One of the most transformative years in the federal judiciary began with uncertainty and ends on a political high note for President Trump.
The White House, after winning confirmation for Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat held by the late conservative icon Antonin Scalia, has moved with record speed to fill vacancies on the lower federal courts – a surefire way for a president to help cement his legacy.
As of mid-December, 19 of Trump’s 66 total nominees this year have been confirmed by the Senate.
By comparison, then-President Barack Obama had made only 26 choices – including Justice Sonia Sotomayor – half of whom were confirmed by mid-December 2009.
The impact under Trump is especially being felt on the appellate level, which could act as insurance of sorts if those judges are more inclined to support his policies as they face legal challenge across the country.
“The importance of this dramatic reshaping of the entire federal court system cannot be overstated,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Fox News contributor. “While it is easy to focus on the U.S. Supreme Court, lower and appellate court judges will make decisions that impact ordinary Americans on a daily basis for decades to come.”
It has not been all smooth for the Trump team. Three nominees were withdrawn by the White House in recent days after questions were raised about their record and temperament. In a confirmation hearing that essentially went viral, then-nominee Matthew Petersen stumbled repeatedly under questioning as he acknowledged not knowing basic trial court terminology, essential if he were to be a trial judge, say legal experts.
Yet, with 143 current vacancies — almost half of them considered “judicial emergencies” with shorthanded courts and heavy caseloads — more opportunities await the new president in the new year.
ANOTHER SUPREME DECISION?
Of those opportunities could be another early-term Supreme Court appointment.
With the unusually influential help of outside advisers, Trump made an immediate impact on the country just 11 days after taking office in 2017, choosing Justice Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s Supreme Court seat. The 50-year-old Colorado native — and youngest justice — quickly displayed that promised “reliable” conservative record.
Now, White House aides are quietly hopeful they might soon get another chance to move the shaky conservative majority on the bench solidly to the right.
“If a vacancy should arise again, this White House is going to be ready to go. They already have a working list of candidates to fill a seat. They’ve been through the process once before,” said Thomas Dupree, a former top Bush Justice Department official and now an appellate attorney. “So I would say, take the Gorsuch model, and do it again.”
Trump might get the chance as early as spring, when retirement announcements from the high court are typically made. Justice Anthony Kennedy — a moderate-conservative and powerful deciding vote on so many hot-button issues — tantalized Washington last summer, amid unfounded rumors he would step aside after three decades. The tight-lipped 81-year-old senior associate justice still has given no public indication he is ready to go.
But Trump already has a list. When Gorsuch was selected, he was among a list of 21 names then-candidate Trump promised he would rely on exclusively to complete the high court. The list of possibles has since expanded to 25, with the latest four added in November.
‘The importance of this dramatic reshaping of the entire federal court system cannot be overstated.’
– former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
Among those newly added was Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who sits on the same high-profile D.C. appeals court as Merrick Garland – the Obama pick stalled and sidelined by Republicans. Three current justices (and Scalia) came from that appeals bench. Government sources and court watchers say the 52-year-old Kavanaugh, a former law clerk for Kennedy, would be among those seriously considered for any near-term Supreme Court vacancy.
Also in the mix:
Judge Amul Thapar, 48, on the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit federal appeals court. While still a district court judge, Thapar was interviewed in January by the president for the Scalia seat, and would become the first Asian-American Supreme Court justice.
Judge Thomas Hardiman of the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit federal appeals court. The 52-year-old Pittsburgh native was the remaining finalist for the seat Gorsuch now holds.
Judge Joan Larsen, also of the 6th Circuit, also was a former law clerk for Scalia, speaking at his memorial service. Some sources say Larsen, who turns 49 this month and served on Michigan’s high court, may need some more federal bench experience before ever reaching the high court.
Judge Diane Sykes of the Chicago-based 7th Circuit appeals court, has long been a favorite of conservatives, having been considered for the high court in the Bush years. She too was a Trump high court finalist, but her age — she turns 60 this month — may be a factor for a president seeking a justice with a potentially longer tenure.
The planning, of course, all presumes a new vacancy will occur in Trump’s first term. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 84 the oldest member of the court, has privately indicated she has no intention of leaving. Kennedy too may decide to stay for another year at least.
“He is aware, as we all are, that Trump promised to put justices on the court who would overturn Roe v. Wade, who would perhaps undermine equal rights for gays and lesbians,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center. “So he is not going to be eager to throw away that legacy away. The best steward of Justice Kennedy’s legacy is Justice Kennedy, and that will give him an impetus to stay on the bench.”
VACANCY STARES
Conservative activists concede having Kennedy on the bench creates a measure of uncertainty into the new year, concerning whether many of the president’s legislative priorities will survive judicial scrutiny.
The so-called “travel ban” cases are working their way through the appeals process and could reach the justices this spring. The third version of Trump’s immigration and visitor policies includes a ban on travel into the U.S. from six mostly Muslim countries. The case could be major test of executive authority over foreign policy and immigration.
Other pending court challenges where Republicans on Capitol Hill and the White House could face court setbacks include gun control, gerrymandering, religious freedom, abortion, transgender service members in the military, and the war on terror.
But those issues may have a harder time reaching the justices if the various lower courts speak with one voice on such hot-button disputes. Since the Supreme Court is a purely discretionary body — taking only those cases it wants to resolve, and typically only when there are differing legal interpretations in the lower courts — many issues remain on the judicial back burner.
That, legal experts say, puts a priority on Trump ensuring the 874 federal judgeships with lifetime tenure remain mostly right-leaning. And they have so far, with the Senate’s help. Gone is the 60-vote, filibuster-proof threshold required to confirm judicial candidates. Gorsuch benefitted from a simple 51-vote majority to earn his seat, after rule changes engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky..
Many advocacy groups on the left remain frustrated.
“The judicial nominations process is spinning out of control under the Trump administration,” said Nan Aron, president and founder of the Alliance for Justice. “It is disgraceful that in their stampede to rush through as many judicial nominees as possible, Republican partisans on the Judiciary Committee continue to trample basic standards for nominees, longstanding Senate practice and their own Democratic colleagues.”
Trump has given credit for his third branch successes to several mostly obscure conservative legal minds, who provided outside resources and advice during the Gorsuch selection and confirmation drama. That includes Leonard Leo, who took a leave of absence from the Federalist Society to be the president’s private point man on all things judges. He says Trump would be ready if given another chance to burnish his legacy.
“I think it’s important the president and the Republican Party continue to pick individuals to the Supreme Court who are really committed to the ideals that Justice Scalia stood for. Those play well with the American people, those are the right ideals for moving the court forward, and that worked” with the Gorsuch confirmation, Leo told Fox News.
When it comes to the selection process, “The president is very entrepreneurial, he’s always open to new ideas. But I think the Gorsuch nomination tells you everything you need to know about what he’s looking for, and that I don’t think will change at all.”
I. The Early Years: From Procedural Frustration to Claims of Systemic Bias (2007–2016)
Billy Dewayne Frazier IV’s legal saga began in 2007, when he found himself charged in federal court with possessing a handgun whose serial number was partially obliterated. According to the government, the weapon had traveled in interstate commerce, exposing him to a felony conviction. From the start, Frazier insisted the search was improper and that the charges were fabricated to intimidate him for speaking out against police conduct in Marion, Iowa.
He was assigned a federal public defender, Casey Jones, a figure whose name would later reappear across his filings as both counsel and judge. The plea paperwork later produced in court was a chaotic, partially completed draft. It contained visible cross-outs, uninitialed paragraphs, and language waiving post-conviction rights that Frazier asserts he never agreed to. In a supplemental filing years later, he wrote:
“This was never a voluntary plea. It was a threat, wrapped in paperwork they never even finished signing.”
He maintains he was told he faced up to 14 years in prison if he refused. No forensic or fingerprint evidence was ever produced to prove the gun belonged to him, and no chain-of-custody logs were entered in the record.
That 2007 conviction would go on to color every legal proceeding that followed. For years, Frazier describes being branded high-risk based on this record—affecting child welfare cases, bond assessments, and public perceptions.
II. The 2016–2017 DHS and Domestic Cases: A Template for Leverage
By 2016, Frazier had become a familiar figure in Linn County legal circles. His frustration with court practices had escalated, and he began to document what he believed was a system determined to break him. The pivotal moment, he says, came in the form of domestic-related charges and the threatened removal of his children.
He was charged with multiple domestic counts and violations of no-contact orders after trying, he says, to help his wife escape addiction. According to Frazier, these charges were based on minimal evidence—he insists body camera footage clearly showed no assault took place and that his wife herself stated he never touched her.
The key confrontation he describes occurred with Assistant District Attorney Heidi Carmer, now a judge. In a conversation witnessed by his public defender, Nikkidra Tucker, Carmer allegedly delivered an ultimatum:
“She told me, plain as day, that if I didn’t take that plea, I would never see my kids again. That’s not justice—it’s extortion.”
The next day, Frazier was scheduled to regain custody. Faced with that pressure, he accepted the plea. But in 2017, he took DHS to trial over the same allegations and successfully defeated the agency’s attempt to terminate or limit his parental rights—a victory he says was all but ignored in later criminal proceedings.
For Frazier, this episode established a clear pattern: when he refused to cooperate or challenged procedural abuses, prosecutors used DHS as a tool to force compliance.
III. Mounting Documentation and Claims of Retaliation (2017–2023)
After the DHS trial, Frazier returned to a familiar cycle: motions denied without explanation, ADA accommodation requests rejected, and clerks who, in his telling, mishandled filings. By this point, he no longer viewed these incidents as isolated bureaucratic failures.
Instead, he saw them as evidence of coordinated retaliation. In his filings, he described court personnel acting in concert to suppress evidence and obstruct his defense:
“This isn’t just about one arrest or one case. It’s about a pattern that goes back twenty years, and nobody will look at it because they’re all connected.”
During these years, he requested:
Written instructions because of PTSD and learning disabilities.
Longer deadlines due to cognitive issues.
Paper filings to replace online systems he struggled to navigate.
All were denied, he says, reinforcing his conviction that the system viewed him as an irritant to be contained.
IV. April 2024: The OWI Arrest and Immediate Aftermath
The night of April 5, 2024, marked what Frazier describes as the turning point of his legal story. Witness Allen Deschau reported to 911 that a brown Hyundai had drifted over a curb and stopped. Deschau later said he feared the driver was overdosing. Cedar Rapids police arrived to find Frazier behind the wheel.
Officers Mosher, McAtee, and Kuba’s report claimed he smelled of alcohol, had glassy eyes, and refused a breath test. Frazier disputes every point: that he was intoxicated, that he was uncooperative, and that the vehicle stopped for any reason other than mechanical failure.
His handwritten notes on the pre-trial report read like a plea for recognition:
“They knew no children were there, but they did it anyway. They wanted a way to control me while I fought the OWI.”
V. April 26, 2024: Ex Parte DHS Order Without a Case Number
What happened next, he argues, proves his point. According to audit trail records he filed in federal court, ADA Heidi Weiland emailed DHS on April 9, 2024—four days after the arrest. No children were present in the vehicle. No allegations of child endangerment appeared in any police report.
Despite this, an ex parte order dated April 26, 2024, authorized DHS to enter his home and question his children. It listed no juvenile court case number, a procedural omission that, in Frazier’s view, was deliberate:
“This was the setup. No kids were there. This is what they do to retaliate.”
He argues this tactic was identical to what he experienced in 2016—using family leverage to distract and intimidate him as he prepared a legal defense.
VI. March–April 2025: The RICO Complaint and Federal Escalation
By March 2025, Frazier decided no Iowa court would ever impartially consider his evidence. He filed a federal civil RICO complaint in the Northern District of Iowa, naming over 40 defendants. Among them:
Judge Casey Jones, who had once defended him in the 2007 plea.
DHS supervisors and caseworkers.
Linn County prosecutors and clerks.
Officers from the OWI arrest.
He alleged a coordinated enterprise operating over nearly two decades to obstruct justice, retaliate against protected complaints, and deny his constitutional rights. In his words:
“If the same people I’m accusing are the ones judging me, how could I ever get a fair hearing in this state?”
The complaint demanded over $80 million in damages and the expungement of every conviction tainted by this alleged enterprise.
VII. Recent Developments and Eighth Circuit Appeals (Spring–Summer 2025)
On June 26, 2025, the Linn County District Court dismissed his Petition for Judicial Review, citing a two-day late filing. In doing so, the court rejected all claims of evidence tampering or bias, warning that further unsubstantiated filings could trigger sanctions.
Frazier escalated immediately to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, filing three consolidated appeals. He submitted:
Motion to Compel Record Transfer.
Notice of Constitutional Emergency, accusing Judge CJ Williams of retaliation.
Sworn affidavits describing missing filings, 2AM surveillance noises, and denied ADA accommodations.
Formal declarations about the chain of custody for his evidence.
Supplemental filings referencing Google reviews and local news coverage as evidence of a broader culture of corruption.
In the coming months, his arguments will test whether the system he describes can, in fact, investigate itself.
VIII. Patterns and Allegations: The Theory of Continuity
Frazier’s filings consistently return to one theme: that these incidents were never isolated. Instead, he argues, they represent a continuum of tactics:
Threatening to remove children to secure plea agreements.
Delaying or denying discovery.
Ignoring ADA requests.
Refusing recusal motions despite conflicts.
Leveraging DHS involvement as a parallel pressure mechanism.
He maintains that the same personnel reappear repeatedly, building an unbroken chain of influence and retaliation.
IX. Special Focus: The Use of DHS to Pressure Defendants
For Frazier, no part of this story illustrates the pattern more clearly than the 2016–2017 DHS case and the 2024 ex parte order. In his telling, the identical tactics—using child protective services to extract leverage—prove systemic misconduct.
“First they used my kids in 2016 to make me plead, and then in 2024 they did it again with no reason at all. It’s the same playbook.”
He emphasizes that the 2024 order lacked any case number, preventing him from filing motions to quash or appeal—evidence, he says, that the system was not simply broken but weaponized.
X. What Comes Next
At the time of writing, Frazier’s litigation is pending in multiple venues:
The Northern District RICO complaint awaits motion practice.
His §2255 motion to vacate the 2007 conviction is pending.
A habeas petition remains active.
The Eighth Circuit has not yet ruled on his emergency motions or appeals.
Frazier has made clear he has no intention of dropping his claims. He has repeatedly said that if federal judges dismiss his filings without a hearing, it will prove his point that no impartial review exists in Iowa.
Conclusion
Billy Frazier’s case is an extraordinary example of a pro se litigant alleging systemic misconduct across nearly every institution that has touched his life. Whether federal courts ultimately credit his claims, they paint a vivid picture of how procedural denials, threats to family integrity, and the power of public institutions can converge on one person.
Trump’s Blunt Rebuke of Israel and Iran: A Strategic Display of Control Amid Ceasefire Chaos
On June 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump delivered a characteristically unfiltered assessment of the faltering ceasefire between Israel and Iran, declaring, “Two countries don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.” The comment, made to reporters as he departed for a NATO summit, underscored his frustration with both nations for violating a fragile truce brokered just a day earlier on June 23, 2025. Far from a mere outburst, Trump’s statement and the actions surrounding it reveal a calculated approach to reasserting U.S. influence over a volatile Middle East conflict, showcasing his ability to navigate and control a complex geopolitical crisis.
The Context: A Ceasefire Undermined
The ceasefire, intended to de-escalate tensions between Israel and Iran, was a significant diplomatic achievement for the Trump administration, signaling a potential pause in a conflict that has long threatened regional stability. However, within hours, Iran launched a strike that killed several people, prompting Israel to respond with a “symbolic attack” on the same day. These violations unraveled the truce, drawing global attention and risking further escalation, particularly given Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s military resolve.
Trump’s blunt remark came in response to this rapid deterioration. He expressed particular displeasure with Israel, noting that it “unloaded” on Iran shortly after the agreement, undermining the deal he had championed. “I’m really unhappy with Israel,” he told reporters, a rare public rebuke of a key U.S. ally. Yet, his criticism extended to both parties, reflecting his view that their tit-for-tat actions lacked strategic clarity and jeopardized a cycle of violence.
Why Trump Said It: A Strategic Calculus
Trump’s choice of words was no accident. His provocative language served multiple purposes, each reinforcing his ability to steer the situation:
Reasserting U.S. Authority: By publicly chastising both Israel and Iran, Trump signaled that the United States, under his leadership, remains the dominant force in Middle East diplomacy. His frustration highlighted the U.S.’s role as the ceasefire’s architect and underscored that violations would not be tolerated without consequences. This move reminded both nations of their reliance on U.S. support—militarily for Israel and diplomatically for Iran in avoiding broader sanctions or isolation.
Pressuring for Compliance: Trump’s bluntness was a calculated pressure tactic. By calling out Israel’s “unloading” and Iran’s initial strike, he aimed to shame both into reconsidering further violations. His urgent appeal to Israel to avoid additional strikes against Iran, labeling such actions a “serious violation” of the ceasefire, was a direct warning to an ally accustomed to significant autonomy. Similarly, his criticism of Iran’s actions reinforced his earlier stance of giving them “chance after chance” to negotiate, signaling that his patience was not infinite.
Shaping the Narrative: Trump’s colorful language ensured his message dominated global headlines, keeping the focus on his administration’s efforts to broker peace rather than the ceasefire’s collapse. By framing Israel and Iran as directionless, he positioned himself as the clear-headed leader seeking order amid chaos. This narrative was particularly critical as he headed to the NATO summit, where allies would scrutinize his handling of the crisis.
Balancing Domestic and International Audiences: Domestically, Trump’s tough talk resonated with his base, who value his no-nonsense style. Internationally, it sent a message to adversaries like Iran that he was not afraid to confront allies like Israel, challenging perceptions of unchecked U.S. support for Israeli actions. This balancing act strengthened his leverage in future negotiations.
Trump’s Control: Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Beyond his rhetoric, Trump demonstrated control through decisive actions that underscored his influence over the situation:
Direct Diplomacy: Prior to the ceasefire, Trump had privately and publicly urged Israel to refrain from striking Iran, emphasizing his desire for a deal to prevent escalation. Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to act, Trump’s ability to extract a ceasefire agreement in the first place showcased his diplomatic clout.
Public Rebuke as Leverage: By openly criticizing Israel, a move described as a “rare public rebuke of an ally,” Trump shifted the dynamic of U.S.-Israel relations. This signaled to Israel that U.S. support, while steadfast, comes with expectations of compliance with American-led initiatives. It also positioned Trump as a neutral arbiter, increasing his credibility with other regional players.
Pushing for De-escalation: Trump’s comments were paired with a clear call for negotiations to resume, particularly with Iran, to address its nuclear program and prevent further strikes. His insistence that both nations “don’t know what they’re doing” was a strategic jab to nudge them toward the negotiating table, where the U.S. could dictate terms.
Navigating NATO and Global Opinion: Departing for the NATO summit, Trump used the crisis to project strength to allies wary of U.S. foreign policy under his second term. His ability to manage the ceasefire’s fallout while engaging with global leaders demonstrated his multitasking prowess and commitment to U.S. leadership on the world stage.
The Bigger Picture: A Pattern of Control
Trump’s handling of the Israel-Iran ceasefire breach aligns with his broader foreign policy approach: bold rhetoric, strategic pressure, and a knack for keeping adversaries and allies alike off balance. His critics, such as those on X who argue he has ceded too much control to Israel, overlook the nuance of his strategy. While Israel’s actions may have tested his influence, Trump’s public frustration and diplomatic maneuvering suggest he is far from a bystander. Instead, he is actively shaping the conflict’s trajectory, using the ceasefire’s collapse as an opportunity to reinforce U.S. dominance.
Conclusion
President Trump’s June 24, 2025, statement that Israel and Iran “don’t know what the f*** they’re doing” was more than a soundbite—it was a calculated move to reassert control over a spiraling Middle East crisis. By leveraging blunt rhetoric, public rebukes, and diplomatic pressure, Trump demonstrated his ability to steer the actions of both allies and adversaries. While the ceasefire’s breach exposed the region’s volatility, Trump’s response showcased his strategic acumen, ensuring the U.S. remains the central player in the quest for stability. As he navigates this crisis, his blend of bravado and pragmatism continues to define his approach, proving that even in chaos, he knows exactly what he’s doing.
In a pivotal legal ruling issued on May 14, 2025, the Iowa District Court in Linn County struck down nearly all of the speech-restricting injunctions in the high-profile case of Chad Pelley v. Dustin Mazgaj et al. The decision significantly weakens Pelley’s attempt to silence critics through civil court orders—and raises fresh questions about where the case goes from here.
At the heart of the ruling is a clear rejection of Pelley’s broad effort to restrict speech. The court fully dissolved the injunction against Bailey Symonds, stating that Pelley failed to prove she caused harm or was likely to in the future. As of now, Symonds is under no legal restrictions, restoring her full right to speak about the case, attend public meetings, and post freely online.
In the case of Dustin Mazgaj, who operates under the name Butt Crack News Network, the court issued a narrowed injunction: Mazgaj is now only prohibited from publicly referring to Chad Pelley as a:
“Pedophile”
“Drug user”
“Drug dealer”
All other parts of the injunction—including no-contact orders and broad bans on speech or proximity—were dissolved.
Melissa Duffield Confirmed Unrestricted
The court also clarified that Melissa Duffield, another named defendant, was never placed under an injunction at any point. Attempts by Pelley’s legal team to restrict her speech in a separate post-trial filing were also rejected, with the judge referencing potential First Amendment concerns.
BCNN Not a Company, Just a Username
In a notable clarification, the court determined that Butt Crack News Network is not a separate business or legal entity—it’s simply the name of Mazgaj’s YouTube account. As such, any restrictions on BCNN are effectively just extensions of those on Mazgaj personally.
Skylar Price Still in Limbo
One original defendant, Skylar Price, has not responded to the lawsuit and was found in default. The court did not revisit the injunction as it applies to Price, meaning the original restrictions may still technically be in effect—but without any new legal activity or defense.
Beau Bish and Flex Your Freedoms Not Bound
Though Pelley filed a second motion earlier this year to add Beau Bish and the media group Flex Your Freedoms to the injunction, the court noted that they have not yet been formally served. As a result, they remain unrestricted by the court at this time.
Where Does Pelley’s Case Go From Here?
The judge’s ruling sends a clear signal: courts will not issue broad gag orders unless the speech in question is proven to be false and harmful—and even then, only in narrowly tailored ways.
Pelley may still pursue defamation claims, but without the broad powers of a speech-restricting injunction, he faces a steeper road. The ruling emphasizes the high bar courts place on prior restraint, especially when it involves criticism of someone involved in public matters like real estate development, civic boards, and local politics.
As for the remaining claims—libel, false light, and emotional distress—they will now move toward a full trial. But the public gag orders Pelley once used to silence his critics have been largely rolled back, and the spotlight on his case is only getting brighter.
