Supreme Court Will Hear Judicial Watch Case on Election Law Challenge
BREAKING: $4.975 Million Settlement of Ashli Babbitt Wrongful Death Lawsuit
Operation Take Back America: Thousands of Illegals Charged Since March
Bribed USDA Employee Helps Run Huge Food Stamp Fraud

Supreme Court Will Hear Judicial Watch Case on Election Law Challenge

We’re going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court just agreed to hear Judicial Watch’s appeal of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors challenging 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)).

The lower courts had denied that Bost had standing to challenge Illinois’ practice of counting ballots received after Election Day. (The Election Day lawsuit was initially filed on May 25, 2022.)

It is an injustice that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision that could lead to illegal votes being cast and counted for two weeks AFTER Election Day. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights, and ensure election integrity. Illinois’ 14-day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters, and invites fraud.

Federal law defines Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even-numbered year. Our complaint states: “Despite Congress’ clear statement regarding a single national Election Day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote-by-mail ballots.” The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently ruled in another Judicial Watch lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, that counting ballots received after Election Day is unlawful.

Illinois’ election law allows vote-by-mail ballots received up to 14 days after the polls close on Election Day to be counted as if they were cast and received on or before Election Day. The lawsuit notes that “[e]ven vote-by-mail ballots without postmarks shall be counted if received up to 14 calendar days after Election Day if the ballots are dated on or before Election Day.” A Seventh Circuit panel found that Congressman Bost had no standing to challenge the provision, despite the increased costs and injuries to his federal candidacy caused by the two-week counting of ballots arriving after Election Day.

In our petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, we stated:

For over 130 years, this Court has heard claims brought by federal candidates challenging state time, place, or manner regulations affecting their federal elections. Until recently, it was axiomatic that candidates had standing to challenge these regulations. Indeed, “it’s hard to imagine anyone who has a more particularized injury than the candidate has.” … That is because a candidate who “pours money and sweat into a campaign, who spends time away from her job and family to traverse the campaign trail, and who puts her name on a ballot has an undeniably different— and more particularized—interest in the lawfulness of the election” than “some random voter.”

***

Petitioners are a sitting multi-term Congressman and two federal electors. They challenged an Illinois law … that allows absentee ballots to be received and counted after the day specified in federal statutes for holding federal elections … They contend that Illinois’ Receipt Deadline is preempted by the federal Election Day statutes.

***

This petition presents an opportunity for the Court to provide lower courts and litigants much needed guidance on candidate standing, outside of the high-stakes, emergency, post-election litigation where these issues commonly arise.

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 in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads the 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.

In April 2025, we announced that our analysis and use 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 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.

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.

In October 2024, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of 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.

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.

BREAKING: $4.975 Million Settlement of Ashli Babbitt Wrongful Death Lawsuit

At long last, the U.S. government agreed to a $4.975 million settlement in our wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of the family of Ashli Babbitt, the U.S. Air Force veteran who was shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6, 2021. Ashli Babbitt was the only January 6 homicide victim.

This fair settlement is a historic and necessary step for justice for Ashli Babbitt’s family. Ashli should never have been killed, and this settlement destroys the evil, partisan narrative that justified her outrageous killing and protected her killer.

Our team spent years investigating, litigating, and exposing the truth about Ashli’s homicide. And credit goes to the hundreds of thousands of Judicial Watch members who supported this cause! President Trump was an absolute rock in supporting Ashli’s family and advocating for justice.

Babbitt, 35, owned and operated a successful pool business with her husband Aaron. Ashli traveled alone from San Diego to Washington, DC, to attend the Women for America First (aka Save America) rally on January 6, 2021, at the Ellipse near the White House.

The wrongful death lawsuit was filed in San Diego, California, Ashli’s home venue, on January 5, 2024, against the U.S. Government on behalf of the family of Ashli Babbitt and transferred to the District of Columbia over objection (Estate of Ashli Babbitt and Aaron Babbitt, et al. v. United States of America (No. 1:24-cv-01701 (formerly 3:24-cv-00033)). In settling the lawsuit, the parties signed a “Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release:”

to settle and compromise each and every claim of any kind, whether known or unknown, including claims for wrongful death, arising directly or indirectly from the acts or omissions that gave rise to the above-captioned action under the terms and conditions set forth in this Stipulation.

This Stipulation is not and should not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the United States, its agents, servants, or employees, and it is specifically denied that they are liable to Plaintiffs. This settlement is entered into by all parties for the purpose of compromising disputed claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and avoiding the expenses and risks of further litigation.

In consideration for the Plaintiffs’ agreement to accept the terms and conditions of this settlement, the United States agrees to pay Plaintiffs the amount of Four Million, Nine Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($4,975,000.00)…

The lawsuit included claims against the U.S. government for wrongful death, assault and battery, and various negligence claims.

As the Babbitt family alleged in its lawsuit:

The shooting occurred at the east entrance to the Speaker’s Lobby. After demonstrators filled the hallway outside the lobby, two individuals in the crowded, tightly packed hallway struck and dislodged the glass panels in the lobby doors and the right door sidelight. Lt. Byrd, who is a United States Capitol Police commander and was the incident commander for the House on January 6, 2021, shot Ashli on sight as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door sidelight. Lt. Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashli before seeing her hands or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as female. Ashli was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty, and in plain view of Lt. Byrd and other officers in the lobby.

***

The facts speak truth. Ashli was ambushed when she was shot by Lt. Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, “you just murdered her.”

Lt. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashli’s homicide.

The lawsuit also alleged:

Lt. Byrd, who is a (U.S. Capitol Police) commander and was the incident commander for the House on January 6, 2021, shot Ashli as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door sidelight.… Not one member of Congress was in the lobby, which was guarded by multiple armed police officers. Additional armed police officers were in the hallway outside the lobby and/or on the adjoining stairway. Ashli could not have seen Lt. Byrd, who was positioned far to Ashli’s left and on the opposite side of the doors, near an opening to the Retiring Room, a distance of approximately 15 feet and an angle of approximately 160 degrees. Sgt. Timothy Lively, one of the armed officers guarding the lobby doors from the hallway, later told officials investigating the shooting, “I saw him . . . there was no way that woman would’ve seen that.” Lt. Byrd, who was not in uniform, did not identify himself as a police officer or otherwise make his presence known to Ashli. Lt. Byrd did not give Ashli any warnings or commands before shooting her dead.

The lawsuit had been set for trial in 2026.

We have been pursuing five lawsuits to secure transparency regarding Babbit’s death and other government activities on January 6.

In January 2023, documents from the Department of the Air Force, Joint Base Andrews, MD, showed Byrd was housed at taxpayer expense at Joint Base Andrews after he shot and killed Babbitt inside the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

In November 2021, we released multiple audio, visual and photo records from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about the shooting death of Babbitt in the U.S. Capitol Building. The records included a cell phone video of the shooting and an audio of a brief police interview of the shooter, Byrd.

In October 2021, we uncovered records from the DC Metropolitan Police about the shooting death of Babbitt. The new records include the January 6, 2021, Metro PD Death Report for Babbitt (identified as Ashli Elizabeth McEntee-Babbitt Pamatian). The investigators note that the possible Manner of Death was “Homicide [Police Involved Shooting].”

Federal Police Departments Keep Biden-era Equity, Inclusion Strategies

The DEI is embedded in two important police departments that protect the US Capitol and the US Supreme Court. Our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.

Though President Trump issued an executive order banning governmentwide diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs on the day of his inauguration, two federal law enforcement agencies that operate near the White House continue to implement, celebrate, and promote controversial DEI initiatives launched under the Biden administration. The Capitol Police, which is charged with protecting Congress, still has an Office of Equity and Inclusion (OEI)—committed to fully imbedding DEI into the agency’s culture and purpose—that is carrying out a three-year Equity & Inclusion Strategic Plan launched in 2023. At a recent Senate appropriations hearing, Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger requested a million dollars to keep his OEI office with a staff of nine open. Across the street Supreme Court of the United States Police, charged with protecting justices and employees, publicly celebrates DEI by bragging that 31% of its workforce is minority and 24% female. “The Supreme Court Police believe that diversity and inclusion are essential to the department’s success,” according to the agency’s website.

It appears that both federal law enforcement agencies are openly flouting the commander-in-chief’s January 20 order titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing.” The president was quick to issue it because the “Biden administration forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs” into virtually all aspects of the federal government, in areas ranging from airline safety to the military. The order calls for the termination of all discriminatory programs including illegal DEI mandates, policies, preferences, and activities in the federal government. This specifically includes “Chief Diversity Officer” positions as well as special “equity action plans” and other initiatives that consider DEI rather than individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work to reward employees. A few months later, President Trump issued another order banning DEI from the Foreign Service by, among other things, replacing DEI as a core precept from foreign service tenure and promotion criteria with individual dignity, hard work and excellence.

The Capitol and Supreme Court police departments are disregarding the governmentwide DEI ban, publicly celebrating their initiatives and continuing with their discriminatory programs. The Capitol Police, which has over 2,300 officers and civilian employees and an annual budget of approximately $460 million, maintains that DEI is “essential to law enforcement operations and effectiveness” and is moving forward—and asking American taxpayers to fund—a three-year Equity & Inclusion Strategic Plan launched in 2023 by Chief Diversity Officer Vilma Alejandro. “With our internal and external partners OEI –Office of Equity & Inclusion (OEI)—will actively engage in healing those who are hurting, fighting discrimination, creating opportunities, focusing on inclusion, and building awareness of systemic change needed to end disparities,” Alejandro writes in the strategic plan. “I want to reiterate, USCP is fully committed to integrating DEI into our operations and mission work. The diversity chief adds that she is laying down the foundation for this work to continue for years to come. Chief Manger writes in the equity and inclusion plan that “DEI isn’t about black versus white, or taking from some to give to others,” but rather about “comprehensive fairness.” A few weeks ago, he struggled to explain the importance of DEI when asking Congress to fund his initiative and nine-person office.

The Supreme Court Police has less than 200 officers, so its DEI program may not seem as impactful though it goes against the president’s order and sets a bad example for a federal agency. The department’s primary goal is to ensure the integrity of the Constitutional Mission of the Supreme Court by protecting justices, employees, guests, and visitors. Under Biden the federal law enforcement agency put a lot of focus on DEI and still likes to highlight that a substantial chunk of its 198 officers are minorities and women. A key concern of DEI quotas in law enforcement is the lowering of standards so minority applicants can qualify. The Biden administration filed civil rights lawsuits against jurisdictions nationwide for using standard aptitude tests to screen police officer and firefighter candidates, claiming that they discriminated against minorities. Earlier this year Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to dismiss all the lawsuits.

Bribed USDA Employee Helps Run Huge Food Stamp Fraud

Our Corruption Chronicles blog reveals a truly astonishing but not surprising story about the scandal-plagued food stamp program.

Long plagued by waste and corruption, the nation’s massive food stamp program has reached a new low with a multi-million-dollar fraud and bribery scheme abetted by an insider at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency that administers the scandal-plagued welfare program. It gets better. The longtime USDA employee worked in a special division responsible for identifying fraud—which is rampant—within the food stamp program, which was renamed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by the Obama administration to eliminate the stigma of receiving public assistance. Her name is Arlasa Davis and federal prosecutors recently charged her and five of her accomplices for operating “one of the largest food stamp frauds in U.S. history.”

For more than five years Davis and her conspirators ran a “sprawling fraud and bribery scheme that generated over $66 million” in unauthorized food stamp transactions, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) found that Davis abused her position and privileged access to confidential government databases to help the others in the ring embezzle food stamp benefits by driving tens of millions of dollars in fraudulent transactions. Federal authorities say the disgraced federal employee sold hundreds of Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) numbers that enabled tens of millions of dollars in fraudulent food stamp redemptions at unauthorized stores. EBT is the electronic system that allows a food stamp participant to pay for food using the taxpayer-funded benefit. With her personal cellphone, Davis photographed handwritten lists of license numbers intended for qualifying stores and transmitted them to an intermediary who sold them to the others criminally charged in this case.

The co-defendants—Michael Kehoe, Mohamad Nawafleh, Omar Alrawashdeh, Gamal Obaid and Emad Alrawashdeh—used the license numbers to fraudulently obtain EBT terminals for stores that were not authorized by the USDA to process food stamp transactions. Davis received substantial bribes from the ring disguised in communications obtained by the feds as birthday gifts and flowers. The illicit operation began in 2019 when Kehoe created a network that supplied about 160 unauthorized EBT terminals in stores across New York, including in smoke shops and other ineligible businesses, to illegally process millions of dollars in EBT transactions, federal prosecutors say. The six defendants are charged with conspiracy to steal government funds and misappropriate USDA benefits and Davis is additionally charged with bribery and honest services fraud. They all face 10 to 20 years in prison. “This fraud was made possible when USDA employee Arlasa Davis betrayed the public trust by selling confidential government information to the very criminals she was supposed to catch, said Perry Carbone, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who assures those who exploit anti-poverty programs for personal gain will be held accountable.

The case marks the latest of many scandals to rock the nation’s bloated food stamp program, which has grown immensely in the last few years, serving a record 42.1 million participants in 2023 at a cost of $112.8 billion, according to USDA figures. The number went down to $100.3 billion in 2024, and the Trump administration is working to cut it further. Food stamp fraud is so pervasive that the USDA launched a special system to facilitate the replacement of the welfare benefit when recipients claim it stolen. In the program’s first two years the government doled out a hefty $61.5 million to replace pilfered food stamps in 127,290 cases. That figure has since skyrocketed to a whopping $102,425,077 to replace 226,196 of the 691,604 benefits reported stolen, according to the latest figures published in the SNAP Replacement of Stolen Benefits Dashboard. Recipients in practically every state have submitted claims with New York leading the pack at 33,468, followed by California (32,258), Alabama (26,919) and Oklahoma (21,553).

Until next week,

The post Judicial Watch Going to Supreme Court on Election Integrity! appeared first on Judicial Watch.