Federal Court allows colleges and universities to directly pay student-athletes

A US federal judge granted approval Friday of a landmark $2.6 billion class action settlement that transforms college athletics by allowing schools to directly pay student-athletes for the first time in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) history, reported Jurist.

In a released statement, NCAA President Charlie Baker said, “This is new terrain for everyone… Opportunities to drive transformative change don’t come often to organizations like ours. It’s important we make the most of this one.”

The settlement resolves antitrust claims brought by  Division I student-athletes in a class action lawsuit challenging NCAA restrictions on Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation and athletic services payments. The case affects over 389,000 class members comprised of current and former student-athletes dating back to 2016.

The settlement creates multiple funds to pay out damages, the majority of which will be paid to class members made up of football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball players. Within each sport, damages will be paid out based on the sport, conference, years played, recruitment ratings, and various performance metrics.

Friday’s settlement also requires the NCAA to enact new rules for student-athlete compensation over the next 10 years. Schools in the NCAA’s five largest (“Power 5”) conferences will supply benefits and direct compensation to student-athletes in amounts worth up to 22% of the average annual athletic revenue for participating schools. Revenue is estimated to be more than $20 million per school in the 2025-26 school year and over $19 billion in total for the 10-year period.

Shortly after Friday’s court ruling, it was announced that former Major League Baseball executive Bryan Seeley had been appointed to run the College Sports Commission, a newly-formed organization that will oversee student-athlete revenue distribution for the Power 5 schools.

The case involves a contentious legal history starting with O’Bannon v. NCAA. The 2015 case established that NCAA amateurism — a doctrine purported to maintain the fundamental character of collegiate sports — did not exempt the NCAA from federal antitrust laws. However, the court still allowed the NCAA to limit student-athlete payments to the full cost of attending college.

In 2019, California approved Senate Bill 206, allowing for student-athletes playing in-state to accept NIL compensation, and several other states passed similar laws the following year. A 2021 Supreme Court ruling further established that the NCAA was violating antitrust regulations by restricting athlete pay. In July 2021, the NCAA adopted an interim policy that allowed student-athletes to receive NIL payments while maintaining amateur eligibility. NIL payments are made by “Collectives” — independent organizations that fundraise money for the universities. 

Friday’s judicial approval came from Senior Judge Claudia Wilken of the US District for the Northern District of California. Wilken is the same judge who originally heard O’Bannon v. NCAA.

To read more CLICK HERE

SCOTUS already capitulated to broad presidential authority on travel bans

President Trump has signed a new travel ban. Travelers from 12 countries will be barred from entering the US, and people from an additional seven countries will face partial travel restrictions, reported NPR.

The proclamation goes into effect June 9 — and fulfills something Trump has long-promised: to bring back the travel ban from his first term.

But that ban was the subject of many legal challenges. Some legal scholars say President Trump has learned a lot since then.

In Trump v. Hawaii, a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court gave broad leeway to presidential authority. The Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban that barred nearly all travelers from five mainly Muslim countries as well as North Korea and Venezuela.

The president's proclamation was "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA," the court wrote in its majority opinion, referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The court acceded broadly to presidential power. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted that the INA exudes deference to the president. The executive order, he wrote, was more detailed than similar orders by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.

Roberts then deferred to the president's power. The only thing a president has to signal is that entry for people from various countries would be detrimental to the interest of the United States. The president undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here, the court noted.

The president, Roberts said, has extraordinary power to express his opinions to the country, as well. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's past campaign and other statements about Muslims should be taken into account, but the majority said it is not the court's role to do that.

The upshot of the court's precedents is clear, he said. The court should not inhibit the president's flexibility in responding to changing world conditions, and any court inquiry into matters of into national security is highly constrained. As long as the president presents an explanation for the travel ban that is "plausibly related" to a legitimate national security objective, Roberts said, he is on firm constitutional ground.

To read more CLICK HERE

Pennsylvania criminalizes poor parenting

Two sets of Pennsylvania parents face felony charges after police say their infants died in unsafe sleep positions, reported Spotlight PA.

While experts and family advocates say young babies should sleep on their backs without anything in the crib, simply failing to follow the recommendations shouldn’t amount to a crime.

In both cases, brought in the past six months, law enforcement say the parents knowingly put their children at risk. Parents from Lebanon County are accused of putting their son to sleep on his stomach with a pillow in the crib (the mother told PennLive she put her son on his back, but that he had learned how to roll over). A mother from Luzerne County, meanwhile, was charged after police say she let her daughter sleep face down in a U-shaped pillow.

Law enforcement argued in charging documents that the parents should have known better. They cited signed acknowledgements created as part of a 2010 law the state legislature passed to educate parents about Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). The law requires hospitals, birthing centers, and health care practitioners to provide educational materials, then ask the parents to certify they received them.

The statement is voluntary, and there is a box noting if parents refused to sign.

The lawmaker who championed the measure, former state Rep. Lawrence Curry (D., Montgomery), died in 2018. News reports from the time say the bill was written with input from two safe-sleep experts with Cribs for Kids, a Pittsburgh-based organization that seeks to prevent sleep-related deaths.

Neither expert was available to comment, but other people dedicated to educating parents and preventing SIDS deaths oppose bringing criminal charges against grieving parents and note that there is no law against stomach sleeping.

“To charge them criminally is a crime, because they have already suffered the worst loss,” said Nancy Maruyama, the executive director of Sudden Infant Death Services of Illinois, a nonprofit organization that educates the public about safe-sleep practices and provides support to families who have experienced the loss of an infant.

“There’s nothing else you could have done to me that would have caused any more pain than the payment I had,” said Maruyama, who lost her son in 1985. “My heart’s broken.”

Safe-sleep experts stressed that these situations are not as cut and dried as a parent should have known better.

They talked about potential contributing factors like the differences in time spent educating parents in the hospital, if someone a parent trusts tells them stomach sleeping is OK, and even images parents see online that show an infant sleeping on their stomach.

The law “says that families have to receive that education, but it doesn’t say how that education is delivered, and it doesn’t state how families’ understanding or learning is evaluated,” said Devon George, chief programs officer at Cribs for Kids. (George was not involved in the drafting of the law.)

In Lebanon County, Gina and David Strause were charged in May with involuntary manslaughter, recklessly endangering another person, and endangering the welfare of children after the death of their son Gavin. Gina Strause told PennLive she put her son on his back, but that he was able to roll over. She told the outlet she did not recall taking home safe-sleep instructions.

In Luzerne County, Natalee Rasmus was charged in December with third-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and endangering the welfare of children after her 1-month-old daughter, Avaya, died.

Officers say they found the baby face down in a bassinet propped up on a U-shaped pillow linked to other infant deaths.

“Yeah, she wouldn’t sleep, she’ll just scream, so she has to be like propped up,” Rasmus, who was 17 at the time her daughter was born, told the investigating officer, according to the documents.

Rasmus’ public defender did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did the district attorneys in Lebanon and Luzerne Counties.

Maruyama said it’s her job to use evidence-based, peer-reviewed information to educate people with a baby about safe-sleep recommendations.

“But, you know, sometimes they’re just so tired and they just want their child to sleep, and they know if they put them on their tummy, they’ll sleep,” she said.

In 1992, the American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended that infants sleep on their backs or sides. Four years later, the organization changed the recommendation to only back sleeping. Since then, SIDS rates have plummeted, although sleep-related deaths remain a leading cause of infant mortality.

That’s what prompted the 2010 law, which directed the Pennsylvania Department of Health to create and recommend safe-sleep materials.

The “information provided to parents must include risk factors associated with sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) and advise them about safe sleep practices,” a department spokesperson told Spotlight PA.

The agency provides a brochure that complies with Act 73 in hard copy and electronic format. That brochure is two pages long and repeats recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics that babies should not sleep with others and should sleep on their backs in an uncluttered crib.

The state also funds PA Safe Sleep, which provides birthing hospitals with services including patient education information and expert training, and safe-sleep education at the county level through children and youth agencies.

George said it’s important to question how hospitals are delivering information and evaluating what parents are learning.

But the most important question about these situations, she said, should be: “How are we helping families? How are we supporting families?”

Of the 343 infant deaths reported in Pennsylvania in 2022 (the most recent year data is available), unsafe sleep factors were present in 68 cases, according to a state report.

While education is crucial to drop the rates of these deaths, it is not enough on its own, said Michael Goodstein, a neonatologist at WellSpan hospital in York County. He is also the director of the county Cribs for Kids program and a member of an American Academy of Pediatrics subcommittee on sudden unexpected infant deaths.

A parent who watches a video with their doctor and gets all their questions on safe sleep answered versus the parent who gets a handout will have a different level of understanding on the topic, Goodstein said.

Like all experts who spoke to Spotlight PA, Goodstein said this is a complex issue that needs more attention, more awareness, and more research.

“It’s really important to follow the safe-sleep recommendations,” Goodstein said. “I’m not going to say it’s easy to do. Babies get fussy and parents are sleep deprived, and at some point, they sometimes do things that might help the baby get back to sleep faster, so that they get some sleep, but in the end, is not a safe thing to do.”

Rare charges

It’s extremely rare for parents to be charged with a crime after their infants die sleeping on their stomachs, said Daniel Nevins, who has over 20 years of experience as a criminal defense attorney.

Nevins said he couldn’t name another case off the top of his head with similar facts.

Spotlight PA identified a handful of criminal cases nationwide related to the deaths of infants sleeping in Boppy pillows, like the one police say Rasmus used. Charges have also been brought against parents who slept in the same bed as their child.

In the recent Pennsylvania cases, Nevins said the burden of proof for prosecutors is high.

To secure a conviction for involuntary manslaughter — which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison — prosecutors will have to prove that the parents acted dangerously or recklessly and that they should have known better.

For third-degree murder — which can be punished with up to 40 years in prison — prosecutors do not have to prove that the death was intentional but do have to demonstrate malice.

“The commonwealth had better think long and hard about whether or not they have enough evidence to pursue these types of charges,” Nevins said.

To read more CLICK HERE

Autocracy 101: Arrest the opposition

Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is launching an investigation into the charges filed against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and the mayor of Newark, N.J., saying the moves appears to violate Justice Department policy, reported The Hill.

McIver was charged last month after a scuffle with Department of Homeland Security officers outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility after they began to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D).

Alina Habba, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey and former personal attorney to President Trump, charged McIver with assaulting law enforcement, saying she used her forearms to push back against agents.

Habba’s office has already moved to dismiss the trespassing charges initially filed against Baraka, earning a reprimand from the judge in the case who cited an “apparent rush in this case, culminating … in the embarrassing retraction of charges.”

“Ms. Habba’s unprecedented charging decision is a blatant attempt to intimidate Members of Congress and to deter us from carrying out our constitutional oversight duties. It appears Ms. Habba brought these charges in violation of long-standing Department of Justice (DOJ) policies designed to prevent exactly this type of politically motivated abuse of prosecutorial power,” Raskin wrote.

Raskin fired off a series of questions about the charges brought against both McIver and Baraka.

That includes whether there was any contact with the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ. 

By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use, have reviewed the Privacy Policy, and to receive personalized offers and communications via email, on-site notifications, and targeted advertising using my email address from The Hill, Nexstar Media Inc., and its affiliates

“DOJ prosecutors must consult with the Public Integrity Section before initiating an investigation of Members of Congress and must seek the Section’s approval before bringing charges. 21 Reports suggest, however, that Ms. Habba did not,” Raskin wrote.  

“The consultation requirement is designed to guard against a rampant Executive Branch weaponizing the vast apparatus of federal law enforcement against the President’s perceived enemies, or even the perception that a DOJ investigation or prosecution was motivated by improper political purpose. The Justice Manual is clear that approval from the Public Integrity Section is required before charging a Member of Congress with a crime based on actions taken in their official capacity.”

The Justice Department said it is considering removing the requirement that prosecutors first consult with the Public Integrity Section.

Raskin asks the DOJ whom Habba consulted before bringing charges, if she coordinated with Trump or any White House staff, and to turn over all communications regarding the charges.

For her part, McIver has denied any wrongdoing and noted she rejected a plea deal from Habba, saying it pushed her to “admit to doing something that I did not do.”

“I came there to do my job and conduct an oversight visit, and they wanted me to say something differently, and I’m not doing that. I’m not going to roll over and stop doing my job because they don’t want me to, or they want to neglect the fact that we needed to be in there to see what was going on and that detention center, and so, absolutely, no, I was not going to do that,” McIver said last month during an appearance on CNN.

To read more CLICK HERE

Creators: The Presidential Pardon as a Tool of Political Repression

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
June 3, 2025

American presidents are empowered by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States." The clemency power can refer to multiple forms of presidential mercy:

• Pardons to forgive past crimes and restore civil rights.
• Commutations completely or partially reduce sentences for people in prison or on community supervision.
• Remissions reduce financial penalties associated with convictions.
• Respites are temporary reprieves usually granted to inmates for medical reasons.

All presidents have exercised their constitutional authority to grant mercy to those serving a sentence or relieving those of the burden of a criminal record.

According to the New York Times, "President Trump is employing the vast power of his office to redefine criminality to suit his needs — using pardons to inoculate criminals he happens to like, downplaying corruption and fraud as crimes, and seeking to stigmatize political opponents by labeling them criminals."

President Donald Trump has used his pardon power, "to assert personal dominance over processes generally, if not always, governed by established ethical and institutional guardrails." He professes to be tough-on-crime, "but has often shown a willingness to do so only when he defines the rules and the laws."

This week, he justified pardoning Scott Jenkins, the former sheriff of Culpeper County, Va., and a political ally sentenced to 10 years for bribery, saying Mr. Jenkins had been "dragged through HELL by a Corrupt and Weaponized" DOJ during the Biden administration. In fact, Mr. Jenkins was convicted after evidence showed that he had taken $75,000 in bribes in exchange for making wealthy business owners auxiliary deputy sheriffs in his department.

Trump's mercy extended to the son of a political fund-raiser who happened to be a confessed tax cheat. Then there is the donor to Trump's 2016 campaign who was convicted of campaign fiance fraud. Trump also pardoned a former Republican congressman from Staten Island who invoked Trump's name in his unsuccessful effort to defend himself against tax charges.

The list goes on, Trump pardoned a Long Island labor leader who failed to report $300,000 in gifts; Todd and Julie Chrisley, the reality TV couple known for "Chrisley Knows Best," after they were found guilty of a $36 million fraud and tax evasion; and the co-founder of Death Row Records, who, according to the Times, had endorsed Trump while serving a hefty sentence for conspiracy to commit murder.

Ed Martin, the former nominee for U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., and current Department of Justice pardon attorney, coined the phrase, "No MAGA left behind." Martin has suggested that the DOJ should investigate Trump's adversaries.

"If they can be charged, we'll charge them," Martin told The New York Times, "But if they can't be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed."

During Trump's first term, he drew criticism for granting clemency to many people who had a "personal or political connection to the president," and he often circumvented the formal process for considering clemency requests, according to analyses by the Lawfare blog. According to The Pew Research, President Joe Biden also circumvented the process at times, including when he pardoned his son, Hunter.

Former President Bill Clinton drew bipartisan condemnation for pardoning a fugitive commodities trader, Marc Rich, on his last day in office in 2001. And Clinton, like Biden, also pardoned a family member. On the same day he pardoned Rich, he pardoned his half-brother Roger Clinton, who had been convicted of selling cocaine, reported Pew.

The most famous act of clemency in U.S. history was the pardon of a former president. On Sept. 8, 1974, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, former President Gerald Ford preemptively pardoned former President Richard Nixon for any federal crimes he "committed or may have committed."

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 visit Creators CLICK HERE

Four executions schedule in four states in next nine days

Four men are set to be executed in four states over the course of four days in the United States next week, according to Newsweek.

The men—Anthony Wainwright in Florida, Gregory Hunt in Alabama, Stephen Stanko in South Carolina, and John Hanson in Oklahoma—are scheduled to be put to death between June 10 and June 13.

The Context

Nineteen men have been executed in the U.S. so far this year. Most have been put to death via lethal injection, but Alabama and Louisiana have carried out executions using nitrogen gas and South Carolina has executed two men by firing squad.

Another 11 have been scheduled for the rest of the year in eight states, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, including Wainright, Hunt, Stanko, and Hanson.

It comes after President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order after returning to office in January to help preserve capital punishment in states that have struggled to maintain supplies of lethal injection drugs. 

Anthony Wainwright

Wainwright, 54, is scheduled for execution by lethal injection at 6 p.m. on June 10.

He was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering Carmen Gayheart in 1994. According to court records, Wainwright and another man, Richard Hamilton, abducted Gayheart from a grocery store parking lot in Lake City, Florida, after escaping a minimum-custody prison in North Carolina. Wainwright admitted he had kidnapped and raped Gayheart but said Hamilton, who died on death row in 2023, was the one who killed her.

Appeals have been filed over the years concerning attorney misconduct, criticism of DNA evidence found at the scene and a letter from Hamilton claiming he was the one who shot Gayheart, but all were denied, according to The Florida Times-Union.

Gregory Hunt

Hunt is scheduled to be executed by nitrogen gas on June 10 for the 1988 beating death of Karen Lane. Prosecutors said Hunt broke into Lane's apartment and killed her.

Alabama last year became the first state to carry out an execution using nitrogen gas amid difficulties obtaining lethal injection drugs. If Hunt's execution goes ahead, it will be the state's fifth execution using the method.

The method involves placing a respirator gas mask over the inmate's face so that they breathe pure nitrogen gas, are deprived of oxygen and die.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has defended the method as "humane and effective," but some witnesses to nitrogen hypoxia executions have described "violent writhing" and other signs of suffering and distress.

 John Hanson

Hanson, 61, is scheduled to receive a lethal injection in Oklahoma on June 12.

He was sentenced to death in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, after being convicted of carjacking, kidnapping and killing Mary Bowles after he and an accomplice, Victor Miller, kidnapped the woman from a Tulsa shopping mall in 1999.

Prosecutors allege they drove Bowles to a gravel pit near Owasso, where Miller shot and killed the property owner, Jerald Thurman. According to prosecutors, they drove Bowles a short distance away, where Hanson shot and killed Bowles. Miller received a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for his role in the crimes.

Hanson had been serving a life sentence in a federal prison in Louisiana for several federal convictions that predate his state death sentence. But he was transferred to Oklahoma custody in March by federal officials acting on President Donald Trump's sweeping executive order to more actively support the death penalty. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentler Drummond and his predecessor have sought Hanson's transfer during former president Joe Biden's administration, but the U.S. Bureau of Prisons had denied it.

Oklahoma's Pardon and Parole Board voted 3-2 to reject clemency for Hanson last month.

Stephen Stanko

Stanko, 57, is scheduled for execution in South Carolina on June 13.

He is being executed for killing his 74-year-old friend Henry Turner. Stanko went to Turner's home in April 2006 after lying about his father dying and then shot Turner twice while using a pillow as a silencer, authorities said.

He is also on death row for killing his girlfriend in her home. He raped the woman's teenage daughter before slashing her throat. She survived and testified against him at one of his trials. Stanko admitted to the killings. His attorneys argue that he was either not guilty by reason of insanity or that he shouldn't get the death penalty because of his mental illness.

Stanko on Friday chose to die by lethal injection. His lawyers said he was troubled by the apparently lingering death of the last person to die by firing squad in the state. He had a choice between the firing squad, lethal injection or the electric chair.

What People Are Saying

Matt Wells, deputy director of Reprieve US, said in a statement to Newsweek: "The message being sent from the top is clear: President Trump wants to see more people being executed, and with most federal death sentences commuted, in the short-term at least that means more executions at the state level.

"States are rushing to resume executions, recklessly disregarding the risk that they will cause extreme pain and suffering."

Wells added: "As states rush to kill, ignoring red flags that their execution protocols are a recipe for torture, there is every danger we'll witness more prisoners dying in agony. Evidence shows that executions scheduled in haste are more likely to go wrong. Speeding up the machinery of death may seem politically expedient in the age of Trump, but in practice, it leads to more slow and painful deaths on the gurney."

Abraham Bonowitz, executive director of Death Penalty Action, told Newsweek that the executions "provide multiple examples of how the death penalty is reserved for the least among us. The common thread among nearly everyone facing execution in the U.S. is present in the four executions set to take place over four days next week - abuse, addiction and neglect at childhood. Mental illness or brain damage is present in three of the four. Two of the men have co-defendants who are the more culpable killers, who are not being executed. Failures of appointed defense attorneys, including missed deadlines or simply a failure to adequately prepare for trial, may well have determined the path that Wainwright and Hunt are on.

"None of this is necessary because just as we do in the vast majority of murder cases, we can be safe from these men and punish them severely by throwing away the key and letting them die of old age in prison."

The Rev. Jeff Hood, who is a spiritual adviser to two of the men scheduled for execution next week, told Newsweek: "I've journeyed with Anthony Wainwright for over three years. He's no monster. He's become my friend. I hope that he will forgive my inaction as I stand in the execution chamber and pray while Florida executes him."

He added that Hunt "should be at the epicenter of any conversation about redemption. He has transformed from brutal murderer into a faithful pastor to his neighbors on death row. It has been my honor to have sat at his feet and learned from his ministry."

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond said in a statement, after the state's pardon and parole board denied clemency for Hanson last month: "The Biden Administration protected this monster from justice for too long. Now is the time for him to atone for the pain and suffering he has wrought. Justice will be delivered when the death penalty is rightly served on June 12."

President Donald Trump's executive order on the death penalty said: "The Government's most solemn responsibility is to protect its citizens from abhorrent acts, and my Administration will not tolerate efforts to stymie and eviscerate the laws that authorize capital punishment against those who commit horrible acts of violence against American citizens."

What's Next

If all four executions go ahead next week, it will bring the total number of executions this year to 23.

Another two executions are scheduled for later in June. Thomas Lee Gudinas has been scheduled for execution in Florida on June 24 and Richard Gerald Jordan is set to be executed in Mississippi on June 25.

To read more CLICK HERE

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