Judicial Watch submitted the Michigan FOIA request on January 2, 2025, for records related to the States United Democracy Center and/or the Voter Protection Project regarding the investigation of Republican state electors for the 2020 presidential election. On August 11, 2025, Judicial Watch informed Michigan Attorney General Veronica Estrada that it “is prepared to pursue its legal rights and remedies in the Michigan Court of Claims” in order to obtain all remaining responsive records.

The records show that States United has a multistate operation aimed at prosecuting and disbarring Trump attorneys and associates in several states. States United was started by Norm Eisen, who was “ethics czar” for President Barak Obama and special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for the impeachment of Trump.

The Michigan production confirms close contact between States United and Michigan state officials.

The records include several email exchanges between top States United litigator Jonathan Williams and Heather S. Meingast, Division Chief, Civil Rights and Elections Division of the Michigan Attorney General’s Office.

On August 8, 2024, Williams writes in an email to Meingast:

Following up on our earlier conversations regarding the USPS, in collaboration with our clients in Nevada, we’ve put together a draft Common Interest Agreement for your consideration. Once we’ve got everyone on board, we can schedule a multi-state call to discuss further. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.

The records include a States United action plan, which discusses efforts to target Republicans who raised 2020 election questions in several states, including Michigan:

Election Deniers scored multiple wins in the Arizona and Michigan primaries and will now head to the general election in November. As States United has documented, candidates who continue to spread lies about our elections are running for positions that oversee or influence election administration across the country, posing a threat to our democracy.

***

In Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nessel is seeking a special prosecutor to consider charges against nine people in an alleged plot to gain improper access to vote-tabulating machines used in the 2020 election. One of the nine is Matthew DePerno, the Election Denier chosen by Michigan Republicans to run against Nessel this fall.

A September 28, 2023, email from Williams to Meingast details interest in cases around the country attempting to have President Trump removed from the 2024 ballot via the disqualification clause of the 14^th Amendment. States United Democracy Center would go on to provide a “litigation tracker,” tallying all efforts in states aimed at removing Trump from the ballot.

(The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in March 2024 that states cannot use the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause to remove a federal candidate from the ballot. The court determined that only Congress has the power to enforce this provision against federal officeholders.)

The records include a Michigan court filing in Davis v. Benson and Trump (No. 23-000128)) which points out that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who oversees state elections, had made “many public comments” which “demonstrate her extreme and incurable bias against President Trump.”

(On November 14, 2023, the Michigan Court of Claims issued an order in favor of the defendants, and later, on June 12, 2024, formally closed the remaining counts with prejudice.)

On February 22, 2024, Tiger Mar, a project assistant at States United emails Pier King-Piepenbrok in the Michigan Attorney General’s Office and mentions “our regular briefings.”

“These documents are startling and affirm concerns that Democrat swing state prosecutors were targeting President Trump and his supporters with political prosecutions,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch is being assisted by Robert Muise of The Muise Law Group in Ann Arbor.

Judicial Watch continues to work to obtain records from Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin, which appear to have been part of the same coordinated efforts led by States United Democracy Center.

###

The post Judicial Watch: Documents Detail Michigan Att. Gen... appeared first on Judicial Watch.

The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to reaffirm that “Election Day” means what it says under federal law. Counting ballots received after Election Day not only violates federal law but encourages voter fraud and undermines voter confidence. The Supreme Court should uphold the historic decision by the Fifth Circuit that sensibly concluded that counting ballots received after Election Day is unlawful.”

In October 2024, Fifth Circuit appellate opinion found:

Congress statutorily designated a singular “day for the election” of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this “day for the election” is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi’s statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse the district court’s contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

In August, Judicial Watch had filed a brief to the Supreme Court, opposing Mississippi’s attempt to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s October 2024 decision (Michael Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State v. Republican National Committee, et al.,(No. 24-1260)).

Judicial Watch’s brief recounts:

In reversing the district court on the merits, the [Fifth Circuit] panel faithfully followed this Court’s precedent … [T]his Court found that the Election Day statutes preempted a Louisiana law that allowed congressional candidates to be elected in October…. In interpreting the meaning of “day of the election” within the Election Day statutes, this Court found that “[w]hen the federal statutes speak of ‘the election’ of a Senator or Representative, they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder.” … Accordingly, the “day of the election” “may not be consummated prior to federal election day.”

Judicial Watch initially filed the civil rights lawsuit in February 2024 on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, challenging the election law. The suit was consolidated with one filed by the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and other complainants.

Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch 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.

Judicial Watch recently filed an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief along with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the court to reverse the Third Circuit’s decision denying the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) standing to sue for voter information guaranteed under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

In October 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the historic case Judicial Watch filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, arguing to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after the Election Day 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)).

Other examples of Judicial Watch’s election law work include:

Federal courts in Oregon, California and Illinois recently ruled that Judicial Watch’s lawsuits against those states may proceed forcing them to clean their voter rolls.

Judicial Watch announced in May that its work led to the removal of more than five million ineligible names from voter rolls nationwide.

###

The post Judicial Watch Statement: Supreme Court to Hear Mi... appeared first on Judicial Watch.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is a nonprofit, public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity that is suing for access to Pennsylvania’s voter rolls following a failure to disclose an estimated 100,000 noncitizen registered voter records. Pennsylvania officials reportedly admitted that “for decades, the Department of Motor Vehicles had allowed non-U.S. citizens to register to vote through the state’s ‘motor voter’ system.”

The Judicial Watch amici brief comes in the case Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Al Schmidt, Secretary of Pennsylvania, et al. (No. 1590, 1591, 3045, 379)), which is on appeal from the Third Circuit where the court denied access to public records requested under the NVRA’s public-disclosure provision. The issue in the case is whether the Virginia-based nonprofit has standing to sue under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

In their amici brief, Judicial Watch and AEF argue:

The denial of access to public records requested under the NVRA’s public-disclosure provision, 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i), inflicts a concrete informational injury deeply rooted in centuries of common-law tradition.

The Third Circuit’s decision … departs from this precedent by imposing a novel “nexus” requirement, demanding plaintiffs prove downstream harms beyond the denial itself. This ruling exacerbates a sharp and growing circuit split. Circuits like the Fourth adhere to this Court’s framework, finding standing upon denial alone.

The Third Circuit’s decision contains serious legal errors and directly conflicts with longstanding Supreme Court precedent. This Court has held that a person who is denied requested public records suffers a concrete injury … [The Third Circuit adopted] a new requirement [that] conflicts with previous rulings by this Court on this issue.

“This case shows the urgent need for citizenship verification for voting. The Department of Justice should follow up with a national investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch has several federal lawsuits to clean up potentially millions of names from the voter rolls.”

The Allied Educational Foundation is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation has engaged in a number of projects, which include, but are not limited to, educational and health conferences domestically and abroad. AEF has partnered frequently with Judicial Watch to fight government and judicial corruption and to promote a return to ethics and morality in the nation’s public life.

Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch 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 its 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.

On October 8, 2025, oral arguments were held in the U.S. Supreme Court in a historic case filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, who are before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day (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)).

Judicial Watch recently filed a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, opposing the State of Mississippi’s attempt to overturn the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision, which struck down a law allowing ballots received after Election Day to be counted.

Federal courts in Oregon, California and Illinois recently ruled that Judicial Watch’s lawsuits against those states may proceed forcing them to clean their voter rolls.

Judicial Watch announced in May that its work led to the removal of more than five million ineligible names from voter rolls nationwide.

###

The post Judicial Watch, Allied Educational Foundation File... appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch sued in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, after the mayor’s office failed to comply with a September 25, 2025, FOIA request for: 

• Records of Biss’s activities related to ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] operations, including “Operation Midway Blitz,” and the protest at the ICE facility in Broadview, IL, where tear gas was deployed in September 2025.
• Media related to ICE protests and activities, including any of the city’s photographs, videos or audio recordings depicting Biss’s participation in ICE-related protests or monitoring.
• Communications involving Biss as related to ICE operations, protests, or sanctuary city policies.
• License plate camera deactivation.
• Use of city resources and taxpayer time on ICE-related protests.
• Sanctuary city policies and ICE non-cooperation.

On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced “Operation Midway Blitz,” targeting “the criminal illegal aliens who flocked to Chicago and Illinois because they knew Governor Pritzker and his sanctuary policies would protect them and allow them to roam free on American streets.”

On September 11, 2025, Biss said that upon learning of planned federal immigration enforcement activity in Evanston, he notified residents so they could “protect themselves.” He further stated, “We’ve been doing everything we can to protect our residents from before Donald Trump took office, passing strong sanctuary laws to make sure police are not cooperating with federal civil immigration enforcement.” Biss reportedly ordered Evanston’s license plate cameras turned off after learning the data was being shared with federal immigration authorities.

On September 19, Biss reportedly was involved in a protest during which federal law enforcement agents deployed pepper and tear gas at an ICE processing center in Broadview, IL. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security stated “desperate politicians want their 15 minutes of fame, and they’re willing to do it off the backs of our law enforcement…. We will not back down.”

On September 26, tear gas again was used to disperse violent protesters at the Broadview facility. An ICE spokesperson said two people were arrested, “one of whom was carrying a firearm.” Also, “rioters and sanctuary politicians obstructed law enforcement, threw tear gas cans, rocks, bottles, and fireworks, slashed tires of cars, blocked the entrance of the building, and trespassed on private property.”

In October 2025, Evanston, IL, issued a press release discussing “ICE-Free Zones” and strategies for “state and local agencies—including the Secretary of State, the Illinois Accountability Commission, and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office” to hinder federal immigration enforcement actions.

Federal supremacy in immigration matters is established by the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act in Title 8 of the U.S. Code. These provisions reserve exclusive authority to the federal government for the regulation of admission, removal, and enforcement of immigration laws.

“The mayor of Evanston’s apparent interference with lawful immigration operations undermines the rule of law and places law enforcement and other innocent lives at risk,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch also recently sued Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs for records regarding her office reportedly ordering state police and the National Guard to withhold cooperation from federal immigration enforcement authorities.

Christine Svenson of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC is assisting Judicial Watch in this case. 

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues Evanston, IL, Mayor for Record... appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Texas’ House Rules Manual states that “all absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, by the sergeant-at-arms or an officer appointed by the sergeant-at-arms for that purpose, and their attendance shall be secured and retained.” The state Supreme Court in 2021 upheld that rule, giving the House the power to arrest absent members to establish a quorum.

The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division after Pritzker’s office failed to respond to an August 2025 FOIA request for:

All audio/visual recordings, handwritten notes, agendas, minutes, and reports related to a meeting or meetings held between Governor Pritzker and congressional Democrats at which Texas congressional redistricting and/or Illinois possibly housing Texas Democratic state lawmakers was discussed.

All audio/visual recordings, handwritten notes, agendas, minutes, and reports related to a meeting held between Governor Pritzker and Democratic party officials in late June 2025 in Oklahoma regarding congressional redistricting matters, as discussed at https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/inside-texas-democrats-plan-to-seek-refuge-with-illinois-gov-j-b-pritzker/ar-AA1JVS1T?ocid=socialshare.

All emails sent between and among officials in Governor Pritzker’s immediate office, including but not limited to Governor Pritzker and his chief of staff, regarding Texas congressional redistricting.

On August 3, 2025, more than 50 Texas Democrats fled the state in an attempt to derail a congressional redistricting bill. Pritzker said, “[Texas Democrats] are here in Illinois. We’re going to do everything we can to protect every single one of them and make sure that — ’cause we know they’re doing the right thing, we know that they’re following the law.”

Pritzker’s involvement reportedly began “at a dinner in late June hosted by Oklahoma Democrats, where he discussed the possibility of helping Texas Democrats fight back against the redistricting plan with state party chair Kendall Scudder …”

Pritzker, a billionaire heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on August 6, 2025, and when asked why the Texas legislators went to Illinois, the governor responded, “The great heroes of the House Democratic caucus decided the only thing they could do in order to stop it was leave Texas. And where did they decide to come to? The safe haven of the state of Illinois where we are going to protect them and take care of them.”

Later in the interview, Colbert asked whether the FBI could arrest the Texas legislators located in Illinois. Pritzker stated, “Frankly in the state of Illinois, we are not going to let them get taken away. We are going to protect the Texas House Democrats…. As long as they are in Illinois, they are safe.”

The Texas Democrats ended their walkout on August 18, 2025. The Texas state Senate on August 22, 2025, passed the new redistricting map and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed it into law on August 29, 2025.

“Pritzker seemed delighted to host the truant Texas Democrat ‘heroes,’ aiding and abetting an illegal two-week tantrum,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Christine Svenson of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC is assisting Judicial Watch in this case.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues Illinois Gov. Pritzker for Rec... appeared first on Judicial Watch.

The lawsuit was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court following the governor’s office’s “no responsive records” response to a December 17, 2024, records request. The request specifically sought:

• Any communications, memos, or orders issued to state agencies reflecting a policy of non-participation in federal immigration enforcement;
• Documentation of any legal analyses or contemplated litigation related to the governor’s stance on state-level involvement in immigration law enforcement.

Arizona law states: “No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”

In November 2024, Hobbs responded to a question on whether Arizona’s state police and National Guard would assist with federal immigration enforcement efforts by stating, “What I will unequivocally say is that, as governor, I will not tolerate efforts that are part of misguided policies that harm our communities, that threaten our communities, that terrorize our communities, and Arizona will not take part in those…. We will not be participating in misguided efforts that harm our communities, and I’ve been incredibly clear about that.”

Federal supremacy in immigration matters is established by the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act in Title 8 of the U.S. Code. These provisions reserve exclusive authority to the federal government for the regulation of admission, removal, and enforcement of immigration laws.

“Governor Hobbs’ apparent refusal to allow state resources to support lawful immigration operations undermines the rule of law and places law enforcement and other innocent lives at risk,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Andrew Parker of Parker Daniels Kibort, LLC, is assisting Judicial Watch in this case.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues AZ Gov. Hobbs for Records on N... appeared first on Judicial Watch.

 Judicial Watch filed the April 2023 lawsuit against the Justice Department, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence after the FBI failed to respond to a December 2022 FOIA request for “Twitter Files” records concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop and other censorship (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:23-cv-01163)).

The lawsuit references Yoel Roth, Vijaya Gadde, and Jim Baker, who were prominent in internal discussions at Twitter about censoring the New York Post’sHunter Biden laptop story, as journalist Matt Taibbi revealed in the December 2022 release of the “Twitter Files.”

A hearing was held in this case in June 2025.

The newly obtained email, with the subject line “RE: Midterm Election Touch Point Meeting with Twitter,” that was sent on November 3, 2022. Musk’s acquisition of Twitter was finalized on October 27, 2022. The midterm election was on November 8, 2022. All names of the sender and recipients of the email are redacted, with the exception of Laura E. Dehmlow, former section chief of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force. The email instructs:

Twitter folks, 

For tomorrow’s meeting here are the topics we would like to discuss:

1. Recent disclosure of the three PRC [People’s Republic of China] networks of activity (WAPO [Washington Post] article).

2. Any potential changes to Twitter’s account verification and content moderation policies.

Let us know if you have any topics to cover so we can prepare accordingly. Thanks! 

The response states:

Thanks [redacted] Looking forward to meeting tomorrow. Can you also add [redacted] to the invite? He’ll be joining us from the legal side of the house.

The Washington Post article referenced in the email is likely from November 1, 2022, and headlined: “MAGA porn, hate for Trump: China-based accounts stoke division.” 

“This smoking-gun email shows that the Biden FBI were working with Big Tech to censor Americans just before a key election !” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Through FOIA and other direct litigation, Judicial Watch continues to investigate and litigate the broad range of censorship that had been imposed upon tens millions of Americans.

In June 2025, Judicial Watch sued U.S. State Department for all records which allege President Trump or any current or former member of his cabinet are “purveyors of disinformation.”  

In March, Judicial Watch filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States concerning a Judicial Watch lawsuit asserting that the California Secretary of State retaliated against Judicial Watch because of an accurate election integrity video posted to YouTube just before the 2020 Election (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Shirley Weber, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of California (No. 2:22-cv-06894)). The California Secretary of State used its well-established working relationship with Big Tech to have YouTube remove and censor Judicial Watch’s video.

In November 2024, Judicial Watch uncovered records from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revealing an extensive effort by government and non-government entities to monitor and censor social media posts on fraud during the 2020 election.

In June 2024, heavily redacted Homeland Security records from a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit showed state election officials in the days before and after the 2020 election flagging online content deemed “misinformation” and sending it to the Center for Internet Security (CIS), a DHS-funded nonprofit, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which is a division of DHS, the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), which was created to flag online election content for censorship and suppression, and others.

In December 2023, Homeland Security records from the same lawsuit showed a close collaboration between its Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) and the leftist Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to engage in “real-time narrative tracking” on all major social media platforms in the days leading up to the 2020 election.

In November 2023, Judicial Watch uncovered Homeland Security records that showed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) communicating during the 2020 election campaign with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP). The CISA records showed government involvement in the EIP pressure on Google, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, Pinterest, Reddit and other platforms to censor “disinformation.”

###

The post Judicial Watch: FBI Met with Twitter Officials Day... appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch filed an open records lawsuit on behalf of retired Hamilton County Sheriff James Hammond and the Tennessee Firearms Association, Inc. (“TFA”) (Hammond et al. v. Metropolitan Govt of Nashville et al. (No. 23-0538-III)). The court later consolidated Judicial Watch’s lawsuit with several others related to release of public records from The Covenant School shooting.

Audrey Elizabeth Hale (also known as Aiden Hale), a 28-year-old trans artist, was killed by police after opening fire on the private Christian elementary school in Nashville, Tennessee, killing three adults and three children. 

The resolution of the case has been delayed over disputes about whether the school and school/victims’ parents could intervene and prevent the release of the “manifesto” and other investigatory material.

“The transgender agenda should not interfere with the public’s right to know information that may possibly help Americans avoid future tragedies like the one in Nashville,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

In August 2025, in a related case against the U.S. Department of Justice, Judicial Watch received 485 pages of the “manifesto.” The records detail the shooter’s violent thoughts, the targeting and planning of the shooting attack on The Covenant School, and transgender-related obsessions. 

Judicial Watch previously obtained 112 pages of records in April 2025, and an additional 231 pages in June 2025—bringing the total number of pages released through this lawsuit to 828. The full “manifesto” consists of 2,056 pages, and the FBI is continuing to produce additional pages to Judicial Watch.

The lawsuit also seeks materials provided to the FBI by local law enforcement. The FBI is withholding these documents, claiming they are categorically exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Judicial Watch continues to press for their public release.

The post Judicial Watch: Hearing Set for Thursday in Lawsui... appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the CIA failed to respond to a July 9, 2025, FOIA request for:

• Intelligence activities and connections, including any records indicating whether Epstein was ever an asset for any U.S. or foreign intelligence agency and/or reports analyzing his potential connections to foreign intelligence services.
• Financial and business activities, including analyses concerning Epstein’s wealth accumulation, estimated at approximately $560 million at the time of his 2019 arrest.
• Associations and networks, including records documenting Epstein’s interactions with high-profile executives, royalty, or other prominent figures, where such interactions were of interest to the CIA due to national security concerns. Also, records about his so-called “Black Book” or contact lists, as well as his properties that may have been referenced in CIA reports.
• Criminal investigations and legal proceedings, including records about coordination with other federal agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice (DOJ), or U.S. Marshals Service, regarding Epstein’s criminal activities. Also, records about his death in 2019 at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York.
• Surveillance and evidence collection.
• Foreign connections and travel.
• Victim and witness information.

 In May 2023, Epstein was reported to have met “dozens of times” with former Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak between 2013-2017. Epstein reportedly donated $110,000 to former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers wife’s online poetry project in 2016 and held meetings with many other high profile individuals “long after he was a registered sex offender. He had pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution.”

Attorney General Pamela Bondi released a long-awaited trove of documents related to Epstein in February 2025, but “the much-hyped, roughly 200-page document dump provided no big revelations, instead listing celebrities and politicians who were already known to have palled around with the notorious pedophile.”

“America’s federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies need to obey the law and provide some basic information about Jeffrey Epstein,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Our FOIA lawsuits for records are an important step toward accountability.”

In April 2025, Judicial Watch filed a related lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice after it failed to adequately respond to four separate FOIA requests for records regarding Epstein, including any records on the identities of his clients or associates. In July, the Justice Department reported to the court that it and the FBI were continuing to search for and review responsive records. The Justice Department’s disclosure is at odds with the leaked, unsigned and undated Justice Department/FBI memo that suggests no more Epstein records would be disclosed to the American public. The memo was first disclosed late on July 6.

In July 2025, Judicial Watch sued the Justice Department for all interviews, conversations and other records provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by Epstein victim Virginia Louise Giuffre, who reportedly committed suicide on April 25, 2025.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues CIA for Jeffrey Epstein Record... appeared first on Judicial Watch.

It was recently reported that DC police officers are cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice in an investigation into whistleblower reports of manipulated crime data.

The lawsuit follows the DC’s failure to respond to an August 14, 2025, FOIA request for:

• Complaints or communications from the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Chairman Greggory Pemberton, or union representatives alleging MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] supervisors falsified or downgraded crime data (e.g., classifying shootings as “felony assaults” or carjackings as lesser offenses).
• Internal audits, reviews, or quality control assessments of crime reporting practices in the 3rd District or department-wide, including comparisons of raw incident reports to finalized Uniform Crime Reporting data.
• Records of past allegations from 2019-2020, including whistleblower complaints about misclassifying violent crimes (e.g., the August 2019 face-slashing or December 2019 knife-to-neck incidents reported as “simple assault”).
• Policies, guidelines, training materials, or directives on crime classification and reporting, including updates since 2019 on violent crime definitions (e.g., distinguishing “assault with a dangerous weapon” from “simple assault”).
• Communications among MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] personnel (e.g., supervisors, commanders, or data analysts) discussing adjustments to crime statistics to reflect lower violent crime rates.

In August, President Trump issued an executive order, “Restoring Law and Order in the District of Columbia,” which refers to the “epidemic of crime in our Nation’s capital” and authorized the Secretary of Defense to mobilize the DC National Guard.

The House Oversight Committee announced in August that it was launching an investigation into allegations of manipulated and inaccurate crime statistics by DC Metropolitan Police Department leadership. Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) stated:

[I]n May, MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] placed 3rd District Commander Michael Pulliam on administrative leave following allegations that he altered crime reports. Unfortunately, this practice does not appear to be isolated, nor is it a recent development. MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] recently entered into a settlement agreement related to allegations that senior MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] officials were engaged in falsifying crime statistics to artificially lower reported crime rates.

“People who live in, work in, and visit Washington, DC, have the right to real transparency about crime in the nation’s capital,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues DC for Records on Alleged Crim... appeared first on Judicial Watch.