Federal judge bars $1.8 billion Trump administration slush fund

A federal judge on Friday barred the Trump administration until further notice from setting up a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people claiming to have been unfairly prosecuted by the government, saying that her order was needed because of mixed messages about the scheme from President Trump, reported The New York Times.

The ruling by the judge, Leonie M. Brinkema, was the strongest effort to date by anyone in government to hold the administration to its word that the proposal to create the fund had actually been set aside. While Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, told Congress last week that the fund would not move forward, Mr. Trump has been much more circumspect, insisting that he still loves the idea and believes that people who suffered in court at the hands of the government should get financial compensation.

Judge Brinkema seized on the president’s statements during a hearing in Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., suggesting they left open the possibility that the fund could be brought back to life despite Mr. Blanche’s promises and assertions made in court papers that the fund was no longer moving forward.

“We just don’t have the absolute certainty that this fund won’t rear its head in another form,” she said.

Judge Brinkema did, however, give the administration a way out. She said she would consider rescinding her order if, within a week, the Justice Department sent her a declaration, filed under penalty of perjury, that the fund was dead once and for all. She told Andrew Block, a department lawyer who appeared in court for the government, that the declaration needed to be signed by Mr. Blanche and Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary.

Judge Brinkema’s ruling extended a temporary pause on the fund that she had put in place at the end of May. And it came two days after a federal judge in Washington, Richard J. Leon, refused to issue his own order putting the fund on hold.

Judge Leon took the Justice Department at its word that the plan had been shelved, but still warned the administration not to play games with him by pretending it was dead, if it was not.

“Don’t play possum with this court,” he said.

The fund has created a political headache for the White House almost from the moment it was first announced on May 18 — in no small measure because of concerns that it could be used to funnel taxpayer money to hundreds of rioters prosecuted for storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Judge Brinkema underscored those concerns by reading aloud a passage about payments being made to the rioters that appeared in a brief criticizing the fund that was submitted to her last week by two senators, Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, and Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana.

To read more CLICK HERE

Idaho transitions to firing squad as primary means of execution

Don't get all worked up about a stream of grisly state sponsored killings -- Idaho has executed three people in the last 50 years 

Trained members of Idaho law enforcement with demonstrated firearms proficiency are expected to fill slots for carrying out the death penalty by firing squad as the state prison system transitions to the controversial execution method next month, reported the Idaho Statesman

Don't get all worked up about a stream of grisly state sponsored killings.  Idaho has executed three people in the last 50 years. Six volunteers certified for no less than three years apiece through Peace Officer Standards and Training, or POST, will be recruited to ensure the Idaho Department of Correction is ready to comply with a state law that prioritizes shooting prisoners to death over lethal injection starting July 1.

No one on the team may have faced disciplinary action over firearms, use of force or related conduct over the prior year, according to new execution protocols the prison system released this week.

State prison leadership has sought to avoid needing to rely on volunteers among corrections officers to pull the triggers in an execution, IDOC Director Bree Derrick previously said. The agency explored the possibility of a remote-operated system as Idaho becomes the only U.S. state with a firing squad as its lead execution method, but one did not come to fruition.

That left IDOC to instead devise a human firing squad, the agency said. “The Idaho Department of Correction recognizes the gravity of carrying out a court-ordered execution and the responsibility that comes with it,” Derrick said in a statement to the Idaho Statesman. “The department is committed to fulfilling this responsibility with professionalism, respect, and strict adherence to the law. Our procedures are designed to ensure that any execution is conducted in a secure, orderly, and dignified manner while safeguarding the rights of all individuals involved and maintaining the safety and security of staff, witnesses, and the public.”

The firing squad will consist of three primary shooters and two alternates, with a team leader who will check, maintain and load a live round into each of the IDOC-owned rifles used for executions. None of the team members may have a blood or legal relationship to the condemned prisoner or their family, or the victims or their relatives. The identities of all firing squad members will be confidential, per state law. 

To read more CLICK HERE

Wisconsin case tests speedy trial rule after man sits in jail for 14 months without an attorney

If the state can’t find defense attorneys for criminal defendants for months on end, the charges should be dismissed due to the violation of their constitutional rights, a national defense lawyers group argues, reported WTAQ-WLUK. .

The issue stems from the case of James Grandberry, a suspect in a major Chicago-to-Green Bay drug ring investigation. He sat in jail for more than 14 months without an attorney or a preliminary hearing, which is usually held within 10 days.

Grandberry, 36, faces 14 charges, including three of manufacture or delivery of fentanyl, amphetamine and cocaine. He was arrested July 11, 2024, and charged about two weeks later. Prosecutors have said this case was the state’s first wiretap investigation for fentanyl and at least 47 people are facing charges. Grandberry now has an attorney and has pleaded not guilty. No trial date has been set. He returns to court June 22 for a status conference.

Before an attorney was appointed, however, Grandberry’s preliminary hearing was postponed 10 times.

Grandberry’s motion to have his case dismissed was denied by a judge. Grandberry then filed what’s known as an “interlocutory appeal” asking a higher court for the case to dismissed, arguing his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the delay. Usually, the appeals court take up issues of law after a case has been completed, but this mechanism allows for an appeal while the case is still pending. In August, the Court of Appeals said it would hear the case. This appeal case continues, even though an attorney was eventually found for Grandberry and his case is now underway.

Attorneys for both Grandberry and prosecutors have filed arguments with the court. Other groups have asked to file what are known as “friend of the court” briefs, offering their opinions on the case. The first one was filed Thursday.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argues the remedy should be dismissing the charges outright, without giving the state the ability to refile the charges. Refiling of charges was allowed in another case, where Nhia Lee was jailed 113 days with a preliminary hearing.

“Only dismissal with prejudice accomplishes something useful. It tells all that egregious violations of due process beget serious consequences,” wrote attorney George Burnett.

And while it isn’t the prosecutors’ fault Grandberry didn’t get an attorney, it is the state of Wisconsin’s issue, the NACDL brief argues.

The crisis the Supreme Court described therefore emanates from the State’s policy decision, so the consequences of that decision should fall on the State, not those it accuses. Funding lawyers to represent those accused of crimes is neither politically urgent nor electorally popular for now, prisoners like James Grandberry bear, through no fault of their own, the full ramifications of the State’s unwillingness to meet its constitutional obligations. That must change.”

The Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the State Public Defender’s Office also plan to file briefs, court records show. It will likely be several months before the Court of Appeals rules in the case.

Grandberry’s case isn’t the only one to challenge the delays in appointing attorneys. In 2022, eight current and former inmates filed suit in Brown County, seeking an order demanding quicker appointment of counsel. The state public defender’s office has also spent more than a year making over 5,000 contacts, trying to find an attorney for Jordan Leavy-Carter, who is charged in connection with the shooting death of a five-year-old.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Time for Term Limits for Federal Judges

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
June 9, 2026

In 1787, when the U.S. Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, the average life expectancy for a man who reached age 25 was about 72 years.

The founding fathers never contemplated that a U.S. Supreme Court justice would serve 35 years on the bench. In October, Justice Clarence Thomas will do just that. Last month, Thomas became second only to Justice William O. Douglas in court longevity. Douglas served 36 years on the high court, beginning before World War II and ending after the Vietnam War.

According to Professor and former federal Judge Nancy Gertner, Justice Thomas is far from alone in the last half-century. "Justice John Paul Stevens served nearly 35 years before he stepped down in 2010. In the last fifty years, Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Hugo Black, William Rehnquist and Anthony Kennedy all joined the three-decade club." Gertner continued, "The average justice's tenure is now more than 28 years."

When Brennan retired, he was 90 years old. If Clarence Thomas lasts as long as Brennan, he will have spent 47 years on the Supreme Court. That is not good for the Court and not good for democracy.

The GOP understands the power of lifetime appoints. The last three justices appointed by a Republican are ages 61, 58 and 54, respectively. They could all serve into their 70s, which means more than two decades on the court.

How do you stop the threat of despotic judicial control? Term limits.

Why aren't term limits in place already? According to The New York Times, until recently, there was no clear need for term limits. Throughout most of American history, the average justice served for about 15 years.

Life tenure and salary protection were granted to federal judges because the Constitution's framers knew that judges would sometimes be called on to make unpopular decisions, reported the Brennan Center. In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that life tenure would contribute to an "independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty." The Brennan Center suggested that if judges instead had to depend on periodic reappointment, there would be a "danger of an improper complaisance" to the appointing branch of government. Such a system would "be fatal" to judges' "necessary independence."

Hamilton was referring to all federal courts, not just the Supreme Court. Term limits should be equally applied to all federal judges. There are 890 federal judges in this country, including the Supreme Court. According to Maryland Today, the median age of a federal judge hit 70 for the first time in 2023. In fact, 10% of federal judges are 85 years or older.

This spring, Federal Judge Pauline Newman asked the Supreme Court to let her return to the bench. Judge Newman is 98 years old. She has been off the court for three years due to questions about her competency.

Term limits would also bring the federal judiciary in line with the 49 states that have some sort of mandatory retirement for judges. Rhode Island is the outlier as the only state that does not limit the age or mandate the retirement of judges.

U.S. Representative Tom Barrett (R-MI) has proposed a constitutional amendment mandating term limits for judges of the Supreme Court and all federal judges. An amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the members of both the House and the Senate and ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states

Barrett's resolution provides, "Each judge of the Supreme Court and each inferior court shall be appointed to serve during good behavior for a term of 20 years." The amendment would not be retroactive. The term limits would only apply "to an appointment occurring on or after the date of the ratification of this article."

Term limits for federal judges may be a hard sell, but it is worth the effort. The courts need consistent turnover; a single party or ideology dominating the court is bad for America.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To vistit Creators CLICK HERE

Ninety-eight year old federal judge wants to hear cases again

A federal judge who has been sidelined for three years over questions about her competency is asking the Supreme Court to throw her a lifeline, reported NPR. Judge Pauline Newman is 98 years old — and she wants a chance to hear cases again.

Her story shines a light on the aging judiciary, where the average age of federal jurists is 69. Lifetime tenure is now raising thorny questions about retirement.

Newman, a President Ronald Reagan appointee who has been on the court for nearly four decades, insists that she remains physically and mentally fit to decide matters of the law, and has accused her colleagues of making baseless claims in an effort to push her out because of her age.

Federal judges serve for life--no mandatory retirement, no limit on how long they serve.

To read more CLICK HERE

FBI fires analyst tied to warning of violent Catholic 'extremist'

Several FBI analysts tied to the creation of a 2023 memo warning of a potential threat from Catholic “violent extremists” were fired, according to their lawyer, the latest wave of terminations under the leadership of its director Kash Patel, reported The Associated Press.

The fired employees included four intelligence analysts and a supervisory analyst. The FBI declined to comment.

“This action is manifestly unjust, completely unsupported by the facts, and subverts standard FBI policy and procedure,” their lawyer, David Laufman, said in a statement. “These individuals deserved far better for the exceptional and faithful public service they rendered to protect our country.”

The January 2023 intelligence product produced by analysts in the FBI’s Richmond, Virginia, field office emerged as a political flashpoint after it was issued, with Republicans in Congress repeatedly citing it as part of their broader contention that the FBI during the Biden administration was targeting conservatives.

The firings are part of a broader personnel purge under Patel, a Trump loyalist who over the last year, has pushed out dozens of employees who either contributed to investigations of the president or who were perceived as not in alignment with the administration’s agenda. The Justice Department has engaged in similarly sweeping firings of prosecutors since Trump took office last year.

To read more CLICK HERE

Justice Thomas is now the second longest serving justice in U.S. history

As of May 7, Justice Clarence Thomas is the second-longest-serving Supreme Court justice in American history, reported The New York Times. When he took his judicial oath on Oct. 23, 1991, nearly half of Americans alive today were not yet born. “Text” was a noun and not a verb. Justice Thomas now trails only William O. Douglas, who served 36 years before stepping down in 1975 (although much of his last year was overshadowed by a stroke that left him partly paralyzed and paranoid).

Justice Thomas is far from alone in his durability. Justice John Paul Stevens served nearly 35 years before he stepped down in 2010. In the past half-century, Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Hugo Black, William Rehnquist and Anthony Kennedy all joined the three-decade club. The average justice’s tenure is now more than 28 years, by far the longest among modern democracies.

To read more CLICK HERE