The Supreme Court Hits Two Home Runs & DOJ Surprises with Indictments.
A unanimous ruling shields nonprofit supporters from state subpoenas; and, a majority of justices take race out of congressional redistricting! Plus, there are two surprise indictments.
This week, we address two important decisions from the Supreme Court. The New Jersey Attorney General’s office has long been harassing a pro-life women’s resource center. The AG sought confidential donor information—information which was very intrusive and would deter contributions. Fortunately, a unanimous Supreme Court said NO. The second case slapped down the use of race to create congressional districts—which has been a long-standing and clearly discriminatory practice—to draw districts for example to make sure a black person would win.
We also look into the indictment of David Morens, the former senior National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases official who faces charges for his scheme to evade Freedom of Information Act requests connected to COVID-19.
And, we note there is a new indictment of former FBI Director James Comey—for his social media threat against the President. There has been a year long investigation, and we do not have any details of evidence that supports the charges. However, our friend on X @theVivaFrei has an enlightening analysis. Sidney can’t help but note—in her opinion—that the charges are only the tip of the iceberg of Comey’s malicious actions against President Trump since he rode down the escalator.
Image from Liberty Justice Center
Pro-Life Group gets Relief from Subpoenas Targeting Donor Information
In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport, the Supreme Court considered whether an organization may challenge the constitutionality of a subpoena in federal court.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers (First Choice) is a religious nonprofit that has provided counseling and resources to pregnant women in New Jersey for over 40 years. They are a pro-life organization – they believe that life begins at conception and work “to protect and honor life in all stages of development.”
In 2022, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, established the Reproductive Rights Strike Force, which sought to protect abortion providers and those seeking abortions. After its creation, the Strike Force issued a public warning in which it accused pro-life centers – those like First Choice – of “seeking to prevent people from accessing comprehensive reproductive health care” by “providing false or misleading information about abortion.”
The Strike Force and the Office of the Attorney General never received any complaints about First Choice. Despite that fact, the Attorney General served a subpoena on First Choice in 2023 under a number of New Jersey Laws, including the State’s Consumer Fraud Act. It demanded the production of 28 categories of documents under threat of contempt of court, including the names, addresses, phone numbers, and place of employment of all persons who had donated to First Choice through a page on the organization’s website.
Just days before the deadline to comply with the subpoena, First Choice filed suit in a federal district court seeking relief from compliance with the subpoena. In that suit, First Choice made a number of arguments – including that the Attorney General’s demand for donor information violated its First Amendment rights. After the deadline passed, the State of New Jersey filed its own suit in state court, accusing First Choice of violating state law by failing to comply with the subpoena.
The federal district court dismissed First Choice’s lawsuit, concluding it did not have a “justiciable” claim—meaning a claim proper for the court to decide. A divided panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, finding that First Choice had not established “enough of an injury.” The Supreme Court accepted this case to determine whether First Choice’s lawsuit may proceed in federal court.
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit and held that First Choice can challenge the constitutionality of the subpoena in federal court, as it “has established a present injury to its First Amendment association rights.” In doing so, he recognized the “vital relationship between privacy in one’s associations and the freedom to associate.” Justice Gorsuch observed that ending this privacy would be disastrous:
“Strip away the ability of individuals to work together free from governmental oversight and intrusion, and the freedom to associate may become no freedom at all – individuals deterred, groups diminished, and their protected advocacy suppressed.”
The Court disagreed with the findings of the lower courts that First Choice had not sustained enough of an injury to proceed with its constitutional claims. It observed that the First Choice donors had expressed fear of the New Jersey Attorney General’s “hostility toward pro-life groups.” And it recognized that the threats from the Attorney General would weaken First Choice’s ability to recruit new donors, given the threat that their personal information would be part of a government investigation. This burden of First Choice’s constitutional rights was “more than enough to establish injury in fact” under Supreme Court precedent.
Hallelujah! We say!
Image from Associated American Press
Supreme Court holds that Louisiana’s Congressional Map is Unconstitutional
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, which involved Louisiana’s adoption of a majority-black district at the direction of a federal district court. It held that the State’s attempt to comply with the district court’s order “was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
This case originated from Louisiana’s 2022 redistricting, which included (like its predecessor) only one district where black voters were a majority of the voting-age population. As soon as that redistricting was passed, there were a number of lawsuits filed in federal district court that alleged a violation of the Voting Rights Act because it only created one majority-black district and spread out the remaining black voters among other districts where they were less likely to be able to elect a black person.
After lengthy legal proceedings, the district court held that the challengers were “‘likely to prevail’ on their claim that the Voting Rights Act demanded the creation of a second majority-black district.” This essentially forced the State to redraw its own map and create a second district that was majority-black; otherwise, the district court would create its own map and mandate its use.
After the new map (called SB8) was enacted, a lawsuit was filed in the Western District of Louisiana, alleging that its creation of a second majority-black district was a racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause. The district court case resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, concluding the SB8 was unconstitutional.
The State of Louisiana appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would consider not only the constitutionality of SB8 but also “whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination.”
In a 5-3 decision, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that “because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8.” It held that SB8 “is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.” The Court applied the “general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race.”
Image from Andrew Harnicks, Getty Images
The Indictment of David Morens
In what is hopefully the first of many steps to restore justice from the atrocities of the COVID-19 pandemic, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) official David Morens has been indicted by a federal grand jury.
The indictment alleges that Morens, a former advisor to Anthony Fauci, and two co-conspirators – Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance and former National Institutes of Health official Gerald Keusch – “defrauded and committed offenses against the United States by hiding from public view various federal records” relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Morens had a significant public position within NIAID which included advising leadership and senior staff and providing guidance on infectious disease planning and management. He also gathered facts from federal contractors and the scientific community regarding the nature and origins of COVID-19 and assisted in formulating policies in response to the pandemic.
Though he had legal obligations to preserve records and was provided yearly training on his obligations regarding document preservation, Morens used his personal Gmail account “to create, transfer, and exchange federal records that pertained to Morens’s responsibilities as a Senior Advisor at NIAID.” He did this to not only hide his communications with the co-conspirators and others from pending FOIA requests, but also to allow him and others to advance the interests of EcoHealth Alliance.
As part of this conspiracy, Morens not only deleted emails but expressed his desire to his co-conspirators to use his personal Gmail account to evade his FOIA responsibilities. Morens also went to bat for EcoHealth Alliance in their efforts to secure millions of dollars in federal grants – a conflict of interest that he tried to keep secret.
Daszak was so thankful for this help that he sent bottles of wine to Morens’s residence, with promises that there would be a “continued series of expressions of gratitude for your advice, support, and behind-the-scenes shenanigans.” Daszak would also promise Morens additional things of value, including meals at Michelin-starred restaurants.
Overall, Morens faces five counts related to: (1) conspiracy against the United States; (2) destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations; (3) concealment, removal, or mutilation of records; and (4) aiding and abetting. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
James Comey Indicted
Finally, we get to the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, who faces two counts: (1) making a knowing and willful “threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a); and (2) knowingly and willfully transmitting in interstate commerce “a communication that contained a threat to kill the President, Donald J. Trump” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).
The threat arose from Comey’s Instagram post of “8647” – what he described as a “cool shell formation” he found on his walk on the beach—but there is a lot more to it.
Comey was interviewed about this post by the U.S. Secret Service in May of 2025. He took down the post after public outcry, stating on Instagram that “It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”
Our friend on X @theVivaFrei has an interesting analysis of Comey’s legal problems and provides context others have missed. Frei explains:
People are either unaware of, or ignoring the context of Comey’s Instagram post. It was not a “one-off”. It was actually the second in a series of three posts, all of which were connected, self-referential, and clearly deliberately so.
Post 1: Comey at the beach, reading his new book, FDR Drive (image attached).
Post 2: 8647 in shells.
Post 3: The summary of his new book which he is reading in Post 1. That summary:
“Garcia believes Buchanan went far beyond the protection of the first amendment when *he singled out his enemies by name* and *suggested “something should be done” about them*. His fans have obliged, killing or grievously, injuring some of his foes.”
Comey is telling you exactly what he is doing.
Reading his book. Singling out his enemies by name (as close as he can get) - 47 for Trump.
Suggesting “something should be done about them” - 86 for kill or eliminate.
And “his fans have obliged” from his book description that he posted.
This analysis also explains why the indictment seeks forfeiture of “property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the said offense.” DOJ apparently believes Comey’s coded message “took a page out of his new book,” and promoted its sales.