Aggregator
Suspected overdose reported miles from Ole Miss after 22-year-old had ‘synthetic kratom products’ in possession
Trump suggests he’ll pardon admin officials before leaving office: ‘Sure I’d do that’
Male escort who allegedly swindled NYC ‘Roblox’ widow out of $6M ‘fled to Dubai’: lawyer
Kylie Kelce issues apology to Kate Middleton for ‘offensive’ comment
Kylie Kelce issues apology to Kate Middleton for ‘offensive’ comment
When Is the ‘Verity’ Movie Streaming Release Date on Amazon Prime? Where to Watch the ‘Verity’ Movie
Sen. Marsha Blackburn Sues Former Special Counsel Jack Smith
Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) on Wednesday sued former special counsel Jack Smith and the Department of Justice (DOJ) over a subpoena Smith's office issued for her phone records during his investigation of President Donald Trump's actions around Congress's certification of the 2020 election.
Blackburn alleged Smith violated her constitutional rights and was unlawfully appointed. She asked the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to order the Justice Department to destroy the records or return them.
The senator opened her lawsuit with the quote: "The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America," from former attorney general and later Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson.
Blackburn claimed that Smith violated her First Amendment right of association and Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
She accused the former special counsel of violating the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which provides members of Congress and their aides with immunity from criminal prosecutions or civil suits stemming from their actions taken within their official duties.
The Supreme Court has previously said this legislation must not be interpreted literally but instead be construed broadly to accomplish the proper separation of powers it intends to make.
Blackburn also claimed former Attorney General Merrick Garland unlawfully appointed Smith, a private citizen, to special counsel, serving in that role from November 2022 to January 2025, in violation of the Appointments Clause, which gives authority to the president to name federal officials subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
Blackburn said she never had the chance, as a senator, to offer her advice, consent, or rejection of Smith's appointment.
Furthermore, the Tennessee senator said Smith and the DOJ's actions in obtaining her phone records violated the constitutional provision of separation of powers.
"The facts alleged herein demonstrate that the Executive Branch ignored our Constitution's carefully constructed design and allowed a private citizen to wield enormous power that did not belong to him, resulting in egregious violations of personal liberty and constitutional rights," Blackburn's suit read.
Garland named Smith as special counsel to investigate the events leading up to Congress's joint session on Jan. 6, 2021, for certifying electoral votes from the 2020 presidential election. Smith alleged that Trump, who lost that election, was behind a suspected conspiracy to overturn the results. Trump said he was seeking to delay the certification in order to give states time to investigate claims of fraud and irregularities.
Trump was charged by a grand jury as a result of Smith's investigation and pleaded not guilty, but the charges were eventually dropped after he won the 2024 presidential election.
Blackburn says in the lawsuit that she seeks to prevent any future attorney general from making any "fictitious" appointment as Garland did for Smith.
"No president appointed him, nor did Congress confirm him to serve in that role," the lawsuit read. "Congress did not pass any law that authorized Attorney General Garland to appoint a Special Counsel."
The senator requested nominal damages from Smith in the amount of $1.
As part of the former special counsel's investigation into Trump, which was codenamed "Arctic Frost," Smith issued subpoenas for toll records for Blackburn's phone she used for legislative purposes. The investigation served as "the vehicle" for Smith to conspire and violate Blackburn's rights, the lawsuit alleged, along with the rights of other Republican lawmakers and Trump supporters.
Smith defended his obtaining of GOP lawmakers' cellphone data during congressional testimony on Sept. 29, calling it "materially relevant" to his investigation.
"Given what had happened that afternoon [on] Jan. 6, in my view, added to the powerful evidence we had of Donald Trump's guilt, and the participation of his co-conspirators in his criminal scheme at his behest," Smith said.
In addition to Blackburn, Smith subpoenaed and received records from Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), and Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.).
Smith also had obtained nondisclosure orders from a federal district judge that prevented the lawmakers from knowing that their phone records were being investigated.
The former special counsel maintained during testimony that his investigation showed Trump "engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power."
Smith could not be reached for comment at the time of publication.
Tyler Durden Thu, 10/01/2026 - 12:20Rats plunder $800 gourmet meats during USPS journey to NYC store, prompting fight to get money back
Megan Fox slips into skintight catsuit in spicy ad for erectile dysfunction drug: ‘I was born for this’
Megan Fox slips into skintight catsuit in spicy ad for erectile dysfunction drug: ‘I was born for this’
Why Isn’t ‘The Traitors: New Blood’ on Tonight?
Pete Crow-Armstrong admits he didn’t ‘show up’ after dreadful Cubs series
Grim new details in Catalina Island helicopter crash with five on board — as harrowing audio released
Federal Judge Blocks $100,000 Fee For H-1B Visas
Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,
A second federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from imposing a $100,000 fee on H-1B visas, which allow U.S. companies to hire high-skilled foreign workers.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam, based in Oakland, California, determined that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the State Department did not adhere to proper federal rule-making processes before the implementation of the fee went into effect.
In the 35-page decision, Gilliam on Sept. 30 blocked the agencies from implementing the fee ordered by President Donald Trump in a Sept. 9, 2025, presidential proclamation. The block will remain in place until the federal rule-making process has been followed, the judge ordered, including a formal proposal for a rule change and a standard 30- to 60-day period for public comment.
In the initial lawsuit, the plaintiffs - a coalition of unions, employers, and nonprofit organizations - requested the court block the administration from imposing the new fee and require federal agencies to process H-1B visas in accordance with existing law.
They argued in a lawsuit that Trump has no authority to unilaterally impose fees, taxes, or other mechanisms to generate revenue for the United States.
"Here, the President disregarded those limitations, asserted power he does not have, and displaced a complex, Congressionally specified system for evaluating petitions and granting H-1B visas," the lawsuit said.
The plaintiffs, including Global Nurse Force and the American Association of University Professors, among others, claimed that the Trump administration failed to assess how the fees would affect hospitals, schools, churches, and universities that rely on the H-1B program.
"Without relief, hospitals will lose medical staff, churches will lose pastors, classrooms will lose teachers, and industries across the country risk losing key innovators," litigation and advocacy nonprofit Democracy Forward Foundation, representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
The group applauded the ruling.
"Today's decision ... protects a system that was thrown into chaos overnight," attorney Steve Bressler said.
The program offers 65,000 visas annually, with another 20,000 visas for workers with advanced degrees, approved for three to six years.
The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.
In past statements, the administration has defended the legality of its program reforms.
According to a White House fact sheet, the proclamation was to address the misuse of the H-1B program, which Trump said had been exploited by companies to replace American workers "with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor."
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the fee requirement is legal and that it was aimed at "discouraging companies from spamming the system and driving down American wages, while providing certainty to employers who need to bring the best talent from overseas."
In June, a federal judge in Boston also temporarily blocked the fee. In July, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause the ruling.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also suing to challenge the fee. A district judge rejected its claims that Trump lacked the constitutional authority to set the fee, and the Chamber of Commerce is now seeking a review of that decision by an appeals court.
Tyler Durden Thu, 10/01/2026 - 11:40