Texas’ 15th Congressional District is shaping up to be a closely watched race in South Texas, with Democrat Bobby Pulido leading Republican Rep. Monica De La Cruz in the latest public polling.

The redrawn district now stretches from the Rio Grande Valley into parts of Coastal Bend and South Texas, including communities such as Edinburg, Weslaco, and Alice.

De La Cruz, who has represented the district since 2023, is seeking reelection against Pulido, a Tejano singer and small-business owner who has faced scrutiny over his association with longtime friend and former bandmate Frankie Caballero, a convicted sex offender.

Pulido’s campaign presents him as a centrist focused on issues including the economy, health care, education, and immigration. On his campaign website, Pulido says the border should be secured “without destroying families and our local economy in the process.” He also supports establishing “more vetting hubs in Central America” and creating what he describes as a “more fair and reasonable path to legalization” for immigrants who want to come to the United States to contribute.

On education, Pulido says he opposes school vouchers, arguing that they drain “money from our classrooms and send it to private schools.” He also calls for increased funding for public schools.

Pulido has also faced controversy during his campaign over his past comments and relationship with Caballero.

In July, The Daily Caller reported that Pulido had previously said that molesting kids is “not necessarily rape.” The comments resurfaced after reports that Pulido had brought Caballero to perform at a benefit concert at a Texas middle school in 2016. Caballero is a convicted child sex offender. 

In an unearthed post on X, Pulido wrote, “Child molestation is abhorrent. But is not necessarily rape or murder, what you said. My point, and Geraldo’s point, is they have been unfairly demonized. It’s like if I said that whites shouldn’t be able to buy guns because most mass shooters are white.” 

A month before The Daily Caller report, The New York Post reported that Pulido had bragged about getting Caballero out of jail, who then went on to sexually assault an 8-year-old girl. Pulido’s campaign has disputed aspects of the report, saying he did not post bail for Caballero or directly facilitate his release and that Pulido was not aware of the full extent of Caballero’s criminal history. 

Pulido did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication. 

De La Cruz, who is seeking a third term in Congress, is campaigning on border security, agriculture, energy, and the economy. Her campaign platform calls for reinstating the Remain in Mexico policy, ending catch and release, supporting Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection agents, and reimbursing farmers and ranchers for confirmed damages caused by illegal immigrant traffic. She also calls for making energy more affordable and produced in the United States. 

During her first term in Congress, De La Cruz supported multiple Republican-backed bills including The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act and voted to impeach then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Nicholas Mayorkas. She has continued to support legislation backed by President Donald Trump during the 119th Congress, including the SAVE Act and the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” 

The newly drawn district voted for Trump by about 18 percentage points in the 2024 presidential election, while De La Cruz won reelection to the previous version of the district by about 14 points. 

However, public polling this year has shown a closer contest. The latest publicly available poll, conducted Aug. 18-22 by the Barbara Jordan Public Policy Research and Survey Center at Texas Southern University among 700 likely voters, showed Pulido with 50% support and De La Cruz with 45%. Other 2026 public polls have also shown Pulido leading by smaller margins. 

The Cook Political Report changed its rating for the race from “Lean Republican” to “Toss Up” on Sept. 25. Cook noted that while the district’s 2024 presidential vote favored Trump by 18 points, public and private polling has shown the race either tied or with Pulido ahead. 

Election Day is Nov. 3, 2026. 

Trump Unveils America.gov, Says AI Portal Could Transform How Americans Deal With GovernmentPresident Donald Trump on Tuesday unveiled America.gov, an artificial intelligence-powered portal designed to give Americans a single entry point for navigating federal government...

Former special counsel Jack Smith and his team acquired at least 4,782 checks from Americans who had made mainly small donations to President Trump or […]

Source

The Ten Commandments, the deep state, detention of illegal immigrants, and more Second Amendment questions could be on the Supreme Court’s docket early next year, as justices gather this week to determine what cases make the cut.

Justices first met Monday for what is called a “long conference” to sift through cases submitted over the summer and decide whether to hear oral arguments.

The high court hears arguments in only about 1% of the cases that are filed each term. The court is expected to release an order list no later than next Monday, when the first oral arguments of the 2026-2027 term begin.

Here are five big topics the high court is considering taking up.

1. Commandments and the Classroom

One of the big cases comes out of Texas, where justices will consider hearing arguments on whether the state can require the display of the Ten Commandments in schools.

“It’s just the text of the Ten Commandments with no commentary, but challengers say it is a constitutional violation,” Zack Smith, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held in the case of Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District that the law did not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

“The high court could decide when and whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed,” Smith said. “There were a number of rulings during the Warren Court based on a misguided view of the Establishment Clause. So, this is ripe for review.”

2. Deep State Cases

In the last session, the court overturned the Humphrey’s Executor precedent in a major step allowing the Trump administration to rein in the bureaucracy. Nevertheless, in the case of Wilcox v. Trump, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Gwynne Wilcox, who sued to overturn her removal from the National Labor Relations Board.

This is part of a continuing legal battle over presidential control of the federal bureaucracy, and whether boards and commissions can be independent of the executive branch. In the previous case, the high court upheld Trump’s authority to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission.

“I would think the FTC case in the Humphrey’s Executor case would take care of this question,” Smith said.

He said the justices might issue a grant, vacate, and remand decision, which would send the case back to the appeals court noting existing Supreme Court precedent.

The trend has moved toward recognizing the power of an elected president to run the executive branch, said Paul Kamenar, chief counsel for the National Legal and Policy Center, a watchdog group, which has flagged concerns about an unaccountable federal bureaucracy.

“There are still a lot of loose threads on presidential power, but the direction has been for the president to fire at will,” Kamenar told the Daily Signal. “The exception was the Federal Reserve in the Lisa Cook case. The court seems to lean toward a unitary executive and presidential power. The exception with the Fed is logical. Board members are presidential appointees. But the Fed is not taxpayer-funded, and it is not really engaged in executive branch action.”

Another case that could determine the president’s control over the executive branch is U.S. v. Jackson. The court could consider whether someone appointed first assistant after a vacancy becomes acting U.S. attorney, or if the attorney general can delegate the office’s duties.

The dispute arose in Nevada after the resignation of U.S. Attorney Jason Frierson. The Trump administration designated Sigal Chattah as acting U.S. attorney. However, defendants in a case sued, claiming Chattah could not supervise the prosecutions. The U.S. 9th Circuit upheld a lower court’s disqualification in August.

This could be a more complicated matter, Kamenar said. The NLPC has litigated over the appointment of what’s known as an “inferior officer,” or a non-Senate-confirmed appointee in a prosecutorial role.

He noted the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 has limits on who can be appointed to an acting role, which is generally the first assistant, another Senate-confirmed official, or a senior agency employee.

“That is a difficult legal issue. Presidents can appoint and fire any U.S. attorney, but appointment of acting officials gets into the Vacancies Act,” Kamenar said

3. Election Integrity

A Hawaii law presents another potential opportunity for the court to weigh in on election integrity in Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Nago. The case could determine if states must provide access to voter-registration records under the National Voter Registration Act. It could affect how much access election-integrity organizations have to state voter-registration information.

The National Voter Registration Act requires states to maintain voter lists to ensure that people who have moved away from a jurisdiction or have died are no longer listed.

The plaintiffs requested a copy of the statewide voter roll in April of 2023. Hawaii has argued the requests should go to individual counties. The state denied access under a Hawaii law that does not allow access to the voter roll unless it is for an election or government purpose. PILF contends this conflicts with the NVRA.

PILF is an election watchdog group. Other groups that filed amicus briefs in the case were the Honest Elections Project, the Center for Election Confidence, and Judicial Watch.

4. Illegal Immigration

On the immigration front, the case of Kenneth Genalo, Director of the New York Field Office of ICE, et al. v. District of Columbia deals with detention and bond hearings. The question is about how long the federal government can detain certain illegal immigrants with criminal histories while their removal proceedings are pending.

The high court granted review of a similar case out of New York, but Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul pardoned the suspect, making it a moot case, and it was removed from the docket. The case could establish a nationwide constitutional rule for prolonged detention of certain noncitizens during removal proceedings.

“If an individual can’t be held, it would interfere with the president’s immigration enforcement,” Smith said. “This matter would have been decided in another case, but Gov. Hochul intervened.”

5. More Second Amendment Challenges

Several Second Amendment cases are under consideration. This includes Novotny v. Moore over Maryland’s restrictions on carrying firearms in numerous public places. The U.S. 4th Circuit upheld the Maryland gun restrictions. The court will consider the question of whether states can prohibit otherwise lawful gun carrying in certain locations.

Similarly, the case of Duncan v. Bonta out of California challenges California’s ban on high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The U.S. 9th Circuit upheld California’s law. However, the U.S. 3rd Circuit struck down New Jersey’s similar ban. Given the circuit split, the Supreme Court is far more likely to take a case. Washington state has a similar law.

Kamenar, of the NLPC, anticipates that if the Supreme Court takes these or other gun rights cases, it will continue its existing trend.

“The court is looking more favorably on the Second Amendment,” Kamenar said. “Last session in a case involving purchase of a firearm by someone using marijuana, the court decided there is really no connection with violent crime.

‘cutting edge of science and technology’

‘It is clear that Section 2016 is a restriction’

The White House is considering adding a citizenship and work authorization question to next year's federal tax return, while separately proposing rules that could restrict access to the full value of several tax credits for some immigrants who are legally allowed to live and work in the U.S.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that a federal judge ordered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), beginning this week, to provide answers on a search for records on the CIA presence at the US Capitol on January 6. The order was issued immediately after a DATE joint status hearing held at the request of Judicial Watch in its August 2024 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Central Intelligence Agency (No. 1:24-cv-02172)).

Judicial Watch requested the Court order the CIA to provide more information on the status of its FOIA response after zero progress for over two years. The Court ordered the CIA provide details on potential productions of records and its search process:

Defendant has represented to the Court that it anticipates completing its search for and review of responsive records within eight months. It is ORDERED that Defendant shall file a notice by October 2, 2026, including a date certain when Defendant will begin rolling interim productions of responsive records. The Parties are further ORDERED to file another joint status report by December 1, 2026. In that report, Defendant is directed to describe its search process, the volume of materials located, the progress of its responsiveness review, and any interim productions made. The report should also apprise the Court of the results of any conferral regarding the scope of requests. It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with any draft status reports at least one business day in advance of the filing deadline.

Judicial Watch sued for records related to any shots fired inside the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and records of requests for CIA support, including bomb technicians and bomb-detecting dogs placed on standby or used in response to the massive protests in and around Washington, DC.

In March 2024, Judicial Watch received 88 pages of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) records from the Department of Justice in a FOIA lawsuit that show the CIA deployed personnel to Washington, DC on January 6, 2021.

The records include a series of text messages under the heading “January 7 Intel Chain” in which two separate references to participation by the CIA are made. One states that “two CIA bomb techs” are assisting with “a pipe bomb scene on New Jersey and D ST SE.” Another record references “several CIA dog teams on standby.”

In a Joint Status Report filed with the court on September 2, 2026, Judicial Watch argues:

More than two years after this lawsuit was filed, the agency states that it is still not finished with its search. Notably the agency does not claim that this is because the request was overbroad or otherwise unmanageable. It simply has not finished the search after more than two years.

***

Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s June 15, 2026 Minute Order, Plaintiff proposes that the agency be ordered to provide a detailed description of the status of its efforts, including but not limited to descriptions of the searches conducted and remaining to be conducted, and a date certain when the searches will be complete. The agency also should be ordered to disclose the number of records located and reviewed, the rate at which the records are being reviewed, and a date certain when the review will be complete. Finally, the agency should be ordered to provide a date certain when interim productions will begin. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests an in-person status conference to further address these matters.

“We’re pleased a federal court agrees with Judicial Watch that the CIA should give the American people more information about its handling of a simple FOIA request about it was doing at the US Capitol on January 6,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Judicial Watch has pursued details of January 6 on several fronts.

In July 2026, it forced the release of over 1,000 hours of Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department body-worn camera footage from the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol event.

In April 2026, Judicial Watch filed a (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 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.

In June 2025, Judicial Watch concluded a $4.975 million settlement in the wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. Government filed on behalf of the family of Ashli Babbitt, the U.S. Air Force veteran who was shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021. Ashli Babbitt was the only January 6 homicide victim.

In 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 Federal Judge Orders CIA to Provide Judicial Watch with Answers on January 6 Records appeared first on Judicial Watch.

JONESBORO, AR — Local woman Geena Parks reportedly couldn't contain her excitement for October to begin, which she said is the start of "taking pictures of your Bible next to a cup of coffee" season.

NEW YORK, NY — Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a new plan to fight antisemitism by locking his own anti-semitic wife in their bedroom closet.

Federal prosecutors in Texas announced on Tuesday assault charges against a Venezuelan delivery driver who was shot in the back by immigration enforcement agents on Sept. 20. A federal complaint alleges Wilber Rafael Garces-Perez, 28, tried to escape Immigration and Customs ...

She tortured, slashed and fatally beat her

The U.S. Navy is looking to high-energy lasers as a way to reduce its reliance on costly, finite stocks of air-defense missiles.Recent combat operations have underscored the challenge of defending warships against large numbers of comparatively inexpensive drones and other...