U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon postponed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s classified document lawfare case against former President Donald Trump indefinitely, days after the Department of Justice admitted it tampered with evidence.

Cannon issued an order Tuesday that announced the schedule for the “second set of pre-trial deadlines” to address evidentiary issues and arguments from the Trump team for dismissing the case. Missing from the schedule, however, was a new date for the trial, which was previously set to begin May 20.

[READ NEXT: Jack Smith’s Rush To Try Trump Before November Is ‘Obvious’ Election Meddling, Stefanik Complaint Says]

“The Court also determines that finalization of a trial date at this juncture — before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and CIPA [Classified Information Procedures Act] issues remaining and forthcoming — would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court, critical CIPA issues, and additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury,” Cannon wrote in the order.

Cannon’s order comes days after Smith admitted that federal prosecutors tampered with evidence in his case against Trump, which argues the former president mishandled classified documents. As independent journalist Julie Kelly pointed out on X, prosecutors admitted in a court filing Friday that some of the documents seized during the FBI’s unprecedented raid on Mar-a-Lago are not in the same order in which they were found. Others may have been mislabeled or

“Parents matter” is a catchy phrase that seems to have gotten Gov. Glenn Youngkin, R-Va., elected in a tight race. Those who voted for Youngkin believe parents do matter. But has his tenure in office made it a reality so far?

On April 24, 2024, I reached out to Lisa Coons, Virginia’s superintendent of public instruction (appointed by Youngkin), regarding President Joe Biden’s absurd rewrite of Title IX. I asked Coons to join South Carolina’s Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver and Louisiana’s Superintendent of Education Cade Brumley in rejecting the unfair and arguably unconstitutional Title IX rules recently released by the U.S. Department of Education.

In my email, I explained the problems with Biden’s revision of Title IX — that conflating biological sex and gender has troubling consequences, particularly for children. Our daughters deserve private bathrooms and changing facilities. Women’s sports must be female-only for the sake of fairness. Federally mandating that our children use a person’s preferred pronouns is compelled speech and a violation of the First Amendment. And students in college who are accused of sexual assault deserve the right to due process.

On April 30, Attorney General Jason Miyares issued a press release indicating that Virginia would be joining “a six-state coalition in suing the federal Department of Education (DOE) to challenge its dangerous overhaul of Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act.”

Although I am thankful that Miyares is rightfully joining the multi-state lawsuit, I remain confused about the administration’s general lack of response to concerned parents. As of now, neither Coons, nor anyone from her office, has

So much for a border crisis. The Biden administration recently finalized regulations that will provide taxpayer-funded benefits to individuals who came into this country lacking authorization, by defining them as “lawfully present.”

The final rule follows regulations proposed last spring. It will have the same major effects as the initial proposal by expanding access to taxpayer health benefits for specified populations, but seems craftily drafted in a way to avoid, or at least minimize, legal challenges.

Medicaid Expansion Not Finalized

The prime controversy in both last year’s proposed rule and this year’s final version is over health coverage for individuals participating in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Both regulations would revise the definition of “lawfully present” to include DACA participants for purposes of participation in health programs under Obamacare.

One major difference lies in the applicability of the regulatory changes. Whereas last year’s proposed rule changed the definition of “lawfully present” for both the insurance exchanges and Medicaid, the final regulation only applied the change to the exchanges, at least for the moment.

As a practical matter, not finalizing the Medicaid change will have little impact on DACA participants. Unlike most other populations, DACA participants will not need to earn income equal to the poverty level ($15,060 for a single person in 2024) to qualify for exchange subsidies. And because Biden-era enhanced subsidies remain in effect next year, the lowest-income recipients can qualify for subsidies that require no out-of-pocket premium for a benchmark health plan.

Fear of