Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) No Rogue Rulings Act, which seeks to place restrictions on federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, is expected to receive a full House vote this week as the House Judiciary Committee also plans to hold a hearing on district court judges who are blocking the President’s agenda. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has scheduled a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet and Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.

The hearing on Tuesday, titled “Judicial Overreach and Constitutional Limits on the Federal Courts,” is set to examine rulings by District Court Judge James Boasberg, who is at the center of the White House’s battle to enforce the Alien Enemies Act and deport terrorist illegal aliens.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, President Trump went scorched earth on the judge after he sided with criminal gang members Friday and extended his temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Alien Enemies Act case until April 12. The TRO was set to expire on March 29.

The President also echoed calls for Boasberg’s security clearance to be pulled as a consequence for his lawless order, signaling that he may be inclined to do so.

Trump GOES OFF on Radical Judge Boasberg, Hints He May Revoke His Security Clearance!

Rep. Darrell Issa joined Fox News on Saturday to discuss his crucial legislation to limit the authority of District Court Judges like James Boasberg.

"H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act, or NORRA, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), would prohibit United States district courts from issuing any orders providing for injunctive relief that are broader in scope than restricting the actions of a party before the court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief," reads the bill summary.

"The bill would allow a district court to issue a nationwide injunction in a case in which two separate states from two separate judicial circuits are parties--making clear the nationwide nature of the dispute. In such a case, the bill provides for the establishment of a panel of three randomly chosen judges to determine whether to issue a nationwide injunction. Such injunctions may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court."

Watch below:

Issa: Well, the bill is not a block. The bill simply restates the intent and the language that Congress used to create district court judges. District court judges are supposed to be limited to that which occurs in their district and has a nexus to their district. And many of these judges far exceed their authority, grab, if you will, a random plaintiff, and then make it a national injunction, and so we want to rein that in appropriately. You know, we have nine people on the Supreme Court, so that no one justice makes a decision. When one judge makes the decision and holds up the administration for weeks or months, they've really preempted the Supreme Court.

And so, that's really where we're coming down. Earlier it was said that we're divided. The GOP isn't divided on taking this step. There are those who have specific allegations about some judges and are talking impeachment, but that's a separate issue. It's a very difficult bar. It's hard to prove. And as Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General Yu said, it is not appropriate if we just simply disagree with somebody's mistaken, wrong or wrong minded decision. So we're going to do what we can do under congressional rules.

We're going to do it quickly, and I think we're going to do it right. I do want to opine quickly on President Trump is not exceeding his authority on this question of only citizens voting. The Congress has acted in the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and a number of other areas, and those have all been sustained by the High Court. Congress has a responsibility, or simply a right, to preempt the states when it's appropriate to maintain the common good. And that doesn't get in the way of the time, place, or manner, which is determined by the states.

We have a lot of authority to act when Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court doesn’t. What we're doing this coming week on the House floor is passing a major piece of legislation that defines what I believe the Supreme Court should have already decided, which is to rein in the excessive decisions by district courts. If they don't, we will. Additionally, while the President has his executive action, we intend on also using our power to define a lot of other things for the court, and one of them, quite frankly, is that these cases, in some cases, exceed the jurisdiction of the court, and we can rein that in. So, we'll work with the President and the administration to do that.

The post (VIDEO) Rep. Darrell Issa Discusses No Rogue Rulings Act to Limit District Court Judges’ Power – House Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Judge Brian Boasberg’s Deportation Block Tuesday appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

A plane registered to U.S. Bank’s Vice Chair and Chief Administration Officer, Terry Dolan, crashed into a residential home in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, on Saturday, March 29, 2025.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that a single-engine plane crashed into at least one home in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, on Saturday afternoon, setting a massive fire in the neighborhood.

Video from the scene, courtesy of Mike Deyo, shows at least one house engulfed in flames.

WATCH:

Another video shows the house fire raging as police respond to the incident and neighbors gather on the street.

The aircraft, a SOCATA TBM-700—a single-engine business plane—departed from Des Moines International Airport in Iowa and was en route to Anoka County-Blaine Airport in Minneapolis.

Approximately ten minutes before its intended landing, the plane descended rapidly and collided with a home near 109th Avenue North and Noble Parkway around 12:20 p.m.

According to MN Crime, residents of the house were unharmed, but there is no official confirmation on the passengers of the plane.

While the Hennepin County Medical Examiner has yet to officially confirm the identity of the sole victim, many — including colleagues — believe the deceased is U.S. Bancorp Vice Chair and Chief Administration Officer Terry Dolan.

“We are aware of reports that the plane that crashed in Brooklyn Park was registered to Terry Dolan, our vice chair and chief administration officer. At this time, we are unable to confirm whether he was on board, but we believe he was. Our thoughts and prayers are with him, his family and friends, and anyone who may have been affected by yesterday’s tragic incident,” US Bank said in a statement.

We are grateful that there were not any injuries to residents of the home that was impacted by the crash, and we thank all the first responders who have provided service.”

JUST IN: @usbank says they believe, but are unable to confirm, that Vice Chair and Chief Administration Officer Terry Dolan may have been on the aircraft that crashed yesterday in Brooklyn Park, MN. @WCCO @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/j5L9GSC9ZE

— Frankie McLister (@FrankieMcLister) March 30, 2025

According to the US Bank’s website:

Terry Dolan is vice chair and chief administration officer (CAO) of U.S. Bancorp. He became CAO in 2023 and his role includes oversight of corporate strategy, marketing, analytics, corporate social responsibility, digital capabilities and growth, public affairs and communications, and transformation.

Dolan previously served as vice chair, chief financial officer, as well as vice chair of Wealth Management and Investment Services, executive vice president and controller. He has been a leader in the bank’s focus on driving growth and digital transformation, and reinforcing its strong financial position, with returns on assets and equity among the highest in the industry. He has also been a leader in its community development work and investments in affordable housing, economic development and renewable energy tax credit financing.

He has been actively involved in numerous community organizations that provide services to the homeless, arts and culture, and higher education – including serving on the boards of directors for Catholic Charities, the Minnesota Opera, Artspace, The Minneapolis Foundation, the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University. He currently serves as chair for the Killebrew Thompson Memorial board of directors. He has a bachelor’s degree from the University of St. Thomas.

The post Top U.S. Bank Executive Terry Dolan Believed to Be the Pilot Killed in Tragic Plane Crash in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is under attack once again.

Anonymous sources told The Wall Street Journal that Pete Hegseth brought his wife, Jennifer Hegseth, to two meetings with foreign military officials, during which they discussed sensitive information.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Jennifer Hegseth, a private citizen, was present at a meeting at the Pentagon when Pete Hegseth met with U.K. Secretary of Defense John Healey in early March.

Hegseth’s wife was also present at a meeting last month at NATO headquarters in Brussels.

Spouses of high-ranking presidential administration officials usually have a low-level security clearance, at minimum. The Pentagon declined to tell The Wall Street Journal whether Jennifer Hegseth has a clearance.

Additionally, a Defense Secretary can invite guests to meetings with foreign counterparts.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is facing scrutiny over his handling of details of a military strike, brought his wife, a former Fox News producer, to two meetings with foreign military counterparts where sensitive information was discussed, according to multiple people who were present or had knowledge of the discussions.

One of the meetings, a high-level discussion at the Pentagon on March 6 between Hegseth and U.K. Secretary of Defense John Healey, took place at a sensitive moment for the trans-Atlantic alliance, one day after the U.S. said it had cut off military intelligence sharing with Ukraine. The group that met at the Pentagon, which included Adm. Tony Radakin, the head of the U.K.’s armed forces, discussed the U.S. rationale behind that decision, as well as future military collaboration between the two allies, according to people familiar with the meeting.

A secretary can invite anyone to meetings with visiting counterparts, but attendee lists are usually carefully limited to those who need to be there and attendees are typically expected to possess security clearances given the delicate nature of the discussions, according to defense officials and people familiar with the meeting. There is often security near the meeting space to keep away uninvited attendees.

The leaks to The Wall Street Journal come after Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Waltz added The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal chat group where Pete Hegseth discussed successful strikes on Houthi terrorists in Yemen.

Pete Hegseth was blamed for not noticing Jeffrey Goldberg was added to the Signal chat group with other high-level Trump Administration officials.

Hegseth defended the ‘Signalgate’ and said no war plans were discussed in the “Houthi PC small group” chat.

WATCH:

Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth responds to the Atlantic’s coverage of the Signal group chat:

“They even changed the title to ‘attack plans,’ because they know it’s not war plans.”pic.twitter.com/53FnZFHZaU

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) March 26, 2025

The post Pete Hegseth Under Attack in Latest Leak to The Wall Street Journal appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The United States has taken a bold step by nominating Cuban dissident Rosa María Payá

The post U.S. Nominates Cuban Dissident Rosa María Payá to Inter-American Human Rights Commission — A Blow Against Authoritarianism in Hispanic America appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The latest episode in the left’s non-stop smear campaign against America First leadership played out on NBC’s Meet the Press this weekend, as Atlantic Editor-in-Chief and longtime anti-Trump operative Jeffrey Goldberg took aim at Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL).

Goldberg, long regarded by conservatives as a Democratic lapdog and regime mouthpiece, found himself added to a Signal group chat containing sensitive military chatter, thanks to what Congressman Mike Waltz called an honest mistake.

Waltz took full responsibility for the digital mishap.

Recall, in an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz broke his silence on the now-infamous Signal app leak that included the infiltration of a Trump administration national security group chat by a Trump-hating Atlantic editor.

Ingraham grilled Waltz on how the editor’s number ended up in the chat. Determined to get answers, she pushed harder, questioning why Goldberg’s number was even saved on his phone.

Waltz doubled down, insisting the contact must have “sucked in somehow” – though he couldn’t explain how. He claimed the person he thought was in the group chat wasn’t there—it was Goldberg instead.

Mike Waltz:
Well, look, a staffer wasn’t responsible. Look, I take full responsibility. I built the group. My job is to make sure everything’s coordinated. But how does that—I don’t mean to be pedantic here, but how did the number get into the chat? Have you ever had somebody’s contact that shows their name, and then you have somebody else’s number there?

Laura Ingraham:
I never make those mistakes.

Mike Waltz:
You’ve got somebody else’s number on someone else’s contact. Of course, I didn’t see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else. Now, whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical means is something we’re trying to figure out.

Laura Ingraham:
A staffer did not put his contact information?

Mike Waltz:
Of course not. No.

Laura Ingraham:
But how did it end up in your phone?

Mike Waltz:
That’s what we’re trying to figure out.

Laura Ingraham:
But that’s a pretty big problem.

Mike Waltz:
That is why we’ve got the best technical minds, right? That’s disturbing. I’m sure everybody out there has had a contact where it said one person and then a different phone number.

Laura Ingraham:
But you’ve never talked to him before, so how’s the number on your phone? I’m not an expert in any of this, but it’s just curious. How’s the number on your phone? Someone sent you that contact?

Mike Waltz:
Well, if you have somebody else’s contact and then somehow it gets sucked in…

Laura Ingraham:
Was there someone else supposed to be on the chat that wasn’t on the chat—that you thought was on the chat? That you thought was on there?

Mike Waltz:
The person that I thought was on there was never on there. It was this guy.

Laura Ingraham:
Who was that person?

Mike Waltz:
Well, I’m not—look, Laura, I take responsibility. I built the group. But look, that’s the part we have to figure out. That’s the part that we were… Embarrassing, yes, but Pete and I are veterans. We know these operations. He has been an excellent Secretary of Defense, and this was an operation that—I mean, it amazes me. I guess the Democrats were fine to leave all the sea lanes shut down. We’re fine to have destroyers fired on dozens of times by this terrorist group and fine to have Iran keep supplying them with missiles. That was okay. The President takes decisive action. Now we’re seeing some real success in taking down their air defenses, opening the sea lanes, taking out their leadership. We don’t want to talk about that. We don’t want to talk about this.

But that wasn’t good enough for Goldberg, who took to national television to claim Waltz was lying about never having spoken to him.

Goldberg dismissed Waltz’s explanation that the phone number could’ve been pulled in automatically via a contact.

Jeffrey Goldberg:
“Well, this isn’t The Matrix. Phone numbers don’t just get sucked into other phones. I don’t know what he’s talking about there. You know, very frequently in journalism, the most obvious explanation is the explanation. My phone number was in his phone because my phone number is in his phone. He’s telling everyone that he’s never met me or spoken to me. That’s simply not true. I understand why he’s doing it, but this has become a somewhat farcical situation. There’s no subterfuge here. My number was in his phone. He mistakenly added me to the group chat. There we go.”

WATCH:

Last week, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg gave somewhat of a cryptic response when CBS News asked him about his relationship with National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.

“I’m just not going to comment on my relationship with Mike Waltz,” Jeffrey Goldberg told CBS News in an interview Wednesday.

When asked about the photos of him standing near Mike Waltz at an event in 2021, Goldberg said, “If your eyeballs see us together, then I guess your eyeballs are seeing us together.”

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that according to investigative reporter Paul Sperry, Mike Waltz was a source for Jeffrey Goldberg while he was serving on the House Intel Committee.

Per Paul Sperry: Though Waltz insists, “I wasn’t talking to [Goldberg],” a US intel official told me Waltz was a source for Goldberg while on HPSCI. “There’s no need for an investigation to figure out how he was added to the chat. Goldberg was in his address book b/c he’s been talking to him”

For what it’s worth, Mike Waltz attended an event moderated by Jeffrey Goldberg in 2021.

Waltz was photographed standing near Goldberg.

Michael Waltz claimed that he’s “never met, don’t know, never communicated with” Jeffrey Goldberg.

Here’s a photo of Waltz standing next to Goldberg during a 2021 event at the French Embassy.

The event Waltz attended—a Q&A with a French filmmaker—was moderated by Goldberg. pic.twitter.com/eTqOY7xnTl

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) March 26, 2025

The post “That’s Simply Not True” — Trump-Hater Jeffrey Goldberg Shreds Mike Waltz’s Denial That He Never Met or Spoke With Him appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Why, precisely, is a judge in Washington allowed to decide what illegal immigrants with alleged gang affiliations, who were being detained in Texas, are entitled to before they’re deported from the country they’ve unlawfully entered?

That’s what Alexander Hamilton might like to know.

Yes, Hamilton might be the one founding father that it’s OK for Gen Z liberals to like because they can spit verses from “My Shot” on command — likely because the hip social studies teacher in high school let them listen to the “Hamilton” soundtrack for extra credit.

But before he was a rapping puppet for Lin-Manuel Miranda’s take on revolutionary American history, he was actually writing stuff that didn’t involve hip-hop jams with the Marquis de Lafayette. In particular, he was one of the three authors of “The Federalist Papers,” a series of 85 essays that argued in favor of the U.S. Constitution at the time of its ratification.

And, lo and behold, he has something to say about the kind of activist jurists like U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying a 1798 law to summarily deport illegal immigrants associated with transnational gangs — in this case, Tren de Aragua, one of the most powerful gangs that’s thrived in the power vacuum created by the dysfunctional Maduro government.

“Given the exigent circumstances that [the court] has been made aware of this morning, it has determined that an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set,” Boasberg, an Obama appointee, said in an order March 15, according to Fox News.

Boasberg continued to block any sort of removal under the Alien Enemies Act by challenging the government to prove why each individual being deported is, in fact, an “alien enemy.”

“Before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all,” Boasberg wrote in a Monday ruling, according to the Miami Herald. “Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge.”

It’s unclear what these individualized hearings would look like, as per the Boasberg model, or even whether he’d then acquiesce to the deportations at that point.

In fact, it’s unclear what Boasberg is doing adjudicating this case at all, given that the aliens in question were apparently detained in Raymondsville, Texas — a cool 1,700 miles from the District of Columbia — aside from naked venue-shopping from the American Civil Liberties Union, who (because of course) is representing the Venezuelan migrants. (“You can do all that, you’ve just got to do it in the right court. And the right court was in Texas,” said Judge Justin Walker, another member of the D.C. district court appeals panel, when summarizing the government’s argument against the case.)

The Trump administration has more or less telegraphed its willingness to ignore Boasberg and his ilk to the extent possible and let the Supreme Court be the final arbiter of the mess. Is this some sort of crisis for the rule of law? Not at all, if one were to read Hamilton’s thoughts on the matter.

In Federalist No. 78, one of the most influential documents pertaining to the role of the judiciary in the then-proposed Constitution, Hamilton wrote that the courts “have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment” and cannot effectuate those judgments on its own.

“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them,” Hamilton wrote.

“The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community,” he continued.

“The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.

“It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

This view, Hamilton said, “suggests several important consequences.

“It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks,” he wrote.

“It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.”

Naturally, the argument against this would be that Hamilton was writing to a much different world and audience than these United States in the 21st century.

This isn’t an argument in favor of the anti-Trump forces if one thinks about it too deeply — for example, the fact that Hamilton couldn’t have contemplated a world in which jurists would be asked to decide on whether alleged Venezuelan transnational gang members being flown to El Salvador for detention should be returned to the U.S. for a hearing would reflect poorly not on the lack of foresight Hamilton had but to those who have let America degenerate to such a state in the first place — but these things aren’t thought about too deeply, even at the bench level, which is (alas) the point here.

The Federalist No. 78 clearly and concisely stated the limits that the founders imagined for the judiciary. Anyone who alleges an original intent that goes beyond that is simply fooling themselves — and original intent is what matters. For anti-Trumpers wondering why the administration’s response isn’t a “crisis” of the rule of law by any stretch of the imagination, perhaps try looking into some Hamilton that isn’t “My Shot.”

And no, “It’s Quiet Uptown” doesn’t count, either.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post 250 Years Ago Alexander Hamilton Told Us How to Handle These Anti-Trump Judges appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.