Lawfare Versus Trump and Our Country
The Left has filed more than 170 lawsuits against President Trump despite his commanding margin of victory last November. Lawsuits by liberal nonprofits frustrate the will of the People by blocking Trump’s ability to deport dangerous foreigners, downsize government, and end the funding of harmful projects.
On the night of April 7, the Supreme Court gave Trump a partial victory on his deportation of Venezuelan gang members, but included enough loopholes for the Left to continue its interference with his executive authority. The Court properly tossed out Democrat-appointed D.C. federal judge James Boasberg’s class-action certification for illegal aliens, but allowed immigration groups to sue in Texas instead.
The Court invited individual lawsuits to be brought on behalf of every single person whom Trump tries to deport. Lawsuits take years to litigate, and the practical result is that only a handful could be deported.
An essentially infinite amount of money and free legal time is available on the Left to try to thwart Trump at every turn. Biden, Obama, and Clinton filled the federal judiciary with hundreds of judges who welcome these lawsuits.
The response by Judge Boasberg on April 8 was alarming. He ordered the submission of additional briefs in the Venezuelan deportation case, rather than dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction as the Supreme Court held.
In a separate ruling on April 7, the High Court suspended an order by another Obama-appointed judge requiring the government to bring back an alien deported to El Salvador. Newly confirmed Solicitor General John Sauer won his first case right out of the gate when Chief Justice Roberts quickly granted Sauer’s emergency application for a stay of the order requiring Trump to bring back an alleged MS-13 gang member from El Salvador.
Sauer has arrived in D.C. just in time as the emergency appeals to the Supreme Court in the next 60 days may decide the ability of Trump to enact the mandate of the People who elected him. After the Supreme Court refused to stay an injunction against one of Trump’s defunding orders, a 5-4 ruling on April 4 allowed Trump to cut off a small amount of educational funding to states.
On March 24, Biden-appointed Judge Deborah Boardman had issued a 68-page preliminary injunction that prohibited the Departments of the Treasury, Education, and OPM from sharing data with DOGE, which is Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency in charge of downsizing. The court surprisingly invoked the 51-year-old Privacy Act of 1974 to interfere with federal agencies sharing information with each other.
Quickly appealed by the Trump Administration to the Fourth Circuit, a fortunate random selection of 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat were assigned to this case and they issued a stay of the activist ruling pending appeal. Next a Democrat-appointed panel judge requested a hearing en banc, which was defeated by an 8-7 vote such that the good decision stands.
But Democrats have a commanding 7-4 active-judge majority on the D.C. Circuit, where many of the challenges to Trump go on appeal. In a nearly unprecedented move, the D.C. Circuit just went en banc to reverse a panel decision that had allowed Trump to fire a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Even left-leaning Politico called this order by the D.C. Circuit as “highly unusual.” This tees up another case for Sauer to argue in the Supreme Court, perhaps on an emergency basis, in order to restore the authority of the president to fire high-ranking federal officials.
On April 8 the Supreme Court held in favor of Trump by staying an injunction against his firing of 16,000 federal probationary workers. By a 7-2 margin, the High Court found that the plaintiff organizations lacked standing to object to these terminations, such that these firings can proceed.
The Leftist lawfare is “popping up every single day, trying to control his executive power. … It’s basically a game of whack-a-mole with these District Court judges … But that’s why we’re appealing all of these cases … up to the Supreme Court,” Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News April 6.
On the morning of April 8, the ACLU quickly filed a new lawsuit in New York to invoke the right established by the Supreme Court on the previous night for illegal aliens: a right of habeas corpus to challenge their detention. But their detention is only temporary before they would be deported and attain freedom back in their homeland.
John Sauer, the man who overcame the lawfare against candidate Trump such that he could be elected president, is the new Solicitor General in charge of cases before the Supreme Court. He is certainly going to be very busy in appealing and overturning the activist rulings by Democrat-appointed lower court judges against Trump’s program to Make America Great Again.
Supreme Court’s Getting Busy
Suddenly the Supreme Court has a pile of cases that could decide the future of the MAGA movement, on everything from deportation to transgender policy to firing federal workers. The queue stacks up at the High Court with appeals of judicial activist rulings against Trump.
Liberals are shrewd enough to file their lawsuits against Trump in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth, First, and D.C. Circuits, which rule for them nearly every time. The anti-Trumpers then hedge their bet by filing multiple identical lawsuits within additional left-leaning Circuits, while meticulously avoiding the Republican-dominated Fifth and Eighth Circuits.
While a candidate, Trump heroically overcame lawfare against him which has blocked presidential candidates in Brazil, Romania, and most recently in France. “That sounds like this country,” Trump complained about the French judge who recently banned Marine Le Pen from running for president while “she was the leading candidate.”
The Ninth Circuit just ordered Trump to allow transgender soldiers to remain in our military. The Democrat-majority Ninth Circuit denied a request by Trump to stay a ruling by a federal court in Tacoma, Washington, that blocks Trump from eradicating the transgender culture that has crept into our Armed Services.
San Francisco is a venue favored by liberals for their lawfare against Trump, and one of the many Democrat-appointed judges there just blocked the revocation of temporary protected status (TPS) for 350,000 Venezuelans. Through this TPS status, which should never have been granted by the Biden Administration, Trump is being prevented from deporting these non-citizens back to their homeland.
It is onward from these activist courts to the Supreme Court, which traditionally has deferred to the president on military issues, as he is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. But the Supreme Court has been wobbly on the transgender issue, and Chief Justice Roberts may seek a compromise middle ground where there is none.
On April 1, Democrats controlling 23 states and Washington, D.C., filed a new lawsuit against Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Secretary, RFK Jr., over their cancellation of $12 billion in funding. “The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago,” HHS announced.
RFK Jr. has proven to be one of Trump’s finest Cabinet picks, firing 10,000 employees from the bloated HHS bureaucracy while shifting it away from its hidden agenda to promote the pharmaceutical industry. Vaccine stocks fell on March 31 after the departure on March 25 of the FDA official who oversaw the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines.
The Court is already tackling the issue of deporting illegal aliens to Venezuela, as Chief Justice Roberts ordered a speedy response by 10 a.m. on April 1 from the plaintiffs who persuaded Judge James Boasberg to block deportations by Trump. Already before the High Court are cases concerning Trump’s suspension of funding of DEI programs in schools, his termination of birthright citizenship, and his firing of probationary federal employees.
The acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who formerly clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote in her brief to the Supreme Court, “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) millions in taxpayer dollars?”
“This court should put a swift end to federal district courts’ unconstitutional reign as self-appointed managers of executive branch funding and grant-disbursement decisions,” she argued.
Meanwhile, the abortion shield law enacted by the State of New York has resulted in a court clerk there refusing to register a judgment obtained by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against a New York abortion provider. The judgment is based on a New York physician prescribing chemical abortion pills to someone in Texas contrary to Texas law.
The blue states of California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington have all enacted laws to shield their abortionists who expand their services into red states that restrict abortion. When there is enforcement of pro-life laws against out-of-state abortion providers, the blue states refuse to allow the registration of judgments from other states.
Louisiana has issued a criminal indictment against the same New York abortionist on charges of illegally prescribing chemical abortion to a teenager in Louisiana. The Democrat New York Governor refuses to extradite the defendant to Louisiana.
These pro-abortion shield laws violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which commands states to recognize each other’s court rulings. Not since before the Civil War has there been such open defiance by one group of states against another, and the Supreme Court will be asked to resolve this, too.
Election Integrity Gains at State Level
With many elections decided today by fewer than 1% of votes, election integrity has become more important than ever. Republican state legislatures should be taking decisive action to end opportunities for election fraud.
Wyoming leads the way by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, as Trump seeks. Previously Kansas and Arizona enacted similar laws but those have been blocked or tied up in court, and Wyoming should prepare to provide evidence of election fraud in court when its new law is challenged.
On March 20, Wyoming HB 156 became law to ensure that voters there have presented proof of their American citizenship and residency before casting a ballot. Wyoming’s Republican Gov. Mark Gordon feebly declined to add his signature to this legislation, which became law regardless.
But also on March 20 in Texas, a liberal federal judge tossed out an election integrity law enacted in 2021 to reduce fraud in connection with mail-in ballots. Voters over 65, which is a large percentage of the voting public, and those with disabilities are allowed to cast their votes by mail in Texas without giving a reason.
The Texas legislature added a requirement that voters include an ID number to ensure that the ballots were legitimately mailed in by the person listed on it. The good law also required anyone assisting the voter to sign an oath under penalty of perjury to ensure its integrity.
In states having Republican trifectas, where Republicans control both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s office, a total of 66 election-related laws have been enacted. Nearly three times that many are working their way through the legislatures this spring.
In addition to Wyoming, other states leading on this issue are Arkansas, Utah, Mississippi, and South Dakota. The Arkansas Senate deserves particular credit for recently passing bills to improve the integrity of the process for putting an issue on the ballot for voter approval to become a law.
The Arkansas Secretary of State observed that out-of-state groups having lots of money “are able to get almost any issue on Arkansas ballots.” Nearly half the states continue to be vulnerable to the misuse of their ballot initiative process by out-of-state and even foreign billionaires to enact laws.
On the fundamental issues of abortion, marijuana, and gambling, liberals are enacting their agenda in predominantly conservative states by using hired petition gatherers to obtain signatures to qualify for the ballot. Then liberals outspend conservatives by 10-to-1 or more to pass these measures as new laws with a flood of television and internet advertising.
The conservative states need to reform this process, which is a relic from the Progressive Era early in the 20th century when state legislatures were overly influenced by corporate interests. The ballot initiative process was supposed to be a counterweight for the people to push back against corporate spending to enact laws in the legislatures.
Today, ballot measures have become the opposite, whereby big money by liberals is buying the laws they want and lining their own pockets by legalizing gambling and other bad behavior. Online sports gambling was legalized in Missouri last November by a margin of less than 3,000 votes, based on $43 million spent in support and only $9 million in opposition.
Arkansas Senate Bill 207 requires petition signature-gathering canvassers to inform, verbally or in writing, potential signatories that petition fraud is a Class A misdemeanor. This would help reduce the fraudulent collection of signatures to place a proposed law on the ballot.
Arkansas SB 208 requires that petition signers show a photo ID, which the canvassers must use to verify a signatory’s identity. Otherwise, signatures may not be gathered and included toward the minimum amount needed to place the measure on the ballot.
Arkansas SB 209 commands that the Secretary of State not recognize and count signatures on a petition for which there is a preponderance of evidence that the canvasser violated any law in collecting signatures. SB 210 requires that signatories read or have the title read to them, before signing a petition.
Finally, Arkansas SB 211 requires the canvasser to submit a sworn statement indicating compliance with all the signature-gathering laws. Without the sworn statement, the Secretary of State is ordered not to count the signatures gathered by that canvasser.
The Republican supermajorities in the legislatures in Ohio, Missouri, and elsewhere should follow this lead taken by the Arkansas Senate. Marijuana was recently legalized by ballot initiatives in Ohio and Missouri over objection by the elected representatives of the people, but the legislatures and courts in conservative states could end this misuse of the initiative process.
The Arkansas Supreme Court set the example last fall concerning harmful ballot initiatives. It properly excluded from the ballot both the marijuana and abortion-on-demand ballot initiatives that Missouri and Ohio allowed.
Unexplained 6.3M Dem Votes in 2020
The Department of Justice has more than 10,000 attorneys standing around looking for something legitimate to do, now that the Trump Administration has shut down their liberal lawfare against conservatives. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has cost-cutters in every federal agency except, apparently, the DOJ.
Some of the high-flying DOJ projects, including prosecuting candidate Trump and two of his loyal employees in Florida, have been properly cancelled. This and other dismissals, including calling off the time-consuming DOJ prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams, have left an army of DOJ attorneys with little to do.
So here’s an idea for something DOJ should investigate: the unexplained spike in 6.3 million votes that magically appeared out of nowhere to be counted for Joe Biden in 2020, which disappeared again in 2024.
Trump was credited with 74.2 million votes in 2020, which increased to 77.3 million in 2024. That 4% growth in votes reflects the overwhelming crowds and enormous enthusiasm that he generated.
But the Democrat nominee for president reportedly received 65.9 million votes in 2016, unexpectedly claimed 81.3 million votes in 2020 (an implausible 23% increase in four years), and yet only 75.0 million votes four years later in 2024. Trump has correctly pointed out that mail-in voting, which was its highest in 2020, is particularly vulnerable to election fraud.
“Anytime you have a mail-in ballot, there is going to be massive fraud,” Trump said to Dr. Phil McGraw during last year’s campaign. The Utah legislature recently enacted a bill to end the irresponsible practice of mailing a ballot to every registered voter, which large Democrat-controlled states exploit.
While the unexplained 2020 surge in Democrat votes may not by itself prove fraud, it is a big enough spike to be suspicious. 6.3 million unexplained votes exceed the total vote count for both sides in our largest city.
It is not as though the DOJ lacks the time or resources to investigate potential election fraud. Its overfunded $46 billion annual budget is being protected and replenished by Republicans’ Continuing Resolution.
Election integrity should be a priority in this spending. Investing merely one-tenth of 1% of DOJ’s annual budget on getting real answers about the bizarre spurt in Democrat votes in 2020 is needed.
Some attribute this sharp rise in Democrat ballots in 2020 to relaxed voting requirements due to Covid. But only if that were combined with substantial fraud could a 6.3M surge for the Democrat side be attained, and that fraud needs to be uncovered and prosecuted.
Americans need to be assured that 6.3 million unexplained votes won’t be counted for a future Democrat presidential candidate. Indeed, making sure that such phantom votes do not magically reappear from nowhere in a future election should be first on the priority list of Trump’s DOJ.
Yet here we are, nearly a half-year after the 2024 results have been counted and compared to the 2020 numbers, and no analysis explains this mystery. While the media insist that no specific evidence of fraud was proved in the 2020 election, Democrats blocked independent signature verification of mail-in ballots and instead are prosecuting citizens who challenged the reported results.
While campaigning in Pennsylvania last fall, Elon Musk was asked if he believed there was election fraud in 2020. He indicated yes by observing that there were anomalies that remain unexplained.
An AI program could check for handwriting similarities on the flood of mail-in ballots included in the 2020 results, of which state officials refused to allow a transparent independent audit. It did not take long for Musk’s team to find Social Security recipients who are absurdly 160 years old, and just as quickly Musk’s team could find fraudulent ballots counted for Dems in 2020.
Private citizens and Trump’s presidential advisors in 2020 should not continue to face criminal trials by Democrat prosecutors while DOJ looks the other way and does nothing about this.
Some say the overvotes were mostly in blue states like California and New York, which do not matter to the Electoral College outcome. But central to the goal of election integrity is to stamp out fraud everywhere, including fraud that falsely tilts the popular vote.
DOJ sits on its hands while Republicans continue to be prosecuted in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan for questioning the 2020 election. Only DOJ has the authority to supersede the Democrat prosecutors in those swing states, to get the evidence that defendants need.
Even the weak Georgia Senate is stronger than the DOJ on this issue today. That body recently passed a bill allowing defendants to recover attorneys’ fees when wrongly prosecuted, as Republican objectors to Georgia’s 2020 election results have been, including Trump himself.
