In a troubling development, a terrorist front group that has gained tremendous influence by suing and lobbying to embed Islam in American public institutions has succeeded in getting the nation’s federal prison system to submit to Islamic law. The case involves the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a radical Muslim charity that was named as a co-conspirator in a federal terror-finance case involving the Hamas front group Holy Land Foundation. CAIR was founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, known then as the Islamic Association for Palestine. For years CAIR has used the U.S. legal system and widespread pressure campaigns to influence various areas of American public life, most recently by strong-arming Maryland’s largest taxpayer-funded school district to give students the day off in observance of a Muslim religious holiday known as Eid al-Fitr.

Now the extremist group that claims to advance Muslim civil rights is celebrating a huge legal victory that will impact a central component of the U.S. criminal justice system, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FOB). The agency with over 33,000 employees oversees the custody of some 154,000 federal inmates throughout the country. The FOB as well as the state prison system bans hats and other head covers for security and safety reasons. A few years ago, a Somali Muslim woman, Muna Jama, was required to remove her hijab—a head scarf used as a symbol of modesty in the Islamic dress code—during booking and official prison identification photos were taken. Jama was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in federal prison for conspiracy to provide material support to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab, which has strong ties to al-Qaeda. Jama helped operate an online network that raised and disbursed money to al-Shabaab for jihadists plots, military operations and safehouses.

CAIR sued the BOP on the terrorist’s behalf, asserting that the prison system’s policy is unconstitutional and violates her religious rights. Forcing the convicted extremist to remove her hijab, photographing her uncovered and requiring her to carry that uncovered photo on an ID she must present throughout the prison everyday is a violation of federal law, according to the complaint. Jama’s faith requires her to always wear a hijab when she is in mixed-gender spaces outside of her immediate family, the court document states, adding that her religious beliefs are deeply rooted in Islamic texts and teachings. “Her hijab is a pillar of her religious practice and integral to her identity as a Muslim woman,” CAIR’s lawsuit reads. Appearing in public or being photographed without the and having that photo accessible to strangers is a serious breach of Jama’s faith and deeply humiliating, the group states. As a result, the convicted terrorist “has sustained damages, and has suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment,” according to the complaint.

A Biden-appointed federal judge in Minnesota, Jeffrey M. Bryan, agreed and recently issued an order affirming the rights of incarcerated Muslim women to wear a hijab despite established security protocols banning all head covers. The judge also directs the FOB to destroy all of Jama’s booking photographs without her hijab, writing that “the retention of Jama’s uncovered photo further substantially burdens Jama’s religious exercise because the photo’s mere existence means a non-familial male could potentially view the photo, thereby violating Jama’s religious beliefs.” The case is the latest of many in which CAIR has altered the way American law enforcement agencies do their job. Years ago, an Atlanta jail caved into CAIR’s demand that Muslim inmates be allowed to wear hijabs. Under Obama CAIR got the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to purge anti-terrorism training curricula of material coined “offensive” to Muslims, a scandal uncovered by Judicial Watch and documented in an in-depth report. The terror front group also got several local police departments and the U.S. military to eliminate anti-terrorism training materials and instructors deemed anti-Muslim. At CAIR’s request, Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, actually ordered the U.S. military to “scour its training material to ensure it doesn’t contain anti-Islamic content.”

The post Biden Judge Rules Muslim Terrorist Has Religious Right to Keep Hijab in Federal Prison appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the Arizona Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s decision that allowed Arizona State Attorney General Kris Mayes to hide documents about its anti-Trump legal actions with a controversial outside left-wing group. The decision cited failures by the Mayes’ office to both properly search for and justify the secrecy of records concerning its coordination with States United Democracy Center. 

A spokesman for Mayes told a media outlet the office would not appeal the ruling.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in February 2025 in Maricopa County Superior Court after the attorney general’s office failed to comply with a public records request seeking records about its dealings with the States United Democracy Center and the Voter Protection Program (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Mayes (CV 2025-005732)). The request included records concerning discussions about investigating electors or challenging the 2020 election involving Donald Trump.

The attorney general’s office produced only limited records in December 2024. It withheld additional documents, citing attorney-client and work-product privilege—but provided no explanations for the withholdings as required under Arizona law.

In its opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with Judicial Watch about the withholdings and the failure of the lower court to consider Judicial Watch’s arguments:

At a status conference in May 2025, Judicial Watch asked the trial court to require the attorney general’s office to provide additional information regarding the assertedly privileged documents. The court declined to do so. It apparently concluded that the office had provided a sufficient index identifying those documents. 

***

 As noted, the attorney general’s office supplied Judicial Watch with an index of assertedly privileged documents that were otherwise responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. The index contained two entries. Those entries referred collectively to twenty-one emails and twenty-nine attachments that the office had withheld.

*** 

Here, the index provided by the attorney general’s office supplies no context about the withheld emails that would allow a court or any other party to determine if a privilege applies. The index therefore falls short … It follows that the office has not made a prima facie showing of privilege.… (existence of attorney-client relationship required to show privilege). We thus agree with Judicial Watch that the privilege log’s insufficiency prevented the trial court from adequately scrutinizing the office’s privilege assertions.

***

Judicial Watch additionally argues that the trial court erred by not analyzing whether the attorney general’s office properly redacted the names of States United employees “principally responsible for the engagement” from the engagement letter. The unredacted portions of the letter do not provide any context as to these employees’ roles within States United. Even assuming that they were attorneys and the office had validly claimed privilege, an attorney’s identity generally falls outside the privilege’s protections…. And, to the extent the office might have some valid basis for the redaction, neither the index nor the context of the letter itself supplies it.

***

We therefore conclude that the attorney general’s office has not met its burden of showing that it adequately searched its records … The office was not entitled to disregard Judicial Watch’s unambiguous records request in favor of its own, narrower interpretation.

***

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

(A November 2024 report revealed correspondence between the Arizona attorney general’s office and the nonprofit States United Democracy Center in the lead-up to the state’s prosecution tied to Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign.) 

“Judicial Watch is excited that the court has slapped back the unlawful secrecy about anti-Trump lawfare abuse by Arizona’s AG Kris Mayes,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We are pushing hard in court for full disclosure about the details of what looks to be a conspiracy by the AG’s office to punish Trump supporters for exercising their fundamental rights.”  

In November 2026, Judicial Watch received records from the Michigan Department of Attorney General in a Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that show the state’s coordination with the nonprofit States United Democracy Center, which pushed indictments of President Donald Trump’s supporters, lawyers, activists, and Republican Party officials who disputed the 2020 election. Indictments of Trump alternative electors by Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel were thrown out by a judge earlier this year. The documents suggest a broad conspiracy by several states to prosecute Americans over 2020 election disputes.

In April 2026, Judicial Watch received records from the State of Nevada Office of Attorney General in a Nevada Public Records Act lawsuit that show the state’s close coordination with States United Democracy Center.

Judicial Watch continues to work to obtain records from Wisconsin.

Attorney David J. Hoffa assisted Judicial Watch in this case.

###

The post Judicial Watch Victory: Arizona Appeals Court Rules State AG Kris Mayes’ Office Failed to Follow Law in Public Records Lawsuit appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Supreme Court Blocks Race-Based Gerrymandering
Court Victory: D.C. Blocked from Hiding January 6 Bodycam Footage
Oregon Settlement Targets 800,000 Ineligible Voter Registrations
Nevada Attorney General Coordinated with Leftists on Election Issues
Judicial Watch Sues for Records on Trump Golf Club Security Breach

Supreme Court Blocks Race-Based Gerrymandering

Big news out of the courts this week—U.S. Supreme Court has issued a major 6-3 decision that could reshape how congressional districts are drawn across the country.

This is a great decision for democracy. It affirms that the U.S. Constitution requires the government to be colorblind in its decision making. The decision effectively ends the egregious racial segregation of voters. We are prepared to enforce this decision and end any racial gerrymandering that treats voters as cogs in a racial spoils system.

Most Americans would agree with the court’s conclusion that “allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.”

In January 2025, Judicial Watch and AEF filed an initial amici brief (friends of the court) in this case, asking the court to affirm a lower court ruling that Louisiana violated the constitution when it crowded minority voters into congressional districts. Judicial Watch and AEF filed a supplemental amici curiae brief in September 2025.

We argued:

This Court has compared race-based districting to segregation of “public parks, … buses, … and schools,” and warned that we “should not be carving electorates into racial blocs.” … That is because “[c]lassifications of citizens solely on the basis of race ‘are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.’” … Racial gerrymandering, like all “[r]acial classifications of any sort” cause “lasting harm to our society” because “[t]hey reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin.” …

There should be no question that race-based division of citizens for purposes of compliance with § 2 and Ginglesis a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the “central purpose” of which “is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race.”… The same may be said of the Voting Rights Act.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas agreed, denouncing the practice where:

“Blacks [were] drawn into ‘black districts’ and given ‘black representatives’; Hispanics [were] drawn into Hispanic districts and given ‘Hispanic representatives’; and so on.” . . . That interpretation is “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.” . . . Today’s decision should largely put an end to this “disastrous misadventure” in voting-rights jurisprudence.

AEF is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation has engaged in a number of projects, which include, but are not limited to, educational and health conferences domestically and abroad. AEF has partnered frequently with Judicial Watch to fight government and judicial corruption and to promote a return to ethics and morality in the nation’s public life.

We are  a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide.

We pointed out earlier this year that Maryland’s Democrat-proposed 2026 congressional redistricting plan is in key respects identical to the unconstitutional gerrymander struck down in a prior Judicial Watch lawsuit—but is even more partisan and less compact than the invalidated 2021 map.

Our lawsuits and legal actions have caused the removal of six million ineligible names from voter lists nationwide.

In March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held oral argument in a landmark election integrity case over whether the federal Election Day laws prohibit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. We brought the underlying lawsuit on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.

In January 2026, in a historic case we filed, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

Court Victory: D.C. Blocked from Hiding January 6 Bodycam Footage

In a major victory for Judicial Watch and the rule of law, a Washington, D.C. court ruled that Washington D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) cannot broadly blur and censor body-worn camera (BWC) footage from January 6, 2021.

The MPD had previously claimed that such redactions were necessary to protect personal privacy and asserted that complying with the request would cost more than $1.5 million due to the volume of footage, which reportedly exceeds one thousand hours.

The ruling follows a January 8, 2026, hearing before Judge Veronica Sanchez in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for all bodycam footage recorded by Metropolitan Police officers who responded to the U.S. Capitol on January 6 (Judicial Watch v. District of Columbia (No. 2024-CAB-003453)).

In its order, the court rejected the District’s argument that it could justify redacting, under D.C. FOIA exemptions, the faces and voices of all non-law enforcement individuals captured in the footage.

The court found that while individuals appearing in the footage may have a limited privacy interest, that interest is minimal and does not outweigh the strong public interest in disclosure. The court emphasized that the events of January 6 occurred largely in public settings, were widely recorded, and remain a matter of significant national concern.

Concerning the individuals’ privacy interests, the court explained that the individuals present could not reasonably expect that their appearances would remain private:

The circumstances leading up to the events at the U.S. Capitol Complex included a large, public, televised event on the National Mall. Individuals were gathered in a public arena. The crowd then marched to the U.S. Capitol Complex where members of congress were partaking in the certification of the Presidential election results live on television.

***

The individuals on the [body-worn cameras] could not “reasonably expect that their appearances on the [BWC] would remain private.” … A person’s privacy interest is greater in the release of images and video footage that were taken without their “knowing consent.” … Even though the individuals recorded on the subject BWCs may not have consented to their images being recorded, they certainly had reason to believe that the many law enforcement officers, as well as the surveillance cameras at the government owned property, were recording them. Additionally, during the events of January 6, simultaneous media images from both inside the U.S. Capitol and around the U.S. Capitol Complex were being broadcast, streamed, and uploaded. While the individuals may have not all “knowingly consented” to the images being recorded, they had reason to know they were.

Concerning the public interest, the court stated:

The events of January 6, 2021, have been the topic of much debate, discussion, and scrutiny in the public consciousness by not just the residents of the District of Columbia but also the nation. BWC footage of the events at the Capitol on January 6 could “contribute significantly” to the public’s understanding of the events on that day and the MPD’s actions.

The court concluded, “In balancing the privacy interests which are little more than de minimis with the public interest, the public interest outweighs the privacy interests. … [T]he faces and voices of individuals captured by MPD’s BWCs on January 6, 2021, are not exempt from disclosure.”

This a major victory for transparency and the rule of law. As the court found, the American people have a right to see this secret D.C. police January 6 footage. We will now push for the immediate release of the videos.

We have extensively investigated the events of January 6.

In April 2026, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to obtain records related to possible improper targeting of January 6, 2021, Capitol protesters, their supporters, and related nonprofits

In August 2025, we announced that the U.S. Air Force would finally provide full military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt, the Air Force veteran who was shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021. Babbitt was the only official January 6 homicide victim. The Biden administration had previously denied Babbitt and her family these honors in retaliation for being at the U.S. Capitol that day. This decision came on the heels of a massive, nearly $5 million Trump administration settlement to her family for wrongful death and other claims against the U.S. Government.

In July 2025, we sued the U.S. Department of Justice for records on accelerated January 6 prosecutions after Donald Trump was elected president in November 2024. The Biden administration, anticipating President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to issue pardons for January 6, 2021, defendants, is believed to have accelerated prosecutions in the final months of Biden’s term.

In March 2024, we received Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) records from the Department of Justice in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that show the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) deployed personnel to Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021.

In October 2023, we received the declaration of James W. Joyce, senior counsel in the Office of the General Counsel for the Capitol Police, in which he describes emails among senior officials of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) in January 2021 that show warnings of possible January 6 protests that could lead to serious disruptions at the U.S. Capitol.

Oregon Settlement Targets 800,000 Ineligible Voter Registrations

Election victory in Oregon! We have a settlement in our federal lawsuit against Oregon election officials, which confirms 800,000 ineligible voter names are slated for review and removal from voter registration lists. The settlement requires state officials to produce detailed data and enforce federal voter roll clean-up procedures under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

We filed the lawsuit in October 2024, alleging Oregon failed to remove ineligible voters and seeking to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA after identifying widespread voter roll maintenance failures across dozens of counties (Judicial Watch, et al. v. The State of Oregon et al. (No. 6:24-cv-01783)).

In our complaint, we argued that Oregon’s voter rolls contain large numbers of old, inactive registrations; and that 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by federal election law. We asserted that Oregon and 35 of its counties had overall registration rates exceeding 100%; and that Oregon had the highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation. In combination, all of these facts showed that Oregon was failing to remove inactive registrations as required by federal law.

In August 2025, a federal court in Oregon denied a motion to dismiss by Oregon and ruled the lawsuit could proceed.

In response to the lawsuit, Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read announced earlier this year that Oregon has about 800,000 inactive registrations, which are kept separately from the active voter rolls and do not receive ballots. Of those, roughly 160,000 already meet federal and state criteria for removal—having received confirmation notices, failed to respond, and not voted in two federal elections—and are slated for cancellation. The remaining approximately 640,000 inactive records do not yet qualify for removal and will be processed through future list maintenance efforts.

In its press release, Oregon acknowledged that routine removal of outdated records effectively stalled in 2017, leaving a large pool of long-dormant registrations on the rolls without being fully processed for removal. The scale of the backlog underscores a gap in routine list maintenance that is only now being addressed. “These directives are about cleaning up old data that’s no longer in use so Oregonians can be confident that our voter records are up to date,” said Read.

This is another historic election integrity success. Our lawsuit caused Oregon to finally cleanup 800,000 outdated voter names, adding to the more than six million ineligible voters removed by Judicial Watch lawsuits and legal action nationwide. Dirty voter rolls can mean dirty elections. Oregon’s Secretary of State, Tobias Read, is to be commended for responding to our lawsuit with a massive voter roll clean-up and commitment to continued voter list maintenance, which will only increase voter confidence.”

Our lawsuits and legal actions have caused the removal of six million ineligible names from voter lists nationwide.

Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), states must take reasonable steps to remove ineligible voters—such as those who have died, moved, or become otherwise inactive.

The settlement with Oregon remains in effect for more than five years, with a federal court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms. While the settlement resolves the litigation, it explicitly allows future legal action if Oregon fails to comply with voter list clean-up requirements going forward.

The settlement requires Oregon to open its voter roll maintenance processes to unprecedented scrutiny. State officials must now regularly provide detailed, county-level data on voter registrations, removals, confirmation notices, and inactive voters—including those eligible for removal under federal law. This includes data reported to the Election Assistance Commission, as well as additional datasets that will allow ongoing monitoring of compliance. The agreement ensures that this information will not be hidden behind bureaucratic barriers, requiring timely disclosure and identification of data sources.

Oregon will also provide annual reports on inactive voters and those eligible for removal under federal law, as well as provide free access to the state’s voter registration list upon request to Judicial Watch.

Oregon committed to implementing Read’s new list maintenance directives, which were issued in response to our lawsuit.

The agreement also gives us the authority to request detailed records and monitor Oregon’s compliance, including documentation related to county performance and voter list maintenance procedures.

We are a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads our election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

We are assisted by Stephen Joncus of Joncus Law PC in Happy Valley, Oregon.

Colorado recently removed 372,000 ineligible voter names thanks to a Judicial Watch lawsuit and settlement addressing the state’s compliance with federal voter list maintenance requirements.

In Kentucky, state election board officials reported that “roughly 735,000 ineligible voter registrations” have been removed from voter rolls, as part of a 2018 consent decree settling a Judicial Watch lawsuit.

As part of its 2022 settlement, New York City alone has removed 918,139 ineligible names from its rolls: data show 477,056 removals between March 2023 and February 2025, which is in addition to the 441,083 previously reported removals.

In Los Angeles, county officials confirmed the removal of more than 1.2 million names from voter rolls as part of a settlement. Judicial Watch legal pressure also resulted in election roll clean-ups in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio.

A federal court in Illinois has ruled that our lawsuit to force the cleaning of voter rolls may proceed in that state. We have sent a notice-of-violation letter to election officials in California, and legal action over the state’s voter rolls is imminent.

In March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held oral argument in a landmark election integrity case over whether the federal Election Day laws prohibit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. We brought the underlying lawsuit on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.

In January 2026, in a historic case we  filed, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

Nevada Attorney General Coordinated with Leftists on Election Issues

Judicial Watch received 238 pages of records from the State of Nevada Office of Attorney General in a Nevada Public Records Act lawsuit that show the state’s close coordination with the nonprofit States United Democracy Center, which has pushed indictments of President Donald Trump’s supporters, lawyers, activists, and Republican Party officials who challenged the results of the 2020 election.

We sued the state of Nevada attorney general’s office after it failed to respond to a February 2025 records request for documents and communications involving the States United Democracy Center (SUDC) and the Voter Protection Project (VPP) (Judicial Watch Inc. v. State of Nevada ex. rel. Office of the Attorney General (No. A-26-941044)).

The States United Democracy Center was accused of helping to develop legal theories and materials related to the prosecution of alternate slates of Republican electors in the 2020 election. The Voter Protection Project is a left-wing political action committee that donates to far-left candidates who support eliminating many U.S. election security laws.

The records include a January 2021 internal email from States United Democracy Center’s Fiona Dwyer-McNultyreferencing a one-hour “AG Briefing” featuring outside participants, including Mary McCord; representatives from 21CP Solutions; Jared Holt of DFR Labs; Shannon Hiller of the Bridging Divides Initiative; and Norman Eisen.

In an April 15, 2021, email chain labeled “Bipartisan Sign-on Letter re Corporate Leadership,” Joanna Lydgate, president and CEO of Voter Protection Program/States United Democracy Center, writes to Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford:

As you know, I’m the CEO of the Voter Protection Program … As of Monday, VPP will become a project of our new umbrella 501(c)(3) organization, the States United Democracy Center, but our mission will remain the same. We are looking forward to continuing our work with you under our new name.

One of the first projects of the States United Democracy Center is organizing an open letter to the business community from a bipartisan coalition of current and former state officials — governors, lieutenant governors, attorneys general, and secretaries of state — urging businesses to continue to speak out in support of voting rights and applauding those who have done so already. [Emphasis in original] I have attached a PDF of the letter, which is co-sponsored by current Governors Roy Cooper (NC) and Gretchen Whitmer (MI) and former Governors Arne Carlson (MN), Bill Weld (MA), and Christine Todd Whitman (NJ).

I’m writing to ask you to join these governors in expressing your support for the freedom to vote and your concern about the voting restrictions being proposed across the country.

Lydgate welcomes Nevada General Counsel Leslie M. Nino Piro to the email chain and Piro responds: “It’s great to meet you, Joanna! I look forward to working with you as well.” Later, Attorney General Aaron Ford writes that Piro will “be attending with and/or for me going forward.”

Renee D. Carreau, executive assistant to the solicitor general, writes to Lydgate and others: “Nevada would like to sign on to this letter. Please see our signature block attached. Please let me know if you need anything further & send us the final letter after it has been sent.” She later writes:

Ms. Lydgate & Dwyer-McNulty, I would like to request to add our Solicitor General, Heidi Parry Stern, cc’d above, and me to any of these types of communications. We handle all multistate litigation and sign-ons to Amici briefs and letters. Either Ms. Stern or I will be responding to the below request, before COB tomorrow. Please let me know if you have any questions.

The letter, addressed to “Dear Business Leaders,” opposes a “a wave of voter restrictions sweeping the country.”

In a February 2025 email to Dwyer-McNulty, Nevada Chief Deputy Attorney General Greg D. Ott asks to have Deputy Attorney General Devin Oliver added to States United Democracy Center’s monthly conference calls as “He’s coordinating much of the multistate litigation here and I think it would be beneficial for him to hear the litigation summaries that your team provides.” Dwyer-McNulty responds that Oliver was added to the list.

These records further expose a coordinated leftist lawfare machine—leftist state attorneys general working hand-in-glove with allied activist groups to target political opponents and undermine our election system.

In November 2025, we received 5,789 pages of records from the Michigan Department of Attorney General in a Michigan Freedom of Information Act request that shows the state’s coordination with States United Democracy Center.

We continue to work to obtain records from Arizona, and Wisconsin, which appear to have been part of the same coordinated efforts led by States United Democracy Center.

In July 2025, we filed a Georgia Public Records lawsuit against Fani Willis in her capacity as district attorney for the Atlanta Circuit for communications and agreements with the States United Democracy Center and/or the Voter Protection Project regarding the investigation and prosecution of Republican state electors for the 2020 presidential election and/or anti-racketeering for conspiring to nullify the election.

Judicial Watch Sues for Records on Trump Golf Club Security Breach

President Trump has survived multiple assassination attempts, including the Butler, Pennsylvania Rally – July 13, 2024; West Palm Beach, Florida – September 15, 2024; and most recently at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Washington, D.C. – April 25, 2026.

We are suing for records on a serious security breach at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, VA.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for U.S. Secret Service (USSS) records related to an August 31, 2025, incident in which a club member allegedly carried a loaded semi-automatic handgun past screening checkpoints at Trump National Golf Club in Virginia while President Donald Trump was on site (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:26-cv-01447)).

According to reports, a club member was able to bring a loaded semi-automatic handgun onto the premises while Trump was present, after passing through Secret Service screening checkpoints. A Secret Service spokesperson said that handheld magnetometers were used instead of walkthrough devices when screening guests at the president’s golf resort, located about 25 miles northwest of the White House.

It’s very disturbing that a security lapse of this magnitude could occur, particularly given recent threats against the president. The public has a right to know how this happened and what is being done to prevent it from happening again.

The agent in charge of searching the guest’s bag at the golf facility was placed on administrative leave amid an ongoing review by the Secret Service.

We filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Secret Service failed to respond to a November 18, 2025, FOIA request for:

All records related to the internal investigation of the August 31, 2025, incident at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, in which a club member was able to get a semi-automatic hand gun into the club premises while the President was present without initial detection, including but not limited to investigative reports, agents’ notes, witness interview, audio-video recordings and other records.

All emails and text messages sent between members of the Presidential protective detail regarding the August 31, 2025, incident at the golf club.

In April 2026, our FOIA lawsuit forced the release of records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that show that would-be Trump assassin Thomas Crooks was reportedly involved in an altercation with a group of people and making “hateful comments” directed at President Trump at the Butler, PA, rally site before the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt.

In February 2026, our lawsuit forced the release of the first FBI records about the Butler assassination attempt.

In December 2025, we sued the U.S. Secret Service for communications records related to Code Pink protesters who disrupted a dinner held by President Trump at a restaurant in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2025 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-04408)).

In September 2025, we filed a FOIA lawsuit for messages among top leaders of the FBI referencing social media posts of Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri, head of the Miami Field Office, which is investigating the September 15 assassination attempt against Donald Trump (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:24-cv-02740)).

In March 2025, we sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records related to security provided for the July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00704)).

In August 2024, we uncovered documents from the district attorney’s office in Butler County, PA, detailing the extensive preparation of local police for the rally at which former President Trump was shot. The preparation included sniper teams, counter assault teams and a quick response force.

In August 2024, in response to a separate open records request, we obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department.

In August 2024, following up on reports that the Biden Secret Service denied Trump’s requests for additional Secret Service protection, we filed a FOIA lawsuit for Secret Service and other records regarding potential increased protective services to Trump’s security detail prior to the attempt on his life at his July 13 campaign rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:24-cv-02495)).

Until next week,

The post Supreme Court Victory! appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a Washington, D.C. court ruled that Washington D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) cannot broadly blur and censor body-worn camera (BWC) footage from January 6, 2021. The MPD had previously claimed that such redactions were necessary to protect personal privacy and asserted that complying with the request would cost more than $1.5 million due to the volume of footage, which reportedly exceeds one thousand hours.

The ruling follows a January 8, 2026, hearing before Judge Veronica Sanchez in Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for all bodycam footage recorded by Metropolitan Police officers who responded to the U.S. Capitol on January 6 (Judicial Watch v. District of Columbia (No. 2024-CAB-003453)).

In its order, the court rejected the District’s argument that it could justify redacting under D.C. FOIA exemptions the faces and voices of all non-law enforcement individuals captured in the footage.

The court found that while individuals appearing in the footage may have a limited privacy interest, that interest is minimal and does not outweigh the strong public interest in disclosure. The court emphasized that the events of January 6 occurred largely in public settings, were widely recorded, and remain a matter of significant national concern.

Concerning the individuals’ privacy interests, the court explained that the individuals present could not reasonably expect that their appearances would remain private:

The circumstances leading up to the events at the U.S. Capitol Complex included a large, public, televised event on the National Mall. Individuals were gathered in a public arena. The crowd then marched to the U.S. Capitol Complex where members of congress were partaking in the certification of the Presidential election results live on television.

***

The individuals on the [body-worn cameras] could not “reasonably expect that their appearances on the [BWC] would remain private.” … A person’s privacy interest is greater in the release of images and video footage that were taken without their “knowing consent.” … Even though the individuals recorded on the subject BWCs may not have consented to their images being recorded, they certainly had reason to believe that the many law enforcement officers, as well as the surveillance cameras at the government owned property, were recording them. Additionally, during the events of January 6, simultaneous media images from both inside the U.S. Capitol and around the U.S. Capitol Complex were being broadcast, streamed, and uploaded. While the individuals may have not all “knowingly consented” to the images being recorded, they had reason to know they were.

Concerning the public interest, the court stated:

The events of January 6, 2021, have been the topic of much debate, discussion, and scrutiny in the public consciousness by not just the residents of the District of Columbia but also the nation. BWC footage of the events at the Capitol on January 6 could “contribute significantly” to the public’s understanding of the events on that day and the MPD’s actions.

The court concluded, “In balancing the privacy interests which are little more than de minimis with the public interest, the public interest outweighs the privacy interests. … [T]he faces and voices of individuals captured by MPD’s BWCs on January 6, 2021, are not exempt from disclosure.”

“This a major victory for transparency and the rule of law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “As the court found, the American people have a right to see this secret D.C. police January 6 footage. Judicial Watch will now push for the immediate release of the videos.”

Judicial Watch has extensively investigated the events of January 6.

In April 2026, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to obtain records related to possible improper targeting of January 6, 2021, Capitol protesters, their supporters, and related nonprofits

In August 2025, Judicial Watch announced that the U.S. Air Force would finally provide full military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt, the Air Force veteran who was shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021. Babbitt was the only official January 6 homicide victim. The Biden administration had previously denied Babbitt and her family these honors in retaliation for being at the U.S. Capitol that day. This decision came on the heels of a massive, nearly $5 million Trump administration settlement to her family for wrongful death and other claims against the U.S. Government.

In July 2025, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Department of Justice for records on accelerated January 6 prosecutions after Donald Trump was elected president in November 2024. The Biden administration, anticipating President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to issue pardons for January 6, 2021, defendants, is believed to have accelerated prosecutions in the final months of Biden’s term.

In March 2024, Judicial Watch received Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) records from the Department of Justice in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that show the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) deployed personnel to Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021.

October 2023, Judicial Watch received the declaration of James W. Joyce, senior counsel in the Office of the General Counsel for the Capitol Police, in which he describes emails among senior officials of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) in January 2021 that show warnings of possible January 6 protests that could lead to serious disruptions at the U.S. Capitol.

###

The post Judicial Watch Victory: Court Rejects D.C. Bid to Hide January 6 Bodycam Footage appeared first on Judicial Watch.

From Tucson.com:

The post Court rules Arizona AG Kris Mayes illegally withheld information appeared first on Judicial Watch.

From Arizona Mirror:

An appellate court ruled that Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’s office broke the law when it gave a conservative advocacy group almost no information about dozens of emails and documents it said weren’t public records.

The court also found that the Attorney General’s Office failed to justify redacting names from one document and inadequately searched for the records that Judicial Watch sought.

“It’s an important ruling and exposes the gamesmanship we’ve had to go through to expose the relationships we’ve been investigating,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Arizona Mirror. “It’s such a waste of taxpayer resources.”

Read more here…

The post Mayes won’t appeal ruling that her office broke public records law over Judicial Watch request appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records related to an August 31, 2025, incident in which a club member allegedly carried a loaded semi-automatic handgun past Secret Service screening checkpoints at Trump National Golf Club in Virginia while President Donald Trump was on site (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:26-cv-01447)).

According to reports, a club member was able to bring a loaded semi-automatic handgun onto the premises while Trump was present, after passing through Secret Service screening checkpoints. A Secret Service spokesperson said that handheld magnetometers were used instead of walkthrough devices when screening guests at the president’s golf resort, located about 25 miles northwest of the White House.

The agent in charge of searching the guest’s bag at the Sterling golf facility was placed on administrative leave amid an ongoing review by the Secret Service.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) failed to respond to a November 18, 2025, FOIA request for:

All records related to the internal investigation of the August 31, 2025, incident at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, in which a club member was able to get a semi-automatic hand gun into the club premises while the President was present without initial detection, including but not limited to investigative reports, agents’ notes, witness interview, audio-video recordings and other records. 

All emails and text messages sent between members of the Presidential protective detail regarding the August 31, 2025, incident at the golf club.

Trump has survived multiple assassination attempts, including Butler, Pennsylvania Rally – July 13, 2024; West Palm Beach, Florida – September 15, 2024; and most recently at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Washington, D.C. – April 25, 2026.

“It’s very disturbing that a security lapse of this magnitude could occur, particularly given recent threats against the president,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The public has a right to know how this happened and what is being done to prevent it from happening again.”

In April 2026, Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit forced the release of records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that show that would-be Trump assassin Thomas Crooks was reportedly involved in an altercation with a group of people and making “hateful comments” directed at President Trump at the Butler, PA, rally site before the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt.

In February 2026, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit forced the release of the first FBI records about the Butler assassination attempt.

In December 2025, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Secret Service for communications records related to Code Pink protesters who disrupted a dinner held by President Trump at a restaurant in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2025 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-04408)).

In September 2025, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for messages among top leaders of the Federal Bureau of Investigation referencing social media posts of Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri, head of the Miami Field Office, which is investigating the September 15 assassination attempt against Donald Trump (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:24-cv-02740)).

In March 2025, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records related to security provided for the July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00704)).  

In August 2024, Judicial Watch uncovered documents from the district attorney’s office in Butler County, PA, detailing the extensive preparation of local police for the rally at which former President Trump was shot. The preparation included sniper teams, counter assault teams and a quick response force.

In August 2024, in response to a separate open records request, Judicial Watch obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department. 

In August 2024, following up on reports that the Biden Secret Service denied Trump’s requests for additional Secret Service protection, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit for Secret Service and other records regarding potential increased protective services to Trump’s security detail prior to the attempt on his life at his July 13 campaign rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:24-cv-02495)).

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues Homeland Security for Records on Armed Security Breach at Trump Virginia Golf Club appeared first on Judicial Watch.

From Statesman Journal:

Oregon has agreed to provide conservative foundation Judicial Watch with data on the state’s voter rolls as part of terms to dismiss a 2024 lawsuit.

All of the data to be provided through the settlement is public record, Tess Seger, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s Office, said.

Judicial Watch, two individuals and the Constitution Party of Oregon sued the state and then-Secretary of State Lavonne Griffin-Valade in October 2024 over Oregon’s voter roll maintenance, alleging it was in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) for not removing ineligible voters from its lists.

“This is another historic election integrity success. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit caused Oregon to finally cleanup 800,000 outdated voter names, adding to the more than six million ineligible voters removed by Judicial Watch lawsuits and legal action nationwide,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said in a statement. “Dirty voter rolls can mean dirty elections. Oregon’s Secretary of State, Tobias Read, is to be commended for responding to our lawsuit with a massive voter roll clean-up and commitment to continued voter list maintenance, which will only increase voter confidence.”

Read more here…

The post Oregon settles lawsuit on voter roll maintenance, will share data appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton responded today to the Supreme Court 6-3 decision to effectively prohibit the use of racial preferences to create “majority-minority” congressional districts:

This is a great decision for democracy that affirms that the U.S. Constitution requires the government to be color-blind in its decision-making. The decision effectively ends the egregious racial segregation of voters. Judicial Watch is prepared to enforce this decision to try to end any racial gerrymandering that treats voters as cogs in a racial spoils system.

Most Americans would agree with the court’s conclusion that “allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.”

In January 2025, Judicial Watch and AEF filed an initial amici brief (friends of the court) in this case, asking the court to affirm a lower court ruling that Louisiana violated the constitution when it crowded minority voters into congressional districts. Judicial Watch and AEF filed a supplemental amici curiae brief in September 2025.  

Judicial Watch and AEF argued:

This Court has compared race-based districting to segregation of “public parks, … buses, … and schools,” and warned that we “should not be carving electorates into racial blocs.” … That is because “[c]lassifications of citizens solely on the basis of race ‘are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.’” … Racial gerrymandering, like all “[r]acial classifications of any sort” cause “lasting harm to our society” because “[t]hey reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin.” …

There should be no question that race-based division of citizens for purposes of compliance with § 2 and Gingles is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the “central purpose” of which “is to prevent the States from purposefully discriminating between individuals on the basis of race.”… The same may be said of the Voting Rights Act.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas agreed, denouncing the practice where:

“Blacks [we]re drawn into ‘black districts’ and given ‘black representatives’; Hispanics [we]re drawn into Hispanic districts and given ‘Hispanic representatives’; and so on.” . . . That interpretation rendered §2 “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.” . . . Today’s decision should largely put an end to this “disastrous misadventure” in voting-rights jurisprudence.

AEF is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation has engaged in a number of projects, which include, but are not limited to, educational and health conferences domestically and abroad. AEF has partnered frequently with Judicial Watch to fight government and judicial corruption and to promote a return to ethics and morality in the nation’s public life.

Judicial Watch is a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide. 

Judicial Watch pointed out earlier this year that Maryland’s Democrat-proposed 2026 congressional redistricting plan is in key respects identical to the unconstitutional gerrymander struck down in a prior Judicial Watch lawsuit—but is even more partisan and less compact than the invalidated 2021 map.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuits and legal actions have caused the removal of six million ineligible names from voter lists nationwide.

A recent settlement with Oregon in a federal lawsuit confirms 800,000 ineligible voter names are slated for review and removal from voter registration lists. The settlement requires state officials to produce detailed data and enforce federal voter roll clean-up procedures under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Under NVRA, states must take reasonable steps to remove ineligible voters—such as those who have died, moved, or become otherwise inactive.

In March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held oral argument in a landmark election integrity case over whether the federal Election Day laws prohibit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. Judicial Watch brought the underlying lawsuit on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.

In January 2026, in a historic case filed by Judicial Watch, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

###

The post Judicial Watch Statement Supreme Court Decision to Restrict Race-Based Gerrymandering appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced a settlement in its federal lawsuit against Oregon election officials, which confirms 800,000 ineligible voter names are slated for review and removal from voter registration lists. The settlement requires state officials to produce detailed data and enforce federal voter roll clean-up procedures under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit on behalf of itself, the Constitution Party of Oregon, and two lawfully registered voters, in October 2024, alleging Oregon failed to remove ineligible voters and seeking to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA after identifying widespread voter roll maintenance failures across dozens of counties (Judicial Watch, et al. v. The State of Oregon et al. (No. 6:24-cv-01783)).

In its complaint, Judicial Watch argued that Oregon’s voter rolls contain large numbers of old, inactive registrations; and that 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by federal election law. Judicial Watch asserted that Oregon and 35 of its counties had overall registration rates exceeding 100%; and that Oregon had the highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation. In combination, all of these facts showed that Oregon was failing to remove inactive registrations as required by federal law.

In August 2025, a federal court in Oregon denied a motion to dismiss by Oregon and ruled the lawsuit could proceed.

In response to the lawsuit, Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read announced earlier this year that Oregon has about 800,000 inactive registrations, which are kept separately from the active voter rolls and do not receive ballots. Of those, roughly 160,000 already meet federal and state criteria for removal—having received confirmation notices, failed to respond, and not voted in two federal elections—and are slated for cancellation. The remaining approximately 640,000 inactive records do not yet qualify for removal and will be processed through future list maintenance efforts.

In its press release, Oregon acknowledged that routine removal of outdated records effectively stalled in 2017, leaving a large pool of long-dormant registrations on the rolls without being fully processed for removal. The scale of the backlog underscores a gap in routine list maintenance that is only now being addressed. “These directives are about cleaning up old data that’s no longer in use so Oregonians can be confident that our voter records are up to date,” said Read.

“This is another historic election integrity success. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit caused Oregon to finally cleanup 800,000 outdated voter names, adding to the more than six million ineligible voters removed by Judicial Watch lawsuits and legal action nationwide,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “Dirty voter rolls can mean dirty elections. Oregon’s Secretary of State, Tobias Read, is to be commended for responding to our lawsuit with a massive voter roll clean-up and commitment to continued voter list maintenance, which will only increase voter confidence.”

Judicial Watch’s lawsuits and legal actions have caused the removal of six million ineligible names from voter lists nationwide.

Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), states must take reasonable steps to remove ineligible voters—such as those who have died, moved, or become otherwise inactive.

The settlement with Oregon remains in effect for more than five years, with a federal court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms. While the settlement resolves the litigation, it explicitly allows future legal action if Oregon fails to comply with voter list clean-up requirements going forward.

The settlement requires Oregon to open its voter roll maintenance processes to unprecedented scrutiny. State officials must now regularly provide detailed, county-level data on voter registrations, removals, confirmation notices, and inactive voters—including those eligible for removal under federal law. This includes data reported to the Election Assistance Commission, as well as additional datasets that will allow ongoing monitoring of compliance. The agreement ensures that this information will not be hidden behind bureaucratic barriers, requiring timely disclosure and identification of data sources.

Oregon will also provide annual reports on inactive voters and those eligible for removal under federal law, as well as provide free access to the state’s voter registration list upon request to Judicial Watch.

Oregon committed to implementing Read’s new list maintenance directives, which were issued in response to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit.

The agreement also gives Judicial Watch the authority to request detailed records and monitor Oregon’s compliance, including documentation related to county performance and voter list maintenance procedures.

Judicial Watch is a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads its election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

Judicial Watch is being assisted by Stephen Joncus of Joncus Law PC in Happy Valley, Oregon.

Colorado recently removed 372,000 ineligible voter names thanks to a Judicial Watch lawsuit and settlement addressing the state’s compliance with federal voter list maintenance requirements.

In Kentucky, state election board officials reported that “roughly 735,000 ineligible voter registrations” have been removed from voter rolls, as part of a 2018 consent decree settling a Judicial Watch lawsuit.

As part of its 2022 settlement, New York City alone has removed 918,139 ineligible names from its rolls: data show 477,056 removals between March 2023 and February 2025, which is in addition to the 441,083 previously reported removals.

In Los Angeles, county officials confirmed the removal of more than 1.2 million names from voter rolls as part of a settlement. Judicial Watch legal pressure also resulted in election roll clean-ups in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio.

A federal court in Illinois has ruled that Judicial Watch’s lawsuit to force the cleaning of voter rolls may proceed in that state. Judicial Watch has sent a notice-of-violation letter to election officials in California, and legal action over the state’s voter rolls is imminent.

In March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held oral argument in a landmark election integrity case over whether the federal Election Day laws prohibit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. Judicial Watch brought the underlying lawsuit on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.

In January 2026, in a historic case filed by Judicial Watch, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

###

The post Judicial Watch Lawsuit Settlement Causes Review and Removal of 800,000 Ineligible Voters from Oregon Voter Rolls appeared first on Judicial Watch.

From Washington Times:

The Justice Department announced a groundbreaking criminal case Tuesday against Dr. Anthony Fauci’s former top aide at the National Institutes of Health, accusing him of suppressing information about the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.

Dr. David Morens was Dr. Fauci’s senior adviser at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, where he had oversight of the agency’s grants — including one that paid for risky research at the Wuhan lab suspected of being the source of the virus.

Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch’s president, said the prosecution was the first time he could recall a criminal case over FOIA violations.

“It’s a remarkable development. It shows that thwarting FOIA can be a criminal offense,” he said. “It hope it’s the first of many.”

Read more here…

The post Feds charge top Fauci aide with conspiracy to hide origins of COVID appeared first on Judicial Watch.

The Trump administration is slowly chipping away at discounted tuition for illegal immigrants at public colleges and universities throughout the United States but there is a lot of work to be done since most of the 22 states (and the District of Columbia) that offered the pricey benefit when the president got elected to his second term continue to do so. The cost to American taxpayers is astounding, over a billion dollars annually, according to legislation (Put American Students First Act) introduced earlier this year by a U.S. senator to prevent any alien who is unlawfully admitted for permanent residence from obtaining in-state tuition rates at public institutions of higher education. If it passes the measure will take effect nationwide, though in the meantime the Department of Justice (DOJ) is working on the issue with legal challenges that have been largely ignored or, in some cases, defeated in court.

The agency has sued eight states that give illegal aliens special tuition rates, but only half of them have taken the lawsuits seriously enough to make changes. Texas, Oklahoma and Kentucky were the first to rescind the benefit under federal pressure and just a few days ago Nebraska reached an agreement with the administration to finally end a policy that for over two decades has subsidized the public education of illegal immigrants. Under a consent decree filed this week, Nebraska will permanently end laws that provide in-state tuition and financial assistance for illegal aliens. The agreement will resolve the DOJ’s claims that the state unconstitutionally discriminates against American citizens in favor of illegal aliens. “Specifically, Nebraska’s challenged laws grant reduced tuition to illegal aliens over U.S. citizens, which not only violates federal law but also incentivizes illegal immigration and rewards illegal immigrants with scholarship benefits that U.S. citizens are not eligible for,” the DOJ writes in a statement announcing the consent decree this week. In the press release Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward encourages all states to follow Nebraska’s “commonsense correction” of a policy that gave preferential treatment to illegal aliens over American citizens.

The reality is that most states that provide illegal immigrants with discounted tuition are flipping the finger at the administration. Violators include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Illinois have disregarded DOJ lawsuits and last month a judge dismissed the agency’s case against Minnesota ruling that the state’s public universities can continue to offer in-state tuition and scholarships to immigrants in the country without legal status. Illinois has not only ignored the administration’s suit filed last fall, but also passed a special law making undocumented students eligible for state and local financial aid, including grants, scholarships and stipends, as of January 2026. The measure includes the same benefits for transgender students who are disqualified for failing to register for selective service.

A 30-year-old federal law known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits giving illegal aliens discounted in-state tuition at public colleges and universities unless the same rates are also offered to out-of-state American students. For years, and in some cases decades, states have violated the law with no consequences. In the Nebraska complaint filed earlier this month, federal prosecutors write that awarding illegal aliens discounted tuition is preferential treatment squarely prohibited and preempted by Congress. Furthermore, the court filing says federal laws mandate that “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit . . . without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” In direct conflict with federal law, over a dozen states continue to reward illegal aliens with discounted in-state tuition rates based on residence within that state, while explicitly denying eligibility for resident tuition rates to American citizens who are not residents. While it is encouraging to see the Trump administration working to get violators to comply, most are not and American taxpayers keep paying the price.

The post States Keep Offering Illegal Aliens Discounted Tuition Despite DOJ Lawsuits, Mandates appeared first on Judicial Watch.