PART 2: «The Mark She Tried to Hide»
For a moment, her father couldn’t speak.
The little girl kept her back turned, small shoulders trembling, waiting for anger that wasn’t coming.
His voice came out broken.
“Who touched you?”
She pulled the fabric back into place like she was ashamed of being hurt.
“Please don’t be loud.”
He crouched behind her, trying to breathe.
“I won’t yell at you.”
She turned slowly, tears hanging on her lashes.
“She said if I told you, you’d say I was lying.”
His stomach dropped.
“Who said that?”
The girl looked toward the fairground, where the lights blurred through her tears.
“Your girlfriend.”
The father went still.
“She said I was acting spoiled. She grabbed me when you went to buy tickets.”
His hand covered his mouth.
All afternoon, he had thought his daughter was quiet because she was tired.
He had thought she didn’t want cotton candy.
He had thought she didn’t like the rides anymore.
But she had been standing beside him in pain, waiting for him to notice.
The girl whispered, “I tried to be good. I didn’t cry loud.”
His eyes filled.
“You never have to be good for someone who hurts you.”
She looked at him like she wanted to believe that, but didn’t know how.
He gently took off his gray T-shirt jacket and wrapped it around her shoulders.
“We’re going home,” he said.
Her lips trembled.
“With her?”
He looked toward the fairground, then back at his daughter.
“No.”
The girl’s breath caught.
He opened the car door wider and helped her inside.
Then he knelt beside her and said the words she had been waiting to hear all day.
“I believe you.”
She finally broke, reaching for him with both arms.
And under the fading fair lights, the father held his little girl like he had almost lost her while standing right beside her.
'WE DISAGREE' — Supreme Court Drops Blockbuster 9-0 Ruling
Supreme Court Sides With Trump Admin With Unanimous Ruling
The Supreme Court of the United States handed the Trump administration a legal victory this week by throwing out a federal appeals court ruling that had revived a dispute over public speaking restrictions for immigration judges.
In an unsigned order, the justices reversed a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
They reinstated a lower-court ruling dismissing a lawsuit filed by the National Association of Immigration Judges.
The case centered on a Justice Department policy requiring immigration judges to obtain approval before participating in certain public speaking engagements deemed “official” in nature.
The policy requires immigration judges to obtain approval before participating in “official” speaking engagements, including presentations at immigration conferences or pro bono legal training events.
According to court records, judges are still permitted to give speeches in a personal capacity so long as the topics are not directly connected to immigration matters.
The National Association of Immigration Judges challenged the policy in federal court in Alexandria, arguing it violated the First Amendment by restricting judges from expressing private opinions about immigration policy or the agency employing them.
But U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton appointee serving the Eastern District of Virginia, dismissed the lawsuit, pointing to the Civil Service Reform Act.
Brinkema concluded that Congress intended claims like those brought by the judges’ association to be handled through that specialized review system instead of traditional lawsuits in federal court.
The 4th Circuit later revived the lawsuit and sent it back to the district court, raising concerns about whether the review framework created under the Civil Service Reform Act is actually operating the way Congress intended.
The appeals court pointed to two major issues.
First, the Merit Systems Protection Board at one point lacked enough members to function, creating a backlog that critics argued undermined the effectiveness of the system.
Second, the court noted the Trump administration’s constitutional position that the president has the authority to remove members of the MSPB and the Office of Special Counsel at will, a stance that raised broader questions about the independence of the federal employee oversight process.
The administration returned to the Supreme Court, calling the case a “clear candidate for summary reversal,” arguing the 4th Circuit relied on a theory the parties had not raised.
The high court agreed.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote that the 4th Circuit was also wrong regarding the legal issues involved.
This is the second big ruling this week involving Trump.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused once more to hear Trump’s bid to overturn a New York jury’s $5 million finding that he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll.
Advertisement
The justices did not explain their decision to decline to take the case, a standard practice when the high court turns away petitions.
This marks the second time this year the Court has rejected Trump’s effort to erase the civil verdict.
Carroll has delayed collecting the judgment for an extended period while the president pressed his appeals.
Trump’s legal team continues to contest a separate $83.3 million defamation award Carroll won against him in a related case. In that matter, his lawyers argue he is entitled to presidential immunity.
The $5 million verdict stemmed from a jury’s determination in the battery and defamation proceedings that Trump had sexually abused Carroll.
The larger award followed a subsequent defamation trial. Both cases have unfolded against a backdrop of intense political scrutiny and repeated legal challenges from the Trump side.
Trump has consistently denied Carroll’s accusations and maintained that the civil proceedings were politically motivated.
His attorneys have pursued every available avenue to contest the outcomes, including the immunity claim now central to the remaining $83.3 million judgment.
The Supreme Court’s latest refusal leaves the $5 million finding intact for now, clearing a path for Carroll to seek payment after prolonged litigation.
As the president’s lawyers press forward on the remaining judgment, the $5 million verdict stands as a finality the Court has twice declined to disturb.
Back in June, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Trump’s appeal of a $5 million civil verdict finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation in the long-running case brought by Carroll.
The denial leaves intact a jury’s 2023 decision from New York federal court, even as the sitting president contends the proceedings represent a politically motivated distraction from his duties leading the nation.
A separate defamation trial produced an $83.3 million award, which remains under appeal and subject to further challenges, including arguments over presidential immunity and the Westfall Act.
