Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Allows Arizona’s New Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote in State and Local Elections to Remain in Place

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel of three justices issued an order on Thursday allowing part of Arizona’s new law requiring proof of citizenship to vote in state and local elections to remain in effect during appeals litigation. However, the panel upheld the trial court’s decision blocking some of the law.

Read More

2022 Election Disputes Continue to Wind Through U.S. Courts as 2024 Nears

While former Arizona GOP gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake continues with election-related lawsuits regarding irregularities in Maricopa County, there were also other issues during the 2022 midterm elections that occurred across the country.

Read More

Appeals Court Reverses Previous Ruling That Halted Idaho’s Abortion Ban

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a lower court decision to block Idaho’s abortion ban Thursday, according to court documents.

U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, ruled in August that the law could stop doctors from referring patients to abortion clinics in other states in an emergency due to fear of prosecution. A panel of judges appointed by former President Donald Trump, however, determined that the state’s case to uphold the ban was likely to succeed and that for the time being “public interest is best served by preserving the force and effect of a duly enacted Idaho law,” according to court documents.

Read More

Censorship Case Involving State Collusion with Social Media Companies Could Be Heard by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court could hear a case questioning a California agency’s coordination with Twitter to censor election-related “misinformation.”

O’Handley v. Weber, which concerns the California Secretary of State’s Office of Election Cybersecurity’s work with Twitter to monitor “false or misleading” election information, was appealed to the Supreme Court on June 8. The case raises questions similar to those posed in the free speech lawsuit Missouri v. Biden, now being appealed in the Fifth Circuit: Can the government lawfully induce private actors to censor protected speech?

Read More

Censorship Case Involving State Collusion with Social Media Companies Could Be Heard by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court could hear a case questioning a California agency’s coordination with Twitter to censor election-related “misinformation.”

O’Handley v. Weber, which concerns the California Secretary of State’s Office of Election Cybersecurity’s work with Twitter to monitor “false or misleading” election information, was appealed to the Supreme Court on June 8. The case raises questions similar to those posed in the free speech lawsuit Missouri v. Biden, now being appealed in the Fifth Circuit: Can the government lawfully induce private actors to censor protected speech?

Read More

SCOTUS Justice: U.S. Seeing Growing Hostility to Religious Freedom

Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said there’s a “growing hostility to religion” in a keynote address he gave highlighting the unique protection of religion in the U.S. Constitution.

“The problem that looms is not just indifference to religion, it’s not just ignorance about religion,” he said at a 2022 Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit in Rome last week.

“There’s also growing hostility to religion or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors,” he said during his 37-minute remarks released on Thursday.

Read More

Obama-Appointed Judge Says It Is Unconstitutional and ‘Racist’ to Prosecute Previously-Deported Illegal Aliens

On Wednesday, a judge appointed by Barack Obama argued that it is “racist” to prosecute illegal aliens who return to the country after being deported and commit crimes on American soil, as reported by Breitbart.

Judge Miranda Du, appointed by Obama to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada in 2012, made the statements in a ruling in favor of a previously-deported illegal named Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez. Lopez had filed a motion to dismiss an indictment against him for the crime of illegally re-entering the country, baselessly claiming that such a charge was “discriminatory.” He claimed, without evidence, that federal law allowing for the deportation of illegals is in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Read More