Search Posts

Platform:
Date range:
to

14 results for "tag:judiciary"

Image attachment
What the image shows meme

A photo with a white banner on top carrying a bold black caption. Below is a square excavated pit set into a paved plaza with light granite or concrete edging. The pit walls are dark, stained and weathered, with exposed wires and debris. The floor is dirt and bare concrete, with a raised concrete ledge running across it. A small orange traffic cone sits on the paving at the upper left. White metal railings are at the upper right, a blue-gray electrical box is at the bottom, and a scrap of yellow caution tape is on the right. No people are visible. The caption presents the pit as the Kennedy Center and calls it grotesque. The image reads as a meme or captioned news-style photo that mocks or criticizes the Kennedy Center's condition.

Text in image: Grotesque Kennedy Center

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

The Missouri Supreme Court just ridiculously ruled in favor of changing the maps back to what they were a long time ago. It’s called, Ancient History! The problem is, according to Legal Scholars, that not only was the ruling horrible, ridiculous, and unConstitutional, but there won’t be enough time to change the map back with the Election coming up in a very short period of time. The Election Process, as usual, is being disturbed in America! Missouri must be able to use the map that was in effect just a couple of months ago, in the Primary. This is a Dark Day for “Justice” in Missouri! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

0:00 0:00

Image attachment
What the image shows screenshot

A screenshot of a tweet/post from the account "Libs of TikTok" (@libsoftiktok, verified). The post text criticizes a federal judge's ruling. Below the text are two side-by-side images: on the left, a photo of a smiling woman with curly dark hair wearing black judicial robes and pearl earrings, seated in what appears to be a courtroom or chambers; on the right, an excerpt of a court document (a memorandum opinion from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia) captioned with the case name "League of Women Voters, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.," Civil Action No. 25-3501 (SLS), before Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan. The post shows a timestamp of 6:05 PM · Jun 22, 2026 and "656K Views."

Text in image: Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok Subscribe BREAKING: Biden-appointed judge Sparkle Sooknanan, who was born in Trinidad and Tobago, just BLOCKED the Trump admin from using a social security database system to verify voter eligibility. We have foreign judges telling us we can't secure our elections What are we even doing? UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 25-3501 (SLS) Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan MEMORANDUM OPINION This case implicates two fundamental rights that protect Americans from government overreach: the right to privacy and the right to vote. In the past year, several federal agencies have joined forces to create a centralized federal database that contains the private information of United States citizens, including Social Security numbers, citizenship status, and other sensitive data. But decades ago, Congress put protections in place to prevent precisely this type of centralized data bank. And the record in this case shows that the federal agencies that created this database knew that the database violates those statutory protections. The agencies were scrambling to comply with an Executive Order aimed at reshaping federal elections, which directed them to create a system for mass voter verification. So they haphazardly combined and repurposed the private information of millions of Americans, including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable. Since then, states have partnered with the federal government to access the database and are actively removing United States citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information. All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote. This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens. 6:05 PM · Jun 22, 2026 · 656K Views

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

Video transcript 4:50

To begin today with breaking news, a major legal battle involving Mike Lindell has come to an end. The voting technology company formerly known as Dominion Voting Systems, now operating as Liberty Vote, has agreed to dismiss a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit against Mike Lindell and MyPillow. Court filings show both sides agreed to drop all claims with prejudice. That means the case cannot be refiled. The lawsuit stemmed from Mike's repeated claims that Dominion helped rig the 2020 presidential election. Allegations the company strongly denied. The dismissal marks a significant end to one of the most closely watched election-related lawsuits stemming from the 2020 presidential race. I am just celebrating the good news coming out of this. Tell us about this legal case and what the latest is. Well, here it is everybody. This is the second one now. Remember the evidence, the $5 million challenge got overturned last summer and they said Mike was right. This is all about the voting machine evidence and now yesterday, if you don't see in the news, they did one article out there from law and crime. Dominion dropped the lawsuit against Mike Lindell and MyPillow and that was yesterday. I just want everybody to know it doesn't mean anything that I'm going to stop fighting these voting machine companies. It was a nice gesture, but we're all in to get rid of them, get to paper ballots, hand count it and here I'm going to announce right now it should be within the next half hour. We're going to be posting on Lindell TV, everybody. It's 800 page historical drop of the voting machine evidence. This has never been seen before. A lot of it, a lot of it you might have, we have bits and pieces were out there. This has been compiled over the last five years. This will be right here on Lindell TV. It'll be posted, like I say, in about 20 minutes. We're doing a press release on it and anyone that ever tells you then, Vanessa, that ever says, "Oh, there's no evidence, there's no evidence." This is like a library. It's a historical library with 500 and some articles and 100% evidence that back each thing up. This was actually part of this given to the president when he walked off that reporter a few weeks ago and he re-truth it. So it's a very exciting day. We're going to tie in all this stuff going on. It is a relief for me that my pillow, which never did anything when Dominion sued them for $1.3 billion with a B, everybody, and my employees had to sit and worry about that because their CEO is out there practicing his free speech. This is a big relief. So we got one, two down. We are also appealing. The appeal just went out. It'll actually go out today. The Colorado case, that my pillow won a year ago. Vanessa, you were there. My pillow won and this is the last piece of that where we're putting in the appeal and hopefully they rule on that very fast. It seems like the voting machine companies are falling like dominoes here. Then we have the last one you'll see in the newest Smartmatic here in Minneapolis. That's like a parked car. It's sitting there because if everybody remembers the judge made a ruling before even going to trial that I defamed them and then a week later it came out that Smartmatic is in fact committing crimes with their company, with their voting machines and against other countries and a lot of that will be coming out too. But that was funny with that one because they're going, I'm going okay. A week after this judge makes this ruling here in Minneapolis, it all comes out that yes, this is a criminal organization basically. It's like I defamed the mafia, right? I figured it'd be like my cousin Vinny going, okay, in light of the new evidence, he's dismissed. But according to my lawyers, that's now how it is. It can just sit there like a parked car and judges can sit on it as long as they want.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Image attachment
Image attachment
Image attachment
Image attachment
Image 1 document

This is a scanned/photographed page from a legal court filing — page 5 of 9 of Document 79 in Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL, filed 04/27/26. It is a legal brief arguing that an assassination attempt against the President ("the attack on Saturday night") proves a court injunction blocking construction of a White House ballroom should be dissolved. The text cites a prior court opinion (ECF 72) that had found no "national security justification" for the ballroom, and argues the attack disproves that finding by showing D.C. lacks a secure space for high-profile events with the line of succession present. It also cites a footnote listing bipartisan public statements of support for the ballroom project from Senators John Fetterman, Tim Sheehy, Lindsey Graham, and Representative Randy Fine, each with an X (Twitter) post quote, date, and a perma.cc archive link.

Text in image: Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL Document 79 Filed 04/27/26 Page 5 of 9 ¶¶ 15-16, 20-21. 3. The attack confirms that this Court's injunction is intolerable and unsustainable as a matter of equity and Law. In addition to the multiple classified declarations to the contrary, the attack on Saturday night is proof positive that this wrongful injunction should be dissolved. In its most recent opinion, the Court stated that there is no "national security justification" for why a secure ballroom must be constructed "immediately." ECF 72, at 6 (emphasis removed). Those assertions were wrong then, and they are indefensible now. The fact that an assassin came mere seconds from shooting the President—along with his family, the bulk of his Cabinet, his senior staff, and the Washington press corps—lays bare that D.C. does not have a secure space for large high-profile events, or one able to "accommodate an event with the line of succession for the U.S. government."¹ What he did on Saturday night could not have taken place in this new and highly secure facility! After the attack, a bipartisan chorus of legislators, analysts, and media pundits have vocally expressed support for completion of the ballroom project. See, e.g., n.1. This group includes Democrat Senator John Fetterman, and Senator Rand Paul. In addition, in the long and storied history of the White House dating back to 1791, Congress has never dictated or tampered with the zoning, permitting, or architectural aspects of any Project, especially one being given FREE OF CHARGE AS A GIFT TO THE COUNTRY! Without such a location, the President is thus put ¹ Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) ("[D]rop the TDS and build the White House ballroom."), X, (Apr. 26, 2026, 9:13 AM), https://perma.cc/FLL3-F6KT; Senator Tim Sheehy (@TimSheehyMT) ("A President of any party should be able to host events in a secure area without attendees worrying about their safety."), X, (Apr. 26, 2026, 3:33 PM), https://perma.cc/5YUE-9HES; Senator Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) ("[The ballroom] will provide adequate security for this president and future presidents for events like the White House Correspondents Diner."), X, (Apr. 26, 2026, 1:04 PM) https://perma.cc/L3NX-LXBS; Representative Randy Fine (@RepFine) ("[T]he lawsuits attempting to stop [the ballroom] …are nonsense."), X, (Apr. 26, 2026, 2:34 PM) https://perma.cc/8SM9-UE44. 5

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

Image 2 document

A screenshot of page 6 of a federal court filing (Document 79) in Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL, filed 04/27/26. The page is a legal brief arguing that a court injunction blocking construction of a secure facility (referred to elsewhere as a "ballroom" project) at or near the White House should be dissolved. The text argues the President's safety outweighs a single plaintiff's "visual preference" objections, citing case law including Trump v. United States, National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. NPS, and Winter v. NRDC.

Text in image: Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL Document 79 Filed 04/27/26 Page 6 of 9 to the choice of risking his safety by attending events in unsecure venues—be it the tents on the White House lawn, or places like the Washington Hilton (which is now home to two attempted presidential assassinations)—or forgoing those events entirely—to the detriment of his constitutional responsibility to "speak[] to and on behalf of the American people," Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 617-618 (2023). Forcing a President to make such a choice is intolerable, all the more so when one accounts for the supposed "harms" on the other side of the ledger. Once more, the Trust is suing on behalf of a single person who walks her dog in the vicinity of the White House, once a month, and expects to dislike this Project without ever having seen it. ECF 2-3, at 5. A more lopsided balance is inconceivable. See National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. NPS, 2026 WL 980554, at *8 (D.C. Cir. 2026) (Rao, J., dissenting). The "current safety of the President, as well as his family and staff, plainly outweighs future [visual preference] harms to the Trust." Id. That should have doomed this injunction months ago, under on-point Supreme Court precedent. Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 23-24, 33 (2008) (holding injunction unjustified because national-security interests "plainly outweighed" the "plaintiffs' ecological, scientific, and recreational interests in marine mammals"). But the balance of the equities is inescapable now: The passing visual gripes of a wandering pedestrian cannot possibly justify delaying the construction of a secure facility for the President to do his job. On that score, this weekend makes clear why this Court's injunction must be dissolved "immediately." ECF 72, at 6. In its prior opinion, this Court stated that the Defendants would likely not suffer short-term irreparable harm, because a complete ballroom is still "months" or "years" away from being finished. Id. However, that misses the entire point. As Defendants have detailed, and as this weekend painfully confirms, all current and future Presidents need a secure 6

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

Image 3 document

A scanned/photographed page from a legal court filing, page 7 of 9, with a blue header stamp reading case number, document number, filing date, and page number. The body text is a legal argument (apparently from a brief related to a White House ballroom construction project and an injunction against it) arguing that a court injunction preventing construction should be dissolved, invoking a "Saturday night attempted assassination" as justification, and defending Donald J. Trump by name.

Text in image: Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL Document 79 Filed 04/27/26 Page 7 of 9 large-event space now. Even if that space cannot be conjured with a finger snap, the injunction "inevitably extends the time during which" the ballroom remains unavailable, and "the President's residence remains less secure." National Trust, 2026 WL 980554, at *7 (Rao, J., dissenting). "Every additional day of White House vulnerability harms the government." Id. That is so, because every additional day of court-manufactured delay is yet another day that the lives of the President, his family, his Cabinet, and his staff, and those of future Presidents, are being subject to avoidable hazard. If any other President had the ability, foresight, or talents necessary, to build this ballroom, which will be one of the greatest, safest, and most secure structures of its kind anywhere in the World, there would never have been a lawsuit. But, because it is DONALD J. TRUMP, a highly successful real estate developer, who has abilities that others don't, especially those who assume the Office of President, this frivolous and meritless lawsuit was filed. Again, it's called TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. On top of everything else, this project is a gift to our Country from President Trump, and other Donors. It is free of charge to the American Taxpayer. Who could ever object to that? This Court should never have enjoined this Project, but now, after the Saturday night attempted assassination, which could have never taken place in the new facility, reasonable minds can no longer differ — The injunction must be dissolved. This Court should immediately issue an indicative ruling that it will dissolve the injunction, and put an end to this frivolous lawsuit, which greatly endangers the lives of all Presidents, current and future. 7

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

Image 4 document

A screenshot of a scanned legal court filing document, page 8 of 9, from a case docketed in a U.S. District Court. The header shows case number, document number, filing date, and page number in blue text. The body is a signature/closing page of a legal brief, listing the submitting date and signature block of DOJ attorneys representing the defendants, including a printed name with "/s/" electronic signature notation, titles, and the U.S. Department of Justice address, email, and phone number. The page number "8" appears centered at the bottom.

Text in image: Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL Document 79 Filed 04/27/26 Page 8 of 9 Dated: April 27, 2026 Respectfully submitted, TODD BLANCHE Acting Attorney General R. TRENT MCCOTTER Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General /s/ Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. STANLEY E. WOODWARD, JR. Associate Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 stanley.woodward@usdoj.gov (202) 514-2000 Counsel for Defendants 8

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

Video transcript 2:45

Now we have a Fox News alert. The Supreme Court just cleared the way for Trump to deport illegals even faster. The High Court ruled that Trump can use the Alien Enemies Act to send Venezuelan gangbangers to a mega prison in El Salvador. This is a huge ruling in Trump's favor and a major win for the country. After, as you know, DC judge James Boseburg ordered a stop to the deportations. So this is pretty significant. These deportations, Caroline, can keep going. This is a massive legal victory, Jesse, a massive victory for law and order and for our constitutional republic and the sovereignty of the United States of America. We called on the Supreme Court to rein in these activist judges like Judge Boseburg, who was completely out of line in trying to say that the president didn't have the executive authority to deport foreign terrorists out of our soil. We have always maintained the position at the White House that the president was well within his constitutional authority to do so. And this decision proves that President Trump and our administration have always been right from the beginning. He will continue to utilize the Alien Enemies Act to remove foreign terrorists and trendy Aragua members, vicious gang members from American communities. And because of this ruling, the United States of America is a much safer place. Our team will get to work tomorrow to deport these heinous, violent foreign terrorists from our neighborhoods. And you had another couple critical wins in the court with regard to Doge. Tell us about those. That seems to be making progress. Yes, absolutely. There have been many wins that the mainstream media has failed to cover, particularly over the weekend. The Supreme Court also ruled that the president does, in fact, have the authority over federal funding, that he can dictate what funds can go out the door and what can't so long as they are part of the executive branch. So we have always, again, maintained that every executive order the president assigned, every executive action that he has taken has been well within his executive authority. And Doge is doing a tremendous job at cutting back at the waste and the fraud and the abuse that have been ripping off American taxpayers that have not been aligned with our interests here in our country. So we're going to continue the president's agenda. Again, he's well within his constitutional authority. And it's great to see the Supreme Court reigning in these activist judges who are wearing robes but are acting as judicial activists, not as real judges and real arbiters of the law. All right. Lawyer is wrong. I can't believe a lawyer would ever be wrong. It just amazes me. They think they're always right. I guess not this time. Sorry, Bozberg. We love you, but we're sorry. Caroline, thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

RT: https://truthsocial.com/users/mrddmia/statuses/114523473765901913 The Supreme Court must come to the RESCUE OF AMERICA.

0:00 0:00