The Supreme Court has allowed a universal injunction to remain in place that limits the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure federal ballot mail. Constitutional scholar John Eastman’s fight against lawfare goes to the Supreme Court. Philadelphia District Attorney Lawrence Krasner has been referred for a federal criminal investigation after his alleged efforts to deceive a federal court. And we review a rogue FBI agent’s desire to investigate Elon Musk, the impounding of the names of the Lindsay Clancy jurors, and a federal judge rejecting decisions by the Kennedy Center to honor President Trump.
The Supreme Court enjoins federal ballot mail security - for now
On Monday, September 14, the Supreme Court left in place a district court’s universal injunction that prevents the Postal Service from implementing rules concerning the security of election ballot mail. These rules required federal ballot mail to have “an election-mail logo, the ability to be scanned using high-speed processing equipment, and a specialized barcode unique to each voter.” States were required to design envelopes that conformed to these rules.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Government was “unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” to the injunction, and that the “equitable factors” do not favor a stay of the injunction pending the ongoing litigation concerning the new rules.
Justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of the Government’s application for a stay. In Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion, he observed that the Government was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal because the Postal Service “has broad authority to regulate the mail” and did not act contrary to the law. Justice Alito also noted that the equitable factors favored a stay because the reversal of the injunction, if that were to occur, would come after the 2026 midterms. This would deal a “serious setback to the Executive’s goals while this litigation unfolds.”
It should be noted that the Supreme Court’s refusal to stay the injunction is not a ruling on the merits. This only upholds the pause of the Postal Service rule as the case continues through the courts. We expect this matter will eventually reach the Supreme Court for a ruling on the legality of the Postal Service Rule – hopefully before the 2028 presidential election.
John Eastman’s fight goes to the Supreme Court
On Friday, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to review the case of attorney and constitutional scholar Dr. John Eastman, who was disbarred in California “for speech and advocacy undertaken during his representation of President Donald J. Trump in connection with the 2020 presidential election.”
Dr. Eastman, like many others who were part of the Trump Administration or who challenged the 2020 presidential election, has endured years of lawfare brought by far-left groups. He was disciplined by California “for speech at the core of the First Amendment: legal advice, constitutional advocacy, public commentary, and petitioning directed to government officials on matters of extraordinary concern.”
As the petition makes clear, California’s disbarment of Dr. Eastman is contrary to the First Amendment and the California tribunal failed to apply the proper legal standard to Dr. Eastman’s statements. This action not only violates Dr. Eastman’s First Amendment rights, but it threatens “the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.” We hope and pray the Supreme Court has the courage to consider Dr. Eastman’s case.
George Soros-backed Philadelphia DA referred for criminal investigation
A Pennsylvania federal judge has disqualified – and referred for criminal investigation – Philadelphia District Attorney Lawrence Krasner and two of his assistants relating to their efforts in a federal court to free Dennis Johnson, who was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, and a firearm offense in 2009.
After Johnson unsuccessfully appealed his conviction in the Pennsylvania courts, he filed a petition for habeas corpus (seeking review of the legality of his incarceration) in federal court. During those proceedings, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office conceded that Johnson was entitled to habeas corpus relief.
In their briefings to the federal court concerning the habeas corpus matter, the District Attorney’s Office made a number of “purposefully” false statements and tried to shift the blame for those false statements on another lawyer within the Office. Furthermore, the federal judge concluded that District Attorney Krasner and others within his Office: (1) threatened staff if they informed the federal court of conflict issues in the case; (2) provide false testimony to the federal court and urged others to lie to the federal court; and (3) engaged in a potential criminal conspiracy to convince others to “urge the Court to accept a false narrative.”
As the court explained, the evidence shows the conduct of the District Attorney and those within his Office “may constitute false statements, false declarations made under oath, perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy.” Not only were District Attorney Krasner and his Assistant disqualified from the Johnson habeas corpus matter, but they were referred “to this District’s United States Attorney’s Office for investigation and other appropriate action.” The court’s memorandum on this matter is damning – read it here.
In other news:
Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley released unclassified emails showing an FBI agent sought to open a criminal investigation into Elon Musk relating to his work with DOGE and his use of Twitter (now X) to communicate “official” information. This FBI agent has since been terminated from the FBI.
A Massachusetts judge has impounded the names of the jurors in the Lindsay Clancy case, concluding “threats and concerns over juror safety.” This order follows the reporting of NBC10 in Boston, which published background information on the lone holdout juror that included a prior criminal charge and a prior restraining order. As a result of their reporting, this juror – who attempted to remain anonymous – was quickly identified and his family has been “relentlessly hounded by true-crime gawkers and reporters.”
Federal Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, has ruled that the Kennedy Center’s Board of Trustees cannot inscribe on the Kennedy Center that President Donald J. Trump was part of the restoration effort of the building. He concluded that this recognition of President Trump’s contributions cannot be done “without Congress’s blessing.”
