‘Breathtakingly Dumb’ - House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Makes Worst Mistake of His Career description: Bad
Law professor and Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley sharply criticized Virginia Democrats on Friday after the Supreme Court of Virginia struck down a proposed congressional map that would have heavily favored Democrats ahead of the midterm elections.
Turley made the remarks during an appearance on Fox News with Sean Hannity, hours after the court rejected the plan that critics said would have given Democrats an advantage in 10 of Virginia’s 11 congressional districts, Mediaite reported.
“I said this from the beginning, this will never, ever meet judicial scrutiny,” Hannity said. “Number one, the wording itself of the amendment was abusively biased. I think any objective person would say that, but that’s not even the main thing.”
Hannity argued the proposal failed because lawmakers did not follow Virginia’s constitutional procedures required to place such an amendment on the ballot.
“They have very strict constitutional procedures that they had to meet,” Hannity said. “They didn’t follow any of the procedures to get an amendment on the ballot, none of them!”
Turley agreed, saying the legal flaws in the proposal were significant and that Virginia historically has taken a stricter approach to redistricting than many other states.
“No, that’s absolutely right, Sean, and there was a host of problems, but the most glaring was that one,” Turley said. “Virginia was always the gold standard for gerrymandering. Virginia doesn’t like gerrymandering — makes it very difficult to do so.”
Turley said lawmakers attempted to rush the proposal through ahead of the midterms, but the state Supreme Court refused to approve it.
“So to get this through, they had to do a sort of bum’s rush to get this in before the midterm elections,” Turley said. “And the Supreme Court of Virginia said, ‘No, we’re not going to sign off on this.’”
Turley also targeted Gov. Abigail Spanberger, accusing her of abandoning earlier opposition to gerrymandering after taking office.
“Now, this was a face-planting of legendary size for Governor Spanberger,” Turley said. “She had previously assured voters that she was vehemently against gerrymandering.”
“And as soon as she was elected, she went to the hard left, and then asked and pushed through the most radical gerrymandering scheme in the country,” he added.
Hannity noted the campaign behind the proposal reportedly cost tens of millions of dollars, much of it fronted by a political action committee controlled by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. “Sixty-four million,” Hannity said during the exchange.
Turley argued the failed effort could politically damage Democrats in Virginia, particularly among independents and Republicans who viewed the proposal as an attempt to dilute their influence.
“In addition to the 64 million, they alienated half of this state,” Turley said. “A lot of Republicans and independents are not going to forget this.”
“They don’t view this as partisan; they view it as personal,” he continued. “You attempted to erase them in terms of representation.”
The discussion also turned to the national implications of the ruling and recent court decisions involving racial gerrymandering.
Hannity suggested Republicans could gain additional congressional districts nationwide as states revisit maps following Supreme Court rulings. Turley argued Democrats miscalculated by reopening the broader redistricting fight.
“This was just a breathtakingly dumb move by the Democrats,” Turley said. “When they began, when they went down this road, I wrote a column saying, you need to consider this because the Democratic states were already gerrymandered.”
Turley pointed to states such as California, Illinois and Massachusetts as examples where Democrats had already secured favorable district maps years earlier, limiting future opportunities for additional gains.
He also referenced the upcoming 2030 census and population migration trends benefiting Republican-led states.
“So the Democrats are looking at a colossal loss,” Turley said. “And I think that’s one of the reasons why they want to pack the Supreme Court and make radical changes to the constitutional system before it’s too late.”
Ilhan Omar Arrested - Refused to Leave and Fought Police
Minneapolis, Minnesota - June 16, 2026
Newly released police records show that Rep. Ilhan Omar was arrested for trespassing in 2013 after refusing multiple orders to leave a Minneapolis hotel lobby. According to the Hennepin County police report, Omar became argumentative with officers and physically resisted when police attempted to escort her from the premises.
The incident occurred on January 18, 2013, after an event at the Minneapolis Convention Center featuring former Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud. Large crowds followed the presidential convoy to the Hotel Ivy, where the president was staying. Hotel staff requested police assistance to clear the lobby, stating that only guests with room keys were permitted to remain.
When an officer approached Omar and asked her to leave, she refused. The report states that Omar was “argumentative” and stood her ground.
“As she stood her ground and refused to leave, I took hold of her left elbow to escort her from the lobby. Omar then pulled away from me, stating, ‘Don’t put your hands on me!’” the officer wrote.
Ten minutes later, the same officer found Omar seated in another area of the lobby. After being informed she would be arrested for trespassing if she did not leave, Omar again refused to comply.
The officer attempted to handcuff her while she remained seated in a chair. Omar pulled away during the arrest. She was ultimately booked into Hennepin County Jail.
“Omar was booked at [Hennepin County Jail] as I felt it was likely that she would fail to respond to a citation, and she also demonstrated that she was going to continue her criminal behavior,” the officer wrote in the report.
The newly surfaced document adds to the long list of controversies surrounding the Minnesota congresswoman.
Hannah Dugan Sentenced to 10 Years: Ex-Judge Helped Undocumented Immigrant Flee ICE in Court
MILWAUKEE, Wis. — June 16, 2026
THE SENTENCING HEARING for former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan has been postponed indefinitely as a federal court takes under advisement a high-stakes defense motion aimed at completely overturning her felony conviction.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman opted to halt the scheduled June 3, 2026 proceedings to consider extensive oral arguments regarding recent appellate case law and procedural standards that could render the baseline foundation of the government's case legally invalid.
Dugan, 67, faces a statutory maximum penalty of five years in federal prison following a split verdict delivered by a federal jury in December 2025. The panel found her guilty of one felony count of obstructing an official federal proceeding but acquitted her on a misdemeanor charge of concealing an individual from arrest.
The criminal charges stem from a highly controversial April 18, 2025 incident inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and an undocumented immigrant.
"The defense maintains that the administrative execution of a standard immigration warrant does not meet the strict statutory definitions of an official federal proceeding required under obstruction laws."
The structural trial evidence demonstrated that ICE agents arrived at the county courthouse to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national who had re-entered the United States illegally and was appearing before Dugan on a state misdemeanor battery matter.
According to official court testimony, Dugan confronted the agents outside her courtroom door, informing them that their administrative paperwork did not authorize a summary arrest within her state court facility. She then directed the officers to the chief judge's office before utilizing a private jury exit corridor to escort Flores-Ruiz and his defense attorney safely out of the building.
Agents remaining in the immediate vicinity observed the departure and apprehended Flores-Ruiz outside the municipal facility following a short foot chase.
Dugan resigned from her judicial seat shortly after the split jury verdict was finalized. While many legal observers originally anticipated a multi-year prison sentence if the felony conviction stood, first-time nonviolent offenders can alternatively receive probation or non-custodial outcomes depending on judicial discretion.
"The prosecution continues to push back forcefully against the request for a new trial, maintaining that the jury’s original verdict rested on sufficient, verified evidence and correctly applied federal law."
The case has commanded national attention from legal scholars as an unprecedented early test of a state court judge facing criminal prosecution for actions intersecting with federal immigration enforcement. The ongoing dispute has exposed deep rifts over the absolute authority of state jurists, courthouse safe-haven policies, and the true legal boundaries of domestic judicial discretion.
Judge Adelman did not issue an immediate ruling from the bench following the conclusion of oral arguments, stating that a comprehensive written order will follow. Consequently, the former judge's sentencing remains on hold until the court determines whether the underlying felony conviction will stand or be permanently vacated.
