Why the Federal Government Can’t Charge Anyone With ‘Domestic Terrorism’


Marimar Martinez | Photo: Sipa-USA_Alamy

Vice President J.D. Vance and outgoing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem both said Renée Good, an activist shot three times in her car by a federal immigration officer, was engaged in “domestic terrorism.” Two weeks later, after officers shot Alex Pretti at least 10 times, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller called Pretti “a domestic terrorist [who] tried to assassinate federal law enforcement.”

And in October 2025, a Border Patrol officer shot Marimar Martinez five times in her car; unlike Good and Pretti, Martinez survived. DHS deemed her a “domestic terrorist” who had “rammed” the officers’ vehicle while it was “boxed in.” Even after Martinez demonstrated in court that officers had sideswiped her before opening fire, DHS refused to retract its characterization of her as a terrorist.

Despite officials’ proclivity for the phrase, there is no federal statute to charge someone with domestic terrorism. Federal law does define domestic terrorism—criminal acts “dangerous to human life,” intended to intimidate civilians or influence government policy. But as the FBI noted in a November 2020 memo, “This is a definitional statute, not a charging statute.” The bureau prefers the term domestic violent extremism “because the underlying ideology itself and the advocacy of such beliefs is not prohibited by US law.”

Federal sentencing guidelines already allow for an “enhanced penalty….if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism,” and it’s easy to see its potential for abuse. When leaders of the far-right Proud Boys were convicted for organizing the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, prosecutors alleged the mob violence that day was “no different” than blowing up a building.

U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly disagreed but still felt “the constitutional moment we were in that day is something that is so sensitive that it deserves a significant sentence.” Kelly applied terrorism enhancements and sentenced them each to over a decade in prison. (All participants received a presidential pardon in 2025.)

Over the past 25 years, we’ve learned the government won’t waste an opportunity to increase its power in the name of fighting “terror,” whether at home or abroad. The Trump administration already claims the authority to label people “domestic terrorists” based on such perceived offenses as “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity.” The FBI cited January 6 as justification to dramatically increase surveillance of American citizens who opposed then-President Joe Biden. We should look skeptically at any further expansion of power that will supposedly fight “terror.”

The post Why the Federal Government Can't Charge Anyone With 'Domestic Terrorism' appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/OJRqWzX
via IFTTT

12-Year-Old French Girl Collapses After Judge Releases Men Arrested For Gang Raping Her In Airbnb

12-Year-Old French Girl Collapses After Judge Releases Men Arrested For Gang Raping Her In Airbnb

Via Remix News,

Two young men, both adults, suspected of gang rape in an Airbnb in the France’s Décines-Charpieu (Rhône), have been released from custody, shocking the family of one of the victims.

The victim’s lawyer, David Metaxas, spoke on behalf of the victim’s relatives, who told LyonMag that the judge’s decision was “incomprehensible.” Not only have both men been released to roam freely in the streets, but the judge did not even issue a restriction on contact with the victim, which means the two men could approach her once again.

Last week, the two men, aged 20 and 21, were arrested for the rape involving the 12-year-old, as well as a 16-year-old girl who had allegedly led the younger victim to the apartment. After reportedly exchanging messages with the two young men via Snapchat, the teen encouraged her younger friend to come with her to the Airbnb. Alcohol and drugs were allegedly consumed, with an excessive amount of hard liquor given to the 12-year-old.

Falling unconscious, the younger victim recounted waking up “lying on a bed covered in blood,” before realizing what had happened, recounts Lyon Mag. It was when she turned her phone back on that her mother was able to geolocate her, allowing the police to intervene. She is said to have run away from her home in Givors before the incident.

However, now the perpetrators are free. The family of the 12-year-old says her safety and innocence were tossed aside from the get-go, with police allegedly not even asking her to file a complaint initially.

“They were very poorly received, as if they were a nuisance,” said David Metaxas, the lawyer representing the 12-year-old. He pointed to a total lack of support and guidance, adding the very obvious and visible signs of rape suffered by the young girl.

“It is unacceptable that the form to file a complaint was not given to them by the police. It must be remembered that they were dealing with a young girl who had been deflowered, anally and orally penetrated, and who had wounds all over her body.”

Unfortunately, the 16-year-old girl and the accused men all stated that the girl was consenting. “Everyone agrees that she was consenting, or even that she was provoking, even though she is 12 years old and was completely drunk to the point of losing consciousness,” he said, adding that at the hearing, the girl was in an advanced state of shock.

“The lack of coercive measures concerning the suspects […] is incomprehensible,” stated Metaxas, the lawyer representing the 12-year-old, as quoted by LyonMag. He added that the court has failed to demand any judicial supervision or even a restraining order on the alleged perpetrators.  

“They can, if they wish, contact and visit the young girl whenever they want,”  he warns.  “Therefore, there is total incomprehension, not to mention anger, on the part of the family.”

As for the young victim, she allegedly collapsed in the lawyer’s office upon hearing of the decision and was taken to the hospital. “She is in a state of total shock. She couldn’t utter a single word in my office. The justice system needs to take charge of this case very quickly,” he stated.

Metaxas insists he will not let the matter be and will be asking the public prosecutor that “a specialized service be put in charge of the investigation with the implementation of coercive measures to ensure the safety of this minor.”

The two men are still under investigation.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/28/2026 – 05:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/9nH8TyN Tyler Durden

Pentagon Investigates Mystery Fire At UK Base Used For Bombing Iran

Pentagon Investigates Mystery Fire At UK Base Used For Bombing Iran

The US Air Force has reportedly opened an investigation into a fire that broke out over the weekend at RAF Fairford in the UK. Crucially, it is a key US-allied base hosting a US bomber unit carrying out strikes on Iran as part of Trump’s Operation Epic Fury.

The fire started early Sunday inside an “old or disused building” at the airbase, a UK defense ministry spokesperson has said. The Pentagon is investigating alongside local partners: “An investigation has been initiated and is ongoing. More information will be released as it becomes available,” a statement said.

source: The Telegraph

No injuries have been reported and officials said the blaze was quickly continued, with no further threat posed to the base and surrounding community. But it was clearly very large at one point, video evidence shows.

The US was permitted starting in March to use the base for Iran-related operations. The Telegraph describes further of the fire:

Several crews were deployed to the incident at RAF Fairford in the early hours of Sunday morning.

Footage taken overnight appears to show smoke billowing from what is claimed to be the base’s commissary, a shop that provides food and equipment. Other pictures from the scene show that the building’s roof collapsed as firefighters brought the blaze under control.

Authorities are suspicious there may have been some kind of act of sabotage at the base, given widespread local opposition to its us by American forces to bomb Iran.

There’s also been chatter of Irani-linked ‘terror cells’ in Europe. According to more from The Telegraph:

While some welcomed the arrival, there had been protests against the decision, with around 200 people gathered at the base on Saturday. Protesters held signs that read “No war on Iran”, “US out of British bases” and “Stop Trump’s deadly wars”.

The use of RAF Fairford halves the time US bombers need to spend in the air. Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to allow US troops to use the base prevented what would have been a 37-hour round trip from Missouri to Iran.

RAF Fairford remains among the few European bases capable of supporting long-range US bombers such as the B-52 and B-2, and thus is an important staging and logistics hub for the Pentagon.

Tensions have of late been strained between the US and UK over the Iran war, with PM Starmer dealing with a lot of domestic opposition, and Trump at the same time pressuring him to do more alongside the US in Iran and the Hormuz Strait.

If the fire was indeed arson, European authorities will likely look at the potential that it could have been Russia-linked, given widespread allegations of Moscow-backed sabotage operations in Europe and the UK, throughout the Ukraine war.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/28/2026 – 04:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/JqaQpZk Tyler Durden

NATO Minus US: European Militaries Won’t Add Up To Deter Russia

NATO Minus US: European Militaries Won’t Add Up To Deter Russia

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s European nations would need to bolster standing militaries by at least 300,000 troops and significantly boost defense spending beyond 3.5 percent of gross domestic product – at least 250 billion euros – while reviving and integrating their industrial base to defend themselves against Russia without the United States.

And they’d need to do that fast, according to a 2025 joint analysis by European think tanks Bruegel and the Kiel Institute for World Economy.

They warn that even with 80,000 American soldiers and airmen stationed on 30 bases on the continent—and the United States’ capacity to rapidly deploy forces—Moscow will test NATO’s resolve “within three to 10 years.”

The once-inconceivable prospect of the United States withdrawing from NATO is now a possibility. President Donald Trump—never a fan of the 32-nation coalition the Pentagon has spearheaded since 1949—has called for a “very serious examining” of the alliance, after its members failed to respond to his appeal to assist in the Iran war or join the U.S. Navy’s Arabian Sea blockade of Iranian shipping. 

Trump has vowed Europeans could face a “reckoning” without American leadership and support. Such a departure would require unlikely congressional approval, but the president’s statements are sparking discussion on both sides of the Atlantic about a restructuring of the alliance that would require Europeans to shoulder more of NATO’s burden.

As widely reported, European allies are actively discussing and preparing for a “NATO minus U.S.” scenario. The idea originated in response to Trump’s demand for Europeans to bulk up support for Ukraine in fighting off Russia’s invasion, his threats to seize Greenland from Denmark, and his characterization of member states as “cowards” unlikely to uphold NATO’s commitments.

While Americans have questioned NATO’s post-Cold War resolve since former President Barack Obama’s administration, Europeans in turn have questioned Trump’s reliability in meeting treaty obligations. 

In response to Trump’s demand that NATO allies commit 5 percent of GDP to defense, members agreed during the alliance’s 2025 summit to commit 3.5 percent to their militaries—roughly matching the percent of GDP the U.S. spends on its armed forces—and 1.5 percent for infrastructure improvements, such as cybersecurity, crisis response, and adapting roads, rail lines, bridges, and ports to military needs.

Ukraine’s Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal (L) and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte address the audience during a press statement at the NATO headquarters in Brussels on Oct. 15, 2025. Prodding by the United States to be more self-reliant in continental defense was already an urgency in most European capitals after Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images

Muscle and Money

The Bruegel/Kiel Institute analysis documents Europe’s armies have a combined force of about 1.5 million troops. In order to withstand a hypothetical Russian invasion, a European-only force would need 300,000 more infantry soldiers, or roughly 50 more brigades, than it had in 2025. It would need a minimum of 1,400 tanks, 2,000 infantry fighting vehicles, and 700 artillery pieces with more than 1 million 155 mm shells—the minimum for three months of combat, the Bruegel/Kiel Institute analysis states. 

That boost in manpower and armaments would exceed the current French, German, Italian, and British forces combined.

And that’s just ground forces.

To match Russian war-footing military production—even with Ukraine attrition—a Europe-only military would need collective arms procurement, common armaments, unified logistics, and integrated military units. Such an army would need to replace stationed U.S. forces and rotational deployments within the 65-mile Suwalki Corridor between Poland and Lithuania, while also establishing bases in Moldova and Romania.

These are but a few of the challenges a “NATO minus the U.S.” would face, military analysts and international relations scholars told The Epoch Times. And as Europeans by necessity assumed a more robust posture on the continent, American forces would need to compensate for the loss of specialties and skills brought by their European allies.

French soldiers dismantle a drone during the Dynamic Front 26 exercise in Cincu, Romania, on Feb. 9, 2026. In response to Trump’s demand that NATO allies commit 5 percent of GDP to defense, members agreed during its 2025 summit to commit 3.5 percent to their militaries and 1.5 percent for infrastructure improvements. Andrei Pungovschi/Getty Images

Non-U.S. NATO forces are well-trained and have some highly competent defense manufacturing industries,” said University of Miami professor of politics June Teufel Dreyer, a senior Foreign Policy Research Institute fellow and former U.S.–China Economic and Security Review commissioner. 

European giants such as Thales and Leonardo would “surely be attracted by the idea of more indigenous investment,” Dreyer said. But, she added, European defense contractors “also know the funds they need aren’t guaranteed” without orders from the U.S. military to, for instance, annually build 2,000 “long-range loitering munitions”—drones—to match Russia’s numbers.

The French and the Germans build highly thought of diesel-electric submarines; Sweden produces great fighter planes,” Dreyer said.

But from a nuclear deterrent perspective, a U.S. departure from NATO is problematic. Dreyer pointed to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s June 2025 announcement that Britain would buy at least 12 U.S.-made F-35s to “enhance the interoperability of NATO defense” in its nuclear posture, since these jets would be the UK’s only nuclear deterrent beyond its submarine force. The stealth fighter is the first to carry both conventional and nuclear weapons.

U.S. and European allies’ coordination in defense procurement and production “saves money and the R&D costs for the most advanced weapons,” she said, noting while the projected cost for the sixth-generation F-47 is $4.4 billion, but it is a shared NATO expense.

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin speaks alongside President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on March 21, 2025. Trump announced F-47, a sixth-generation fighter intended to replace the F-22 Raptor, for the Next Generation Air Dominance program. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Specialties and Skills

If NATO ties are severed, the United States will no longer benefit from what retired Navy captain and Epoch Times contributor Carl Schuster calls “amazing capabilities that may prove essential in any conflict.” Those capabilities include aircraft and ship design, special ops, and regional know-how such as mountain operations capabilities and Arctic warfare expertise. 

However, many European military assets are aging, and it was only after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—and Trump’s threats to pull the United States from the alliance—that leaders showed urgency to address the deficiencies, Schuster said.

He expressed doubts about Spain—which has refused to let the United States use bases on its mainland to attack Iran—and Turkey. 

Spain has rejected any idea of its ground and air forces being committed to combat outside Spanish territory,“ he said. ”So their contribution to NATO defense is more statistical than real.”

Turkey has the alliance’s largest ground force, yet its “willingness to contribute to the defense of Greece, Bulgaria, and Eastern Europe” may be questionable, he said.

Middle East Forum Director Gregg Roman also questioned Turkey’s NATO commitment, in a September 2025 column in The Epoch Times, calling for “an urgent compartmentalization assessment” after Turkey made overtures to China and Iran during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit. 

“Six months later,” he said in April, “that assessment is non-optional. You know, thinking about everything [NATO] is trying to put together—joint air missile defense planning—with an ally like Turkey that is functionally aligned with Iran and the [SCO] bloc that we’re opposing, they can’t be trusted.

Read the rest here…

Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/28/2026 – 03:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Vrtlakn Tyler Durden

Zelensky Charges Russia With ‘Nuclear Terrorism’ On 40th Chernobyl Anniversary

Zelensky Charges Russia With ‘Nuclear Terrorism’ On 40th Chernobyl Anniversary

President Volodymyr Zelensky led Ukraine in a Sunday ceremony marking the 40th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and used the occasion to call on the international community to take decisive action against what he called ongoing Russian “nuclear terrorism”.

There were various candlelight remembrance ceremonies in cities across Ukraine, and in the capital. Later echoing the statement on Telegram, Zelensky alleged the the Chernobyl site’s the New Safe Confinement structure – built with support from more than 40 countries – is under direct threat from Moscow’s aggression.

IAEA/X

The 1986 explosion and Chernobyl core meltdown is widely considered to be among the largest man-made disasters in human history. Zelensky has been hyping that another could be around the corner given Moscow’s latest actions.

“Russian-Iranian Shahed drones constantly fly over the station, and one of them hit the confinement last year,” Zelensky said, warning that another disaster could be imminent. 

“The world must not allow this nuclear terrorism to continue, and the best way is to force Russia to stop its reckless attacks,” he then emphasized.

He described that protecting the Chernobyl site serves global interests and that the only way to guarantee safety is to force Russia to “stop its mad attacks.”

The warning followed a major aerial assault on Saturday in which Russia launched over 660 missiles and drones at Ukraine, targeting cities and areas nationwide, including strikes on civilian infrastructure in Dnipro and Kharkiv.

Various international organizations say extreme danger for disaster persists, but Rosatom insists it has safety under control:

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, and Moldovan President Maia Sandu joined the commemorative events.

Commenting on damage to the shell, which the environmental group Greenpeace says raises the risk of a radioactive leak, Grossi said that “repairs should start as soon as possible and that leaving the situation as it is now is problematic.”

Any repairs to the massive metal outer structure, which may potentially take up to four years, are virtually impossible due to Russia’s invasion, according to Greenpeace.

Russia’s nuclear agency Rosatom, the successor of the Soviet atomic energy ministry, which managed the facility, said: “To remember Chernobyl means to remember the people who bore the brunt of the disaster, and to take that experience into account in every decision we make today, to prevent a similar catastrophe.”

There was a very alarming 2025 incident where an explosive drone hit the protective containment shell of the defunct Chernobyl plant. However, emergency crews were able to make it to the impact site on the immense roof and make repairs. Both the Ukrainian and Russian sides pointed the finger at the other for that attack.

Given that Chernobyl is a name that has captured popular imagination for decades since the apocalyptic historic disaster left the vicinity basically a radiation death zone, it could present the perfect false flag opportunity for anyone wishing to prolong and escalate the war – and nuclear officials have been keenly aware of this possibility.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/28/2026 – 02:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/oA0EfTp Tyler Durden

Brickbat: Miami Vice


Local 10 News reporter Jeff Weinsier holds a microphone up to Miami-Dade Sheriff's Deputy Lester Aguilar. | WPLG Local 10 via YouTube

A Miami–Dade County sheriff’s deputy threatened to arrest a local TV reporter for asking Mayor Daniella Levine Cava a question at a beach and bay cleanup event in a public park. Jeff Weinsier of WPLG Local 10 News wanted to ask the mayor about a series of electric buses that cost taxpayers more than $60 million were taken out of service because they kept breaking down. But as Weinsier approached the mayor, Deputy Lester Aguilar stepped in and pushed him, saying if he didn’t back off, “You will go to jail.” Weinsier said he approached the mayor at the event because her office had refused to respond to interview requests about the buses.

The post Brickbat: Miami Vice appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/9qo0lWB
via IFTTT

Orbán Vs Magyar: Did The EU Get Played?

Orbán Vs Magyar: Did The EU Get Played?

Authored by Arthur Schaper via American Greatness,

Viktor Orbán, the valiant populist, the restorer of the Christian faith in Hungary, the welcome thorn in the side of the EU establishment, and the strong ally of President Trump since his first bid for office, has lost his own re-election bid. I had a feeling it would come to this.

Sixteen years of uninterrupted administration as a strong force for conservative, right-wing nationalist populism have come to an end, at least with Orbán as the head of it.

Sometimes, voters have a strange fatigue when it comes to governments. Fourteen years of a “conservative” UK government ushered in the Labour Party in 2024. However, fatigue doesn’t explain Orbán’s crushing loss.

What set that off?

Corruption charges and the argument that his administration had looked the other way when sex abuse scandals broke out at a local school.

Economics reared its ugly head, as well, since the EU was cutting off its funding. Orbán’s supposed lack of judicial reforms, as well as his uniform check on EU policy, frustrated Brussels.

Orbán faced a crisis election, and inviting US VP JD Vance to campaign on his behalf didn’t help.

Why would Hungarian voters care what a foreign politician thinks? This desperate move only exacerbated how out of touch the Orbán government had become. Critics also saw him as too close to Russian “president” Vladimir Putin and unhelpful in resolving the Russo-Ukrainian war. The EU had been waiting for this opportunity: an unpopular Orbán facing electoral collapse.

They were salivating for a post-Orbán Hungary, one that would stop its Christian restorationism, welcome more LGBT promotion, tolerate more spending, and open its borders.

Would the Orbán replacement accomplish their scheme?

His challenger, Péter Magyar, was trained and prepped as an Orbán acolyte.

In 2024, he broke from his party, but not over core policy. Magyar (whose name means “Hungarian,” for what it’s worth) campaigned to end corruption and restore good government in Hungary. He campaigned to the right of Orbán, calling for an end to importing cheap labor into the country. He campaigned on cracking down harder on immigration—illegal and mass—than the incumbent.

His message, if anyone was listening, wasn’t pro-EU. He was still asking the question: “What about us Hungarians?”

Supporters of the cultural restoration Right thought that Orbán was not getting the job done. Was he failing?

April 12, 2026, Magyar’s Tisza Party swept the elections: supermajority status, up to 140 out of 199 seats. Orbán won 56 seats, and another far-right party won the rest.

Sure, EU progressive elites celebrate Orbán’s loss, as did Barack Obama and George Soros. They view the downfall of Orbán as a harbinger for the end of Republican hegemony in Washington later this year.

Yet look again at the results of the Hungarian parliamentary elections. I mentioned three parties that won seats: three right-wing parties. Not one left-wing or centrist element came to power or won seats. A minimum threshold of five percent in the election results is required for a party to place. The left was shut out of the Hungarian Parliament.

The Right Wing won Hungary. Orbán may have lost his premiership, but Orbánism is standing strong.

This election focused on personalities, not principles.

Magyar is just as socially conservative as Orbán. He has already pledged to end the foreign permit workers. He wants to give Hungarians in other countries a chance to come back to their own country and thrive again. That’s about as “Hungary First” as it gets!

Magyar has already stated that he will not support fast-tracking Ukraine’s membership into the EU. Huge move for ending the Russo-Ukrainian war!

He announced a diversification plan for energy. Instead of relying predominantly on Russia, he wants to draw oil from the South and the West, as well. This sounds like real economic freedom for Hungary. National populism is great, but it must face economic realities. Too many right-wing populist governments are shoveling out money to voters for school supplies, raising families, and pensions. Where is the money supposed to come from? More taxes?! From whom?

Right-wing socialism is still . . . socialism, and Orbán had a problem here.

Eventually, the government runs out of others’ money, or inflation bites whatever purchasing power the government intended for the people. Inflation and tariff pressures weighed down Orbán’s reelection chances.

Orbán’s Hungary was still not the perfect social conservative paradise for other reasons. Prostitution is still legalAbortion is also still legal. While countries need to encourage their native populations to bear children, that vision will collapse in the face of easy sex and no responsibility. Cultural norms need reinforcement, with no tolerance for deviance.

Orbán and his party imposed vaccine passports and health mandates during COVID. How is this good for the working public? Where is the freedom? Too much state-sponsored anything is bad for a country.

Even now, Hungarians cannot own a gun without passing strict government demands. Czechia made self-defense a right, and in Switzerland everyone owns a gun (though it’s registered with the state).

Throughout his tenure, Orbán strengthened ties with China, joining the deceptive Belt and Road initiative. He even allowed Chinese police to operate in his country! American citizens voiced righteous outrage when the local press exposed former New York City mayor Eric Adams for allowing a CCP-run police station in the Big Apple. Yet no one on the Right complained about Orbán allowing CCP Hungary? That’s wrong.

There’s room for improvement, and Magyar has the opportunity to exceed Orbán’s victories while correcting his mistakes.

He is already doubling down on stopping mass migration!

He is committed to putting all Hungarians first, and he is fighting for the rights of ethnic Hungarians in other countries.

Magyar must revive and restore Hungary’s economy. One can hope he will place his country in a better position to profit without dependence and root out undue Chinese influence.

In a media masterstroke, he appeared on state television to discuss his plans for the country. Without missing a beat, he dressed down the reporter interviewing him, castigating the news organization for not allowing him on their program over the last year and a half. He then scolded them for lying about him and his family.

Then came the coup de grace: he announced his government plan to cut their funding and shut them down. Hungary needs honest independent media, he said, not government-funded agitprop that would inspire envy in Joseph Goebbels or North Korea.

He is not hostile to Putin, but he will not engage him aggressively either: sounds a lot like Trump!

He will not participate in the EU migration pact. He is keeping up the border fences, but he has also pledged to find a way for the EU to release the funds that the country needs, too.

He is making inroads with his Slavic neighbors, including the more populist, nationalist leaders in Slovakia and Czechia.

Magyar reminds me of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. He isn’t just talking the national populist talk. He is walking the walk, and he is sprinting ahead with major reforms.

Orbán was T-800. Magyar may well be T-1000, and the EU Left is going to find that he will be worse for their globalist, leftist, secularist agenda.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 04/28/2026 – 02:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/RwU7n9Z Tyler Durden

Loper Bright and Preemption

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell. The facts of this case are likely not of concern to most constitutional law scholars, but the dispute is of serious concern to the business community. The plaintiff sued Monsanto (which is owned by Bayer) for harms caused by the Roundup herbicide. (Don’t call it a pesticide, as Justice Thomas–a former Monsanto employee–reminded us.) The jury awarded $1.25 million in compensatory damages based on a failure to warn about possible harms. Bayer counters that the EPA did not require those additional warnings, so the state tort claims is preempted.

Going into the argument, I struggled to count to five votes for the plaintiff.  Preemption is an area where the Court’s conservatives do not line up neatly. Justice Thomas, the Court’s most committed federalist, has often been skeptical of federal preemption. See his opinion in Hencely just last week. I though Justice Gorsuch would be in a similar spot. I was fairly certain Justice Kavanaugh would be troubled by the possible economic effects on companies like Monsanto, and would favor broad federal preemption. I suspected that Chief Justice Roberts would fall in a similar camp. Same for Justice Alito. I wasn’t sure where Justice Barrett would be. It It was conceivable that Justice Kagan would favor broad federal preemption to promote uniformity, but I was doubtful.

Having now listened to the oral arguments, I will stand by my prediction. Everyone lined up about where I expected. Despite Paul Clement’s best efforts, I’m not sure where Monsanto finds five votes. Indeed, the Justices seemed to have very few questions for Ashley Keller, counsel for the Durnell. Perhaps they were a bit tired, as the argument in Chartrie stretched nearly two hours, but Keller was able to talk uninterrupted for several minutes. And with about ten minutes remaining, and no further questions coming, Keller sat down. As a general rule, the side that gets the most questions is more likely to lose. Then again, the Justices may have been spent after the Fourth Amendment case.

Justice Alito was entirely silent during the argument except when he perked up during an exchange about Loper Bright. I flagged this issue in a prior post. Everyone agrees that Congress can preempt state law through a statute. But what about when an agency purports to preempt a state law through regulations? Under the Chevron regime, the agency would likely get deference when its regulation interprets a complex (ambiguous) statutory regime. But after Loper Bright, does that agency still receive deference? And if the agency does not receive deference, can a state court, in a tort suit, interpret the federal statute to determine if there is federal preemption? In other words, who gets to interpret the statute: the agency or the court. Who decides? Loper Bright would seem to suggest that courts decide legal questions, rather than agencies. Or does Loper Bright not envision a role for state courts to decide the preemptive effect of federal regulations?

Consider this colloquy:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: So the Solicitor General was wrong about that?

MR. KELLER: Yeah. Very respectfully, yes, he is. And you don’t give deference to the Solicitor General in interpreting FIFRA. You look at the words for yourself. So, yes, the United States is wrong about that. Then they go to the regulations. They quickly jump to the regulations. What’s the source of authority for those regulations? If you ask the EPA the source of authority for those regulations, I kid you not, it’s 136 to 136y. They cite the entire statute. That’s their source of authority. If you cite the entire statute as your source of authority, that’s a pretty good indication that you don’t really have a good textual source of authority. Again, maybe in the Chevron regime, we might have looked past that, but we’re in the Loper Bright regime. I think you need affirmative text for what they can regulate.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Mr. Keller did Loper Bright say one word about preemption?

MR. KELLER: No, it doesn’t, but I –

JUSTICE ALITO: Loper Bright is about the relationship between two branches of the federal government, right?

MR. KELLER: Well, I –I agree with that. I think it is always a separation of powers issue if you’re going to ask whether the executive branch gets to pronounce what the law is instead of the judiciary. And then, of course, that’s relevant in the preemption context.

JUSTICE ALITO: Why is it relevant? Preemption involves the relationship between the federal government and the states.

What follows is a fascinating exchange about precedent. Do the members that joined Loper Bright have a special insight about how that precedent should be extended in some other context? Or can a new majority of the Court then decide to extend Loper Bright, even if some of the members of the majority (including Justice Alito) disagree.

MR. KELLER: It –it does, and under the Supremacy Clause, federal law is the supreme law of the land, so what counts as federal law is relevant to every preemption inquiry. I –I would be surprised if Loper Bright were somehow cabined and not applied in preemption cases where a regulation is doing the work to create preemption. You have the separation of powers problem plus a federalism problem because you’re letting the executive, not Congress, preempt valid state law. That should only be done pursuant to a valid delegation.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, your –your prescience about where the law might go is -is interesting, but it’s not there now, is it?

MR. KELLER: Well, I –I think that that’s what you meant in Loper Bright. You all know better than I do what you really meant in Loper Bright, but I think a rule that says the Loper Bright regime is cabined to separation of powers cases and doesn’t apply in preemption cases I don’t think makes analytical sense. You could draw that line. You’ve drawn lines before that maybe previously didn’t occur to me that subsequently emerged. So I’m not going to tell you you couldn’t do it.

In other words, the Court could not logically exclude preemption cases from the Loper Bright framework.

JUSTICE ALITO: You think that would be an irrational line to draw?

MR. KELLER: I do, yes, because Loper Bright is asking the same sort of question, who decides what the law is? Is it the judiciary or is it the executive branch? That is obviously relevant to preemption questions when we’re trying to figure out what the law of the United States says.

Who decides, as Judge Sutton would ask. This argument is tailor made for Justice Gorsuch. Again, if Thomas and Gorsuch rule for the plaintiffs, it will be tough to count to five. Then again, Justice Kagan might be an unlikely vote for Monsanto. She continued this exchange after Justice Alito finished:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, Loper Bright didn’t suggest that Congress couldn’t delegate power to agencies.

MR. KELLER: I agree.

JUSTICE KAGAN: And it seems here as though there’s a pretty big delegation of power to EPA to figure all these matters out.

MR. KELLER: I agree there is an important set of delegated powers to EPA. And there are many that we haven’t discussed that I do think would create labeling requirements. But the registration provision of 136a, which is where he and the government hang their hats, I do not think is this broad delegation to ultimately decide whether a pesticide is misbranded or not. I agree with you, though, there are express delegations of authority that I do think could create labeling requirements. I can give you 136w(c)(2).

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I mean, if we just sort of think about this scheme, right, it says to EPA you have to do this big study, you have to weigh costs and benefits, you have to figure out on the basis of that whether to register a pesticide, you have to do that again every 15 years, you have to keep track of things in the interim, you have to, you know, take seriously further information that industry gives you after registration.There just seems like a lot of stuff that the EPA does and is told by Congress to do to ensure the –the appropriateness of a particular pesticide.

MR. KELLER: I completely agree with you. FIFRA is structured in a way to maximally protect the consumer. So selling an unregistered pesticide is the first offense in 136j. But you also can’t sell a misbranded pesticide.

Justice Barrett had very few questions. I don’t know where she falls on this Loper Bright issue.

There would be some irony if the business community succeeded in Chevron, only to have that doctrine push back against federal preemption. I am not at all convinced Loper Bright has made an actual difference to the outcome of business cases, but narrowing the scope of federal preemption would make a huge difference.

The post <i>Loper Bright</i> and Preemption appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/qv4l380
via IFTTT

Loper Bright and Preemption

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell. The facts of this case are likely not of concern to most constitutional law scholars, but the dispute is of serious concern to the business community. The plaintiff sued Monsanto (which is owned by Bayer) for harms caused by the Roundup herbicide. (Don’t call it a pesticide, as Justice Thomas–a former Monsanto employee–reminded us.) The jury awarded $1.25 million in compensatory damages based on a failure to warn about possible harms. Bayer counters that the EPA did not require those additional warnings, so the state tort claims is preempted.

Going into the argument, I struggled to count to five votes for the plaintiff.  Preemption is an area where the Court’s conservatives do not line up neatly. Justice Thomas, the Court’s most committed federalist, has often been skeptical of federal preemption. See his opinion in Hencely just last week. I though Justice Gorsuch would be in a similar spot. I was fairly certain Justice Kavanaugh would be troubled by the possible economic effects on companies like Monsanto, and would favor broad federal preemption. I suspected that Chief Justice Roberts would fall in a similar camp. Same for Justice Alito. I wasn’t sure where Justice Barrett would be. It It was conceivable that Justice Kagan would favor broad federal preemption to promote uniformity, but I was doubtful.

Having now listened to the oral arguments, I will stand by my prediction. Everyone lined up about where I expected. Despite Paul Clement’s best efforts, I’m not sure where Monsanto finds five votes. Indeed, the Justices seemed to have very few questions for Ashley Keller, counsel for the Durnell. Perhaps they were a bit tired, as the argument in Chartrie stretched nearly two hours, but Keller was able to talk uninterrupted for several minutes. And with about ten minutes remaining, and no further questions coming, Keller sat down. As a general rule, the side that gets the most questions is more likely to lose. Then again, the Justices may have been spent after the Fourth Amendment case.

Justice Alito was entirely silent during the argument except when he perked up during an exchange about Loper Bright. I flagged this issue in a prior post. Everyone agrees that Congress can preempt state law through a statute. But what about when an agency purports to preempt a state law through regulations? Under the Chevron regime, the agency would likely get deference when its regulation interprets a complex (ambiguous) statutory regime. But after Loper Bright, does that agency still receive deference? And if the agency does not receive deference, can a state court, in a tort suit, interpret the federal statute to determine if there is federal preemption? In other words, who gets to interpret the statute: the agency or the court. Who decides? Loper Bright would seem to suggest that courts decide legal questions, rather than agencies. Or does Loper Bright not envision a role for state courts to decide the preemptive effect of federal regulations?

Consider this colloquy:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: So the Solicitor General was wrong about that?

MR. KELLER: Yeah. Very respectfully, yes, he is. And you don’t give deference to the Solicitor General in interpreting FIFRA. You look at the words for yourself. So, yes, the United States is wrong about that. Then they go to the regulations. They quickly jump to the regulations. What’s the source of authority for those regulations? If you ask the EPA the source of authority for those regulations, I kid you not, it’s 136 to 136y. They cite the entire statute. That’s their source of authority. If you cite the entire statute as your source of authority, that’s a pretty good indication that you don’t really have a good textual source of authority. Again, maybe in the Chevron regime, we might have looked past that, but we’re in the Loper Bright regime. I think you need affirmative text for what they can regulate.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Mr. Keller did Loper Bright say one word about preemption?

MR. KELLER: No, it doesn’t, but I –

JUSTICE ALITO: Loper Bright is about the relationship between two branches of the federal government, right?

MR. KELLER: Well, I –I agree with that. I think it is always a separation of powers issue if you’re going to ask whether the executive branch gets to pronounce what the law is instead of the judiciary. And then, of course, that’s relevant in the preemption context.

JUSTICE ALITO: Why is it relevant? Preemption involves the relationship between the federal government and the states.

What follows is a fascinating exchange about precedent. Do the members that joined Loper Bright have a special insight about how that precedent should be extended in some other context? Or can a new majority of the Court then decide to extend Loper Bright, even if some of the members of the majority (including Justice Alito) disagree.

MR. KELLER: It –it does, and under the Supremacy Clause, federal law is the supreme law of the land, so what counts as federal law is relevant to every preemption inquiry. I –I would be surprised if Loper Bright were somehow cabined and not applied in preemption cases where a regulation is doing the work to create preemption. You have the separation of powers problem plus a federalism problem because you’re letting the executive, not Congress, preempt valid state law. That should only be done pursuant to a valid delegation.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, your –your prescience about where the law might go is -is interesting, but it’s not there now, is it?

MR. KELLER: Well, I –I think that that’s what you meant in Loper Bright. You all know better than I do what you really meant in Loper Bright, but I think a rule that says the Loper Bright regime is cabined to separation of powers cases and doesn’t apply in preemption cases I don’t think makes analytical sense. You could draw that line. You’ve drawn lines before that maybe previously didn’t occur to me that subsequently emerged. So I’m not going to tell you you couldn’t do it.

In other words, the Court could not logically exclude preemption cases from the Loper Bright framework.

JUSTICE ALITO: You think that would be an irrational line to draw?

MR. KELLER: I do, yes, because Loper Bright is asking the same sort of question, who decides what the law is? Is it the judiciary or is it the executive branch? That is obviously relevant to preemption questions when we’re trying to figure out what the law of the United States says.

Who decides, as Judge Sutton would ask. This argument is tailor made for Justice Gorsuch. Again, if Thomas and Gorsuch rule for the plaintiffs, it will be tough to count to five. Then again, Justice Kagan might be an unlikely vote for Monsanto. She continued this exchange after Justice Alito finished:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, Loper Bright didn’t suggest that Congress couldn’t delegate power to agencies.

MR. KELLER: I agree.

JUSTICE KAGAN: And it seems here as though there’s a pretty big delegation of power to EPA to figure all these matters out.

MR. KELLER: I agree there is an important set of delegated powers to EPA. And there are many that we haven’t discussed that I do think would create labeling requirements. But the registration provision of 136a, which is where he and the government hang their hats, I do not think is this broad delegation to ultimately decide whether a pesticide is misbranded or not. I agree with you, though, there are express delegations of authority that I do think could create labeling requirements. I can give you 136w(c)(2).

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I mean, if we just sort of think about this scheme, right, it says to EPA you have to do this big study, you have to weigh costs and benefits, you have to figure out on the basis of that whether to register a pesticide, you have to do that again every 15 years, you have to keep track of things in the interim, you have to, you know, take seriously further information that industry gives you after registration.There just seems like a lot of stuff that the EPA does and is told by Congress to do to ensure the –the appropriateness of a particular pesticide.

MR. KELLER: I completely agree with you. FIFRA is structured in a way to maximally protect the consumer. So selling an unregistered pesticide is the first offense in 136j. But you also can’t sell a misbranded pesticide.

Justice Barrett had very few questions. I don’t know where she falls on this Loper Bright issue.

There would be some irony if the business community succeeded in Chevron, only to have that doctrine push back against federal preemption. I am not at all convinced Loper Bright has made an actual difference to the outcome of business cases, but narrowing the scope of federal preemption would make a huge difference.

The post <i>Loper Bright</i> and Preemption appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/qv4l380
via IFTTT