Obama IRS Scandal is BACK!



[INSIDE JW]

JUDICIAL WATCH CELEBRATES SUPREME COURT DECISION TO OVERTURN _ROE V.
WADE_

[[link removed]]
This is a day to celebrate life! The Supreme Court today held that
the Constitution of the United States of America does not confer a
right to abortion. The high court’s decision in _Dobbs v Jackson_
[[link removed]]
overturned _Roe v. Wade_. Credit should be given to President Trump
for appointing justices who finally vindicated the rule of law by
upholding the Constitution.

Justice Alito’s opinion is one for the ages and simply holds: “It
is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to
the people’s elected representatives” and “procuring an abortion
is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no
basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history.”
The decision affirmed _Roe_ was egregiously wrong and was an abusive
exercise of “raw judicial power.” Today’s decision begins to
undo _Roe_’s damage to our nation.

Simply put, abortion ends a human life and is incompatible with a
civil, moral society. The lives of unborn human beings must be
protected in every state. States should immediately act to protect the
lives of unborn human beings. And Congress should also move to protect
unborn lives at the federal level. For example, Congress should move
to stop, in the least, federal funding
[[link removed]]
for the trafficking of fetal organs harvested from human beings killed
by abortion.

The heroic decision comes down shortly after Justice Kavanaugh was
almost assassinated as a foreseeable result of this president’s and
his leftist allies’ despicable intimidation campaign against the
Supreme Court to protect the abortion on demand regime imposed by the
_Roe_ court. The criminal leak, illegal protests, and threats didn’t
work: Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett held
firm for the rule of law and will go down in history for their
bravery.

Americans can expect an escalation of the terror campaign by
pro-abortionists against the Justices, pro-life centers that help
pregnant mothers, and Catholic and other Christian churches that
support the right to life. Rather than allowing illegal protests at
the homes of Supreme Court Justices and paying little attention to the
terror campaign to date, the Biden Justice Department must act to
address this crisis now. And state and local law enforcement should
also focus on the escalating threats pregnancy centers, pro-life
advocates, and churches.

We filed an _amicus curiae_ brief
[[link removed]]
with the Supreme
Court in the _Dobbs_ case in support of the constitutionality of
Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act and overturning _Roe v. Wade_. The
brief argued that the Constitution and Bill of Rights exist to protect
the federalist system and sovereignty of the states on these matters:

Our Founding Fathers very carefully crafted the Constitution and Bill
of Rights to protect the individual sovereignty of the states. The
resulting principles of federalism purposefully guided the
jurisprudence of this country for more than 150 years, maintaining
fairly clear spheres of federal and state power….

Abortion policy began in the states where the people used the
democratic process to voice their moral, religious, and scientific
opinions. _Roe_ needlessly wrenched abortion policy from the states
and, relying on “penumbras formed by emanations,” seven unelected
judges created a brand-new constitutional right to abortion. The
response was immediate and lasting and after 48 years, strong
opposition to _Roe_ and its progeny remain.

***

Despite creative judicial legislating, it is crystal clear that
abortion does not involve war, peace, negotiation, foreign commerce,
or taxation. Abortion fits squarely into the states’ sphere of
objects that concern the “lives, liberties, and properties of the
people.” Not being an enumerated power, the _Roe_ Court did not have
the authority to overturn the abortion laws of the states.
In deciding _Roe_ as it did, the court created a legal morass for
decades to come. Our brief addresses this fact as another reason for
overturning _Roe_:

Far from creating a national consensus, _Roe_ threw the states into a
48-year contentious legal battle. Even some abortion advocates eschew
the injudicious method of federalizing abortion as short-circuiting a
naturally evolving jurisprudence under state laws. As federal and
state judges attempt to apply this Court’s precedents, a national
landscape of inconsistent, inconclusive, and untenable rules have
emerged. As a national policy, abortion jurisprudence is, in a word, a
mess. Stubbornly holding on to unconstitutional precedent will never
have a positive outcome. It is time to return abortion policy to the
states where it belongs and where the democratic process can
effectively work.
Finally, this court completes what its predecessors failed to do in
_Planned Parenthood v. Casey_, 505 U.S. 833, 874-75 (1992) only 20
years after _Roe_, fully cast aside that decision. In _Casey_, the
court rejected many of the tenets of _Roe_, but it failed to take the
final step and overturn it. This decision in _Dobbs_ remedies that
failure as addressed in our brief:

Less than 20 years after _Roe_, this Court essentially rejected _Roe_
without overturning _Roe_ and set up a new standard which permitted
states to restrict abortion within their borders barring an “undue
burden” on women. _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_, 505 U.S. 833,
874-75 (1992), another splintered opinion and holding, recognized the
states’ interest in protecting prenatal life after viability but
fell short of recognizing the preeminence of state power.
The Supreme Court stood strong today in support of the Constitution by
overturning _Roe_. Now states can again extend the protection of law
to the precious lives of unborn human beings. Americans will mourn the
tens of millions of human beings lost to abortion on demand under the
_Roe_ regime. But Americans will soon rejoice for the millions who
will live thanks to _Roe_ being thrown into the dustbin of history.

FEDERAL COURT ORDERS RELEASE OF TESTIMONY OF FORMER OBAMA ERA IRS
OFFICIALS LOIS LERNER AND HOLLY PAZ

A federal court ordered the release
[[link removed]]
of testimony of two IRS officials who played key roles in the
targeting of conservative nonprofit groups and individuals opposed to
Obama-era policies in the run up to the 2012 presidential election.

The two are Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations
Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Holly Paz, her top
aide and former IRS director of Office of Rulings and Agreements. The
ruling
[[link removed]]
in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio Western Division
unsealing the case records comes in the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
(_NorCal Tea Party Patriots, et al. v. The Internal Revenue Service,
et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:13-cv-00341)).

Obama and his congressional allies abused the IRS to suppress the Tea
Party movement and other opponents in the run-up to his reelection.
This is how one steals an election in plain sight.

The Obama IRS scandal was a run-through for the abuse of Trump in 2016
and beyond by Obama agencies and appointees. These depositions of
Obama’s IRS officials will help Americans understand the continued
clear and present danger of the IRS to our civil liberties.

Lerner’s and Paz’s depositions were sealed by Judge Barrett in
April 2017, after Lerner’s and Paz’s lawyers claimed the two
officials were receiving threats. The court finally ordered the
unsealing of the depositions four years after plaintiffs requested the
depositions be unsealed and only after plaintiffs filed for a _writ of
mandamus
[[link removed]
to force action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In December 2017, we submitted an _amicus curiae_
[[link removed]]
(friend of the court) brief in support of plaintiffs’ request that
the depositions should be unsealed. We argued that the release of the
deposition transcripts “may shed light on government misconduct …
on the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in
this context does not serve the public’s interest in honest,
effective government.” The brief continued:

The courts have long recognized a “strong presumption in favor of
openness as to court records. The burden of overcoming that
presumption is borne by the party that seeks to seal them. The burden
is a heavy one: ‘Only the most compelling reasons can justify
non-disclosure of judicial records.’ Moreover, the greater the
public interest in the litigation’s subject matter, the greater the
showing necessary to overcome the presumption of access.”
The original NorCal Tea Party Patriots lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in which Lerner and Paz gave depositions was a class-action lawsuit
against the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Treasury
and named individual officials claiming that:

Elements within the Executive Branch of the federal government,
including Defendants, brought the vast powers, incomprehensible
complexity, and crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of
citizens whose only wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the
policies or ideology of the Administration. In other words, these
citizens were targeted based upon their political viewpoints.
The lawsuit was settled
[[link removed]]
in 2017 when the Justice Department awarded the plaintiffs over $3.5
million for “attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and incentive
awards.” In settling the case, the DOJ admitted the IRS abused its
power and the criteria it used to screen applications for 501(c)
status was inappropriate. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated
[[link removed]


The IRS’ use of these criteria as a basis for heightened scrutiny
was wrong and should never have occurred. It is improper for the IRS
to single out groups for different treatment based on their names or
ideological positions. Any entitlement to tax exemption should be
based on the activities of the organization and whether they fulfill
requirements of the law, not the policy positions adopted by members
or the name chosen to reflect those views.
Despite these admissions of wrongdoing
[[link removed]],
the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges
[[link removed]].

We have uncovered troves of documents about the Obama IRS scandal
(see, for example, here
[[link removed]]
and here
[[link removed]]).
We filed at
least nine FOIA lawsuits about the IRS scandal, and much of what is
known about the scandal resulted from our litigation and
investigations.

Here is a partial summary of Judicial Watch’s disclosures:

* In September 2014, our FOIA lawsuit forced the release
[[link removed]]
of documents detailing that the IRS sought, obtained and maintained
the names of donors to Tea Party and other conservative groups. IRS
officials acknowledged in these documents that “such information was
not needed.” The documents also show that the donor names were
being used for a “secret research project.”
* In April 2015, we released court ordered IRS documents
[[link removed]]
that included an email
[[link removed]]
from
Lerner asking that a program be set up to “put together some
training points to help them [IRS staffers] understand the potential
pitfalls” of revealing too much information to Congress. The
documents also contain a Lerner email from 2013 in which she says she
is willing to take the blame
[[link removed]]
on
some aspects of the scandal. She also indicates that she
“understands why the IRS criteria” leading to the targeting of Tea
Party and other opponents of the President Obama “might raise
questions.”
* In July 2015, Judicial Watch revealed
[[link removed]]
the IRS scandal also included the Justice Department and FBI as well.
According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch under court order,
in an October 2010 meeting, Lerner, Justice Department officials and
the FBI planned for the possible criminal prosecution of targeted
nonprofit organizations for alleged illegal political activity. As
part of that effort, the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks,
containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000
non-profit, 501(c)(4) social welfare groups as part of its prosecution
effort. According to a letter
[[link removed]]
from
then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to IRS
Commissioner John Koskinen, “This revelation likely means that the
IRS – including possibly Lois Lerner – violated federal tax law by
transmitting this information to the Justice Department …”
* Also in July 2015
[[link removed]],
we released Obama IRS documents
[[link removed]]
confirming
that the agency used donor lists of tax-exempt organizations to target
those donors for audits. The documents also show IRS officials
specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come
under “high scrutiny” from the IRS.
* In July 2016, Judicial Watch, through a federal court order
[[link removed]]
in
one of its FOIA lawsuits
[[link removed]]
(_Judicial
Watch v Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:14-cv-01239)), obtained FBI “302” documents
[[link removed]],
which contain detailed narratives of FBI agent
investigations, revealing that top Washington IRS officials,
including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was
specifically targeting “Tea Party” and other conservative
organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the
public.
* The FBI 302 documents also confirm the Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report
[[link removed]]
that
said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting
conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.” Lerner
did not reveal the targeting
[[link removed]]
until May 2013, in response to
a planted question at an American Bar Association conference. The
documents reveal that then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller
actually wrote Lerner’s response, where she admits:

They [IRS staff] used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they
selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the
title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and
inappropriate.

* In November 2016, after the IRS refused to acknowledge
[[link removed]]
its
targeting of conservative groups, we forced the release of IRS records
revealing the agency used “inappropriate political labels” to
screen the tax-exempt applications of conservative organizations. IRS
agents were targeting organizations requesting tax-exempt status based
on “guilt by association
[[link removed]
and “party affiliation.” We brought to light that the IRS was
going to require 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations to restrict their
alleged political activities
[[link removed]]
in exchange for “expedited consideration” of their tax-exempt
applications. FBI “302” documents uncovered by Judicial Watch also
reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting
conservative groups because of their ideology and political
affiliation
[[link removed]]
in the summer of 2011.
* We also separately uncovered
[[link removed]]
in our lawsuit Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No.
1:13-cv-01559) that Lerner was under significant pressure from both
Democrats in Congress and the Obama Justice Department and FBI to
prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly
targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
(D-RI) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted,
“it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”
* In March 2017, we obtained IRS documents through our FOIA
lawsuit _Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:15-cv-00220) that contain admissions by IRS officials that the
agency used “inappropriate political labels” to screen the
tax-exempt applications of conservative organizations. Other records
uncovered reveal that the IRS was going to require 501(c)(4) nonprofit
organizations to restrict their alleged political activities in
exchange for “expedited consideration” of their tax-exempt
applications.
* In June 2018, we obtained internal IRS
[[link removed]]
documents
through one of our FOIA lawsuits (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal
Revenue Service_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:13-cv-01559)) revealing that Sen. John McCain’s former staff
director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent
Subcommittee, Henry Kerner, urged top IRS officials, including
then-director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner, to “audit so many
that it becomes financially ruinous.” Kerner was appointed
[[link removed]]
by
President Trump as Special Counsel for the United States Office of
Special Counsel.

In response to Judicial Watch’s litigation, the IRS initially
claimed that emails belonging to Lerner were supposedly missing
[[link removed]].
Later, IRS officials conceded
[[link removed]]
that the “missing” emails were on IRS back-up systems.

RECORDS SHOW CRITICAL RACE THEORY PROPAGANDA AT WEST POINT

Our military is under attack – from within. We have secured
documents showing that racist, anti-American critical race theory
propaganda is being used to radicalize our rising generation of Army
leadership at West Point.

We received two batches of records, 518 pages
[[link removed]]
and 135 pages
[[link removed]],
documenting this. For example, one training slide contains a graphic
titled “MODERN-DAY SLAVERY IN THE USA.”

We obtained the records through two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Defense, which we filed after
it failed to respond to requests for records concerning critical race
theory training at West Point (_Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of
Defense_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:21-cv-01795)) and emails related to such training of LTG Darryl
A. Williams, Superintendent, United States Military Academy, BG Mark
C. Quander, Commandant, U.S. Corps of Cadets, U.S. Military Academy,
and CSM Michael J. Coffee, former U.S. Military Academy senior
enlisted leader (_Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Defense_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:21-cv-02616)).

The records include material about “whiteness:”

In order to understand racial inequality and slavery, it is first
necessary to address whiteness

* “White people and people of color live racially different
structured lives” - Frankenberg
* 1) Is a location of structural advantage, of race privilege.
* 2) A standpoint or place from which white people look at
themselves and the rest of society
* 3) Refers to a set of cultural practices that are usually unmarked
and unnamed:

Take-for-grantedness of whiteness

* Privilege lives within this

A slide in the materials is titled “By the Numbers” and has a
graphic titled “MODERN DAY SLAVERY IN THE USA
[[link removed]
[Emphasis in original] It lists:

Blacks are more likely than whites to:
Live below the poverty line
Be victims of homicide (6:1)
Be incarcerated (8:1)

Blacks are less likely than whites to:
Have a college education
Receive recommended medical screening tests
Receive bank approval for a housing mortgage
Own their own homes
Receive a job promotion
Students are instructed that critical race theory, “Grows out of the
field of law and studies the way that racism is built into and
reproduced through the institutions that organize everyday life.”

Another presentation is titled “Education and Work Inequality
[[link removed]
in which one slide has a text box: “‘Race and the Invisible
Hand’ How White Networks Exclude Black Men from Blue-Collar Jobs.”

Another slide in the presentation titled “Affirmative Action,”
asks cadets:

Do you think Affirmative Action creates and [sic] environment for
“reverse discrimination?” Use CRT to support your answer.
Cadets are asked in a slide titled “Conundrums of Integration:”

What is the difference between desegregation versus integration? How
would you apply a tenant [sic] of CRT to this idea?
An additional PowerPoint presentation, includes a slide titled
“Critical Race Theory and Policy
[[link removed]
which describes critical race theory as having the following
attributes:

* Racism is ordinary.
* Race is socially constructed.
* White Americans have primarily benefited from civil rights
legislation.

A slide in the presentation titled “Queer Theory and Policy,”
under the general heading “Queer Theory” lists:

* Heterosexuality is the basis for sexual formations.
* Queer theory is multidisciplinary.
* Gay and lesbian issues get combined into one category when they
are not the same.

In the syllabus for a 3-credit Social Sciences Department class
titled “The Politics of Race, Gender, and Sexuality
[[link removed]
an assigned reading text is “Critical Race Theory: An
Introduction” by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. In the course
description, the syllabus notes: “[T]he class will serve as an
introduction to the theoretical concepts of post-modernism. This will
include a focus on feminist theory, critical race theory, and queer
theory.”

Another objective is to “consider how the contemporary issues that
relate to race, gender, and sexuality apply to the army and how they
impact the army officer. The concepts that will be discussed in this
class are essential for future military officers to understand and
fully absorb.”
Our lawsuits and FOIA requests on critical race theory and other
leftist extremism include:

* In June 2022 we further pursued litigation
[[link removed]]
a federal court decision dismissing a civil rights lawsuit on behalf
of David Flynn, a Massachusetts father who was fired from his position
as high school football coach after he raised concerns over Black
Lives Matter/critical race theory being taught in his daughter’s
seventh-grade ancient history class.
* Records
[[link removed]]
produced in April 2022 from the National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA) show the government agency responsible for regulating credit
unions required “inclusion and unconscious bias training” for the
agency’s employees and contractors and offered advice on how to
recognize and address alleged “microaggressions” in the workplace.
* Records
[[link removed]]
produced in February 2022from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) included a PowerPoint presentation titled “Race and gender
based microaggressions” that was used for training at the
organization.
* Two sets of records obtained by Judicial Watch in November 2021
related to the teaching of critical race theory in Montgomery County
Public Schools
[[link removed]]
(MCPS), Maryland’s largest school system, included a training course
with information about a book titled “Antiracist Baby” that
introduces the youngest readers to “the concept and power of
antiracism,” and says it’s the “perfect gift” for “ages baby
to age 3.”
* Records from Loudoun County, VA, obtained in October 2021 revealed
a coordinated effort to advance critical race theory initiatives in
Loudoun County public schools
[[link removed]]
despite widespread
public opposition.
* A training document provided to Judicial Watch in October 2021 by
a whistleblower in the Westerly School District
[[link removed]]
of Rhode
Island, details how its schools are using teachers to push critical
race theory in classrooms. The training course was assembled by the
left-leaning Highlander Institute and cites quotes from Bettina Love,
from whom the Biden administration distanced itself publicly after her
statements equating “whiteness” to oppression.
* Records produced in June 2021 by Wellesley Public Schools
[[link removed]]
in Massachusetts
confirmed the use of “affinity spaces” that divide students and
staff based on race as a priority and objective of the school
district’s “diversity, equity and inclusion” plan. The school
district also admitted that between September 1, 2020, and May 17,
2021, it created “five distinct” segregated spaces.
* Heavily redacted records obtained by Judicial watch in May 2021
from Montgomery County Public Schools
[[link removed]]
(MCPS) in Maryland
included documents related to their $454,000 “Anti-racist system
audit” and critical race theory classes. Students were taught that
the phrase “Make America Great Again” was an example of “covert
white supremacy.”

TIJUANA OPENS MUSLIM MIGRANT SHELTER FOR U.S. ASYLUM SEEKERS

People continue to flow cross our southern border with little or no
background screening for criminal history, associations, or intent.
Former Acting Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Mark
Morgan said
[[link removed]]
this week that he’s concerned the next terrorist attack will come
from a border crosser who evaded apprehension by law enforcement, and
that planning for the attack may already be underway.

That will not surprise regular readers of our _Corruption Chronicles_
blog, which has been reporting on this threat for some time. Here is
the latest piece
[[link removed]]
of this
dangerous puzzle:

As the U.S. sets a record for illegal immigrant apprehensions along
the southern border, a first-of-its- kind shelter opens in Tijuana,
Mexico to accommodate a steady flow of Muslim migrants heading north
via Latin America. A couple of years ago a San Diego-based group
called Latina Muslim Foundation began raising funds to build the
shelter “in response to the growing number of Muslim migrants south
of the border,” according to a local news report
[[link removed]].
The 8,000-square-foot facility, which opened over the weekend, can
accommodate “up to 150 asylum-seekers
[[link removed]
and
will offer Muslim migrants housing, medical care, halal meals and
legal services as they wait to enter the U.S. in the famously violent
Mexican city that borders California.

Judicial Watch has for years reported on the increasing number of
Muslim migrants—including from terrorist nations—entering the U.S.
through the Mexican border and the timing of this influx could not be
worse, during a record-breaking month for the U.S. Border Patrol. The
latest agency figures
[[link removed]]
show
that more illegal immigrants—222,656—were apprehended at the
southwest border in May than in any other month in history. The
previous one-month record was set in March 2000, when the frontline
Homeland Security agency reported 223,305 apprehensions. Additionally,
federal agents have processed more than 1.5 million illegal immigrants
this fiscal year. With three months till the end of the fiscal year,
at the current rate the figure is sure to surpass the 2021 record of
1.7 million.

A quarter of the illegal alien encounters reported in May involved
repeat offenders previously caught by federal agents this year, the
latest government stats reveal. The breakdown shows that Mexicans
account for the largest number of illegal border crossers in May,
about 77,000, followed by Cubans (25,348), Guatemalans (21,382),
Hondurans (19,491), Colombians (19,040), Nicaraguans (18,944),
Haitians (10,418), Salvadorans (8,955), Brazilians (5,118),
Venezuelans (5,078), Russians (3,394) and Ecuadoreans (3,045). This
batch of records does not offer a breakdown that includes Muslims, but
it has long been reported that the number is on the rise. Earlier this
year an Arab news outlet reported
[[link removed]]
that
thousands of Muslims from the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Africa
try to reach the U.S.-Mexico border every month. In the story the head
of a religious immigrant organization in Brazil estimates that 20% of
all people welcomed on their U.S.-bound journey in 2020 were Muslim.

In the last few years, a growing number of illegal aliens from
terrorist nations—including Pakistan, Afghanistan and
Bangladesh—have tried to enter the U.S. through Mexico, making the
increase in Muslim asylum seekers and the effort to accommodate them
in bordering Tijuana quite troublesome. In recent years, an alarming
number of migrants from Bangladesh, a recruiting ground for terrorist
groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda
Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), have been caught by federal agents along
the U.S.-Mexico border. At the start of this fiscal year, which began
in September, the Border Patrol encountered tens of thousands of
illegal immigrants from dozens of countries, including Africa and the
Middle East. In the first month alone the Border Patrol’s Del Rio
Sector in Texas recorded
[[link removed]]
28,111 illegal aliens from more than 50 countries. They include Syria,
Lebanon, Eritrea, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, a central Asian nation
that borders Afghanistan, which is controlled by the Taliban after the
abrupt exit of U.S. troops.

It is worth noting that Mexico is a hotbed of Islamic terrorism that
is concentrated in the American border region. As part of an ongoing
investigation into the national security threats along the southern
border, Judicial Watch has reported that Islamic jihadists are
training in southern border towns near American cities and have joined
forces with Mexican drug cartels to infiltrate the United States.
Years ago, a high-ranking Homeland Security official confirmed to
Judicial Watch that Mexican drug traffickers help Islamic terrorists
stationed in Mexico cross into the U.S. to explore targets for future
attacks. Among the jihadists that traveled back and forth through the
southern border was a Kuwaiti named Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir, an
ISIS operative who lives in the Mexican state of Chihuahua not far
from El Paso. Another was a Saudi Al Qaeda operative, Adnan G. El
Shurkrjumah, wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
during his undetected cross-border jaunts.

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORIES: COURTS DECLARE CALIFORNIA QUOTA LAWS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Judicial Watch scored tremendous victories in mounting successful
court challenges to Left’s radical and unconstitutional quota
mandates in California”. Micah Morrison, our chief investigative
reporter, summarizes
[[link removed]]
these victories in _Investigative Bulletin_:

Equal protection under the law is the foundation of the fight against
discrimination. Here, famously, is the U.S Constitution on the issue:

“No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.”

–14th Amendment

And here is the Constitution of the State of California:

“A person may not be…denied equal protection of the laws.”

–Article One

But in California, left-wing lawmakers dominating the state
legislature launched assaults on equal protection, passing two
measures that mandated quotas for corporate boards. Senate Bill 826
required every publicly held corporation to have at least one director
“who self-identifies her gender as a woman.” Assembly Bill 979
required corporations to have between one and three directors from
“underrepresented communities,” defined as “Black, African
American, Hispanic, Latino, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native
Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or [those who self-identify] as gay,
lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

Many California taxpayers were alarmed by the new laws. This was not
an arcane fight over corporate board membership: bedrock
constitutional principles were at stake, and other quota laws seemed
sure to follow. Whatever happened to picking people based on
qualifications such as relevant work and life experience? And as
Judicial Watch attorneys would later note in two separate court cases:
laws that explicitly distinguish between individuals on the grounds of
racial, ethnic, or gender status, or sexual preference, are directly
prohibited by the equal protection clause.

Judicial Watch joined with three California taxpayers—Robin Crest,
Earl De Vires, and Judy De Vires—to fight the laws. Judicial Watch
attorneys argued that the laws were unconstitutional—blatant
violations of the equal protection clause of the California
Constitution—and any use of taxpayer funds to enforce compliance was
illegal.

Assembly Bill 979—the move to enforce racial, ethnic, and LGBTQ
quotas—was rife with “stereotypes,” Judicial Watch noted. The
law demeaned individuals, shunting aside “their very worth as
citizens” and evaluating them according to criteria “barred to the
government by history and the Constitution.” In October 2020,
Judicial Watch sued to overturn the law.

“California’s government has a penchant for quotas that are
brazenly unconstitutional,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton
at the time. “Gender quotas and now new quotas for numerous other
groups for corporate boards are slaps in the face to the core American
value of equal protection under the law.”

Challenging Senate Bill 826
[[link removed]]
in a separate court proceeding, Judicial Watch attorneys noted that
the law was a clear violation of California’s equal protection
clause. Lawyers for the state argued that not only were the gender
quotas a legitimate means of remedying discrimination, but women on
boards improved corporate performance as well. Judicial Watch shot
down the improved performance claim
[[link removed]],
presenting expert witness testimony that the studies of improved board
performance relied on by the state were, at best, deficient and
unreliable.

The courts sided with Judicial Watch.

Setting aside Assembly Bill 979, Judge Terry A. Green wrote in a
24-page opinion
[[link removed]]
that the law “violates the Equal Protection Clause of the California
Constitution on its face.” In a sharp rebuke, he castigated the
state legislature for not protecting “the right of individuals to
equal treatment.”

Judge Green wrote: “The difficulty is that the Legislature is
thinking in group terms. But the California Constitution protects the
right of _individuals_ to equal treatment. Before the Legislature may
require that members of one group be given certain board seats, it
must first try to create neutral conditions under which qualified
individuals from any group may succeed. That attempt was not made in
this case.”

Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis was equally uncompromising in her rejection
of the gender quota law, Senate Bill 826, determining it “violates
the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution.”
In her verdict
[[link removed]],
Judge Duffy-Lewis denounced the legislation. Senate Bill 826’s goal
“was not to boost California’s economy, not to improve
opportunities for women in the workplace … not to protect California
taxpayers, public employees, pensions and retirees” — all claims
made by the state at trial. It’s goal “was to achieve general
equity or parity … the Legislature’s actual purpose was
gender-balancing, not remedying discrimination.”

In fact, there was no discrimination. Corporations have voluntarily
engaged in good-faith efforts for years to put more qualified woman
and minorities on their boards. “There is no compelling governmental
interest in remedying discrimination in the board selection
process,” Judge Duffy-Lewis noted, “because neither the
Legislature nor Defendant could identify any specific, purposeful,
intentional and unlawful discrimination to be remedied.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton saluted the two court victories
and pointed to the big issues at stake. “The radical Left’s
unprecedented attacks on anti-discrimination law has suffered another
stinging defeat,” he said. “Thankfully, California courts have
upheld the core American value of equal protection under the law.
Judicial Watch’s taxpayer clients are heroes for standing up for
civil rights against the Left’s pernicious efforts to undo
anti-discrimination protections. Judicial Watch’s legal team has
helped protect the civil rights of every American with these
successful lawsuits.”
Until next week …





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU02"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2022, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]