Judicial Watch Files Supreme Court Brief in Historic Election Integrity Case
Justice Department Supports Judicial Watch in Illinois Voter Roll Clean Up
Judicial Watch Sues Over Removal of West Point Crest from Bibles in Chapel
Court Stands with Parent Against Bucks County Withholding Covid Records
Pakistani Trafficker in Brazil Helped Bring Middle Easterners into U.S.

Judicial Watch Files Supreme Court Brief in Historic Election Integrity Case

Judicial Watch is in the midst of a massive Supreme Court battle that goes to the heart of protecting the rule of law in elections.

In our latest effort, we filed our opening brief to the Supreme Court in a case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, who are before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law extending Election Day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law (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)).

In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear our appeal of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in this case. The lower courts had denied that Bost and the electors had standing to challenge Illinois’ practice of counting ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day. (The Election Day lawsuit was initially filed on May 25, 2022.)

Our Supreme Court brief states:

Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day.

***

Candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources. They also have an obvious interest “in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast.”

***

Candidates pour enormous resources into running for election and have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. They also have a distinct interest “in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast.”

Our legal team makes a simple and powerful argument to the Supreme Court: It is obvious that candidates have standing to challenge unlawful rules governing the elections into which they are pouring untold resources.

In March 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to rehear its previous ruling in which it agreed with us that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after Election Day (Libertarian Party of Mississippi v Wetzel et al. (No. 1:24-cv-00037)).

In March 2025 we filed a federal lawsuit against California on behalf of U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa to prevent state election officials from extending Election Day for seven days beyond the date established by federal law. California counts ballots received up to seven days after Election Day (Darrell Issa v. Shirley N. Weber, in her official capacity (No. 3:25-cv-00598)).

Paul Clement, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, is representing 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.

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.

 Other examples of our election law work include:

• In April 2025, we announced that our analysis of voter registration lists has led to lawsuits and legal actions under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) that have resulted in the removal of five million names from voter rolls in nearly a dozen states and localities over the last several years.
• In October 2024, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of itself, the Constitution Party of Oregon, and two lawfully registered voters of Umatilla County and Marion County, Oregon, against Lavonne Griffin-Valade in her official capacity as Oregon Secretary of State and the State of Oregon, to make “a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters” from the voter rolls as required by the NVRA (Judicial Watch, et al. v. The State of Oregon et al. (No. 6:24-cv-01783)).
• In May 2024, we sued California to clean up its voter rolls. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Judicial Watch and the Libertarian Party of California, similarly asks the court to compel California to make “a reasonable effort” to remove ineligible registrants from the rolls as required by federal law (Judicial Watch Inc. and the Libertarian Party of CA v. Shirley Weber et al. (No. 2:24-cv-03750)).

Justice Department Supports Judicial Watch in Illinois Voter Roll Clean Up

Judicial Watch continues to take the lead in cleaning up voter rolls around the country, and now we have some help from the feds.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in our lawsuit that seeks to force the clean-up of Illinois’ election rolls as federal law requires (Judicial Watch, Inc., et al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al. (No. 1:24-cv-01867)). U.S. District Court Judge Sara L. Ellis set a hearing in the case for next week.

The Justice Department filing notes: “This case presents important questions regarding enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act.” In a press release announcing the Statement of Interest, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said:

It is critical to remove ineligible voters from the registration rolls so that elections are conducted fairly, accurately, and without fraud. Under the NVRA [National Voter Registration Act], states have the responsibility to conduct a robust program of list maintenance. The Department of Justice will vigorously enforce those requirements to ensure compliance.

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove” from the official voter rolls “the names of ineligible voters” who have died or changed residence. The law requires registrations to be cancelled when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices and then fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. In 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory.

Our lawsuit details that 23 Illinois counties, with a combined registration list of 980,089 voters, reported removing a combined total of only 100 registrations in the last two-year reporting period under a crucial provision of the NVRA. This is an “absurdly small” number, and there “is no possible way these counties can be conducting a general program that makes reasonable effort to cancel registrations of voters who have become ineligible because of a change of residence while removing so few registrations.”

Our lawsuit demonstrates Illinois voter rolls are a mess and the Justice Department is right to be concerned about the state’s failures to keep them clean.

In June 2025, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit to compel Oregon to clean its voter rolls.

Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights.

In July 2024, we asked a federal court to reject the State of Illinois’ motion to dismiss our lawsuit to compel the state to clean up its voter rolls. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of the nonprofit organizations Illinois Family Action and Breakthrough Ideas, and Carol J. Davis, a lawfully registered Illinois voter (Judicial Watch, Inc. et al v. The Illinois State Board of Elections et al. (No. 1:24-cv-01867)).

In May 2024, we sued California to clean up its voter rolls. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Libertarian Party of California, similarly asks the court to compel California to make “a reasonable effort” to remove ineligible registrants from the rolls as required by federal law (Judicial Watch Inc. and the Libertarian Party of CA v. Shirley Weber et al. (No. 2:24-cv-03750)).

Judicial Watch Sues Over Removal of West Point Crest from Bibles in Chapel

Judicial Watch is keeping a close eye on our military academies, which came under leftist pressure to retreat from traditional values during the Biden administration.

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense for records about the removal of the West Point crest from Bibles in the Cadet Chapel at the United States Military Academy (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Defense (No. 1:25-cv-01855)).

The lawsuit was filed after the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, a component of the Defense Department, failed to respond to a December 13, 2024, FOIA request for:

1. All documents that form the basis upon which the decision was made to remove the West Point Crest from the cover of the Bibles in the West Point Chapel. Upon information and belief, the West Point Crest has appeared on the cover of the Bibles in the West Point Chapel since 1984, but circa December 2024, the Crest has been removed from the Bibles.

2. All emails sent to and from Col. Matthew Pawlikowski [former U.S. Military Academy chaplain] regarding the crest’s appearance on the cover of the Bibles used in the West Point Chapel.

We filed the FOIA request after receiving information from a reliable source – the MacArthur Society, an association of West Point graduates – that the West Point crest had been on the Bibles since 1984 and was removed sometime in December 2024.

In a related incident, in a March 12, 2024, “Message from the 61st Superintendent,” Superintendent LTG Steven Gilland announced a change to the Army’s mission statement, referencing the Army’s continued commitment to “Duty, Honor and Country” without explaining why the words themselves were deleted.

It appears the Biden administration and its leftist accomplices were determined to sever all connections between West Point and traditional values. They added divisive DEI programs to the curriculum and removed ‘Duty, Honor, Country’ from the Military Academy’s mission statement. Now, we learn they removed the West Point crest from Bibles in the West Point Chapel. It’s a wonder they didn’t remove the Bibles.

In May 2025, we uncovered records from West Point revealing that speakers at the March 2024 “Founders Day” event were instructed to “AVOID saying ‘removed,’ ‘replaced,’ ‘deleted’ [when referring to the new mission statement] – just refer to the ‘updated mission statement and reinforce that the motto remains unchanged.” [Emphasis in original] The records also tied DEI efforts to the mission statement controversy.

In November 2024, we filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Defense Department for information regarding the rebranding of West Point’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) office to “Office of Engagement and Retention.”

In March 2023, records from the Defense Department showed the U.S. Air Force Academy had made race and gender instruction a top priority in the training of cadets.

In July 2023, we exposed records from the U.S. Air Force Academy, a component of the Defense Department, which included instructional materials and emails that addressed topics such as Critical Race Theory, “white privilege,” and Black Lives Matter.

In June 2022, we uncovered Critical Race Theory (CRT) instruction at the U.S. Military Academy. One training slide contained a graphic titled “MODERN-DAY SLAVERY IN THE USA.” [Emphasis in original]

Court Stands with Parent Against Bucks County Withholding Covid Records

Here’s a victory for the little guy.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that Bucks County, Pennsylvania, acted in bad faith in unlawfully suppressing public records concerning the county health department’s Covid-19 school guidance. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s May 2023 award of sanctions against Bucks County in the amount of $3,000 to Judicial Watch client, Megan Brock.

Brock is a parent who was sued by Bucks County after the trial court’s ruling in her favor in an effort to prevent the release of documents related to Covid restrictions and the re-opening of the county’s schools that she requested under the Commonwealth’s Right-to-Know Law (County of Bucks v. Megan Brock (Nos. 2022-03083 and 2022-02979)).

In February and March 2022, Brock sent a public records request asking for all electronic correspondence between Bucks Co. executives and the Health Department regarding public school Covid-19 guidance, which was issued in August 2021. Brock was trying to determine who authorized the reopening guidance that was changed to include more restrictive rules about masks, quarantining, and testing.

“This ruling confirms that Bucks County egregiously targeted my civil rights by wrongfully withholding public records,” said Brock. “It’s frightening as an everyday American to be bullied and attacked by your own government. I’m extremely thankful to Judicial Watch for their hard work in protecting my rights and the rights of all Americans. When Bucks County filed multiple lawsuits against me for exercising my constitutional rights, Judicial Watch was there when no one else had my back. I’m grateful for this legal victory and the precedent it sets for all Pennsylvanians, who have the right to government transparency. This was not a fair fight, and I could not have fought this battle alone. Judicial Watch has again ensured that no one is above the law, not even radical, local politicians!”

This a nice victory for transparency and accountability over arrogant local officials who abused citizens and schoolchildren over Covid. The court’s imposing the maximum bad-faith penalties on Bucks County sends a warning to every bureaucrat and elected official in Pennsylvania that no one is above the law.

Pakistani Trafficker in Brazil Helped Bring Middle Easterners into U.S.

The common image of hard-working Mexican families working our fields hides an insidious underbelly of illegal people smuggling, as our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.

In a significant case ignored by the establishment media, an illegal immigrant from Honduras has been sentenced to a decade in prison for running a massive years-long alien smuggling operation that “facilitated the illegal movement of Middle Easterners into the United States,” according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The defendant’s “actions put our national security at risk,” the top federal prosecutor overseeing the case in the western district of Texas confirms. While mainstream media coverage focuses exclusively on hard working migrants cruelly deported in nationwide Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, the agency is taking serious criminals off the streets. That part, however, is not receiving any coverage even though the Trump administration is making the information readily available on various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) websites.

In this important case, Enil Edil Mejia-Zuniga, a 34-year-old illegal immigrant from Honduras, was the leader of what federal authorities call “a massive alien smuggling conspiracy that spanned three years and involved thousands of aliens from over 11 different countries.” A 33-year-old Mexican illegal immigrant and two other Honduran migrants, ages 26 and 32, worked for Mejia-Zuniga and have also been criminally charged. A final defendant is in custody in Mexico pending an extradition request from the United States. The group made millions of dollars off the migrants they helped smuggle into the U.S., authorities confirm, adding that the case represents the epitome of the ruthless and sophisticated criminal organizations that exploit our borders for personal financial gain. “For more than three years, these individuals operated a transnational smuggling ring driven by greed, moving illegal aliens from 11 countries in blatant disregard of the law,” said Special Agent in Charge Craig Larrabee of ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in San Antonio, Texas. “Human smuggling undermines the security of our borders and disrupts lawful immigration processes.”

The DOJ’s announcement includes several pictures of Mejia-Zuniga posing with rifles and cash. Court documents reveal that from November 2020 through March 2023, the Mejia-Zuniga alien smuggling organization (ASO) brought in migrants from Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt, India, Pakistan, and Colombia, through Eagle Pass, Texas. Aliens primarily contracted with a Pakistani smuggler based in Brazil to be transported to the United States. The Brazilian-based associate worked with the San Antonio-based Mejia-Zuniga to facilitate travel of the illegal immigrants from South America to the United States. Mejia-Zuniga directed operations of the ASO and paid drivers, armed “coyotes,” and stash house operators. The Honduran man admitted to smuggling between 2,500 to 3,000 aliens into the United States in just two years. His business charged between $6,500 to $12,000 per alien. Mejia-Zuniga said he made $30,000 for every ten illegal aliens who made it to the Rio Grande River and another $30,000 if those ten illegal aliens made it to San Antonio. Evidence gathered by the feds during their investigation includes wire transfers, customer ledgers, foreign identification documents and photos of the entire Mejia-Zuniga clan with firearms.

This important yet unreported case was cracked under Operation Take Back America, a national plan launched in March to repel the damages of the Biden administration’s disastrous open border policies by controlling illegal immigration, eliminating drug cartels such as Jalisco New Generation, Sinaloa, Michoacan and Los Zetas as well as other transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) like Tren de Aragua and the famously violent Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). Thousands of illegal immigrants throughout the country have been charged with serious crimes under Operation Take Back America and the initiative has led to the apprehension of countless others arrested for illegally reentering the U.S. who already had felony convictions involving narcotics, firearms, and sexual offenses. Additionally, federal authorities have seized enormous amounts of illicit drugs, including more than 44 million fentanyl pills and nearly 70,000 pounds of methamphetamine.

Until next week,

The post Supreme Court Election Law Battle Begins! appeared first on Judicial Watch.