Another Judicial Watch Court Victory!


Top Headlines of the Week

Press Releases


Judicial Watch Victory: Court Declares Unconstitutional California’s Gender Quota for Corporate Boards

Judicial Watch announced recently that a California court has found California’s gender quota law for corporate boards unconstitutional. The verdict comes after a 28-day trial. The verdict follows a similar ruling in Judicial Watch’s favor last month finding California’s diversity mandate for corporate boards unconstitutional.

Judicial Watch Civil Rights Lawsuit Against Chicago’s Lightfoot Dismissed After Mayor Ends Her Racist Interview Policy

“It is incredible, in this day and age, that it took a federal civil rights lawsuit to force Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot to retreat from her racial discrimination against reporters,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

U.S. Census Bureau Keeps Hiring “Unsuitable Individuals” with Criminal Records

Thirteen years after a federal investigation blasted the U.S. Census Bureau for hiring criminals to enter American homes to gather statistics for the decennial count, a new audit reveals the disturbing practice continues. In fact, more than a decade after the problem was exposed workers for the 2020 count were not properly vetted and many with criminal records had direct interactions with the public.

Historic Judicial Watch Gerrymander Win Could Set National Precedent

The judge was not pulling any punches. Siding with Judicial Watch in a challenge to a congressional redistricting plan cooked up by Democrats dominating the Maryland state legislature, Judge Lynne Battaglia—herself a Democrat—threw haymakers. The Democrat redistricting map was an “extreme partisan gerrymander.” Democrats had attempted to “suppress the voice of Republican voters.” It was drawn up with “partisanship as predominant intent.” It violated state constitutional provisions on equal protection and free speech. It subordinated “constitutional criteria to political consideration.”

 

In The News


The Daily Caller: Judge Delivers Fatal Blow To California’s Board Diversity Mandate

Duffy-Lewis’ decision comes in response to a challenge to the mandate from conservative activist group Judicial Watch, which was representing three California residents, according to The Wall Street Journal. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton stated that the law was “brazenly unconstitutional.”

The Daily Caller: VICTORY: Lori Lightfoot Abandons Racist Interview Policy After DCNF Lawsuit

The lawsuit, which was filed by Judicial Watch in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleged that Lightfoot’s denial violated Catenacci’s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as his and TheDCNF’s First Amendment rights.

The New York Post: Trial opens in Trump-Russia case of Hillary Clinton’s ‘Alfa Bank’ lawyer

Special Counsel John Durham’s three-year probe into the FBI and Robert Mueller’s investigations of former President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign will reach a critical moment with Monday’s trial of former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

 

Video Highlights


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

Chief of DOJ’s New $6 Mil Racial Equity Office says Oftentimes Justice May Mean Never Filing a Case

The Biden administration’s new $6 million office to narrow inequality in the justice system has hired as its director a former public defender who says “oftentimes justice may mean never filing a case.” The veteran attorney will lead the Office for Access to Justice (ATJ), established after a Department of Justice (DOJ) probe found significant gaps in equal access to justice for racial minorities and inequities that the agency claims were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. “There can be no equal justice without equal access to justice,” Attorney General Merrick Garland proclaimed when launching the ATJ last fall as a standalone DOJ post with a staff of eight that includes six attorneys. “And because we do not yet have equal access to justice in America, the task before us is urgent,” Garland added. The Biden administration plans to increase the ATJ budget by 66.7% next year and will add 42 new positions as well as 18 attorneys.

Rachel Rossi, a former Los Angeles County and federal public defender who served as the DOJ’s inaugural “Anti-Hate Coordinator,” will lead the ATJ. A failed run for L.A. District Attorney was inspired by “only seeing Black and brown people locked up,” Rossi said during her 2020 campaign to be the county’s top prosecutor. She worked for Democrat Senator Richard Durbin and helped draft a federal prison reform bill that slashed mandatory minimum sentences and made early release possible for certain inmates. When she was named ATJ director last week, Rossi said she has “seen firsthand how access to justice can make the difference in keeping families together, people in their homes and victims safe from violence.” Rossi added that she will examine and reimagine tools and systems to make justice more accessible for all. Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta praised Rossi, saying that “disrupting the devastating connections between race, poverty and injustice is hard work that requires exactly the kind of dedication and vision” Rossi has displayed at the DOJ.

The ATJ, which was originally launched by Obama Attorney General Eric Holder in 2010 and shut down by Trump, will work to fulfill the recommendations of the recent DOJ probe that led to its revival. Chiefly, the review found that the agency needs to expand and modernize its “access-to-justice function” to address the most urgent legal needs of communities across the country. This will be accomplished by developing new tools to reduce the justice gap, breaking down existing silos to advance the most innovative solutions across all levels of government and several other priority areas, which include the following: Environmental justice, indigent defense, pursuing racial equity, fostering health justice and medical legal partnerships in the wake of COVID-19, expanding legal representation in immigration proceedings, self-help court programs and ensuring economic opportunity and fairness. “The Department of Justice and the Department of Equal Justice are the same thing,” according to the report of the probe. “There can be no full achievement of the rule of law, safety, or civil rights without it. And there can be no equal justice without equal access to justice.”

Just weeks ago, the DOJ issued a Justice Equity Action Plan as part of the Biden administration’s broad effort to help marginalized communities. Among its key initiatives is a reform in law enforcement practices that directs federal prosecutors to ignore maximum sentencing under the law. That will help “avoid unwarranted disparities, promote fair outcomes in sentencing, and seek justice in every case,” according to the new Biden administration plan. The DOJ has issued prosecutors guidance requiring decisions about charging, plea agreements, and advocacy at sentencing to be based on “an individualized assessment of relevant facts, and not to reflexively rely on the maximum punishments allowable under law.” The initiative also creates a new Language Access Coordinator to report hate crimes in at least 10 languages, including six of the most frequently spoken Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI). An Anti-Hate Coordinator (Rossi was recently replaced by Saeed Mody) will “empower communities targeted by hate” and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been directed to designate hate crimes as “one of its highest-level national threat priorities.” The change will force the FBI to make hate crimes a focus for all of its 56 field offices, according to the new policy. The DOJ will also award over $21 million to help state and local agencies as well as community organizations “address an alarming rise in violent and property crimes committed on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.”

The post Chief of DOJ’s New $6 Mil Racial Equity Office says Oftentimes Justice May Mean Never Filing a Case appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch WINS

Judicial Watch Victory: Court Declares California’s Gender Quota for Corporate Boards Unconstitutional
Judicial Watch Civil Rights Lawsuit against Chicago’s Lightfoot Dismissed After Mayor Ends Her Racist Interview Policy
Census Bureau Keeps Hiring ‘Unsuitable Individuals’ with Criminal Records
Historic Judicial Watch Gerrymander Win Could Set National Precedent

 

Judicial Watch Victory: Court Declares California’s Gender Quota for Corporate Boards Unconstitutional

In a historic victory for the rule of a law, a California court found California’s gender quota law for corporate boards unconstitutional. The verdict comes after a 28-day trial (Robin Crest et al. v. Alex Padilla (Case No. 19STCV27561)).

This verdict follows a similar ruling in our favor last month that found California’s diversity mandate for corporate boards unconstitutional.

We filed the gender quota lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2019 on behalf of California taxpayers Robin Crest, Earl De Vries and Judy De Vries. The lawsuit challenged a 2018 law, known as Senate Bill 826, which required every publicly held corporation headquartered in California to have at least one director “who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on its board of directors by December 31, 2019.

The law also required corporations to have up to three such persons on their boards by December 31, 2021, depending on the size of the board. We argued that the quota for women on corporate boards violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution.

California Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis agreed with us and “determine[d] that SB 826 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution and is thus enjoined.”

In the court’s 23-page verdict, it specifically found that “S.B. 826’s goal was to achieve general equity or parity; its goal was not to boost California’s economy, not to improve opportunities for women in the workplace nor not to protect California taxpayers, public employees, pensions and retirees.” Further, the court found that “putting more women on boards demonstrated that the Legislature’s actual purpose was gender-balancing, not remedying discrimination…” And, “[t]here is no Compelling Governmental interest in remedying discrimination in the board selection process because neither the Legislature nor Defendant could identify any specific, purposeful, intentional and unlawful discrimination to be remedied,” Judge Duffy-Lewis wrote.

The court also found that California had “offered the testimony of the stereotypical virtues of women such as “consensus builders” and “less risky behavior in investments…. The Court is unpersuaded by this offer of stereotypes for a justification of S.B. 826.”  The court also found that Judicial Watch attorneys presented persuasive evidence in “ILLEGALITY OF ACTIVITY” (emphasis original) in the implementation of the gender quota mandate.

The court eviscerated California’s unconstitutional gender quota mandate. This is the second California court decision finding that quotas for corporate boards are unconstitutional. The radical Left’s unprecedented attacks on anti-discrimination law has suffered another stinging defeat.

Thankfully, California courts have upheld the core American value of equal protection under the law. Our taxpayer clients are heroes for standing up for civil rights against the Left’s pernicious efforts to undo anti-discrimination protections. We have helped protect the civil rights of every American with these successful lawsuits.

 

Judicial Watch Civil Rights Lawsuit against Chicago’s Lightfoot Dismissed After Mayor Ends Her Racist Interview Policy

We struck a blow against leftist racial discrimination in Chicago.

Our federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation and reporter Thomas Catenacci against Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot was dismissed after Lightfoot said she will not limit one-on-one interviews to “journalists of color” in the future (Catenacci et al v. Lightfoot (No. 1:21-cv-02852)).

In dismissing the case, our attorneys noted:

As testified to by her Communications Director and as stated in her motion to dismiss, Mayor Lori Lightfoot has no plans or intentions in the future to exclusively provide one-on-one interviews with journalists of color.

We filed the lawsuit against Lightfoot on May 27, 2021, after Catenacci, a white journalist, emailed Lightfoot’s office requesting a one-on-one interview with the mayor. The mayor’s office never replied to the request or to two additional follow-up emails from Catenacci. Catenacci’s request came on one of the days that the mayor admittedly was discriminating against journalists based on race.

On May 18, 2021, Lightfoot’s office informed multiple reporters that she would grant one-on-one interviews “only to Black or Brown Journalists.” The next day, the mayor released a letter confirming her discriminatory policy. Our lawsuit alleged that Lightfoot’s refusal to be interviewed by Catenacci was a violation of the Daily Caller News Foundation’s and his First Amendment rights and Catenacci’s right to equal protection.

On July 26, 2021, after the lawsuit was filed, Mayor Lightfoot told The New York Times that she would “absolutely” engage in racial discrimination again. When pressed on the issue by our attorneys, her spokesperson testified under oathin this lawsuit that Lightfoot promised not to engage in any more of this type of racial discrimination:

Q Okay. Have you spoken to the Mayor about whether she intends to exclusively provide one-on-one interviews with journalists of color in the future?

A Yes.

Q Okay. What did the Mayor tell you about that?

A She does not have plans to do so.

Q Does she intend to do so?

A No.

Mayor Lightfoot’s attorneys also told the Court the same thing in their most recent filing.

“I’m glad that Mayor Lightfoot finally realized that her racist policy was untenable. I hope all elected officials take note of our case and think twice before issuing similar policies,” Thomas Catenacci said.

“It’s amazing and sad that we had to do this in America 2022. A government official discriminating based on race is as wrong as it gets. We are relieved that she finally relented,” Daily Caller News Foundation President Neil Patel said.

It is incredible, in this day and age, that it took a federal civil rights lawsuit to force Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot to retreat from her racial discrimination against reporter.

 

Census Bureau Keeps Hiring ‘Unsuitable Individuals’ with Criminal Records

The federal government apparently has no interest in protecting you from felons it hires to conduct the census. Our Corruption Chronicles blog explains why the American people should be concerned about who is working at the U.S. Census Bureau:

Thirteen years after a federal investigation blasted the U.S. Census Bureau for hiring criminals to enter American homes to gather statistics for the decennial count, a new audit reveals the disturbing practice continues. In fact, more than a decade after the problem was exposed workers for the 2020 count were not properly vetted and many with criminal records had direct interactions with the public. The most recent probe, conducted by the Department of Commerce Inspector General, found that “dozens of employees who worked on address canvassing in advance of the 2020 census had major issues flagged on their investigations, which typically means employees are automatically disqualified from their federal jobs.”

Chunks of the 28-page report are redacted but the gist is well conveyed, that the Census Bureau has long failed to screen its workforce and therefore endangers the public. It’s not like there isn’t a vetting system in place. When one of the 248 regional offices recruit a candidate, the Census Investigative Services (CIS) at the agency’s headquarters in Suitland, Maryland is charged with conducting a pre-employment suitability review. The process includes sending fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a credit history as well as self-disclosed criminal record to CIS for review. Nevertheless, the Bureau still hires felons—including sex offenders—at regional offices nationwide. As an example, a few years ago the Charlotte, North Carolina Area Census Office (ACO) employed a man convicted of a felony involving sex with a child as a regional recruiting manager because despite his criminal record, he passed the Census Bureau’s background check.

The Bureau’s negligent security practices have been on the radar of federal lawmakers for years. Over a decade ago, Congressional investigators slammed the agency for failing to adequately conduct mandatory background checks for tens of thousands of workers, resulting in the hiring of hundreds of violent criminals. At the time, the probe found that more than 35,000 temporary census workers were employed without the proper criminal background check, which includes fingerprinting. That means that more than one-fifth of the canvassing workforce did not get properly processed or fully screened for employment eligibility, creating an obvious security risk. More than 200 of those were subsequently determined to have criminal records yet were in constant contact with the public while canvassing for the 2010 census. Investigators said the criminal record checks were bungled because the Census Bureau’s incompetent staff was poorly trained to conduct them.

Twelve years ago Judicial Watch reported that the Census Bureau knowingly hired a registered sex offender with a long criminal history to make home visits even though such convicts are banned from working for the agency. The embarrassing gaffe came to light when a young mother in a New Jersey suburb recognized the census worker who came to her home from the state’s registered sex offender database. She initially thought it was safe to provide the man with information because he was a legitimate government worker with a badge and bag sporting the U.S. Census Bureau’s official logo. Incredibly, the sex offender used a fake name to get the census job but failed a fingerprint check after getting hired. The agency still let him to complete four days of training and allowed him to visit homes even though he did not pass the background check.

The latest audit, released last week, shows that virtually nothing has changed after all these years and that the Bureau has done little to improve its derelict hiring practices. Investigators found that at least 6,802 census workers were not properly adjudicated, “resulting in persons with significant issues working for the Bureau and, in some instances, contacting households during the 2020 Census NRFU [Nonresponse Followup] operation.” In cases when CIS adjudicators actually vetted employees, the watchdog found that they often failed to request necessary documentation to assess the severity of the issues raised. Stressing that background checks are a critical process to help protect the nation’s interests by establishing trust in the federal workforce, the IG points out the obvious in its recent report: “The lack of oversight increases the risk of unknowingly allowing unsuitable individuals into positions of public trust, which could cause harm to the bureau.”

 

Historic Judicial Watch Gerrymander Win Could Set National Precedent

There is more than one way to rig elections, including gerrymandering – which is state legislatures creating congressional districts that all but guarantee nakedly partisan results irrespective of voter wishes. Judicial Watch is on the front line – and winning – against this abuse of power. Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, provides an overview in the Investigative Bulletin.

The judge was not pulling any punches. Siding with Judicial Watch in a challenge to a congressional redistricting plan cooked up by Democrats dominating the Maryland state legislature, Judge Lynne Battaglia—herself a Democrat—threw haymakers. The Democrat redistricting map was an “extreme partisan gerrymander.” Democrats had attempted to “suppress the voice of Republican voters.” It was drawn up with “partisanship as predominant intent.” It violated state constitutional provisions on equal protection and free speech. It subordinated “constitutional criteria to political consideration.”

It was out. Making history—for the first time, a Maryland court ruled that a congressional redistricting plan violated the state constitution—Judge Battaglia banned the use of the gerrymander map and ordered the Maryland General Assembly back to the drawing board.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton hailed the decision. “This key court victory against abusive partisan gerrymandering by Democrats in Maryland could set a national precedent,” he said. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan called it “an historic milestone.”

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit on behalf of twelve Maryland voters who objected to the state legislature’s plan and was joined at trial by a second set of plaintiffs. The argument? The gerrymandered maps diminished their right to participate in a free and fair election on an equal basis with other Maryland voters. The court agreed.

The March ruling has begun to echo through the national debate. In New York, in April, the state’s highest court rejected a new redistricting map favored by Democrats dominating state politics. The court ruled that the map violated a state prohibition on partisan gerrymandering, saying it was created with “impermissible partisan purpose.” Court observers say the Maryland case was discussed in briefings and oral arguments in New York.

In 2019, the Supreme Court rejected political gerrymandering claims brought solely under the federal Constitution. Since then, the battle over redistricting has spread to state courts throughout the country. According to experts surveyed by Judicial Watch, cases related to gerrymandering and redistricting are underway in nineteen states. Among the states are the electoral powerhouses Texas, Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. You can read about some of the upcoming cases here.

Tough anti-gerrymandering measures are one way to start cleaning up dirty election practices, says Robert Popper, Judicial Watch’s director of voting integrity efforts. Gerrymandering is a “method of cheating [that] has been around for 200 years,” Popper told journalist Tim Pool. “If you’re a state that doesn’t have an anti-gerrymandering provision, then suddenly it’s a political issue. Why don’t you? You want districts that are ugly and screwed up for partisan advantage, you want to cheat opponents in state elections.”

In Maryland, the state legislature quickly capitulated in the face of the court ruling and signed on to a new, fairer redistricting map. In New York, redistricting has been turned over to a special master. But Popper warns of trouble in states where political gerrymandering survives, with partisan operatives possibly turning to “new, computer-generated maps” that could become “so convoluted that’s it’s effectively like you don’t have a district at all.” We’re not there yet, says Popper. “But if we don’t deal with gerrymandering, my prediction is, that’s coming.”

Until next week …

The post Judicial Watch WINS appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judge Delivers Fatal Blow To California’s Board Diversity Mandate

From The Daily Caller:

A state judge delivered a verdict on Friday striking down a California law that mandated women be given seats on company boards, according to court documents.

Duffy-Lewis’ decision comes in response to a challenge to the mandate from conservative activist group Judicial Watch, which was representing three California residents, according to The Wall Street Journal. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton stated that the law was “brazenly unconstitutional.”

Read more here

The post Judge Delivers Fatal Blow To California’s Board Diversity Mandate appeared first on Judicial Watch.

VICTORY: Lori Lightfoot Abandons Racist Interview Policy After DCNF Lawsuit

From The Daily Caller:

The Daily Caller News Foundation and reporter Thomas Catenacci scored a legal victory against Democratic Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Monday after her office agreed to drop its policy of racial discrimination against journalists.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Judicial Watch in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleged that Lightfoot’s denial violated Catenacci’s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as his and TheDCNF’s First Amendment rights.

“It is incredible, in this day and age, that it took a federal civil rights lawsuit to force Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot to retreat from her racial discrimination against reporters,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Read more here

The post VICTORY: Lori Lightfoot Abandons Racist Interview Policy After DCNF Lawsuit appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Victory Against Election RIGGING!


Top Headlines of the Week

Press Releases


Historic Judicial Watch Gerrymander Win Could Set National Precedent

The judge was not pulling any punches. Siding with Judicial Watch in a challenge to a congressional redistricting plan cooked up by Democrats dominating the Maryland state legislature, Judge Lynne Battaglia—herself a Democrat—threw haymakers. The Democrat redistricting map was an “extreme partisan gerrymander.” Democrats had attempted to “suppress the voice of Republican voters.” It was drawn up with “partisanship as predominant intent.” It violated state constitutional provisions on equal protection and free speech. It subordinated “constitutional criteria to political consideration.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton’s A REPUBLIC UNDER ASSAULT to be Available for Sale in Paperback on May 17

Judicial Watch, the nation’s largest and most effective government watchdog group, announced recently that President Tom Fitton’s New York Times bestseller book, A Republic Under Assault, The Left’s Ongoing Attack on American Freedom, will be available for sale in paperback on May 17.

U.S. Gives Terrorist Nation $15 Billion in Humanitarian Aid Despite Fraud, Abuse

The U.S. government sends a monstrous amount of aid without oversight to countries largely controlled by terrorists, even after reports of widespread fraud, abuse and corruption by radical elements that limit the humanitarian assistance from reaching those in need. As an example, this week the U.S. announced it was providing Syria with an additional $808 million in emergency relief to provide citizens in the Middle Eastern country with food, healthcare, shelter, multipurpose cash, water, agriculture support for farmers, sanitation, and other services.

YouTube Censors Judicial Watch Video on Election Integrity and Biden Corruption – Locks Watchdog Out of Account for Seven Days

Judicial Watch announced recently that YouTube censored a Judicial Watch video about Biden corruption and election integrity issues in the 2020 election. The video titled “Impeach? Biden Corruption Threatens National Security” was falsely determined to be “election misinformation” and removed by YouTube, and Judicial Watch’s YouTube account was suspended for a week. The video featured an interview of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Judicial Watch continues to post its video content on its Rumble channel.

 

In The News


The New York Post: Trial opens in Trump-Russia case of Hillary Clinton’s ‘Alfa Bank’ lawyer

Special Counsel John Durham’s three-year probe into the FBI and Robert Mueller’s investigations of former President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign will reach a critical moment with Monday’s trial of former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

“If Sussmann, one of Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyers, is convicted, it will further confirm that Trump is a crime victim,” said Tom Fitton, president of the conservative Judicial Watch activist group.

The Daily Wire: Fauci, Collins Shared In ‘Secret’ NIH ‘Royalties’ Totaling $350M: Watchdog Report

The NIH has resisted turning over information, treating the royalty payments like “a state secret,” according to Andrzejewski. The agency ignored OpenTheBooks.com’s Freedom of Information Act request, forcing the group to go to court with Judicial Watch, he said. Once in court, the NIH slow-walked production of documents it was ordered to hand over, and redacted key information, he said.

Under court order, the NIH has agreed to produce 300 pages a month, but insisted on producing documents related to Fauci last – sometime in November, according to Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.

CNS News: Conservatives React to Leaked Supreme Court Justice’s Opinion to Overturn Roe v. Wade

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said in a statement, “The leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion on Roe is a dangerous obstruction of justice. And, it could very well lead to intimidation and violence directed at Supreme Court justices. This unprecedented leak fits with the Left’s continued assault against the Supreme Court.”

 

Video Highlights


The post Victory Against Election RIGGING! appeared first on Judicial Watch.