An Obama-appointed judge blocked key portions of the Trump administration’s policy to restrict the appeal process for illegal immigrants facing deportation.  In a Sunday ruling, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled in favor of immigration groups that sued the Trump administration in the case of Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. Executive Office for Immigration Review.  Moss, appointed to the bench in 2014, was a former assistant attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department. Last year, he issued a separate blow to the Trump administration’s immigration policy, striking down Trump’s declaration of an “invasion” at the southern border.  The plaintiffs sought temporary relief from the interim final rule, issued on Feb. 6, titled “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” set to take effect on Monday.  If a federal immigration judge rules in favor of deportation, the appeal can be filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Among the plaintiffs’ key objections to the administration’s rule was a “fast track” provision reducing the time to file most appeals from 30 days to 10 days.  The new Trump rule would have also allowed for summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of permanent board members voted within 10 days to accept the case for review. The judge also rejected a portion of the rule that allowed summary dismissal without full review of the case, and before transcripts were created. To expedite matters, the administration issued the rule without the usual notice-and-comment of a federal rulemaking period. The judge held that the rule must be subject to that full process, but did not strike it down. “At least three portions of the rule work hand-in-glove and, accordingly, need to be considered together,” Moss wrote.  He added, “If there is ever a case that satisfies the D.C. Circuit’s test for applying the notice-and-comment requirement … this is it.” The Justice Department, arguing for the administration, said the rules were necessary so the Bureau of Immigration Appeals could target its limited resources to combat an overwhelming backlog of immigration cases, which increased from 37,000 in 2015 to more than 200,000 in 2025.  Moss wrote, “The court is unpersuaded that plaintiffs are entitled to emergency relief.” The ruling “prevents the BIA from reaching the point of near self-destruction,” said Emilie Raber, senior attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, the lead plaintiff in the case. “We hope that this decision is the first step of many steps in ensuring that immigration courts reach decisions based on the law rather than on pre-determined outcomes,” Raber added in a public statement.  Moss has issued other high-profile rulings. In early 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his decision that the Justice Department could not reschedule a federal execution before President Joe Biden took office. Notably, as an assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel in 2000, Moss wrote a memo determining that a sitting president could not be indicted.  The post Obama-Appointed Judge Blocks Key Part of Trump Deportation Appeal Overhaul appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Democratic Texas state Rep. James Talarico said that he loved transgender children when asked to name something he loved other than family and friends during a May 11, 2023, episode of “A Superbloom Podcast.” Talarico has a long record of pushing his left-wing agenda on schools, including opposing restrictions on child sex-change operations. During the podcast, Talarico referenced a specific group of transgender children whom he called an “inspiration” in a clip unearthed by the Daily Wire on Monday. “I love—I’m just going to say this because it’s on my mind—the trans children who showed up yesterday at the state Capitol to advocate for their humanity,” Talarico said. “They shouldn’t have to, but it was an inspiration to watch.” Talarico explained what he was referring to earlier on during the podcast. “We were going to debate a bill that would deny trans children life-saving health care, and ultimately we didn’t get to the bill because Democrats called a point of order and were able to delay the bill a few days,” he said. “But we had trans activists, trans children, trans parents of trans children in the gallery, and they also launched their own peaceful protest and were removed from the gallery. And in fact, there’s video of one of the law enforcement officers violently throwing down one of those trans activists outside the House chamber.” Talarico appeared to be referencing a Texas bill that bars minors from accessing hormone therapies, puberty blockers and transition surgeries, which was ultimately signed into law by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott the following month. When lawmakers brought the bill up for debate on the House floor on May 2, 2023, advocates promptly started to chant, according to KERA News. Republican Texas state House Speaker Dade Phelan subsequently directed state police to remove visitors. State police kicked protesters out of the Capitol, according to The Texas Tribune. Certain protesters declined to leave voluntarily and there were altercations with police before they were evicted, according to CBS Austin. Talarico, a former public school teacher who presently attends a Presbyterian seminary, defeated Democratic Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett in Tuesday’s primary. He has also espoused outlandish rhetoric about the Bible and God on multiple occasions during his political career, such as arguing that the Bible justified abortion. “In committee, I listened to 15 hours of testimony about this bill. The worst part, for me, was the number of Christians who used scripture to justify hurting children. Even on this floor today, a member tried to justify a hateful amendment in the name of God’s law,” Talarico claimed during a 2021 debate in the state Legislature on legislation to prevent child sex-change procedures. Republican Texas state Rep. Steve Toth called Talarico “evil” and said he was proof of “a demonic presence in the world” during a Wednesday interview on “The Charlie Kirk Show.” “When I put forth legislation to end the social transition of children, it gets killed by the Democrats,” Toth said. “It’s evil. Talarico is part of that group. I served with James Talarico from 2019 through to today. This guy is as evil as they come.” Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The post James Talarico Asked Who He Loved Besides Friends and Family. His Answer: Trans Kids appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Across the country, churches are becoming targets. When people disrupt worship and nothing happens, when there are no meaningful changes or follow through, it tells the next group of agitators they can do it again. Ohio can change that by treating intimidation inside a sanctuary like what it is: unacceptable.   “It takes an act of Congress” is an old American saying used when something feels nearly impossible. Unfortunately, that phrase is starting to apply to something that should never be difficult at all: ensuring peace and security inside houses of worship.  Ohio State Reps. Tex Fischer and Jonathan Newman recently introduced House Bill 662, a proposal aimed at deterring intentional disruptions of religious worship. The goal is sound and urgent. Every American should be able to worship without fear, whether in a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple.  If Ohio is going to lead the nation, it should do so in a way that reflects fidelity to the Constitution. House Bill 662 makes clear that people deserve real protection from intentional obstruction, trespass, threats, and intimidation in places of worship.  These situations are not hypothetical. It became painfully real in St. Paul, Minnesota, where demonstrators stormed a Sunday service at Cities Church. Families sat in pews with children at their sides, uncertain whether the disruption would remain shouting or escalate into violence. The message Americans are receiving is unacceptable: activists can turn worship into a spectacle and face little consequence. Obstructing a service or threatening worshippers isn’t a small matter. Yet too often, these incidents are brushed aside or reduced to minor charges.  Ohio has a chance to lead by proving that protecting churches and protecting free speech are not in conflict. The First Amendment safeguards both. We can defend worshippers from real disruption while honoring the full protections of the First Amendment.  House Bill 662 rightly recognizes that worship services are not stages for political theatrics, but time for worship. When people obstruct, intimidate, or intrude on these gatherings, it shouldn’t be brushed aside. The law should respond clearly and firmly.  No one should be allowed to storm into a sanctuary and terrorize families during worship. At the same time, America’s constitutional tradition ensures that peaceful protest remains protected.  As a pastor of a large congregation with multiple campuses and a television ministry, I understand the realities churches face. Houses of worship are private property. Churches have the right to ask disruptive individuals to leave, issue no trespass notices, and pursue criminal trespass charges when someone refuses to comply.  But those protections only work when local justice systems are willing to enforce them. Too often, they are not.  Pastors should not have to become legal experts in self-defense. Worshippers should not have to wonder if Sunday service—this sacred hour—will be shattered by rage, disruption, or violence. Houses of worship are open and welcoming by nature. That is their mission.   Ohio can draw a clear line: punish intimidation and disruption, but don’t give government a tool that can be used to punish lawful speech.  Protecting houses of worship is not partisan. It is a test of whether Americans can still gather, pray, and worship in peace, regardless of politics, denomination, or creed.   Ohio has a change to set the standard for the entire country by protecting both sacred spaces and the Constitution. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post No One Should Fear Violence in a House of Worship. Ohio Is Leading the Way. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL— In the summer of 2019, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was set to become the headquarters for the Center for Biosafety Mega-Science, according to documents from the National Institutes of Health and National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In less than a year, biosafety seemed an unlikely description for the Wuhan lab that was widely suspected as the site where COVID-19 originated. As COVID began to emerge in the United States in January and February 2020, NIAID “got nervous” about the taxpayer dollars it sent to the Wuhan lab, according to one internal email. Other emails showed officials seemed frustrated and surprised about the lack of candor from the China grantees about the virus. The 145 pages of emails and other government documents show “a striking pattern of naiveté by NIH officials in their dealings with Chinese scientists,” said Alex Finnegan, director of digital capabilities at the Oversight Project, a watchdog group that obtained the documents through the Freedom of Information Act. “NIH officials viewed China’s scientific establishment not as it actually operates—under the authority and control of the Chinese Communist Party—but as they wished it to operate within the norms of open scientific collaboration,” Finnegan told The Daily Signal. “Again and again, reality intruded on this assumption, yet the records show little evidence that NIH changed its posture.” The FBI, CIA, and Department of Energy have concluded that the virus likely leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. However, other agencies are undecided or still contend it had a natural origin. Early in 2020, NIH scientist Ping Chen asked Shi Zhengli, director of Wuhan Institute of Virology, for information on the virus, but Zhengli was not forthcoming. “For my curiosity, would you be able to share the viral agent info?” she asked. Zhengli replied, “Please be patient and wait for official announcement.” On Jan. 22, 2020, Chen told NIH colleagues, “The Chinese government is in charge of the information now.” A little more than a month later, Chen recounted in an email to colleagues a meeting she had with staffers from China’s embassy in Washington. The staffers would not share information. “They wanted information on drug, vaccine, and diagnostic development in the U.S. and the companies. But when we asked about reciprocal information, they immediately turned the subject around and asked us something else,” Chen wrote. “They are not sharing any with us.” NIH and NIAID staffers began to compile information on grants to China. NIH staffer Gayle Bernabe wrote to her colleagues on Feb. 3 that is a request “needed by today.” Bernabe added, “To respond to this request, perhaps we can divide the tasks at hand.” The same day, Chen emailed colleagues about grant money going to a Chinese researcher working under the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Science. Two active grants were going to Dr. Zhou Yusen, a researcher in the Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, described in the email as “an institute under the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS).”  The Academy of Military Medical Sciences is a unit within the People’s Liberation Army. The grantee, Dr. Zhou Yusen, died in May 2020 after reportedly falling from the roof of the Wuhan Virology Institute.  In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic, and President Donald Trump declared a national emergency. The lockdowns would follow.  Although staffers reviewed federal research grants to China, National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci expressed public doubt about a lab leak being the cause of the pandemic. In April 2020, Fauci told reporters during a White House briefing that evidence is “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.” He dismissed the theory of a potential lab leak, saying in May that evidence is “very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated.” However, in 2021, he said of the natural origin theory, “I am not convinced about that, I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China.” After retiring from the government, Fauci became a distinguished university professor at Georgetown University with joint appointments at the School of Medicine and the McCourt School of Public Policy. He also became a public speaker, booked by Leading Authorities Inc.  The Daily Signal made phone and email inquiries to Georgetown University and Leading Authorities Inc., in an effort to reach Fauci.  The NIH responded that it is under new leadership now with Director Jay Bhattacharya and is investigating past matters. “The National Institutes of Health (NIH), under the leadership of Director Bhattacharya, fully supports and complies with the executive order addressing dangerous gain-of-function research, and we are currently investigating and reviewing the matters raised, many of which predate the current leadership at both NIH and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),” an NIH spokesperson told The Daily Signal in an email statement.    Chen is either the sender or recipient of the bulk of emails made available. The Daily Signal reached out to Chen’s current employer for comment. She did not respond as of publication time. The post EXCLUSIVE: Records Reveal What NIH Said About China When COVID-19 Emerged appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The public approves of President Donald Trump’s handling of the conflict in Iran at roughly the same level as his overall job performance, a new poll finds. A national NBC News poll reports 41% of the public approves of Trump’s “handling of the situation in Iran” and 54% disapproves. NBC News, in partnership with Hart Research Associates and Public Onion Strategies, conducted the survey of 1,000 registered voters from Feb. 27 to March 3. It has a 3.1% margin of error. The United States and Israel began strikes on Iran on Feb. 28, meaning the poll should capture Americans’ early impressions of the conflict. The poll would not capture the potential effects on public opinion of developments since March 3, such as the selection of a new supreme leader in Iran, the continued rise in oil prices, or the announcement of the death of a seventh U.S. service member. It also was conducted before Trump’s call for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” on Friday. This level of support for Trump in Iran tracks with his overall approval rating in the NBC survey. A total of 44% of voters approved of Trump’s job performance, and 54% disapproved.  Trump’s strongest issue in the survey is border security, on which he has a 53% approval rating and a 44% disapproval rating.  On “foreign policy” in general, Trump has a 43% approval rating and a 54% disapproval rating, also roughly in line with his general approval rating and the approval of the operation in Iran. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the survey. The post Poll Reveals Popularity of Trump Iran Performance appeared first on The Daily Signal.