is emerging,” Axios conveyed. The argument being put forth centers largely on the New York-based congresswoman’s name recognition and political cachet, which proponents say would automatically give her a boost in polling and allow her to raise an estimated $100 million through online fundraising alone.

Another point of consideration is a matter of timing: if the nomination seems to be out of Ocasio-Cortez’s reach, she could potentially drop out and pivot to a high-profile Senate bid, challenging incumbent Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “There’s a window of opportunity for a left-wing nominee that may not come again for a generation,” Axios reported. “Democratic-socialist and liberal victories in New York City and elsewhere — with potentially more this fall — have changed the political playing field.”

Flanked by former Sanders campaign advisors and strategists, Ocasio-Cortez and her team are reportedly keeping a close eye on congressional primaries and races this year in order to “validate the theory that voters are hungry for a left-wing outsider in 2028.” While Ocasio-Cortez has been a Sanders ally, reports suggest that she may have no interest in a White House run and could instead be preparing a network to support another far-left candidate. Other prospective White House contenders floated by Democratic Party insiders include pseudo-socialist Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and open-borders advocate Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

If far-left, socialist-style candidates emerge victorious in high-profile congressional districts in November, or even if they defeat enough establishment-type Democrats in hotly-contested primaries, the party’s ultra-progressive wing will likely feel emboldened to run one of their own in the Democratic presidential primary for 2028.

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter observed, “This internecine scuffle among the Democratic Party apparatchiks has been simmering since the party was dealt its biggest defeat in decades in 2024.” He recounted that shortly after Trump assumed office the second time, then-Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) David Hogg left the organization amidst a conflict over his commitment to primarying Democrats who were not far enough to the Left. “It’s been clear for a while that the fissure between the progressive and establishment elements in the party was going to widen into a canyon,” Carpenter said. “As the midterms and the 2028 presidential contest approach, these elements inside the Democratic Party will vie for control of the party.”

“My question is: is this simply a disagreement in party branding, or is this a legitimate disagreement in policy as well? The Democratic Party has planted its flag on the wrong side of a series of 80-20% issues, like late-term abortion, gender-transitioning minors, critical race theory, and so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives, all of which are unpopular with a majority of voters,” Carpenter posited. “My sense is that the Democratic Party is merely debating how the party should brand itself, rather than any actual moderation in policy,” he added, pointing to Spanberger as an example. “Spanberger was cautious not to confirm accusations that she is a left-wing radical during her 2025 campaign, but in just a few short months, she has governed as a left-wing radical,” Carpenter noted. “The so-called moderates in the party will still push for the same radical abortion position and the most radical pro-transgender policies as the progressive wing. The only difference is that the so-called moderates are savvy enough not to campaign on them.”

But even if Democrats manage to secure a majority in the House in the midterm elections, the party will have to maintain momentum through 2028, and Democrats are already splintering over the potential of impeaching Trump — again. According to Semafor, Democrats are considering launching an “oversight” project if they retake a House majority, targeting corporations and firms that have cooperated with the Trump administration. “The shadow of Trump’s first term will hang over Democrats’ decisions,” Semafor opined, warning that Democrats may “encounter deep internal divisions over how far to go in conducting oversight while also passing their own agenda.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), for example, has already teased the possibility of impeaching Trump, specifically citing alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which bars presidents from accepting gifts from foreign governments or U.S. taxpayers. “The cardinal, original sin of Trump was to decide that he was going to use the presidency as a profit-making enterprise in his first term, and I would say that Congress should have impeached him for receiving millions and millions of dollars from foreign governments,” Raskin claimed.

During the first Trump presidency, Raskin was the lead impeachment manager for the second impeachment of Trump, centered on the events of January 6, 2021. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the top House Oversight Democrat, focused his attention on corporations partnering with the White House. “There [are] opportunities to look at not just corporations that we think are enabling some of Trump’s corruption,” he said, “but certainly corporations that are not supporting American families and not really focusing on affordability.”

Within just months of Trump’s return to the White House, some Democrats were already breaking out the articles of impeachment. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) led the charge, joined by a handful of other Democrats, but party leadership was hesitant to embrace the move. Semafor noted that Democrats are aware that they likely lack the Senate votes to convict Trump even if he’s impeached in the House. However, Democratic leaders have been less averse to the prospect of impeaching Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem.

Yet a third faction of the Democrats is less concerned with political retribution and more concerned with addressing issues like affordability. “We have to do oversight and accountability, and we have to talk about the affordability agenda, how we’re going to make life better for people if we are given the opportunity to lead, and if we’re given the opportunity to govern,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said. He warned that impeachments and investigations cost time and money; if high-profile progressives like Raskin promise impeachments, voters would undoubtedly grow impatient, demanding results that may never materialize.

Author and political commentator Philip Finkelstein suggested that Democrats appear unlikely to learn from their past mistakes. “Trump capitalized on far-left foolishness [in 2020], and he did it again in 2024. The liberal media and those in charge of the Democratic Party couldn’t — seemingly still don’t — see what the majority of Americans take to be common sense,” he opined.

Even though Joe Biden claimed victory in the 2020 election, Trump’s polling results demonstrated that his support was still strong. “Yet, four years later, the Democrats somehow saw fit to run Kamala Harris. Despite Biden’s own role in causing this disaster, the real mystery is how the establishment … thought it made sense to bypass the democratic process and nominate a gaffe-prone and unpopular vice president from California who had never won a single primary,” Finklestein observed. “The writing was always on the wall. Democrats lost, and they will keep losing national elections until they consciously choose a rebirth for their party. They need to remove from power within the party the faction that allowed Trump to paint everyone on the left as more deranged than his own unhinged brand of populism.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Courts High and Low Weigh in on Redistricting Battles

‘I’m Done For Now!’: Watch Hillary Clinton Storm Out Of Deposition When She Learns Photo Was Leaked

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Can ICE Legally Raid Your House? Understanding the Immigration Agency’s Warrants

/in , , , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” agenda relies heavily on successfully deporting millions of illegal immigrants. While many on the political Right have warned for decades of the existential threat posed by mass immigration, some “constitutional conservatives” are now reacting with alarm to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memo permitting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to enter the houses of illegal immigrants without a judicial warrant. Could such a directive possibly be legal?

What’s in a Warrant?

The vast majority of ICE’s operations — namely, the arrest, detention, and deportation of illegal immigrants — make use of internal administrative warrants, rather than judicial warrants signed by a judge. The most commonly-used of these warrants is Form I-205, formally known as a “Warrant of Removal.” The authority for creating and executing these warrants is rooted in the Immigration National Act (INA), namely Title Eight of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 241.2. A warrant of removal can only be issued against an individual who has a final order of removal, which means that an immigration judge has verified that the immigrant to be removed does, in fact, have no legal basis for remaining in the U.S. and has exhausted or waived all available avenues of appeal. Once a final order of removal has been issued, ICE can generate a warrant of removal.

The warrant of removal (Form I-205) is distinct from Form I-200, formally the “Warrant for Arrest of Alien.” Form I-200 authorizes ICE to make an arrest on suspicion of a subject being in the U.S. illegally. In other words, the warrant of removal (Form I-205) authorizes ICE to arrest known illegal immigrants who have been issued a final order of removal after having exhausted all avenues of appeals in immigration court, while the warrant for arrest of alien (Form I-200) cites “probable cause” for believing that a subject is present in the U.S. illegally.

This process differs from the one by which police obtain arrest or search warrants. In those cases, law enforcement officials petition a judge to approve a warrant, citing probable cause. The issuing of such warrants is rooted in the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Criminal warrants are specific in nature, enumerating “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Memo

Late last month, two “whistleblowers” leaked a DHS memo from May 12, which noted that ICE has historically relied on judicial criminal warrants, in addition to administrative ICE warrants, for authority to arrest illegal immigrants in their places of residence. However, “the DHS Office of General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. … Constitution, the immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose,” specifying the Form I-205 warrant of removal, not the Form I-200 warrant for arrest of alien. “In light of this legal determination, ICE immigration officers may arrest and detain aliens subject to a final order of removal issued by an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), or a U.S. district court judge or magistrate judge in their place of residence.”

Before entering a place of residence, ICE agents are required to “knock and announce,” stating their identity and purpose in entering the residence, the memo clarified. “Following announcement, officers and agents must allow those inside the residence a reasonable chance to act lawfully,” the memo further stipulated. “Should the alien refuse admittance, ICE officers and agents should use only a necessary and reasonable amount of force to enter the alien’s residence, following proper notification of the officer’s or agent’s authority and intent to enter.” Additionally, the memo only allows ICE agents to make an administrative warrant arrest in the illegal immigrant’s place of residence, requiring “consent, exigency, or a judicial warrant” to enter or make an arrest in a third party’s place of residence.

The whistleblowers characterized the memo as establishing an “unconstitutional mandate” and alleged that DHS and ICE personnel who supposedly expressed concerns over the directive “faced retaliation,” namely being transferred to a different department or division.

An Unlawful Order?

Once the memo was leaked, a number of voices on both the Left and the Right raised concerns over whether or not the directive was constitutional. Appearing on “Washington Watch” last week, National Review Institute Senior Fellow and former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy suggested that the directive may not stand up to judicial review when inevitably challenged in court. “The bottom line answer is what they’re saying they can do, probably they can’t do,” he quipped. However, he noted that the U.S. Supreme Court “has never exactly weighed in on this.” McCarthy noted that standard arrest warrants are issued by the judicial branch of the government, authorizing the arrest of an individual on suspicion of a criminal action, while ICE’s administrative warrants are issued by the executive branch of the government.

“What the Trump administration is trying to say is they should have the same ability with respect to an administrative warrant that’s issued by the executive branch in connection with immigration proceedings,” McCarthy surmised. “I don’t think it’s a frivolous argument, because what they’re talking about is a warrant of removal, and you can’t get a warrant of removal unless you go through a very elaborate legal process, which entails, at the end, an appeal to a judicial court,” he continued. “So it’s not like the judicial courts don’t have anything to do with it at all. But the Supreme Court has never said that such an administrative warrant is the functional equivalent of a judicial warrant, and that’s what the confusion is.”

Andrew R. Arthur, resident fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies and a former immigration judge, pointed out that the key difference between judicial criminal warrants and administrative ICE warrants is that judicial criminal warrants are issued by Article III courts to address criminal activity, while administrative ICE warrants are issued to address what is technically a civil infraction: entering the U.S. illegally. “Most immigration enforcement is civil in nature, not criminal, and consequently most ICE and CBP arrests end in detention and removal from the United States, which are not punitive in the immigration context because, unlike criminal cases, they do not result in conviction and incarceration,” Arthur explained in comments shared with The Washington Stand. “The problem, as I have explained repeatedly in the past, is that there is no mechanism to obtain a warrant from an Article III federal judge to arrest an alien for a civil immigration violation.”

“If you think the federal judiciary has issues now, imagine if ICE started swamping U.S. courts with warrant applications for millions of illegal migrants,” Arthur quipped. Turning to criminal warrants rooted in the Fourth Amendment, he continued, “The warrant rule is generally interpreted, however, in the criminal context, raising the question of whether the same rule applies in the administrative context (such as in immigration enforcement). Curiously, the answer isn’t as clear as most advocates of judicial warrants in immigration enforcement might think.”

Arthur cited two prior court decisions dealing with administrative warrants. First, in United States v. Lucas (2007), the director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services issued an administrative arrest warrant — not a judicial arrest warrant — for Tylan Lucas, a convict who absconded while on work release. After being arrested at his girlfriend’s apartment, where police also found drugs and guns hidden, Lucas moved to suppress the evidence of the drugs and guns found at the apartment, claiming that the evidence was obtained illegally since the police did not have a judicial warrant, just an administrative warrant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ultimately ruled that the difference between an administrative and a judicial warrant in this instance did not matter, because “[t]he standard for issuance of a valid administrative warrant under the Fourth Amendment is different from the probable cause showing necessary for a warrant to arrest someone suspected of a crime.”

The appellate court’s majority in Lucas cited a 1960 U.S. Supreme Court holding in Abel v. United States. “The Supreme Court has upheld administrative warrants and has never held that administrative warrants must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate,” the Eighth Circuit majority wrote. “An administrative arrest warrant issued by a district director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service pursuant to a deportation statute led to a valid arrest in Abel v. United States.”

In Abel, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) suspected English-born Rudolph Abel of being a Soviet Spy and notified the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS, the precursor to ICE) that Abel was living in the U.S. illegally. INS, then an organ of the Department of Justice (DOJ), moved to arrest Abel on an administrative warrant, but allowed FBI agents to question him first. On appeal before the Supreme Court, Abel advanced the argument that his arrest was invalid because an administrative INS warrant did not qualify as a valid arrest warrant under the Fourth Amendment, since it was not signed by a judge. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the argument, since Abel had not entered such a theory in any of the lower courts, but did write:

“Statutes authorizing administrative arrest to achieve detention pending deportation proceedings have the sanction of time. It would emphasize the disregard for the presumptive respect the Court owes to the validity of Acts of Congress, especially when confirmed by uncontested historical legitimacy, to bring into question for the first time such a long-sanctioned practice of government at the behest of a party who not only did not challenge the exercise of authority below, but expressly acknowledged its validity. … The constitutional validity of this longstanding administrative arrest procedure in deportation cases has never been directly challenged in reported litigation. … This Court seems never expressly to have directed its attention to the particular question of the constitutional validity of administrative deportation warrants. It has frequently, however, upheld administrative deportation proceedings shown by the Court’s opinion to have been begun by arrests pursuant to such warrants. … In the presence of this impressive historical evidence of acceptance of the validity of statutes providing for administrative deportation arrest from almost the beginning of the Nation, petitioner’s disavowal of the issue below calls for no further consideration.”

Arthur commented, “Whether that analysis is ‘dicta’ (i.e., a comment made by the court ‘that is not necessary to resolve the case, and as such … not legally binding on other courts’) or not depends on how you read it, but it certainly supports the proposition that an administrative immigration warrant is a sufficient substitute for a judicial one when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, particularly in the Eighth Circuit.”

“When most ‘experts’ … complain about ICE administrative arrest warrants, the document they usually mean is the Form I-200, ‘Warrant for Arrest of Alien,’” Arthur observed. “A Form I-205, ‘Warrant of Removal/Deportation,’ on the other hand, is only issued after an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, a U.S. District Court judge or magistrate court judge, or other ‘designated official’ has issued a final order of removal or deportation in the named alien’s case.” The immigration law expert noted that ICE agents are legally required to make arrests in the cases of Form I-205 warrants and that it is a felony — elevated from a civil infraction for first-time illegal entry — for illegal immigrants under final orders of removal not to depart from the U.S. within 90 days of the order being issued.

“Thus, the Form I-205 is akin to the administrative arrest warrant in Lucas … with the only difference being that the latter relates to a convicted criminal on the lam and the former to aliens who received their full due process rights and were ordered removed, but have failed to depart,” Arthur suggested. “Consequently, Fourth Amendment ‘probable cause’ likely isn’t an issue in the I-205 context except with respect to the identity of the alien and the place where the alien is likely to be found.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Anti-ICE Protesters Want Agents to Wear Body Cameras, But Their Demand May Backfire

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Texas Takes Redistricting Battle to SCOTUS as Blue States Prepare to Ax GOP House Seats

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Ahead of next year’s midterm elections, Texas Republicans are moving to redraw their state’s congressional district maps, netting the GOP at least five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, but federal judges have accused the Lone Star State’s legislature of racial gerrymandering.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” wrote Judge Jeffrey Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in a decision this week barring the use of the new congressional maps. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”

Most federal cases are heard first by a district court, then a court of appeals, and finally by the U.S. Supreme Court, if they make it that far in the appeals process. Voting rights cases, however, are heard by a three-judge panel consisting of two federal district court judges and one appellate judge, and are then appealed immediately to the Supreme Court. Brown, appointed by President Donald Trump, was joined in his decision to reject Texas’s new congressional maps by Judge David Guaderrama of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, who was appointed by Barack Obama. Judge Jerry Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, was the sole dissent.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced immediately following the decision that he would appeal the case to the Supreme Court. “The radical left is once again trying to undermine the will of the people. The Big Beautiful Map was entirely legal and passed for partisan purposes to better represent the political affiliations of Texas,” Paxton insisted, repudiating the claims of racial gerrymandering. “For years, Democrats have engaged in partisan redistricting intended to eliminate Republican representation. Democratic states across the country, from California to Illinois to New York, have systematically reduced representation of Republican voters in their congressional delegations,” the attorney general continued. “But when Republicans respond in kind, Democrats rely on false accusations of racism to secure a partisan advantage. I will be appealing this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, and I fully expect the Court to uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

In the court’s injunction blocking the use of the new maps, Brown alleged that Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) and the Republican-led state legislature had been hesitant to redistrict along partisan lines when Trump made the suggestion earlier this year. Instead, Brown charged, Lone Star State officials only moved on the proposal when the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) civil rights division warned that the state may face lawsuits over its current “unconstitutional” congressional maps, which the DOJ argued created illegal racial coalitions favoring Democrats over Republicans and thus diluting what would otherwise be a majority vote for a Republican candidate.

Appearing on Wednesday night’s episode of “Washington Watch,” FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter commented, “The mid-decade redistricting cycle we’re in was always going to be litigated, and it seems like we’ve arrived at that stage now where the courts are going to have to weigh in.” He also anticipated that a number of states “waiting in the wings trying to figure out which way this is headed” before redrawing congressional maps may be encouraged to do so if the Supreme Court backs Texas in its move. “I think whatever comes from the Supreme Court, if they decide to take up this case, is going to have enormous ramifications for some of the states that are making overtures that they’re going to redraw their own districts,” Carpenter suggested. “Florida is looking at redrawing their districts. Indiana is — it’s kind of stalled, but they’re looking at it as well. And you’ve got blue states like Virginia and Maryland that are also looking at redistricting, and there’s potential for even more in the future.”

Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Braun (R) have pressed the Hoosier State’s legislature to draw new district maps favoring Republicans, potentially eliminating two Democrat-held seats in the U.S. House, but Republicans in Indiana’s GOP-dominated senate split over whether or not to push the congressional maps through in a special session next month, ensuring that they would be used in the 2026 midterms, or delay until early next year and risk not redistricting in time to effect the midterms. All 10 Democrats in the state senate voted against participating in a special session, while Republican senators split evenly on the issue: 19 in favor, 19 against.

Carpenter noted that Indiana senate Republicans may not “have the votes to go through with this redistricting push” during a special session. “It looks as though they may take up redistricting when they convene for their regularly scheduled session,” he explained. “So I guess the concern was they were not able to get the votes during a special session, but we’ll see if, maybe with some additional time once they convene in January, perhaps they’ll have the votes needed to look at their maps again.”

Redistricting in Virginia, where Democrats expanded their control over the state legislature and took the governor’s mansion in off-year elections earlier this month, will likely come down to meeting deadlines, Carpenter observed. “Each state has their own sort of labyrinth of constitutional requirements and statutes around redistricting. The situation in Virginia is there’s basically no room for error,” he explained. “They have to pass a constitutional amendment this session with this governor,” Carpenter noted, referring to outgoing Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin. “He won’t have to veto it, but then they have to come back next session and pass an identical constitutional amendment, get it on the ballot before their spring primaries — which I believe are in April — and get it passed,” Carpenter detailed. “So they have a series of events that that they can’t miss any one of those deadlines in order to circumvent their constitutionally-required bipartisan redistricting commission.”

In Maryland, Carpenter anticipated, Governor Wes Moore (D) may not attempt redistricting through the usual legislative means, due to the makeup of the Old Line State’s Supreme Court. “They have a Supreme Court that’s been loaded up from former Republican Governor Larry Hogan. And so I think the political calculus from Democrat Governor Wes Moore in that state and the Democratic leadership in the legislature is that they’re not likely to get new maps past that Republican dominated state Supreme Court,” Carpenter observed. “Nevertheless, Governor Moore is pushing through with a redistricting commission, so he’s trying to circumvent the legislature.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Signs Bill Ordering Release Of Epstein Files

Democratic Rep Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick Indicted Over ‘Stealing’ FEMA Funds

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Mail-In Ballot Case Makes Its Way to SCOTUS ahead of Midterms

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The nation’s highest court will soon deliberate on an election case that could impact how over a dozen states count ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up the case of Watson v. Republican National Committee, centered on a challenge to a Mississippi state law permitting mail-in ballots received after election to be counted, provided that they were postmarked on or before Election Day.

“Like all other States, Mississippi requires that ballots for federal offices be cast — marked and submitted to election officials — by [Election] Day. And like most other States, Mississippi allows some of those timely cast ballots (mail-in absentee ballots, in Mississippi) to be counted if they are received by election officials soon after election day,” Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson (R) explained in his petition before the Supreme Court. Watson argued that Mississippi’s law, which allows for ballots received by mail and postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted by election officials for up to five business days after Election Day, does not conflict with federal election laws, which Watson says only stipulate when ballots are to be cast, not when they are to be counted.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, disagreed with Watson’s interpretation, determining that Mississippi’s law was in conflict with federal statutes governing elections. “For more than 150 years after the enactment of the first election-day statute, States complied with Congress’ mandate by ensuring that the ballot box closed on the federally mandated election day. With rare outliers, the States mandated that ballots must be received by election officials by election day,” the Republican National Committee (RNC) wrote in its challenge to Mississippi’s law. “But recently, an increasing number of States — including Mississippi — have deviated from that practice by permitting at least some ballots to be received after election day.”

“These States risk ‘the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.’ … They reduce the time to resolve postelection disputes. … And they deprive the electorate of a clear nationwide deadline that ‘puts all voters on the same footing,’” the RNC argued, citing Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. “While the question in this case is important, this Court should decline review here because the Fifth Circuit answered it correctly,” the RNC added. “The Secretary asks this

Court to grant certiorari and draw a line between ‘casting’ ballots and receiving ballots by election officials. But that line was unknown at the time of the election-day statutes.”

Currently, Mississippi is one of 16 states that allows ballots received by mail after Election Day to be counted: Alaska, California, Ohio, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia, in addition to the District of Columbia and Guam, do the same. On Wednesday’s episode of “Washington Watch,” Conservative Partnership Institute Senior Legal Fellow and Election Integrity Network founder Cleta Mitchell explained that some states will keep counting ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day. “I will tell you that in the state where I live, North Carolina, they can accept ballots — it’s supposed to be only from the military, but they stop categorizing whether it’s military or non-military, and they just accept ballots,” she observed. “And in Pennsylvania, they have defended and started counting ballots with no postmark. So you don’t know if it’s postmarked before, you don’t know if it was sent before or after the election. So these are really big problems. I’m so glad the Supreme Court hopefully will say that.”

Mississippi originally approved its mail-in ballot law in response to COVID-19 but made the law permanent in 2024. Mitchell commented, “The Democrats and the Left took to heart what Rahm Emanuel famously said: ‘Never let an emergency go to waste.’ And so, they took the opportunity under COVID to completely upend America’s election laws in state after state after state.” She detailed, “Marc Elias and the constellation of left-wing, anti-integrity voting groups sued state after state to get rid of all the safeguards that have been protecting our elections for a century, really. And so, one of the ways that they did that was they had been moving to get states to accept ballots after Election Day.”

Mitchell also anticipated that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue will likely be handed down in time to set the standard for the 2026 midterm elections. “Arguments will be sometime between now and, say, the end of April, and the decision would come no later than June 30. So the decision will be made before the November 2026 election, and I just hope that they will uphold Election Day,” she posited. “The next thing we have to do is get states to stop having ‘election season,’” Mitchell added. “Some early voting, maybe seven days, maybe eight days, but having — like Virginia has 45 days of early voting. They started voting for the November election on September 19. It’s time to stop all that nonsense.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Ex-FBI Director James Comey Indicted on Federal Charges

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Former FBI Director James Comey, a key player in the “Russian collusion” hoax, has been indicted on federal charges. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) confirmed late Thursday that a federal grand jury has indicted Comey on one charge of obstructing a congressional investigation into the leaking of sensitive or classified information and one charge of lying to Congress while under oath. According to the DOJ, Comey authorized then-deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe to leak information to the press related to manufactured allegations that then-president-elect Donald Trump had benefitted from illegal election interference on the part of Russia. Comey allegedly lied when asked about the event by Congress.

“No one is above the law,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case,” she added. Current FBI Director Kash Patel observed, “For far too long, previous corrupt leadership and their enablers weaponized federal law enforcement, damaging once proud institutions and severely eroding public trust.” He continued, “Nowhere was this politicization of law enforcement more blatant than during the Russiagate hoax, a disgraceful chapter in history we continue to investigate and expose. Everyone, especially those in positions of power, will be held to account — no matter their perch.”

“JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” President Donald Trump declared on Truth Social, in response to news of the indictment. “One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey, the former Corrupt Head of the FBI. Today he was indicted by a Grand Jury on two felony counts for various illegal and unlawful acts,” the president said. “He has been so bad for our Country, for so long, and is now at the beginning of being held responsible for his crimes against our Nation.”

In an Instagram video responding to the indictment, Comey claimed that he was being unfairly targeted by the Trump administration. “My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t, either,” Comey said, standing in front of a wall and speaking directly into the camera. Referring to the president as a “tyrant,” he continued, “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I’m innocent, so let’s have a trial.”

The judge assigned to Comey’s case is Michael Nachmanoff of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Nachmanoff was appointed to the judiciary by former president Joe Biden on the recommendation of Senators Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the latter of whom was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s running mate against Trump in the 2016 election, which resulted in the “Russian collusion hoax.”

Kaine himself said in a statement, “I’ve had my differences with James Comey in the past, but I can spot trumped-up charges a mile away.” He continued to allege that Trump is targeting political opponents. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) followed suit. “Trump ordered this prosecution. I’m sure he ordered it behind closed doors, but he also ordered it right there on Truth Social,” Klobuchar said in an interview Thursday night. “He is literally weaponizing the Justice Department,” the senator quipped.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), a rising star in the Democratic Party, warned Republicans not to support the Comey prosecution. “I want the American people to know that when you stand up to a bully, you win. Do not back down. Do not bend. You allow them to go and wage their threats,” Crockett said. “If everybody starts to bend, for sure, what is left of our democracy will be gone. And unfortunately, that is exactly what [Trump] wants. And even more sadly is that many of his followers agree with this,” the congresswoman added. “If he decides that he wants to continue down this path, I think that they’re going to continue to lose. I don’t see the former FBI director saying that he is going to just go ahead and enter into a plea deal, or he’s just going to take this lying down.”

Last month, the DOJ launched a grand jury investigation into the “Russian collusion” hoax and its origins, following the declassification and publication of numerous documents by Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard. Those documents revealed that Comey was a key player in orchestrating and disseminating the falsified narrative that Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election in an effort to install a compromised Trump in the White House. Other key players include then-President Barack Obama, then-DNI James Clapper, and then-CIA Director James Brennan.

The statute of limitations to bring federal charges against Comey was set to expire on Tuesday. His arraignment has been scheduled for October 6.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Former FBI Director Comey Indicted

Attack on ICE Facility Fuels National Debate on Political Violence

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

Empower TWS to continue reporting the truth and save tomorrow’s children today! This week only, your gift to defend the unborn will be TRIPLED thanks to FRC’s challenge match.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Details about Iryna Zarutska’s Killer Reveal Flaws in the Mental Health Care and Justice Systems

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The stabbing of 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska has deeply impacted many people around the world. Millions are sympathizing with Iryna’s grieving family who came to America, believing they would be safer here than in Ukraine, where they were living in a bomb shelter three short years ago.

Yet as we learn more about Iryna, we’re discovering troubling information about her murderer, 35-year-old Decarlos Brown, Jr. as well. He’s been a career criminal since 2007 and was released from state custody 14 times. (Notably, most of the charges he faced between 2007 and 2014 were dropped.) In 2015, he was arrested for armed robbery and put in a state prison until 2020. As recently as January of this year, Brown was charged with a misdemeanor for misusing 911. However, he was released with no bail and was pending trial.

While it’s important to assess the justice system and ask whether the courts should have and could have kept Brown behind bars, it’s becoming more obvious that there are holes in the mental health care system as well. Brown was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2020, and his own family has consistently said that they sought help from mental health care providers and facilities, knowing that he was a danger to society — including themselves. In fact, shortly after he was released from a five-year prison sentence in 2020, he was arrested for assaulting his sister.

Brown’s mother and sister say that Brown believes there is a man-made substance inside him that controls him. In fact, he told his sister in a phone call after he stabbed Zarutska that this material “stabbed the lady.”

In an interview with ABC News, Brown’s mother, Michelle Dewitt, said that when he lived with her after he was released from prison in 2020, he would slam doors, yell at her, and talk to himself. Doctors diagnosed him with schizophrenia and prescribed him medicine, but he refused to take it. As she became more concerned about their safety, she took Brown to a mental health hospital. However, sadly, she was told they didn’t have enough room to admit him because he wasn’t threatening to hurt himself. They told her that she couldn’t force him to be there. Subsequently, Dewitt had to go to court to file a petition with a magistrate for her son to get help. A mental health facility then kept Brown for 14 days, but then released him back to her. Brown again refused to take his medication. Dewitt and her husband did not feel safe, so they brought him to a men’s homeless shelter in Charlotte. After this, Brown’s family would see him walking the streets and riding the mass transportation system.

Just nine months ago, on January 19, Brown called 911, asking police to investigate a “man-made” material that he believed controlled when he ate, walked, and talked. Police officers who arrived told him he needed medical help and that there was nothing they could do. He then became very upset, and police charged him with “misuse of the 911 system.” Brown was then released without bail as long as he promised to return to court. According to Newsmax, “Brown’s public defender requested a mental evaluation to determine if he could contribute to his defense. A judge signed an order on July 28, telling Brown to report to a community forensic evaluator within seven days. It’s unclear if Brown went.”

Why did Judge Teresa Stokes believe it was safe for Brown to be released without bail in January, believing that he was competent and trustworthy enough to return to court six months later? And according to Matthew Mangino, a former district attorney in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, “The standard [for setting bail] is ‘will the accused appear for future proceedings’ and ‘is the accused a threat to the public.’” Having called 911 because he believed there was a substance inside of him that controlled him, and then lashing out at police, it seems there was ample evidence to indicate that he was a threat to the public. Should Judge Stokes have set bail and ordered an immediate mental evaluation — instead of waiting for his public defender to order an evaluation six months later?

Besides evaluating the courts’ bail requirements and mental evaluation processes, some are asking whether more options need to be available for people who are mentally ill. Do states need to open more long-term mental health facilities so that psychiatric patients such as Brown can get help there instead of having to choose between living with family (and potentially endangering them) or becoming homeless? Brown’s mother says she tried to obtain involuntary psychiatric commitment this year after he became violent at home; however, receiving this kind of help is extremely difficult. A court has to rule that a person is a danger to himself or to others. But in Brown’s case, his family clearly thought he was. The courts should have taken that into consideration, along with his diagnosed schizophrenia and long criminal history. They then could have determined that he was a danger to society and have Brown committed to a long-term mental health facility.

In a September 9 press conference, special agent in charge of the FBI in North Carolina, James C. Barnacle Jr., became emotional when talking about Iryna Zarutska. He and U.S. District Attorney Russ Ferguson had just spoken with her family. He expressed how this case hits home because he has daughters, and this heinous murder could have happened to anyone’s daughter on her way home from work. He pleaded for politicians to work together to solve these policy problems within the justice and health care systems, saying, “Why do we have people — whether there’s mental health issues, or violent crime issues — why are they on the streets? Why are buses, our trains, our transportation systems almost homeless shelters, or mental health shelters? We need to fix that. We need to clean that up. [The FBI] can only do so much. This is going to take a lot more work from society, from the people in power and the politicians.”

Elected officials need to heed Barnacle’s advice and examine ways to improve coordination between the courts and the mental health care system for the sake of public safety. When families want to place their mentally ill loved one in a long-term facility out of concern for the public’s safety, they ought to have the ability to do so.

As the church, which is called to love our neighbors as ourselves, we need to pray for God:

  1. To show us how we can help families who are struggling to care for their loved one who is suffering from mental illness.
  2. To give our government officials wisdom and unity to address problems in our mental health care and justice systems.
  3. To be present in the lives of those suffering from mental illness, so that they might be healed. “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). For he who is in us is greater than he who is in the world!

AUTHOR

Kathy Athearn

Kathy Athearn is a correspondence writer at Family Research Council. She studied Political Science and Religion at Hope College, was a Witherspoon Fellow at FRC, and is passionate about helping Christians contribute a biblical worldview to the public sphere.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Biden, Trump, and the Imperial Presidency

/in , , , , , , /by

American presidents in the 21st century have been drifting towards populism, displaying a heightened sensitivity toward (and reliance on) public opinion and impulses (at least part of the public). This trend is not wrong in itself, but it unlocks dangerous side effects which, if left unchecked, could spell disaster for our republic. One such side effect is the growing executive tendency to simply do what it likes, regardless of what the law says, and dare anyone to stop it.

Sometimes, those dares are answered. Earlier this year, a coalition of attorneys general from Democrat-led states sued the Trump administration over its unilateral imposition of tariffs on nearly every country in the world. The argument, in a nutshell, was that the U.S. Constitution clearly assigns power over tariffs to Congress, and Congress has not clearly delegated it to the president. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed (7-4) that Trump’s tariffs are not enforceable under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the administration cited as a justification (Trump has until October 14 to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court).

In a hyper-partisan atmosphere, the ever-present impulse to side with one political “team” can often lead us astray. So, it’s worth considering a similar example with partisan roles reversed.

In 2023, a coalition of attorneys general from Republican-led states sued the Biden administration over its unilateral imposition of student loan forgiveness. The argument, in a nutshell, was that the U.S. Constitution clearly gives Congress power to spend money and accrue debt, and Congress had never delegated to the executive branch the type of widespread loan forgiveness power it tried to exercise. In that case (and others), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s various attempts at student loan forgiveness as unconstitutional.

Strangely, many who opposed Biden’s student loan bailout applaud Trump’s tariffs, and many who oppose Trump’s tariffs applauded Biden’s student loan bailout.

But the propriety of executive action does not depend on which party occupies the White House. Even if the majority will were the standard for setting policy, that would legitimize both actions equally. But America is not governed by a party, nor by majority will, but by the Constitution and laws made in accordance with it. The Framers of the Constitution recognized the political strength of the majority will, and so they exercised great care in crafting various checks to restrain its excesses.

Ever since President Barack Obama infamously resorted to “a pen and … a phone” to sidestep Congress in 2014, presidents have become increasingly disinterested in following the letter of the law when enacting their agenda. President Biden earned rebukes from the Supreme Court for everything from a rent moratorium to burdensome climate rules. Cases from the second Trump administration have yet to filter up to the Supreme Court, but the administration has already angered courts by flighty deportation practices.

Trump is also contemplating more executive orders on topics over which he has little evident authority, such as voter ID requirements and housing prices. (Curiously, these issues parallel concerns over policy battles during the Biden administration, such as Biden’s push to get congressional Democrats to effectively federalize elections and the aforementioned rent moratorium.)

This is not to suggest the two administrations are equivalent in every instance or in the degree of their disregard for the law. For instance, a Trump executive order, ostensibly prohibiting flag-burning, stopped short of trampling on what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Over the last four years, the Biden administration and its progressive allies (perhaps “overlords” is more apt) openly daydreamed about packing the Supreme Court to ram through their agenda.

Nor does this piece suggest that presidents flouting the law is a recent innovation previously unknown in American history. From Andrew Jackson to FDR, there are plenty of historical examples of presidents who insisted on getting their own way, no matter what the law or the courts said. Even Abraham Lincoln had to suspend laws amid the exigencies of civil war. By his own admission (or at least his own interpretation), Thomas Jefferson violated the Constitution to secure the Louisiana Purchase.

What these facts do suggest is that we now live in the age of the imperial presidency, in which a single man, bolstered by the demagogic powers afforded by a century of advancements in mass communication, commands an army of bureaucrats to do his bidding. Before the might of the executive leviathan, old-fashioned courts and a faction-riven Congress seem puny indeed.

There are structural changes that could ameliorate the imbalance of power. For instance, in the rare moments when Congress disapproves of an agency rule or other executive action that contradicts their expressed intent, the president who ordered that executive action should not have veto power over Congress’s ability to express disapproval.

However, the larger corrective must come from the people themselves. In any elected system of government, the buck always stops with the people. It is from the people that the president derives his moral authority to act as a national leader, independent of the other branches. Therefore, it is the people who act as the final check on the imperial presidency. It is the people who must demand a restrained executive that acts within the bounds of its proper constitutional authority.

What does this authority look like? One that remains tolerable from one administration to the next. Presidents should remember that any new power they claim can be used by their enemies the next time the winds of public opinion shift.

President Trump already knows from personal experience what oppression results when the awesome powers of the federal government are illegitimately weaponized against political opponents. Hopefully, the people who have the ear of this administration will have the prudence to counsel: any new power you claim can be used to the opposite effect by your political enemies.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Take to the Streets as Trump Prepares to Tackle Chicago Crime

EXCLUSIVE: Ride Along With The Law Enforcement Agents Throwing Criminal Illegals Into The Slammer

RELATED VIDEO: WE’RE GOING IN’: Trump Puts Chicago on Notice, Confirms Plans to Send in Guard

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Four Key Cases SCOTUS Will Look at in 2025-2026 Term

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Over the past year, the U.S. Supreme Court has made several significant decisions and rulings, from protecting children from online pornography, allowing parents to opt their children out of LGBT promotion in the classroom, and empowering states to defund Planned Parenthood to halting the abuse of universal injunctions, ending workplace reverse discrimination, and letting states shield children from harmful gender transition procedures. The Supreme Court’s emergency docket was also filled — and often — with the nation’s highest judicial authority frequently siding with President Donald Trump on everything from immigration to transgender-identifying military servicemembers.

The Supreme Court’s next term, beginning in October, promises to keep the nine justices just as active. Here are some of the most important cases already on the Supreme Court’s docket for the next year.

Little v. Hecox

In United States v. Skrmetti, decided earlier this year, the Supreme Court determined that states are free to protect children from transgenderism; now, the court will decide whether states are free to protect women’s sports. In 2020, Idaho approved H.B. 500, a law barring biological males who identify as women from competing in women’s sports. Lindsey Hecox, a biological male who identifies as a woman, challenged the law in an effort to compete on Boise State University’s track and cross-country women’s teams. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that Idaho’s law violated the Equal Protection Clause and was, therefore, unconstitutional.

“Women and girls have fought for decades to achieve an equal playing field. Nowhere has that been more evident than in sports,” Idaho wrote in its appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal continued, “The last decade has exhibited a growing trend of males identifying as females competing against — and beating — females in women’s sports across the country.” Idaho pleaded, “This Court’s review is urgently needed to resolve [jurisprudential] splits and preserve the equal playing field women have fought to secure. … Every day the Ninth Circuit’s decision stands, female athletes suffer injustice. The petition should be granted without delay.”

West Virginia v. BPJ

Idaho specifically requested that the Supreme Court also take up the similar case of West Virginia v. BPJ, in order to firmly resolve questions surrounding the legal definitions of sex and gender and their treatment before the law. In response to a West Virginia law blocking biological males from competing in women’s sports, transgender-identifying 12-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson (the eponymous BPJ) filed a lawsuit, citing violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title IX. Clinton-appointed Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia originally prevented the state from enforcing the law but ultimately ruled that it was not unconstitutional. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed, writing that applying the law to BPJ “would treat her worse than people to whom she is similarly situated, deprive her of any meaningful athletic opportunities, and do so on the basis of sex.”

In its petition to the Supreme Court, West Virginia wrote, “This Court should set things right. The Fourth Circuit’s splintered decision casts into doubt similar laws in at least 24 other States, sows confusion about antidiscrimination law, ignores scientific evidence, and renders school sports an un-administrable morass.” The state continued, “In the end, the decision all but declares that any law recognizing differences between sexes is unlawful whenever that law runs counter to someone’s ‘gender identity.’”

Chiles v. Salazar

Idaho and West Virginia aren’t the only states tackling the issue of transgenderism. Colorado has also waded into the fray, but heading the other direction. In Chiles v. Salazar, Christian counselor Kaley Chiles is challenging a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy,” citing religious liberty violations. The law prohibits counselors and therapists from cautioning children against gender ideology and gender transition procedures but allows counselors and therapists to encourage gender ideology and gender transition procedures. Both a U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously ruled against Chiles, allowing the Colorado law to stand.

The Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts currently classify conversations between counselors and patients as “conduct,” which states are permitted to legally regulate, while the Third and Eleventh Circuit Courts recognize those conversations as constitutionally-protected free speech. “The Court should not allow this conflict to persist. Otherwise, counselors like Kaley Chiles and countless other professionals … will have First Amendment protections in some states but not others,” wrote Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys representing Chiles. “Constitutional rights should

not depend on geographical happenstance,” ADF attorneys wrote. They added, “This Court’s review is urgently needed to reaffirm that the government cannot censor messages ‘under the guise’ of regulating conduct…”

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin

New Jersey’s Attorney General, Democrat Matthew Platkin, subpoenaed First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a group of pro-life pregnancy resource centers, demanding information on donors and doctors affiliated with the group. Platkin claimed to be investigating potentially misleading business practices, but First Choice Women’s Resource Centers claimed in a federal lawsuit that the AG’s actions had a “chilling effect” on pro-lifers’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Both a U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that it properly belonged in a state court, not a federal court. While the Supreme Court isn’t expected to resolve the First Amendment claims, the justices will address the jurisdictional question, clarifying federal court jurisdiction over state actions infringing on First Amendment rights.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Immigration, Deportation, and ‘Sanctuary’ City Updates

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Despite numerous political and even legal hurdles, President Donald Trump and his administration are working hard to deliver on the promise of a secure border and the deportation of illegal immigrants. Here are some of the latest updates surrounding the president’s immigration agenda.

National Guard Tackles Deportation Paperwork

The president has already federalized the National Guard to assist in immigration-related operations in several instances, but now he’s asking National Guardsmen to help fill out U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) paperwork. According to several reports, thousands of National Guard troops will be deployed across at least 20 states and stationed at ICE facilities. Initially, Guardsmen will be tasked with “alien processing,” filling out detention and deportation paperwork so that ICE agents can continue their field operations.

The National Guard troops will not be federalized but will be operating under Title 32 authorities, which allows for Guardsmen to perform law enforcement duties as long as they are under state — not federal — command. At present, U.S. Marines and Naval Reserve soldiers are assisting ICE in an operational capacity, but they will soon be replaced by the National Guard.

Lora Ries, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told The Washington Stand, “The fact that ICE needs to supplement its ranks with the help of the National Guard to speed up deportations shows: (1) millions of deportable aliens continue to reside in the U.S.; and (2) the deportation process is too slow.” She added, “Americans continue to support mass deportations, but the Left obstructs and delays deportations for political power.” Ries continued, “In addition to prosecuting those who interfere with the execution of federal law, the Justice Department should streamline the deportation process to end third and more bites at the apple that deportable aliens currently get to remain in the country.”

Dissident Maryland Judges Claim Immunity

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against all 15 U.S. district court judges for the District of Maryland back in June. At issue is a “standing order” from the judges, automatically granting an injunction to any illegal immigrant detained within the court’s jurisdiction who files a habeas corpus complaint. In short, the standing order temporarily bars the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from carrying out any deportation.

Andrew Arthur, resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) said in comments shared with TWS, “It’s certainly unusual for DOJ to sue judges, let alone all of the judges on a court, and sue them in that same court, but then these are not your usual standing orders, either.” He observed that the DOJ first brought its concerns to the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body which oversees the federal courts, but Maryland’s district judges made it clear that they would not rescind their standing order. Arthur observed, “If any court issued automatic stay orders like the ones in the U.S. District Court in Maryland, it would have been incumbent on DOJ to challenge them, regardless of who was in the White House.”

In response to the Trump administration’s lawsuit, Maryland’s federal judges claimed immunity. “The district court itself possesses sovereign immunity, and the judges and clerk of court have immunity for their official acts,” the judges wrote. They added, “The complaint does not identify any statutory waiver — unequivocal or otherwise — of district courts’ sovereign immunity from suits seeking injunctive or declaratory relief, and Defendants are not aware of one.” The judges argued that “when a plaintiff attacks the official acts of members of the Judiciary in a standalone lawsuit, judges generally have absolute immunity.” They concluded, “Sovereign immunity bars this suit as to the district court itself, and judicial immunity bars it as to the judges and clerk in their official capacities.”

The DOJ, however, argued that neither sovereign nor judicial immunity would prevent a challenge against an unlawful standing order. “Unlike issuing rulings in particular cases, promulgating standing orders and local rules that violate procedural and substantive requirements is not a ‘function’ traditionally protected by judicial immunity. Thus, courts have often ruled on challenges to local rules with nary a peep about immunity,” the DOJ countered. Furthermore, sovereign immunity does not apply, the DOJ noted, in cases where judges have “acted beyond the scope of their powers and/or in an unconstitutional manner.” The DOJ said that its “lawsuit asserts that Defendants acted outside the scope of their authority — here, the scope as delineated both by Congress and by the Federal Rules. … Immunity does not apply.”

Since the judges of the Maryland district have had to recuse themselves from the case, being defendants, the case is being overseen by Judge Thomas Cullen of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, a Trump appointee, who was assigned by Albert Diaz, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Biden-Appointed Judge Halts Deportations

One of the first moves the Trump administration made was shutting down the parole program used by former President Joe Biden and his administration to usher hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants into the country. The program allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Border Patrol (USBP) to arrest foreigners attempting the enter the U.S. illegally but, instead of detaining them or removing them, simply “parole” them into the U.S. to await an appointment in immigration court. Trump’s DHS ended the program and moved to deport those who had been “paroled” into the country.

On Friday, Judge Jia Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a Biden appointee, issued a “stay of agency action,” barring the Trump administration from deporting many of those paroled into the country by the Biden administration. Cobb wrote that illegal immigrants “arrived for inspection at the United States border pursuant to procedures created and advocated by the U.S. Government. They were paroled into this country under those procedures and given the chance to prove their claims for asylum or other relief authorized by our laws. In a world of bad options, they played by the rules.” She continued, “Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so.”

The Trump administration has already requested a stay of Cobb’s order and has appealed her decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. “The Court’s order effectively prevents the Government from applying expedited removal to potentially hundreds of thousands of paroled arriving aliens, thereby halting its ability to expeditiously remove aliens who have no basis to remain in the country,” the administration argued. It further argued that Cobb’s order is in violation of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA barring district courts from issuing universal injunctions. “Indeed, in Trump v. CASA … the Supreme Court held that this sort of intrusion on the Executive Branch’s enforcement policies establishes irreparable harm. Finally, CASA also means that the Court’s nationwide remedy is impermissibly broad and instead the remedy should be tailored to Plaintiffs’ members.”

Overstaying Visas Now Costs $15,000

The U.S. State Department implemented a new pilot program on Tuesday, requiring a $15,000 bond for most tourism and work visas, in an effort to curb illegal overstaying. “Aliens applying for visas as temporary visitors for business or pleasure (B-1/B-2) and who are nationals of countries identified by the Department as having high visa overstay rates, where screening and vetting information is deemed deficient … may be subject to the pilot program,” the State Department’s announcement said.

Early in June, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a travel ban impacting countries identified as high terror and crime risks, but also barring travel from countries noted for high visa overstay rates.

DOJ Puts ‘Sanctuary’ Cities on Notice

On Tuesday, the DOJ published a list of nearly three dozen “sanctuary” cities, counties, and states that shield illegal immigrants from federal authorities and refuse to enforce immigration law. “Sanctuary” states named include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Cities, counties, and other jurisdictions include Albuquerque, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, Baltimore County in Maryland, Cook County in Illinois, and San Diego and San Francisco Counties in California, among others.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement, “Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design.” She continued, “The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.” Already, the DOJ has filed lawsuits against the three largest U.S. cities, all of which are “sanctuary” cities: New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘I Have a Plan to Destroy America’ by Democrat Colorado Governor Richard Lamm

Kristi Noem Cuts Age Cap For ICE Agents To Supercharge Trump Deportation Agenda

Explaining the Texas Redistricting Drama

DOJ Begins Grand Jury Investigation into Obama Administration’s ‘Russian Collusion’ Deception

‘Disgusting’: Tom Homan Skewers Far-Left Dem Declaring Her Allegiance To Foreign Nation Over Her Own Country

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Analysis: Does Leaked Memo Confirm Political Bias in Federal Judiciary?

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Federal judges in district courts across the nation have been waging jurisprudential war against President Donald Trump and his administration for months, with the U.S. Supreme Court intervening on several occasions. But according to newly revealed documents, federal judges have allowed their political bias against the president to lead them to the brink of “constitutional crisis.”

In a memo obtained by The Federalist summarizing the March meeting of the Judicial Conference, Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, brought up “concerns” about how the president may respond to rulings against his executive actions.

The Judicial Conference is the official policy-making body of the federal courts, led by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (in this case, John Roberts) and comprised of the chief judge of each court of appeals federal regional circuit, a district court judge from various federal judicial districts, and the chief judge of the United States Court of International Trade. According to the memo, Boasberg took the Judicial Conference’s meeting as an opportunity to “rais[e] his colleagues’ concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.” Roberts emphasized the “civil and respectful” interactions he had had with Trump and “expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize.”

Margot Cleveland, The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent, wrote of the memo’s significance, “Donald Trump, however, is not merely the president: He is a Defendant in scores of lawsuits, including multiple cases in the D.C. District Court.” She explained, “As such, this conversation did not concern generic concerns of the judiciary, but specific discussions about a litigant currently before the same judges who expressed concern to the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court that the Trump Administration would disregard the court’s orders.”

Cleveland continued, “Judge Boasberg’s comments reveal he and his colleagues hold an anti-Trump bias, for the Trump Administration had complied with every court order to date (and since for that matter).” She added, “The D.C. District Court judges’ ‘concern’ also went counter to the normal presumption courts hold — one that presumes public officials properly discharged their official duties.”

Just days after raising his “concerns” to Roberts, Boasberg issued a sweeping temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the president from invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to arrest and deport Venezuelan nationals affiliated with the international criminal gang and foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua (TdA). The Supreme Court later quashed Boasberg’s order, which the Trump administration had complied with, and determined that the D.C. judge did not have the jurisdiction to issue his TRO. Late last month, the Supreme Court ruled that Boasberg and other district court judges cannot issue sweeping, nationwide injunctions and TROs.

However, Boasberg’s apparent display of political bias has raised its own concerns among Americans, including officials at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Noting that Trump was, at the time of Boasberg’s remarks, a defendant in several cases before the court, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche warned, “This is a serious breach of the judicial oath and a threat to the rule of law. Every litigant, regardless of politics, is entitled to a fair forum.” DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle commented that the “troubling” report “perhaps explains the completely lawless order issued by Judge Boasberg…”

In comments to The Washington Stand, Article III Project Senior Counsel Will Chamberlain said, “Boasberg’s conduct is deeply damaging to the rule of law, and instead of worrying about whether the Trump administration will comply with his lawless orders (which they did), he should simply stop issuing lawless orders.” Chamberlain observed that, because of his political bias, “Boasberg should have recused himself before issuing his lawless ruling ordering planes to turn around in mid-air. There’s a reason the Supreme Court reversed him — he had no authority to rule on a habeas case when the complainants weren’t being held in his district.”

Hans Von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told TWS that the memo’s contents were “shocking.” He explained, “It shows an unacceptable bias by Judge Boasberg and his fellow judges that violates basic ethical standards since they are assuming, without evidence, misbehavior by government officials in active lawsuits before them. They are also violating the legal principle established by the Supreme Court that courts must presume that government officials will properly discharge their official duties.”

Von Spakovsky continued, “This memorandum explains the almost wholesale, biased, and unjustified judgments that have been rendered against the administration in this circuit. These judges should have recused themselves from all cases involving the administration given their blatant prejudice and bias and their failure to do so is a violation of the code of judicial ethics. The fact that the chief judge is the leader of this unethical misbehavior is grounds for serious disciplinary action.”

FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter said in comments to TWS, “What is shocking about this report is that federal judges, like Judge Boasberg, would so openly and clearly admit their own political bias against the President of the United States, Donald Trump.” He continued, “The American people have been subjected ad nauseam to the line that ‘no one is above the law!’ while leftist lawyers chase after any legal theory they can to take down their political opposition — usually President Trump.” Carpenter added, “Given what we know now about the intentions of so many federal judges, it’s fair to ask if these judges think they’re above the law themselves.”

“I have to wonder if Judge Boasberg’s alleged concern about a constitutional crisis if the president ignores one of the court rulings is him signaling his intention,” Carpenter posited. “The Left has painted the president falsely as a tyrant — what better way to score political points than to force a constitutional crisis and then smear him as a tyrant?” Carpenter added, “I don’t think any honest person can look at the long list of nationwide injunctions against actions taken by the president — clearly delineated from his constitutional authority to manage the personnel of the executive branch, or enforce federal law on immigration or trade, for example — and think judges like Judge Boasberg are acting in good faith to uphold the rule of law. This behavior is more like the rule of politics.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Students Call for an End to Pro-Abortion Judicial Activism

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Gets Thumbs Up to Downsize Department of Education

/in , , , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump is gearing up to follow through on another campaign promise and gut the U.S. Department of Education (DOE). But what could dismantling the DOE actually look like?

The U.S. Supreme Court lifted a district court judge’s injunction Monday that had previously barred Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon from downsizing the DOE. McMahon had announced in March that the DOE would be slashing its workforce in half, following Trump’s directive to begin dismantling the agency prior to returning education to the states. “Today’s reduction in force reflects the Department of Education’s commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers,” McMahon said at the time. She added, “This is a significant step toward restoring the greatness of the United States education system.”

Trump praised the Supreme Court’s Monday decision and pledged to continue his efforts to downsize the DOE. “The United States Supreme Court has handed a Major Victory to Parents and Students across the Country, by declaring the Trump Administration may proceed on returning the functions of the Department of Education BACK TO THE STATES,” Trump said in a Truth Social post. “The Federal Government has been running our Education System into the ground, but we are going to turn it all around by giving the Power back to the PEOPLE. America’s Students will be the best, brightest, and most Highly Educated anywhere in the World.”

McMahon also pledged to continue dismantling the DOE. “The U.S. Department of Education will now deliver on its mandate to restore excellence in American education. We will carry out the reduction in force to promote efficiency and accountability and to ensure resources are directed where they matter most — to students, parents, and teachers,” McMahon said in a statement. She added, “As we return education to the states, this Administration will continue to perform all statutory duties while empowering families and teachers by reducing education bureaucracy.”

In comments to The Washington Stand, Jeanne Allen, founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform, said, “The latest SCOTUS decision is a green light for reducing the size and scope of unnecessary and counterproductive oversight of everything from programs to personnel.” She explained, “Great education happens most in environments with the least amount of interference from bureaucracy, and even with a comparably small investment of 10% of all education spending, the federal government’s negative impact on education at the school level is massive.” Allen added, “When they have freedom from top-down policy proclamations, states can enable more innovative solutions to support the education of America’s children while they are school age and beyond.”

Jonathan Butcher, acting director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, explained to TWS what dismantling the DOE might look like in practical terms. “First, moving programs for children with special needs to the Department of Health and Human Services. The president and secretary are already working on this, according to social media,” Butcher began. He continued, “Second, moving civil rights back to the Department of Justice, which already has an office for civil rights. Third, moving adult education and family literacy programs to the Department of Labor via an inter-agency agreement. This is already happening and was just announced today.” Butcher went on, “Fourth, moving the student loan program to either the Small Business Administration or Treasury. This is a huge program, so there are various things that will need to change (for example, there is an office that oversees the interaction between loan servicers and students).” He added, “These are all things that are either underway or are being talked about.”

Patrick Wolf, professor of Education Policy at the University of Arkansas, told TWS, “There was fat to cut in the Department outside of the Institute of Education Sciences, particularly regarding ‘professional development’ programs for teachers and schools, many of which were either completely ineffective or infected with wokism, or both.” He continued, “There was even fat to cut within the Institute of Education Sciences, as the Comprehensive Centers and Regional Education Labs operated inefficiently, largely because bureaucrats in Washington frequently change their minds and redirect what those regional organizations do and how they do it.” He added, “The What Works Clearinghouse also was largely a waste of funds.”

However, Wolf warned that dismantling the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) could undermine national accountability standards and place a greater burden on individual states. “NCES, in contrast, is highly efficient in spite of being woefully understaffed,” he said, noting that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) “cut the deepest” in that division. “The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), ‘The Nation’s Report Card,’ will continue, but with some versions of the national test cancelled entirely and others limited to certain subjects. The NAEP is the most rigorous and objective measure of student achievement across the various states,” Wolf explained. He continued, “Limitations on this vital test will mean that we will know less about how well students in various states are mastering academic content.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

24 Years after 9/11, Terrorists Determined Eligible for the Death Penalty

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

September 11, 2001, is a day that lives in infamy. Millions of Americans sat in their living rooms and offices in horror, watching as hijacked planes flew directly into the World Trade Center buildings in New York City. Almost 3,000 people lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks.

In his speech that night, President George W. Bush declared, “The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I’ve directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

Five years later, on September 6, 2006, President Bush announced that the CIA had obtained and were holding 14 suspected terrorists in various locations. At the time, Bush made another speech, commending the CIA for its actions taken to bring justice to the victims’ families and all others affected by the terrorist attacks. “They should have to wait no longer,” Bush insisted.

Now, 24 years after 9/11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled that three of the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks are eligible to receive the death penalty.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi were charged with seven crimes in the United States military tribunal at Guantánamo Bay: attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft, terrorism, and conspiracy. Congress has authorized the death penalty for five of those crimes.

The trial date still has not been set for the final verdict on whether they will end up receiving the death penalty. A judge originally set the trial date for five of the terrorists for January 11, 2021. The court indefinitely postponed the date due to multiple factors, including the fact that one of the terrorists, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, was found mentally incompetent for trial, the court debating whether to accept evidence the CIA obtained from the terrorists during torture, and most recently, plea bargains from three of those on trial.

However, in July of 2024, each of these three respondents offered to sign pre-trial agreements, where they chose to plead guilty in exchange for the government not to pursue the death penalty. In this agreement, they also agreed to allow certain statements they gave to the FBI in 2007 to be used against them, and they consented to participate in a public sentencing hearing, where victims’ families could directly ask them questions. As a result of this deal, the government agreed not to pursue the death penalty. Then, on August 2, the secretary of Defense at the time, Lloyd Austin, and the convening authority for the military commissions, Brigadier General Susan Escallier, withdrew from the agreement.

In her signed statement, Escallier announced, “I have determined that, in light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused in the above-referenced case, responsibility for such a decision should rest with me as the superior convening authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2009. Effective immediately, I hereby withdraw your authority in the above-referenced case to enter into a pre-trial agreement and reserve such authority to myself.”

The United States Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) ruled that Austin could not withdraw, because the terrorists on trial had already begun taking actions based on the plea deals they had signed. The government, in turn, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for writs of mandamus and prohibition. These are, in the joint opinion of Judge Neomi Rao and Judge Patricia Millett, “extraordinary forms of relief [that] are warranted in this case.” A writ of mandamus means that a higher court can force a lower court to take an action, while a writ of prohibition means that a higher court can force a lower court to not take an action.

In this case, the government wanted to force the CMCR to reject the pretrial agreements it had originally accepted, since, according to Judges Rao and Millett, “The Secretary of Defense indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements.”

AUTHOR

Evelyn Elliott

Evelyn Elliott serves as an intern at Family Research Council.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council,

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Unanimous SCOTUS Ruling Sets Back the White-Collar Rainbow Revolution

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

In a 9-0 decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, justices ruled that employers cannot discriminate against a heterosexual woman and unelected judges cannot insert intersectionality into the law. A unanimous Supreme Court opinion rarely brings good news, but justices recently issued a ruling that set back judicial activism, stopped the Left’s tactic of promoting the social revolution at your expense, and exposed the inner workings of the white-collar rainbow revolution.

The plaintiff, Marlean Ames, dedicated her life to eliminating the prison rape of minors. In 2004, she started working for the Ohio Department of Youth — which oversees the state’s incarcerated juvenile population — and in 2014, Ames got promoted to become administrator of PREA: the Prison Rape Elimination Act. “In 2017, Ames was assigned a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is gay,” noted the Sixth Circuit’s opinion. Trim’s December 2018 performance evaluation shows Ames met competencies in 10 categories and exceeded in one. But somehow, just four months later, qualified-to-overqualified no longer sufficed.

In April 2019, Ames applied to become Bureau Chief of Quality. After the interview, “Trim congratulated Ames on 30 years of public service, but also suggested that Ames retire,” noted the Sixth Circuit. Activists aim to remake their departments through attrition: Let the old lions emit a final, toothless roar into the sunset while replacing them with young social justice warriors who will bend the arc of history toward radicalism. The department hired “Alexander Stojsavljevic, a 25-year-old gay man, for the position of PREA Administrator. … Later, in December 2019, the Department chose Yolanda Frierson, a gay woman, as its Bureau Chief of Quality.” Frierson had not originally applied for the position and did not have a college degree; Stojsavljevic had only been on the job a few years.

They gave Ames the option of taking her old job as executive secretary, cutting her salary from $47.22 an hour to $28.40. Ames accepted the job. She sued but lost at the district and appellate level. The appeals court admitted, “Ames is right that the Department has offered different reasons for her demotion at different times,” settling on the story that “her position was at-will and that it could remove her at any time without cause.”

Although the facts seem squarely on Ames’s side, the court sided against her, because she did not fulfill the “background circumstances” rule: a legal standard the court invented stating that members of a “majority group” had to meet a higher standard to prove discrimination. Justices struck down that legal fiction. “The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs — those who are members of majority groups — to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in order to carry their burden under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework. We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs,” wrote Justice Jackson. The decision does not settle the underlying issue: In a return to the Roberts court’s narrow decisions, it merely remands the case with instructions to use the prima facie legal standard.

The welcome ruling reinstates the notion behind the deeply American principle of equal justice under law, itself drawn from the biblical injunction that judges ought not be a respecter of persons. This furthers President Donald Trump’s second-term commitment to undoing discrimination against the nation’s majority in the name of advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). To its credit, the Roberts court has shown leadership here, too.

As important as the facts of the case are its setting. Ohio, long the bellwether of American politics, rejects DEI. When the U.K.’s Guardian started a letter-writing campaign for Europeans to pressure Ohioans into voting for Democrat John Kerry over George W. Bush, values voters in rural, western Ohio turned out to support a state constitutional amendment barring the courts from redefining the institution of marriage (or so they thought).

Today, Ohio is a blood-red state. President Donald Trump, perhaps aided by native son Vice President J.D. Vance, won the state by 11 points in 2024; but he also won by eight points in 2020, snapping the state’s reputation for picking a winner in every presidential race. Every statewide office is held by a Republican; it has not voted for a Democrat for president since 2012. Other than the hapless administration of Ted Strickland, shortly after incumbent Republican Bob Taft entered a “no contest” plea to four misdemeanor ethics violations, no Democrat has won a governor’s race since 1986.

Yet those governors have not delivered. Mike DeWine — a former lieutenant governor, U.S. senator, state attorney general, and now governor — vetoed the state SAFE Act, protecting minors from potentially sterilizing transgender injections and surgeries. While he issued an executive order on the topic, he promptly watered down even those temporary provisions. The Republican-controlled state legislature promptly overrode his veto, codifying robust protections for children — just as Ames tried to do throughout her career.

Ohioans have expressed their will for three decades at the ballot box. Meanwhile, unelected bureaucrats advance their radicalism through the HR department by adopting a prescription offered by Saul Alinsky in “Rules for Radicals:”

“From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues. He has nothing with which to confront anything. Until he has those means and power instruments, his ‘tactics’ are very different from power tactics. Therefore, every move revolves around one central point: how many recruits will this bring into the organization, whether by means of local organizations, churches, service groups, labor unions, comer gangs, or as individuals. The only issue is, how will this increase the strength of the organization. If by losing in a certain action he can get more members than by winning, then victory lies in losing and he will lose. Change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together. Power is the reason for being of organizations.”

Alinksy even likened these left-wing fiefdoms to a church:

“When people agree on certain religious ideas and want the power to propagate their faith, they organize and call it a church. When people agree on certain political ideas and want the power to put them into practice, they organize and call it a political party. The same reason holds across the board. Power and organization are one and the same.”

One hears echoes of this in teachers union president Becky Pringle when she called on her delegates to “build our power” by enrolling everyone “in our righteous cause.” From teachers, to librarians, to HR departments, to district court judges handing down national injunctions, leftists see the workplace as a political battlefield — or, if you believe Alinsky, the mission field to spread a false religion. The Supreme Court decision comes as welcome relief.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Decade-Long Catholic Charities Tax Exemption Battle Culminates in Religious Liberty Win at SCOTUS

Christians React as Schools and Summer Camps Push LGBT Agenda in June

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

Like what you’re reading? Donate to The Washington Stand! From now until June 30, your gift will be doubled to fuel bold, biblically-based reporting.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.