CartoonDems

 

US Judge Extends Block on USPS Mail-In Voting Restrictions

A federal judge in Boston extended on Friday a ban stopping President Donald Trump's administration from implementing a new U.S. ‌Postal Service rule that would tighten mail-in voting requirements ahead of the November congressional elections.

Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani

 

 issued the injunction at the behest of Democrat-led states and voting rights groups, after the first state in the country sent out mail ballots for the elections on Friday.

Last week, Talwani, an appointee of Democrat President Barack Obama, issued a 14-day temporary restraining order to prevent USPS' rule from being enforced while she ‌considered whether to issue a longer-term injunction.

The administration on Thursday had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and ​lift the restraining order so the rule could take effect. The court's 6-3 conservative majority last week lifted a prior order Talwani issued preventing USPS from imposing such restrictions.

USPS issued its rule to implement an ⁠executive order Trump signed in March after years of the Republican president calling to restrict voting by mail and pushing the ​ claim that his 2020 presidential election defeat to Democrat Joe Biden was the result of widespread voter fraud.

 

Under the rule, ⁠states must supply the USPS with lists of mail ballot recipients, and all outbound and return ballot envelopes must bear unique barcodes.

The USPS, under the rule, may refuse to deliver ballots that do not comply with the new standards or are associated with voters who do not appear on the lists.

Voting rights advocates ‌and several Democratic-led states convinced Talwani last week to temporarily block the rule, arguing it risked disenfranchising voters and ​was adopted in violation of ‌the U.S. Constitution, which gives states the authority to administer elections.

Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice countered that USPS had clear authority to implement what they called "modest" envelope design requirements. ‌They said state election officials would retain full control over who is permitted to vote by mail in their states if the rule went into effect.

 

All 50 states allow for some form of mail-in voting. Of those, 29 states allow voters ⁠to ask to cast ballots by mail without providing a ‌reason, and eight conduct their elections entirely by ⁠mail. North Carolina on Friday became the first state to mail ballots for the November elections.

The rule, if allowed to take effect, could force state election officials ⁠to ⁠try to overhaul their systems with just weeks left until the elections to comply with a system that critics say USPS is not ready to implement.

Numerous state election offices already ‌have their envelopes and ballots printed. A USPS official said in a court filing on Thursday, Sept. 3 that an online portal that states would use to upload their voter lists was not yet active. The official said it could be available for states that wish to ‌use it at some ​point during the week of September ‌7.

A whistleblower statement from an anonymous federal official released on Tuesday by U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, alleged that USPS was rushing to implement a hastily created new system that risked disrupting the delivery of mail ​ballots during the election.

The administration had asked a federal appeals court to set aside Talwani's initial restraining order. But the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had not acted on that request before the judge issued her latest decision.

 

Zuckerberg's 2020 Election Activities Back in the Spotlight — the AG Has Been Notified

Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg is back in the headlines — and it's probably news that he would rather forget.

The new Attorney General Todd Blanche was recently notified by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about the past activities of election activist groups, including the Zuckerberg-funded Center for Election Innovation and Research, or CEIR.

New disclosures from the Department of Homeland Security are raising questions about whether states improperly shared sensitive motor-vehicle data with a private organization funded by Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan as part of a massive voter-outreach operation ahead of the 2020 election.

In a September 2 letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin asked the Justice Department to review potential violations of the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act involving the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, and the CEIR.

The issue had previously been referred to DOJ, but he is now asking the newly confirmed attorney general to take another look. 

At the center of the controversy is how ERIC uses information supplied by participating states. The organization receives voter-registration records along with motor-vehicle data and compares the databases to identify inaccurate registrations, deceased voters and people who appear eligible to vote but aren't registered. ERIC says its mission includes improving voter-roll accuracy and increasing registration among eligible citizens. 

But DHS says sensitive information didn't necessarily remain inside ERIC.

“Prior to the 2020 election, ERIC shared that sensitive, protected motor-vehicle data with at least one other private organization,” Mullin wrote.

That organization was CEIR, which received tens of millions of dollars from Zuckerberg and Chan for election-related activities in 2020. Mullin's letter puts the amount at more than $70 million, while CEIR has said it received nearly $65 million through its Voter Education Grant Program. 

DHS says the information was connected to lists of “Eligible But Unregistered,” or EBU, voters — people identified by comparing state voter rolls with motor-vehicle records and then contacted with information encouraging them to register.

“This sharing and resharing of Motor Vehicle Agency data among NGOs may not qualify as a permissible use of motor-vehicle data identified in the DPPA,” Mullin wrote, adding that information about potential voters is “incredibly valuable to political parties and campaigns.” 

Pennsylvania is one example cited by DHS. The state received approximately $13 million from CEIR in 2020. 

According to Mullin, the grant agreement required Pennsylvania to cooperate with CEIR, “including providing data, as CEIR reasonably requests.”

DHS says that included state motor-vehicle information originally shared with ERIC and subsequently used by CEIR to create EBU lists for voter outreach.

ERIC maintains that its use of state information complies with federal law and describes itself as a membership organization created and governed by state election officials. It says member states securely submit voter-registration and motor-vehicle data, which ERIC uses to produce reports that states can use to maintain voter rolls and contact potentially eligible unregistered residents. 

DHS, however, raises additional questions about how citizenship information is handled. According to Mullin's letter, ERIC's model contract requires participating states to provide “all licensing or identification records from motor vehicle departments” at least every 60 days. Yet the agreement also prohibits states from transmitting records containing information indicating that someone is a noncitizen. 

Why that particular provision is there, given it is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, is a bit of a head-scratcher. But it looks bad.

Mullin pointed to Colorado's 2022 voter-registration mailing as an example of the potential problem. Approximately 30,000 noncitizens erroneously received voter-registration notices from the Colorado secretary of state's office. Colorado officials said safeguards were in place to prevent ineligible people from registering and blamed the mailings on a database error.

This is the "trust me, bro" response that Americans get far too often from blue state officials. We don't trust you. That is the whole point of a constitutional republic.

DHS argues it illustrates a potential weakness in using motor-vehicle records to identify eligible voters when citizenship information isn't included in the data being transmitted.

The new disclosure adds another layer to the long-running controversy over privately funded election administration in 2020. Zuckerberg and Chan provided roughly $400 million to nonprofits involved in election-related programs that year, with most of the money going to CEIR and the Center for Tech and Civic Life. 

CEIR says its grants supported nonpartisan voter education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics have pointed out that the money actually went toward partisan electioneering.

Mullin's referral now presents DOJ with a narrower legal question: whether protected state motor-vehicle information moved between states and private nonprofits in ways permitted by federal privacy law.

DHS says it raised the matter with DOJ officials as far back as September 2025. More than a year later, the department is putting it back on the attorney general's desk.

The question now is whether DOJ agrees that a federal privacy line was crossed — and, if so, exactly how many states participated in the data-sharing breach.

 

Report: The OIG Finding on Former Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer Is One for the Books

While former U.S. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer resigned her cabinet position in April, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigation into her alleged misconduct continued. Chavez-DeRemer was accused of travel fraud, abuse of office, creating a hostile work environment, drinking on the job, and having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate.

On Thursday, the 44-page report on the OIG's findings was made public. The OIG concluded that "a preponderance of the evidence substantiated multiple violations of DOL [Labor Department] policy."

 As RedState reported, Chavez-DeRemer's Chief of Staff Jihun Han and Deputy Chief of Staff Rebecca Wright were first placed on leave, and subsequently fired, due to reports of their involvement in facilitating Chavez-DeRemer's misconduct and fostering the toxic work environment detailed by at least 38 witnesses who "consistently described the OSEC work environment as toxic, intimidating and humiliating."

The report detailed further:

Witnesses stated that Chavez DeRemer, Han, and Wright openly discussed employee performance matters in the presence of other staff, including details of performance-related meetings and whether those employees had cried during the meetings. Twenty-one witnesses consistently described Wright as condescending and hostile toward OSEC personnel and reported that the workplace environment deteriorated following her arrival on February 26, 2025, and continued to worsen through the summer of 2025.

It's one thing to start off on a high note and then devolve. As this report outlines, this toxic work environment started from Day 1 of Chavez-DeRemer's tenure, producing, "widespread fear and job insecurity within the organization."

Han was a longtime aide to Chavez-DeRemer starting in 2016, during her political beginnings in Oregon. Three witnesses reported that Han would threaten employees with termination, and intimidate them by letting them know just how easy it would be for him to do so. According to the witnesses, Han took pleasure in this bullying behavior.

Witnesses also reported that Han cycled through seven assistants during approximately nine months as Chief of Staff because of repeated conflicts with employees serving in the role.

Deputy Chief of Staff Wright was also involved in Oregon politics in 2022, when Chavez-DeRemer was a one-term congresswoman. "Multiple witnesses" reported that Wright's behavior changed when dealing with senior officials and junior staff. 

 

One witness reported that Wright demeaned Chavez-DeRemer’s personal assistant by stating that the employee’s role was to provide Chavez-DeRemer with “lip gloss and make-up”. Witnesses also alleged that Wright selected staff based on physical appearance rather than professional qualifications. Five witnesses described meetings that Han and Wright conducted in Han’s office as “beatdowns,” during which Han and Wright berated employees for perceived performance deficiencies. Witnesses stated that Han and Wright sometimes required employees to wait in the lobby for extended periods before these meetings, which employees perceived as an additional form of intimidation.

Han, Wright, and Director of Advance Melissa Robey — who was also fired and referred to in the report as "Director 1" —allegedly cooked the books of Chavez-DeRemer's schedule to enable the travel fraud. Chavez-DeRemer would loop in her personal travel with DOL business travel, in violation of government guidelines.

The initial anonymous complaint included allegations that Chavez-DeRemer and Wright were committing travel fraud. While investigating this allegation, the OIG interviewed witnesses and reviewed other evidence and allegations received that Chavez-DeRemer, Han, Wright, and Director 1 may have inappropriately combined personal and official travel to obtain government-funded transportation and lodging. Witnesses reported that official engagements were added to itineraries involving personal destinations and that Chavez-DeRemer, Han, and Wright unilaterally made travel decisions that were otherwise subject to Office of the Solicitor (SOL) review and approval. Other witnesses alleged Director 1 to have violated travel regulation requirements for use of rental vehicles.

The OIG report concluded that Chavez-DeRemer: "combined personal and official travel in a manner inconsistent with DOL policy and the Federal Travel Regulation, 41 C.F.R. Chapters 300-304."

Then there is the inappropriate alcohol use. According to the report, Han, Wright, and Robey failed to comply with several DOL policies related to consuming alcohol while on the job.

The OIG interviewed witnesses, reviewed documentary and video surveillance evidence, and directly observed bottles of alcohol within the offices and spaces used or controlled by Chavez-DeRemer, Han, and Wright in the course of investigating allegations of alcohol consumption and possession by OSEC leadership during duty hours on DOL premises. Interviewed witnesses attested that Chavez-DeRemer, Han, and Wright, regularly drank alcohol in Chavez-DeRemer's study during official duty hours. Witnesses reported that when other employees attending these meetings declined alcohol, Chavez-DeRemer, Han, and Wright pressured them to participate or ridiculed them for abstaining.

The New York Post, which originally broke the OIG investigation, obtained images of Chavez-DeRemer "sipping drinks poolside at the Las Vegas Red Rocks Casino Resort and Spa during an October 2025 trip with her bodyguard to celebrate her niece’s 40th birthday party."

Here's what's wrong with this picture: the trip took place during the 43-day government shutdown between October 1 through November 12, 2025, when non-essential travel for cabinet and government staff was supposed to be suspended. And it was for a niece's 40th birthday? Incredibly tacky and incredibly stupid.

Eight pages of the report detailed the "inappropriate relationship" Chavez-DeRemer maintained with her Department of Protective Operations (DPO) Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAIC). That security guard, Brian Sloan,

 

described as "ASAIC 1" in the report, resigned. 

Along with eyewitness accounts, the OIG culled text messages, elevator video footage, travel schedules, and keycard information from the Chavez-DeRemer's DC residence and the hotels in which they stayed during travel. The conclusion: "Chavez-DeRemer and ASAIC 1 developed and maintained an inappropriately close and unprofessional relationship while ASAIC 1 actively served on Chavez-DeRemer's protective detail, which appeared to continue even after he was placed on administrative leave and was suspended from his official duties."

The report first detailed how this inappropriate relationship caused tension among the DPO protective detail.

ASAIC 1’s personal relationship with Chavez-DeRemer contributed to a tense and hostile work environment within DPO. Witnesses stated that ASAIC 1 routinely complied with Chavez-DeRemer’s requests, even when those requests deviated from established protective practices. For example, during Chavez-DeRemer’s April 15–20, 2025 personal travel to Oregon, she requested an off-the-record stop at an establishment that was determined upon entry to feature partially nude dancers. ASAIC 1, who served as Detail Leader and ASAIC, complied with Chavez-DeRemer’s request to reassign the limousine driver so he could enter with her. Chavez-DeRemer subsequently took money from her purse, gave the money to the driver, and directed him to give it to the performer. When the agent resisted and sought guidance from ASAIC 1, ASAIC 1 instructed him to comply with Chavez-DeRemer’s requests. Chavez-DeRemer then took additional money from her purse and asked the agent to drop the bills one by one onto the partially nude woman. The agent again hesitated and sought intervention from ASAIC 1, who told him to follow Chavez-DeRemer's instructions. The agent complied against his wishes.

Beyond a lack of professionalism, this is also incredibly stupid behavior.

The report further established:

Multiple witnesses described frequent private and non-operational communications, unusually informal verbal exchanges, and physical familiarity they did not observe between Chavez-DeRemer and other DPO agents. OIG surveillance as well as electronic hotel and residential access records further corroborated the unusually close nature of the relationship. The OIG did not, however, obtain sufficient direct evidence to establish that the relationship was romantic or sexual.

One witness reported they "observed Chavez-DeRemer massaging Sloan’s shoulders while seated behind him in a vehicle during a trip to Michigan, and hearing the bodyman make a comment interpreted as 'sexual innuendo.' She asked whether he was tired, and [Sloan] responded that he was ‘solid as a rock,’ after which both laughed.”

Multiple witnesses also reported that Chavez-DeRemer would coordinate with Wright to exclude agents from her security detail based on certain perceptions. Whether they were “too old, physically unfit, overly rule-bound, or ‘too MAGA.’” This only served to complicate DPO's role to keep her protected. This goes beyond bucking protocol. It represents a stunning lack of judgment which could have cost Chavez-DeRemer's safety, and in this charged political environment, her life.

Here is the problem with this OIG report: because Chavez-DeRemer has already resigned and moved on to her next position where she will no doubt fail forward, the American citizen simply distances him- or herself from this information, discarding it on the trash heap of scandal which defines much of D.C. However, the entirety of Chavez-DeRemer's tortured tenure, from her nomination to her ignominious ending, should be amplified so it can serve as a cautionary tale.  

There are people who should be nowhere near power. There are also people who should NEVER be responsible for dictating policy which affects the lives and livelihoods of others. Dismissing clear failure and elevating incompetence only results in this type of train wreck. The Trump administration dodged a bullet on this one, but should they maintain this precedent, they may pay dearly for it.

 

Blue States Are Shutting Local Police Out of 287(g). Red States Show Why That’s a Mistake.

Back in April, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul described her proposal to ban local law enforcement agencies statewide from participating in the Department of Homeland Security’s 287(g) as “drawing a line in the sand.”

Appearing last Friday on MS NOW’s Morning Joe, Hochul was asked whether she could block local participation in the program. She replied: “I just banned it. It is against the law now in the State of New York to have these agreements.”

The 287(g) program gives trained state and local law enforcement officers authority to perform certain federal immigration enforcement functions under federal supervision. Depending on the agreement, officers can identify immigration violations among people who are already in custody, serve federal administrative warrants, or exercise immigration authority during their regular duties. 

Not everyone in New York agrees with Hochul’s ban.

 

The state ordered 12 local law enforcement agencies to end their 287(g) partnerships by August 25. That same day, 15 county sheriffs filed suit challenging the ban.

Rensselaer County Sheriff Kyle Bourgault, whose office has had a 287(g) agreement since 2018, says the agreement allows deputies to determine whether someone arrested locally is wanted on other charges. “Access to that information is crucial in ensuring criminals and fugitives are brought to justice,” Bourgault said.

His office refused to terminate the agreement, prompting New York Attorney General Letitia James to sue the sheriff’s office.

Governors in other blue states are drawing their own lines in the sand against 287(g), creating friction with local sheriffs who want to keep their partnerships.

Earlier this year, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham

 

signed the Immigrant Safety Act, which “bans the use of state land for immigration detention and prohibits local police from entering into 287(g) federal agreements allowing them to perform immigration duties.”

Two New Mexico counties continued operating their agreements after the law went into effect, prompting the state’s attorney general to sue Curry and Torrance counties and their sheriffs in May.

Curry County Sheriff Michael Brockett 

 

stood by his decision, saying he hoped “logic and reason will prevail” so he could “continue to do everything I can to keep our community safe.”

Maryland shows what happens when the ban goes into full effect. In February, Gov. Wes Moore signed legislation requiring nine participating counties to end their agreements. By May, all nine had stopped participating. Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis called the ban "the biggest betrayal to law enforcement and public safety that I have ever seen.”

These bans do much more than set immigration enforcement policy. They take a public safety tool away from local officers who are on the front lines of protecting their communities. These partnerships make local officers a force multiplier and help close gaps that criminal networks exploit.

On Tuesday, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin

 announced that Operation Rotten Apple, a monthlong ICE operation in New York, resulted in 2,197 illegal aliens arrested, which included “murderers, rapists, pedophiles, drug traffickers, and violent assailants.” Mullin underscored that the operation was conducted with “no help from Mayor Mamdani and Governor Hochul.”

When federal agents are removing public safety threats from New York communities, protecting New Yorkers should come before political restrictions that thwart local officers from helping.

While blue states draw lines against 287(g), red states are crossing them. 

In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 8 last year, requiring most sheriff’s departments to request a 287(g) agreement and enter into one when offered. In just 12 months, Texas increased its agreements from 26 to 254.

Goliad County Sheriff Roy Boyd enforces 287(g) through all three models — Jail Enforcement, Warrant Service Officer, and the recently added Task Force model, which “enhances public safety and national security by allowing designated immigration officers to enforce limited immigration authority while performing routine police duties or as an active participant in an ICE-led task force.”

Boyd called it an extra tool for his deputies, arguing it can help confront cartels as they have a “huge logistical footprint in the United States of America.”

Former Border Patrol agent and Texas Public Policy Foundation senior fellow Ammon Blair testified before Texas lawmakers last year that 287(g) “expands intelligence-sharing mechanisms between state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies” to help “disrupt transnational criminal organizations operating within the state.”

In Florida, all 67 county sheriffs participate in 287(g), and the state has more “deputizations than any other state in the nation.”

Gov. Ron DeSantis pledged that Florida “will continue to use every available resource to identify dangerous individuals, support federal immigration enforcement, and keep our citizens safe.”

Through 287(g) partnerships, Operation Tidal Wave has resulted in more than 10,400 arrests since its launch in April 2025, showing what coordinated local and federal enforcement can achieve.

Collier County Sheriff Kevin Rambosk says his office’s partnership, now in its 17th year, “has resulted in more than 12,000 criminal detainers placed for removal from Collier County.” “When you give that tool to local law enforcement, it works,” he said.

Texas and Florida have taken steps to require 287(g) participation by law, and they should continue building on that framework — protecting these agreements and expanding participation statewide. Other states should follow that lead and ensure their laws do not allow them to become sanctuary jurisdictions.

The contrast could not be clearer.

New York, New Mexico, and Maryland have drawn lines that shut local law enforcement out of 287(g). Texas and Florida are showing what lies on the other side.

Selene Rodriguez is a campaign director for the Secure and Sovereign Nation campaign at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

 

Defending Arizona's Right to Verify Citizenship at the Ballot Box

Only citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections. That should not be a controversial statement — yet the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes makes it harder for Arizona to enforce that basic safeguard. This week, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in this case, urging the Court to reverse a decision that undermines the security and accuracy of Arizona’s voter rolls. Our brief was on behalf of both our supporters and Representative Eli Crane (AZ-2), someone concerned with ensuring federal elections are protected.

At issue is Arizona’s requirement that voters provide documentary proof of citizenship, Voter ID, before registering to vote in elections, along with the state’s process for confirming — and, where necessary, canceling — the registrations of voters who identify themselves as noncitizens. The Ninth Circuit held that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) preempts both requirements. We filed our brief because that ruling strips Arizona of tools it needs to keep its voter rolls accurate, and we’re asking the Supreme Court to reverse it.

Sign our petition: Defend Election Integrity and the Constitution.

Confirming that a voter is actually a citizen before they cast a ballot for president, Voter ID, is not some novel imposition — it is the baseline check that keeps an election trustworthy. The Supreme Court has already recognized that it would raise serious constitutional problems if a federal statute stripped a state of the ability to obtain the information it needs to enforce its own voter qualifications. Arizona is doing exactly that: confirming citizenship before adding a name to the rolls.

The lower courts got it wrong. The NVRA was meant to make voter registration easier while still allowing states to keep their voter rolls accurate and secure. It was not meant to force Arizona to accept registration forms when the state has no reliable way to confirm whether the applicant is eligible. Federal law allows Arizona to ask for the information it needs to make that determination, and there has to be a real conflict between state and federal law before a court can strike down Arizona’s safeguard — not just a preference for a weaker one.

The same is true of Arizona’s process for canceling registrations when voters identify themselves as noncitizens. The NVRA’s “Quiet Period” rule is meant to stop broad, last-minute voter purges in the 90 days before a federal election — the kind of mass removals that can mistakenly take eligible voters off the rolls. Arizona’s law is different. It requires notice, confirmation, and a chance to respond before anyone’s registration is canceled. That is a careful, voter-by-voter process designed to prevent ineligible voting without sweeping eligible voters off the rolls. Courts have repeatedly allowed this kind of individualized review because it protects both election integrity and eligible voters.

That is the balance the NVRA was designed to protect: more eligible citizens registered, and the rolls kept accurate along the way. A ruling that allows the NVRA to block Arizona from verifying citizenship or removing ineligible registrants doesn’t advance that goal — it defeats it.

That is why the ACLJ and Representative Crane filed this brief, and why we will keep defending election integrity before the Supreme Court: Every ballot cast by an ineligible voter cancels out the vote of an eligible one, and the Constitution does not require Arizona to look the other way.

Take action with the ACLJ. Sign our petition: Defend Election Integrity and the Constitution.

 

Citizen journalist Nick Shirley files lawsuit against top Calif. officials, seeking to block Assembly Bill 2624, nicknamed the 'Stop Nick Shirley Act'

Conservative YouTuber and citizen journalist Nick Shirley filed a federal lawsuit against top California officials in Sacramento, seeking to block a controversial law that many have labeled the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”

“It has just begun, this may take months or years but it must be done. The people deserve the right to post whenever they want especially when it’s our tax dollars paying for it,” he said on X.

The legal challenge targets Assembly Bill 2624, a measure signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.)

 

 that expands California’s existing Safe at Home program.

Shirley — represented by San Diego attorney John W. Howard👇

 

 and the conservative legal watchdog group America First Legal — argues that the legislation impermissibly restricts First Amendment rights by exposing independent journalists to civil liability for publishing truthful, publicly sourced information while investigating government-funded immigration support providers.

The legal dispute centers on AB 2624, authored by Democrat Assemblymember Mia Bonta, which allows individuals who provide immigration-related services — ranging from legal counseling and healthcare to translation and referrals — to participate in an “address-confidentiality program.”

Under the statute’s provisions, covered individuals or organizations can issue formal written demands ordering the removal or prohibiting the online distribution of their personal or business information if published with specified intent or without consent.

The lawsuit names California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber👇

 

 as defendants, contending that the law acts as an unconstitutional content- and viewpoint-based restriction that chills legitimate investigative journalism into potential fraud within taxpayer-funded non-profits.

The legislative battle surrounding AB 2624 intensified further after Shirley brought his undercover reporting style to California earlier in the year. Shirley had previously gained national prominence for his successful video investigations into fraud within Somali-run daycare facilities in Minnesota. 

Following his arrival in California to investigate similar state-funded operations, state officials condemned the presence of what they described as “external provocateurs,” culminating in Assemblymember Bonta introducing the privacy measure.

Though left-wing supporters and the bill’s author claim that the measure is intended to “protect service providers from harassment and threats of violence,” Republican state lawmakers quickly rallied behind Shirley, publicly dubbing the legislation the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and joining him in rallies at the state Capitol.

In the federal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Shirley’s legal team asserts that the broad language of the law leaves journalists in an untenable position. The lawsuit also argues that since a simple written demand can trigger legal exposure or civil actions for money damages, reporters are forced to censor their work regarding public oversight.

Additionally, the suit argues that the statute suffers from “constitutional overbreadth, vague standards and ex post facto issues” concerning previously published videos that remain online.

Seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctions, the lawsuit asks the court to strike down provisions of the act before its scheduled operative date, declaring that exposing fraud in public programs is a core democratic function protected by the Constitution.

I'm suing California…

California has decided to push for less transparency and create laws that penalize citizens and journalists for looking into potential fraud inside "immigration support services providers." A written demand is all it takes to stop the publishing of a… pic.twitter.com/nFnfDUff0h

— Nick shirley (@nickshirleyy) September 4, 2026

 

Mistrial Shocker: Justice Denied for Slain Children in Clancy Case

On September 4, 2026, a judge declared a mistrial in the shocking case of Lindsay Clancy after a 12-person jury said it could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether she was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three young children. The outcome leaves many Americans stunned and frustrated, and it exposes how our justice system can stall on the most painful questions when politics and emotion swamp reason.

Records and testimony in the trial make clear that Clancy admitted to strangling her children and then attempting suicide in January 2023, a fact that should not be lost amid debates about legal technicalities and psychiatric labels. The gruesome admissions reported throughout the proceedings demand clarity and accountability — not a rush to recast the perpetrators as the primary victims.

Conservative commentators, including Carl Higbie on his program, were right to call out the reflex among parts of the left-leaning media and activist communities to humanize and defend Clancy rather than center the innocent children who were murdered. Too many in the establishment media are quick to weaponize mental-health narratives to excuse behavior that is beyond the pale, and that trend weakens both justice and public safety.

The trial exposed the wider cultural rot that treats ideology as a substitute for moral clarity: when a society begins to weigh sympathetic narratives over the concrete loss of life, our moral compass is broken. We should insist on rigorous forensic standards and sober legal reasoning, not emotional theater that leaves grieving families without closure.

Legal experts and local authorities now face the practical question of whether the Commonwealth will retry Clancy, or whether prosecutors will step back in the face of a hung jury and procedural pitfalls. The judge has set a follow-up session to sort out the next steps, and taxpayers deserve a transparent accounting of the options and the timeline for resolving this horrific case.

This moment should also be a sober call for reform. We must strengthen support for new parents without allowing that concern to morph into a blanket legal shield for the most extreme crimes. Real compassion means protecting children through prevention and intervention, while ensuring the guilty are not spun into sympathetic causes that excuse monstrous acts.

Americans who are tired of sentimentalism over substance should demand a system that honors victims above narratives. Hardworking families deserve a justice system that is fearless in defending the innocent, clear in its judgments, and uncompromising in its protection of children — not one that elevates the media-friendly story arc over the simple demand for truth and consequence.

 

Heroic Lone Juror Stops Dangerous Legal Precedent in Clancy Trial

One brave juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial stood his ground and, in doing so, denied a dangerous legal precedent that would have shredded the meaning of reasonable doubt in our courts. After seven days of deliberations, the jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared — the foreperson reported that a single juror refused to follow the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt, a decision that stopped a rushed, headline-driven verdict in its tracks.

The courtroom drama was ugly and honest: jurors told the judge one member wouldn’t “listen to the law,” and the judge individually questioned jurors before concluding the panel could not reach unanimity. The defense argued the holdout was biased and asked for removal, while the prosecution and judge faced the wrenching choice between coercing a conviction or preserving the integrity of jury deliberations.

 

Conservatives should cheer when one citizen refuses to bend to mob pressure or media spectacle — our republic depends on jurors who honor the rule of law over the tide of emotion. The defense even sought emergency relief from the state’s high court in a last-ditch attempt to salvage a verdict, but the judge ultimately declared a mistrial and granted a short stay while the parties considered next steps. That push-and-pull underscores how easily legal principles can be trampled unless ordinary Americans stand firm.

Let’s be clear about the stakes: Lindsay Clancy is accused of the unthinkable — the deaths of her three young children — and the trial exposed painful testimony about postpartum mental illness and repeated psychiatric evaluations that divided jurors. This was never an easy case of black-and-white guilt; it was a fraught collision of tragic facts and contested psychiatric defenses, which makes it all the more vital that jurors apply the law, not their sympathies or the rush to public judgment.

Patriotic Americans should applaud that lone juror for protecting the standard of proof that separates a free nation from mob rule. If retrial happens, let it proceed on law and evidence, not on pressure or narratives; and let this moment remind every citizen that jury duty is a sacred check in our constitutional order — a duty that sometimes requires grit, independence, and a willingness to stand alone for justice.

 

CartoonDems