VICTORY: Historic Supreme Court Election Law Ruling
The Most Important Supreme Court Election Law Ruling in a Generation
Judicial Watch Sues to Reveal Biden Cover-Up on Iran Nuclear Program
Judicial Watch Sues Over Firing of Associate Principal Over Protected Speech
Judicial Watch Takes Case of Teacher Fired for Speech to Supreme Court
Scores of Criminal Aliens Arrested in Minnesota as Media Focuses on Protests
The Most Important Supreme Court Election Law Ruling in a Generation
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sweeping 7-2 decision in our historic election case, Rep. Michal J. Bost et. al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections, broadly affirming candidate standing to bring election disputes to federal court.
As you know from my prior updates, we filed this lawsuit on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were seeking to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law which allows the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.
This is the most important Supreme Court election law ruling in a generation. Too many courts have denied candidates the standing to challenge unlawful election rules such as the outrageous accepting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. American citizens concerned about election integrity should celebrate this victory. I thank our legion of supporters and our election law team that helped achieve this historic result.
The Supreme Court decision broadly affirmed candidate standing to bring election ballot disputes to federal court:
Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns. Their interest extends to the integrity of the election — and the democratic process by which they earn or lose the support of the people they seek to represent.
“I’m thankful the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled strongly in our favor and concluded we have standing to challenge Illinois’ unconstitutional law allowing vote-by-mail ballots to be counted two weeks after Election Day,” said Congressman Bost. This is a critically important step forward in the fight for election integrity and fair elections. I look forward to continuing to pursue this case as we navigate the next stages of the legal process. It’s vitally important that we restore the people’s trust in our elections.”
We originally filed this on May 25, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lower court dismissed the claim for lack of standing, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the lower court ruling in August 2023 (Rep. Michael J. Bost, Laura Pollastrini, and Susan Sweeney v. The Illinois State Board of Elections and Bernadette Matthews (No. 1:22-cv-02754, 23-2644, 24-568)).
We are a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of our work, we assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii and cleaned up voter rolls across the country, among other achievements.
Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads our election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.
- Russell Nobile, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, is part of our voting integrity efforts and focuses on campaign and voting issues, civil rights issues, constitutional law, official misconduct by public institutions and officials, and other issues.
Eric Lee is an attorney at Judicial Watch, where he focuses on enforcing federal and state laws that promote transparency and integrity in the electoral process. Eric graduated with his B.A. from St. Mary’s College of Maryland and received his J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law. He is licensed to practice in California, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and in federal courts in Illinois and Colorado.
Paul Clement, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, represented Congressman Bost and the electors with Judicial Watch before the Supreme Court. Clement is former solicitor general under President George W. Bush from 2005-2008 and is widely regarded as among the top Supreme Court litigators in the country.
In November 2025, the Supreme Court granted review in a landmark election integrity case brought on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi. The case seeks to uphold a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which struck down a Mississippi law unconstitutionally allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots received up to five days after Election Day.
Federal courts in Oregon, California and Illinois recently ruled that our lawsuits against those states may proceed, forcing them to clean their voter rolls.
We announced in May that its work led to the removal of more than five million ineligible names from voter rolls nationwide.
Judicial Watch Sues to Reveal Biden Cover-Up on Iran Nuclear Program
The events in Iran today underscore the importance of preventing its mad rulers from acquiring nuclear weapons, about which the Biden administration seemed lackadaisical.
We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) for records regarding the Biden administration’s failure to produce statutorily required reports on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (No. 1:26-cv-00083-APM)).
The lawsuit also seeks all communications between the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the 2024 presidential campaigns of President Biden and his replacement atop the Democrat ticket, Vice President Harris, regarding the required reports on the Islamic Republic’s uranium enrichment.
The Iran Nuclear Weapons Capability and Terrorism Act of 2022 requires the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to submit semi-annual reports to Congress on Iran’s nuclear activities, including enrichment.
We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence failed to respond to a June 30, 2025, FOIA request for:
- Any and all records concerning, regarding, or relating to the delay of ODNI’s statutorily required reports regarding significant enrichment activity by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
- Any and all communications between ODNI and the White House concerning, regarding, or relating to the production and/or delay of the above referenced reports.
- Any and all communications between ODNI and the Biden presidential campaign concerning, regarding, or relating to the production and/or delay of the above referenced reports.
- Any and all communications between ODNI and the Harris presidential campaign concerning, regarding, or relating to the production and/or delay of the above referenced reports.
The Biden administration pledged to engage in diplomacy with Iran and revive the 2015 nuclear deal. The Biden team also pushed back against international attempts to censure Iran for its nonproliferation violations, reports said. On May 27, 2024, The Wall Street Journal reported that the United States was blocking European states from pursuing a formal censure of Iran at the June board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), despite a push by the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. According to the Journal, the “U.S. has pressed a number of other countries to abstain in a censure vote, saying that is what Washington will do.” The IAEA ultimately passed the censure resolution on June 5, 2024.
A July 11, 2024, press release from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated that then-Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines had failed to produce multiple reports on Iran’s nuclear threat, including uranium enrichment, that are required by law. Biden dropped out of the presidential race on July 21, 2024, and endorsed Harris, who became the party’s nominee on August 5, 2024.
In March of last year, the Trump administration’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported in its Annual Threat Assessment that Iran “possesses the highest uranium enrichment levels of any non-nuclear state and remains capable of enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels.”
Weeks after President Trump ordered the “Midnight Hammer” operation on June 22, 2025, in which the United States Air Force and Navy attacked three Iranian nuclear facilities, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, the White House assessed that Iran before the attack had the capacity to enrich enough material for a nuclear weapon within weeks if it chose to do so.
Our lawsuit is aimed at finding out why, as Iran was expanding its dangerous nuclear weapons program, the Biden-Harris administration failed to produce these vital reports documenting a clear and present danger to the United States.
Judicial Watch Sues Over Firing of Associate Principal Over Protected Speech
We filed a federal lawsuit against Barnstable Public Schools in Massachusetts for violating the First Amendment rights of a former associate principal who was fired over lawful social media posts addressing matters of public concern.
We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of John Bergonzi, alleging retaliation for protected speech in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as breach of contract and promissory estoppel (Bergonzi v. Barnstable Public Schools (No. 1:26-cv-10059)).
Bergonzi is a long-time public school educator who left a tenured teaching position after being hired as an associate principal at Barnstable High School for the 2024–2025 school year. Prior to extending an offer of employment, Barnstable Public Schools told Bergonzi multiple times that no employment offer would be extended unless and until the school district reviewed his social media activity, including his Facebook page, for any issues or concerns. It was explained to him that a social media check was a routine part of the district’s interview process.
After Bergonzi completed the onboarding process, resigned from his prior job, and began work, the school district fired him for Facebook posts he had shared before he was hired. According to the complaint, the Facebook posts addressed matters of public concern, were made in Bergonzi’s capacity as a private citizen, and did not identify him as a Barnstable Public Schools employee.
According to the lawsuit:
As of the December 10, 2024 termination, Barnstable Public Schools had not identified any disturbance caused by [Bergonzi’s] posts. Other than the single email from the individual whose name was withheld from [Bergonzi], Barnstable Public Schools also had not identified any instance in which a parent, student, co-worker, or member of the public raised any concern about [Bergonzi’s] posts, his social media activity, or his fitness to serve as an associate principal. Nor did Barnstable Public Schools identify any concern about [Bergonzi’s] work performance or professionalism.
Bergonzi, the complaint alleges, was fired because his protected speech did not “reflect the values of Barnstable Public Schools. As a result of his termination, Bergonzi has suffered lost income and benefits, reputational harm, emotional distress, and diminished employment prospects.
Public schools do not get to silence employees simply because they express opinions that administrators dislike. This lawsuit seeks to hold Barnstable Public Schools accountable for violating the First Amendment and for reneging on promises that cost our client his tenured career.
In November 2021, we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Kari MacRae, a Massachusetts high school teacher who was fired in retaliation for posts on social media objecting to the inclusion of critical race theory in schools (MacRae vs. Matthew Mattos and Matthew A. Ferron (No. 1:21-cv-11917). In June 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States denied our petition that challenged a lower court decision against MacRae. We argued that the Supreme Court should take up the case as the lower courts misapplied the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. (Justice Thomas authored a statement respecting the denial suggesting the Supreme Court give serious consideration to addressing the issue of how to better protect the free speech right for government employees.)
In February 2021, we filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of David Flynn, who was removed from his position as the Dedham High School head football coach after raising concerns about biased coursework on politics, race, gender equality, and diversity being included in his daughter’s seventh-grade history class curriculum (Flynn v. Forrest et al. (No. 21-cv-10256)). The case ultimately settled, with the Dedham Public Schools Superintendent acknowledging in a letter “the important and valid issues” raised by Flynn and specific changes in school policies because of Flynn’s complaint.
Judicial Watch Takes Case of Teacher Fired for Speech to Supreme Court
Public employees don’t lose the right of free speech just because administrators don’t agree with them, and we’re in the U.S. Supreme Court to make this clear.
We filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court of the United States to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that permits public school officials to fire a tenured teacher for political speech made privately, off duty, and far removed from the classroom.
The case arises from the termination of Jeanne Hedgepeth, a longtime social studies teacher at Palatine High School in Illinois, who was fired after posting commentary on her private Facebook page during summer vacation in 2020, addressing riots and civil unrest following the death of George Floyd. School administrators cited concerns about “disruption” after receiving complaints—largely from members of the public with no direct connection to the school. Hedgepeth praised Thomas Sowell and other black conservative leaders in one of the posts that got her fired.
Our 2021 lawsuit for Hedgepeth asks for damages from the school district, Township High School District 211, and district board members and officials who participated directly in the firing of Hedgepeth (Hedgepeth v. Britton et al. (No. 1:21-cv-03890)).
Our cert petition challenges the Seventh Circuit’s decision, which held that the school district’s interest in “avoiding disruption” — specifically, emails and phone calls from members of the public (most of whom had no direct connection to the school) “expressing concern or outrage” about Hedgepeth’s summer vacation posts — “outweighs her right to speak.”
Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent, beginning with Pickering v. Board of Education, courts must balance a public employee’s right to speak on matters of public concern against the government employer’s interest in maintaining the effective operation of the workplace. We argue that Pickering does not permit public employers to punish employees based on disagreement with their political views:
The viewpoint discrimination in this case is unmistakable. The district fired Hedgepeth because members of the community objected to the political views she expressed in core First Amendment speech on her private Facebook page while on summer vacation. Rather than condemn that blatant censorship, the court below sanctioned it—holding that vague and unsupported claims of ‘disruption’ empower public school officials to silence disfavored viewpoints.
The petition further warns that the Seventh Circuit’s decision poses a serious threat to free speech nationwide:
If allowed to stand, the decision threatens to chill the political speech of millions of public employees nationwide. It teaches that lawful, off-duty speech on matters of public concern may be punished whenever enough people complain. That rule cannot be squared with Pickering, with this Court’s precedents, or with the First Amendment itself.
We argue that the Seventh Circuit misapplied Pickering by transforming a narrow balancing test into a broad license for censorship—allowing government employers to discipline employees not for workplace misconduct, but for expressing controversial political opinions that provoke opposition.
This case goes to the heart of whether the First Amendment still protects 22 million public employees from being fired for daring to exercise their God-given First Amendment right to express views outside the workplace. No teacher should lose her career because outsiders object to political views she expressed privately and lawfully.
We are being assisted in the case by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who has argued over 100 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Scores of Criminal Aliens Arrested in Minnesota as Media Focuses on Protests
You wouldn’t know it from Gov. Tim Walz and other public officials in Minnesota or from the national press, who seemed enamored of the rioting in the streets, but federal agents are cleansing the state of vicious criminals. Our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.
In just a few weeks Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested around 2,000 dangerous criminal aliens in Minnesota, including murderers, pedophiles, rapists and gangbangers though you would never know it based on mainstream media coverage. That is because most news outlets are focusing exclusively on the ICE agent shooting of a woman who interfered with the federal deportation operation and the subsequent anti-ICE protests over the incident, which occurred last week in Minneapolis. “Anti-ICE Protests Spread Nationwide,” reads the headline of a major national newspaper story that says, “mounting outrage over an ICE agent’s killing of a woman in Minneapolis spilled into streets across the country on Saturday, as crowds of protesters mobilized against what they called the excesses of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.” Another national news network claims that outrage has grown following the woman’s death with more than 1,000 demonstrations planned across the U.S. Minnesota’s largest newspaper reports that thousands marched in south Minneapolis to protest the state’s ongoing immigration operation.
Buried deep in some of these stories, though not all, is a quote from a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official saying that thousands of illegal immigrants (most omit the word “criminal”) have been arrested during the Minneapolis crackdown, which began in December and is officially known as Operation Metro Surge. The pertinent information is portrayed as questionable in virtually all establishment media coverage and fails to elaborate on the alarming criminal histories of some of the apprehended illegal aliens even though DHS makes the information easily available. Instead, as has been the case with other immigration crackdown operations throughout the nation, media coverage has centered on victimizing the perpetrators. One national news network writes that an escalation of federal agents to Minneapolis is “sparking fear in the city’s immigrant communities.”It has also created “strong opposition among activists who are pushing back loudly against enforcement,” the piece states. Many outlets describe the activist shot by ICE as a mother and poet who represented freedom, love and peace while the Trump administration confirms she was a professional agitator engaged in an act of terrorism when the ICE agent shot her.
DHS says violent rioters and Minnesota politicians are actively trying to protect some of the world’s worst criminal offenders. “While ICE fights to remove the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Minnesota—including child rapists, murderers, and more—violent rioters and agitators are actively trying to protect these vicious criminals by interfering and obstructing ICE operations,” the agency writes in a statement issued a few days ago. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey are encouraging this behavior with their rhetoric of lawlessness while their sanctuary policies ensure that criminal aliens flock to their state to escape justice, according to DHS. ICE Director Todd M. Lyons says some of the criminal aliens recently arrested in Minneapolis have had removal orders for 30 years but have been free to “terrorize Minnesotans.” The arrests prevent recidivism and make communities safer, the ICE chief assures.
Here is a small sample of the violent offenders that have been rounded up by ICE in the last few weeks in Minneapolis as the city’s lawmakers and activists continue impeding the agency’s critical operations. Mexican national Hernan Cortes-Valencia, with a removal order that dates back to 2016, and convictions for sexual assault against a child and four DUIs. A Laos illegal immigrant, Sriudorn Phaivan, ordered deported in 2018 with convictions for strongarm sodomy of a boy, strongarm sodomy of a girl, aggravated sex, nine counts of larceny, four counts of fraud, vehicle theft, two counts of drug possession, obstructing justice, possession of stolen property, receiving stolen property, burglary and check forgery. Another Laos national, Ge Yang, deported from the U.S. in 2012, who benefitted from Minnesota’s sanctuary protections, with convictions for strongarm rape, aggravated assault, domestic violence and other sex offenses. Mexican Aldrin Guerrero Munoz, removed back in 2015, with homicide and assault convictions and Gilberto Salguero Landaverde of El Salvador, who has been convicted of three counts of homicide and was ordered deported over the summer. This is just a snippet as the list of serious offenders apprehended in Minnesota recently as the list is extensive and readily available with mug shots on the DHS website.
Until next week,
The post VICTORY: Historic Supreme Court Election Law Ruling appeared first on Judicial Watch.