YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS UP: 92-Year-Old Clinton Judge Who Denied Trump’s Hush-Money Removal to Federal Court and Blocked Venezuelan Gang Deportations Now Assigned to Preside Over Maduro Case in New York

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein now assigned to preside over the high-stakes prosecution of Nicolás Maduro in New York 

In the latest episode of the Deep State circus that’s turned our justice system into a bad joke, a 92-year-old federal judge appointed by none other than Bill Clinton back in the ’90s has been assigned to oversee the high-profile case against Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro in New York.

This is the same judge who has a track record of rulings that seem tailor-made to thwart President Trump’s agenda and protect left-wing interests.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who took senior status way back in 2011, but somehow keeps popping up in major cases.

He has issued several controversial rulings adverse to Donald Trump and his administration. These rulings have spanned Trump’s time as a private citizen, his first presidency, and his current second term.

Rulings During Trump’s First Administration (2017-2021)

Asylum Seeker Detention Policy (December 27, 2018):

In a case involving an asylum seeker’s prolonged detention, Hellerstein sharply criticized the Trump administration‘s approach, ruling that asylum seekers could not be held indefinitely without hearings.

He stated that “autocracies of the world have been marked by harsh regimes of exclusion and detention,” framing the policy as unconstitutional and inhumane. This decision ordered expedited reviews for detainees, directly challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement tactics.

Controversy stemmed from Hellerstein’s strong language, which administration officials decried as judicial activism interfering with border security.

The ruling was part of a larger litigation tracker documenting over 100 challenges to Trump immigration actions, with Hellerstein’s order extended in subsequent updates.

Michael Cohen’s Release from Prison (July 23, 2020):

Hellerstein ordered the release of Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen, who had been returned to prison after home confinement.

The judge ruled that the action was “retaliation” by federal officials for Cohen’s planned tell-all book criticizing Trump, violating First Amendment rights.

Hellerstein noted that Cohen’s probation terms included a gag on media contact, which he deemed unconstitutional.

Deutsche Bank Financial Subpoenas (July 2020):

The House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One for Trump’s personal and business financial records, seeking information relevant to potential legislation on money laundering, foreign influence, and presidential ethics.

Trump sued to block the subpoenas, arguing they lacked a legitimate legislative purpose and were overly broad.

Hellerstein rejected Trump’s attempt to block congressional subpoenas for his financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One.

Rulings Related to Trump’s Personal Legal Battles (2023-2024)

Hush-Money Case Venue Transfer Denial (July 19, 2023):

Hellerstein shot down President Trump’s rightful motion to shift his so-called “hush-money” witch hunt from New York’s kangaroo state court to federal jurisdiction.

This sham case, cooked up over bogus claims of falsified business records tied to personal payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, was dismissed by Hellerstein as “purely personal” and totally disconnected from Trump’s official duties as Commander-in-Chief.

He sneered at it as a mere “cover-up of an embarrassing event,” ignoring the obvious political motivations behind this lawfare assault.

Thanks to this rigged decision, the farce stayed in the clutches of radical Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, a Soros-backed Democrat, where Trump was railroaded into a conviction on 34 trumped-up felony counts, all part of the left’s desperate bid to derail his America First agenda.

Post-Conviction Hush-Money Transfer Denial (September 3, 2024):

Following Trump’s conviction and the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, Hellerstein again rejected a transfer bid, stating the immunity decision did not alter his view that the acts were unofficial.

He noted Trump failed to show “good cause” for the late request. This cleared a path for sentencing (scheduled for September 18, 2024, though delayed).

Rulings During Trump’s Second Administration (2025)

Alien Enemies Act Due Process Requirement (April 9, 2025):

Hellerstein slapped a temporary restraining order blocking deportations of two Venezuelan immigrants without notice or hearings, ruling that the Trump administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act violated due process.

The Act, invoked for Tren de Aragua gang members, was challenged by the ACLU. Hellerstein focused on immediate relief, declining to rule on the Act’s overall legality but emphasizing protections for detainees in New York.

Extension and Rebuke of Alien Enemies Act (April 22, 2025):

Extending the block, Hellerstein rebuked the Act’s application to migrant gang members without due process, ordering bilingual notices and hearings. This decision criticized transfers to El Salvador’s CECOT prison as inhumane, with no recourse for deportees.

Hellerstein blasted DOJ lawyers during a hearing and accused them of throwing people out of the US “because of their tattoos.”

Preliminary Injunction on Alien Enemies Act Invocation (May 6-7, 2025):

In G.F.F. et al. v. Trump et al., Hellerstein granted a preliminary injunction, ruling the Act was “not validly invoked” as there was no “war, invasion, or predatory incursion.”

He dismissed claims of Venezuelan regime-directed gang activities, calling evidence unreliable, and condemned inadequate notices and CECOT conditions as “notoriously evil.”

In his order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act in his district, Judge Hellerstein said illegal aliens have the same due process rights as American citizens.

Gaza-Related Deportations Block (September 2025):

Hellerstein halted deportations of Palestinian activists, Mahmoud Khalil, protesting Israel’s Gaza war, ruling against the administration’s use of emergency powers.

General Michael Flynn didn’t hold back as he weighed in on this explosive new development, stating: “So much for the SDNY…jurors will be picked from those protestors in time square.”

So who exactly pulled the strings to make sure Maduro’s fate should be decided in a rigged, far-left New York, the same judicial playground used to persecute Trump allies and protect global criminals?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/you-cant-make-this-up-92-year-old/

BREAKING: Kash Patel issues joint statement on arrest of Nicolás Maduro

FBI Director Kash Patel just issued a joint statement on the arrest of former Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, explaining how the FBI also played a part in this law enforcement action.

Here’s what he wrote:

Joint Statement from @FBI, @DEA and @DOJ:

The Department of Justice, working in close coordination with the Department of War, the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Intelligence Community, and our interagency and international partners, successfully executed a complex law-enforcement mission to bring Nicolás Maduro into U.S. custody to face justice.

This operation required months of coordination, detailed planning, and seamless execution across multiple components of the federal government. The Department of War led this remarkable effort. We cannot thank our brave military heroes enough.

Specialized FBI and DEA personnel, including tactical and transport teams, worked alongside DOW and our DOJ attorneys and other DOJ components to ensure the secure movement, control, and transfer of 2 high-risk defendants. All personnel involved acted professionally, decisively, and in strict accordance with U.S. law and established protocols. This was a perfectly executed operation with intensive cooperation and trust among President Trump’s team.

The mission was conducted to support an ongoing criminal prosecution tied to large-scale narcotics trafficking and related offenses that have fueled violence, destabilized the region, and contributed directly to the drug crisis claiming American lives.

The United States pursued every lawful option to resolve this matter peacefully. Those opportunities were repeatedly rejected. The responsibility for this outcome rests solely with those who chose to continue criminal conduct rather than disengage.

This operation reflects the Department of Justice’s unwavering commitment to accountability, the rule of law, and the protection of U.S. national security. We are proud of the federal law-enforcement professionals who carried out this mission and of the partnerships that made it possible. God Bless America and God Bless President Trump.

https://therightscoop.com/breaking-kash-patel-issues-joint-statement-on-arrest-of-nicolas-maduro/

Court Reinstates School District Employees’ Free Speech Lawsuit Over Anti-Racism Training

The plaintiffs argued the training was ‘indoctrination’ based on a theory of ‘white supremacy.’

Students walk to class at Petersburg High School in Petersburg, West Virginia, on Aug 27, 2025.

A divided federal appeals court voted to revive a lawsuit by school district employees who say they were forced to self-censor and make statements they disagreed with to finish so-called anti-racism training.

On Dec. 30, 2025, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 6–5 in Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District to reactivate the employees’ lawsuit, holding that the chilling effect from the mandatory 2020 training gave them standing to sue for First Amendment violations.

Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit.

The district court had previously found that because the employees of the Springfield, Missouri, school district were not punished for disagreeing with the training’s content and were allowed to express their own views, they did not suffer an injury and therefore did not have standing. That court found the plaintiffs’ claims were weak and awarded attorney’s fees to the school district. A panel of the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing but found the plaintiffs’ claims were not frivolous, so it overturned the award of attorney’s fees.

The full Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal and sent the case back to the federal district court for reconsideration.

Plaintiffs Brooke Henderson and Jennifer Lumley sued in 2021, alleging that while attending a compulsory district-wide equity training program for staff, the school district engaged in viewpoint-based discrimination, caused them to self-censor, and forced them to accept beliefs they rejected. For example, a PowerPoint presentation told the plaintiffs they had to do things such as “Lean into your discomfort,” “Acknowledge YOUR privileges,” and “Hold YOURSELF accountable,” Circuit Judge Ralph Erickson wrote in the majority opinion.

The plaintiffs argued that the training was “essentially an indoctrination focused on the school district’s views and its interpretation of white supremacy.” The district expected staff members to adhere to its definition of white supremacy, which it defined as “the all-encompassing centrality and assumed superiority of people defined and perceived as white.” An “oppression matrix” slide shown during a presentation listed “racism, sexism, transgender oppression, heterosexism, classism, ableism, religious oppression, and ageism/adultism,” as “types of oppression,” the opinion said.

The district taught staff that American culture “positions white people and all that is associated with them (whiteness) as ideal.” The district said during trainings that “silence from white people is a form of ‘white supremacy’” and indicated that it would not tolerate the plaintiffs rejecting the materials being taught, according to the opinion.

“It is of little consequence that ultimately no one was forced to leave the training, and the school district did not reduce anyone’s pay because a plaintiff is not required to first suffer a consequence before she may bring a claim,” the opinion said. “The harm is in the suppression of the speech itself,” Erickson wrote.

Chief Circuit Judge Steven Colloton wrote in his dissenting opinion that the plaintiffs failed to establish they suffered an injury and therefore lacked standing to sue.

“A public employee is not injured in a constitutional sense by enduring a two-hour training program with which the employee disagrees,” he said.

The plaintiffs experienced “no tangible harm,” took home full pay, and received professional development credit for their attendance, Colloton wrote, adding that Lumley earned a promotion soon after the training.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation, a nonprofit that represents the plaintiffs, said the decision by the federal appeals court was “a huge victory for the First Amendment.”

“We are hopeful it gives others the courage to fight back against discriminatory equity trainings,” the foundation said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/court-reinstates-school-district-employees-free-speech-lawsuit-over-anti-racism-training-5964745