Trump turns on Federalist Society for recommending SCOTUS justices that won't fall in line with administration

The Federalist Society was the force behind Trump’s third of the Supreme Court. Now, MAGA wants to see the group’s demise, reported Politico.

Late Thursday evening, Trump attacked the conservative legal giant and Federalist Society’s former executive vice president Leonard Leo — a key figure in his judicial selections during his first term — calling him a “real ‘sleazebag’” in a Truth Social post. “I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations,” he wrote.

It was a remarkable souring on the nonprofit that supported Trump’s push to install hundreds of judges across the federal judiciary and tilt courts in conservatives’ favor.

But the president’s allies had been sowing discontent with Leo’s operation long before Trump publicly turned on his onetime adviser. Frustration had been growing among Trump and MAGA loyalists as a series of court rulings have hampered elements of Trump’s second term agenda — including by the Supreme Court, appellate courts and district courts — and by judges Trump installed on the bench during his first term with Leo and the Federalist Society’s guidance.

Now conflict is openly breaking out among the constellation of conservative judicial leaders that used to operate alongside one another.

“Nobody knew who Leonard Leo was before President Trump gave him a key role picking judges,” Mike Davis, a key Trump ally on judicial nominations who now runs the conservative advocacy group the Article III Project, said in an interview. “Leonard Leo took too much credit from President Trump and he got filthy rich then he abandoned President Trump, especially during the lawfare against Trump.”

On Friday, conservative activist Laura Loomer posted on X that she’s been warning for weeks that anyone from the Federalist Society shouldn’t be in Trump’s inner circle, arguing that the organization has sought to undermine him.

The Federalist Society did not respond to a request for comment. On Thursday, Leo said in a statement, “I’m very grateful for President Trump transforming the Federal Courts, and it was a privilege being involved. There’s more work to be done, for sure, but the Federal Judiciary is better than it’s ever been in modern history, and that will be President Trump’s most important legacy.”

Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that Trump’s judicial picks are “America First judges” who respect the President’s authority as opposed to “unelected politicians in robes.”

Founded in 1982 during Ronald Reagan’s first term, the Federalist Society has long been the preeminent conservative legal organization in the country. Members of the society can be found at all levels of government and the group has been widely credited with helping Republican lawmakers install conservative-minded jurists across the federal judiciary.

Leo and the Federalist Society have been boxed out of the judicial nomination process as the second Trump White House has begun to name jurists for vacancies. But the Federalist Society had already been making moves in anticipation of some tension with Trump, given his recent rhetoric on the judiciary, said one person in conservative legal circles granted anonymity because of the sensitive dynamics.

Whereas the former leadership was averse to involving the organization in politics, the new CEO Sheldon Gilbert has realized that the Federalist Society cannot be on the wrong side of a Republican White House and has been strengthening his connections around the administration, the person said.

Separate from his work with the Federalist Society, Leo also chairs conservative public relations firm CRC Advisors. CRC touts close ties to Trump — the firm’s clients are involved in White House policy discussions and several of the firm’s employees have left in recent months to join the administration with Leo’s “blessing and support,” said a person familiar with Leo’s operation, granted anonymity to discuss private dynamics.

Yet Davis, who says he advises the White House on judicial nominations, contended that Leo and his allies have sought to undercut Trump. He pointed to the recent nomination of Emil Bove, a top Justice Department aide, to sit on the Third Circuit as a flashpoint in the MAGA judicial wars.

The nomination has divided conservative legal circles between those cheering the potential elevation of Trump’s fiercest enforcer at the Justice Department and those concerned that the nomination forecasts Trump’s intent to nominate judges loyal to him during his second term. Prominent conservative legal commentator Ed Whelan, who has spoken at more than 200 Federalist Society events by his own count, vocally opposed Bove’s nomination, prompting social media pushback from administration officials and Davis allies.

 The groups that used to all share the same goal in Trump’s first term — getting conservative jurists on the bench — are now riven by the split that Trump widened even further with his Thursday comments.

“There’s a lot of people who voted for this president and followed him because they felt they could finally have judges who would read words and not make up what those words meant,” said John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel at New Civil Liberties Alliance and longtime member of the Federalist Society. “And those people are on his side all this time, and they are often a useful resource, and why chase them away? Makes no sense to me.”

The New Civil Liberties Alliance is a libertarian non-profit that has challenged the president’s tariffs in court. The organization has taken funding from groups linked to Leo in the past, but Vecchione denies Leo having any involvement in the group’s tariff lawsuit.

For Trump’s allies, the Federalist Society now represents the old guard that “hide[s] behind a philosophy” instead of supporting the Republican cause, said one conservative consultant, who was granted anonymity in order to speak freely about dynamics in the Republican legal world. They want more people like Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and fewer people like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the person said.

Barrett, whom Trump nominated in 2020 to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has come under fire among the President’s allies in recent months after she sided with the court’s liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts in rebuffing a bid by the Trump administration to quickly block a court order requiring the administration to pay out $2 billion for past foreign aid work.

Barrett again faced a barrage of attacks when she joined the court’s Democratic appointees in dissenting from a decision that complicated efforts to mount a broad legal challenge to Trump’s bid to deport Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act. Her reputation among Trump’s allies has transformed from being known as a bonafide conservative to a so-called member of the liberal resistance to the president.

“They don’t want someone who’s just going to be like, ‘We’re going to follow the law and do the originalistic thing, and whatever the result is, so may be it,’” said the consultant. “They want someone [who] can figure out how to get the result that they want.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Oklahoma enacts unconstitutional law imposing death penalty for sex offense against a child

People convicted of sex offenses against children can be sentenced to death or life without parole on their first offense under a new law signed by Gov. Kevin Stitt, according to the Oklahoma Voice.  The U.S. Supreme Court has unequivocally determined that the death penalty may apply only in cases where the life of the victim has been taken. In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for the rape of a child when the victim did not die and the crime was not intended to cause death. 

Senate Bill 599, authored by Sen. Warren Hamilton, R-McCurtain, allows prosecutors to pursue the death penalty for the rape of a child under 14 for first-time offenders. Under existing law, the offender must have been previously convicted of the sex crime to be eligible for the death penalty. 

For lewd molestation against a child under the age of 12, an offender can receive the death penalty, a sentence of at least 10 years or life or life without parole. The law currently requires a sentence of at least 25 years of incarceration.  

“Oklahoma is sending a clear and unequivocal message, crimes against our most vulnerable citizens, our children, will be met with the harshest consequences,” Hamilton said in a statement.

The Oklahoma District Attorney’s Council was involved in the crafting of this legislation and made recommendations to shape its language, he said. Prosecutors will continue to have discretion about which sentence to seek.

Hamilton said this law makes Oklahoma one of the states with the toughest penalties for child sex offenses.

“I deeply appreciate Gov. Stitt for signing this crucial legislation,” he said. “His action reaffirms our state’s commitment to justice and to protecting children from predators who, frankly, don’t deserve a second chance.”

The legislation passed through the Legislature with the only “no” votes coming from some House and Senate Democrats. 

The new law takes effect Nov. 1.

To read more CLICK HERE

DOE sues New York for allegedly violating civil rights law with Native American mascot ban

The US Department of Education (DOE) announced Friday that New York state has violated federal civil rights law by banning Native American school mascots while permitting mascots derived from other ethnic groups, reported Jurist. This comes after the DOE launched an investigation into the state’s mascot controversy last month.

The investigation was launched after The Native American Guardians Association (NAGA) filed a complaint with the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), alleging that the New York Department of Education (NYDOE) and the New York Board of Regents (BOR) are violating federal civil rights law by forcing the Massapequa School District to eliminate its “Chiefs” mascot based on its association with Native American culture. In 2023 the BOR voted unanimously to adopt a NYDOE regulation that prohibits the use of Indigenous team names, mascots, and logos by public schools. Four Long Island school districts filed a federal lawsuit challenging the regulation, claiming that it violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal district court judge in March, finding that the school districts did not provide enough evidence that the policy infringed on First Amendment rights.

In its subsequent investigation, the OCR concluded that New York’s policy was in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it bans names, mascots, and logos based on Native American race and national origin, but does not ban those “that appear to have been derived from other racial or ethnic groups, such as the ‘Dutchmen’ and the ‘Huguenots.'” Title VI prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin” in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon stated in Friday’s press release:

Rather than focus on learning outcomes, the New York Department of Education and Board of Regents has set its sights on erasing Massapequa’s history—while turning a blind eye to other districts’ mascots that are derived from or connected to other racial or ethnic groups. We will stand with the people of Massapequa until commonsense is restored and justice is served, and until New York comes into compliance with federal law.

The OCR states that New York must rescind the regulation prohibiting the use of Indigenous mascots. The OCR also demands that the state issue letters of apology to Indigenous tribes which acknowledge the BOR “violated Title VI by discriminating against Native Americans” and “silenced the voices of Native Americans and attempted to erase Native American history.” If these conditions are not met within ten days, the DOE notes that it may refer the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for enforcement proceedings, and federal funding may be pulled from the state.

This comes amidst a spate of legal actions surround the DOE. Last month, a federal judge in New Hampshire granted a preliminary injunction that blocks the DOE from withholding federal funding from schools that implement diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In March, a coalition of Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for sweeping layoffs across the DOE, stating that the layoffs represent an illegal dismantling of an agency created by Congress. Executive Order 14242, signed March 20, outlines President Donald Trump’s intention to close the DOE.

To read more CLICK HERE