A Biden-appointed judge is being labeled an «activist judge» by conservative critics after ruling the federal government’s application of a law barring noncitizens from voting in elections violates the Constitution in a federal criminal case.

In a 31-page ruling, U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz of the Southern District of Florida dismissed federal charges against Chelsea Cox, a woman originally from Jamaica who voted in the 2020 presidential election despite not being a U.S. citizen. 

The ruling comes as the Trump administration has intensified efforts to prevent noncitizens from voting, including through federal prosecutions and attempts to verify citizenship on state voter rolls, sparking legal battles with Democratic-led states and voting-rights groups. 

WATCH: MIKE LEE EXPLODES ON VOTING ERROR THAT ‘KEEPS HAPPENING’ AS HUGE NUMBER OF NONCITIZENS FOUND ON ROLLS

President Donald Trump’s election integrity efforts have been driven in large part by his and his allies’ belief that the 2020 election was «stolen,» an unproven claim he continues to maintain.

Leibowitz ruled that the Constitution gives states — not Congress — the authority to determine who qualifies to vote in elections, effectively ruling that a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) criminalizing noncitizen voting in federal elections is unconstitutional as applied to Cox.

«The Constitution commits to the States, and the States alone, the general power to set voter qualifications in federal elections,» Leibowitz wrote in his ruling. «This is clear from both the text of the document and the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.»

The ruling garnered sharp blowback from Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who is co-author of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which is being stalled in the Senate and unlikely to be passed before the midterm elections.

«This insane ruling will certainly be overturned,» Lee wrote on X. «But it gives the game away: Democrats pretend we don’t need the SAVE Act because non-citizen voting is already illegal… while activist judges try to destroy laws banning non-citizens from voting!»

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow with Advancing American Freedom, agreed that Leibowitz’s ruling will most likely be «squashed» by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

«Judge David Leibowitz’s opinion that the federal law barring aliens from voting is unconstitutional is patently wrong,» Spakovsky told Digital. 

«It is true that states have the constitutional authority to set the qualifications of citizens who are eligible as voters in federal elections. But he ignores the fact that in Article I, Section 8, Congress is given 100% authority over naturalization.»

Spakovsky said the Constitution gives Congress authority to decide how noncitizens enter the country and what activities they may engage in once here.

«That gives the federal government the authority to ban aliens from voting or otherwise in any way participating in the democratic process,» Spakovsky said.

STATE DEPARTMENT CONSIDERS SHARING PASSPORT RECORDS FOR VOTER CITIZENSHIP CHECKS

Spakovsky pointed to Bluman v. FEC, a 2011 decision written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh and later summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court, which upheld restrictions on foreign nationals’ campaign spending. The opinion said the government may exclude noncitizens from activities tied to democratic self-government.

«The Supreme Court has long held that the government (federal, state, local) may exclude foreign citizens from activities that are part of the democratic self-regulation in the United States,» Kavanaugh wrote. 

«For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government may bar aliens from voting, serving as jurors, working as police or probation officers, or teaching at public schools.»

However, Bluman v. FEC involved campaign contributions and expenditures, not a federal criminal prosecution for voting.

Abhishek Kambil, a partner at Holtzman Vogel Law Firm, said he’d be «surprised» if the federal government did not prevail in its appeal.

Kambil pointed to Oregon v. Mitchell, in which the Supreme Court ruled the government had the authority to set a voting age in federal elections, which would be a voter qualifier.

«So the Supreme Court has held, in an instance, that there is federal government authority to regulate in certain instances some types of qualifications of voters, but the way that this judge read it kind of made everything a mess,» Kambil told Digital.

Leibowitz rejected the federal government’s argument that the Constitution grants Congress total authority over regulating immigration and noncitizens.

DHS APPROVES PLAN TO VERIFY VOTER CITIZENSHIP, MONITOR MAIL BALLOTS AS TRUMP PUSH INTENSIFIES

While he acknowledged that Congress has «broad, undoubted power» over immigration and noncitizens, he said those powers are not «a series of blank checks» and cannot override the Constitution’s «foundational constitutional constraints» assigning voter-qualification authority to the states.

The judge also rejected the federal government’s reliance on the elections clause, which allows Congress to regulate how states conduct federal elections, including by passing laws to combat voter fraud. Leibowitz said the statute at issue was not designed to regulate election procedures or prevent fraud but instead created a federal voter qualification by determining who could vote.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

While Leibowitz ruled that the federal government cannot continue prosecuting Chelsea Cox, Florida would still have the authority to bring state charges.

President Joe Biden nominated Leibowitz to the federal bench in 2024. The Senate confirmed him, 64-33, in a bipartisan vote, with then-Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., voting in favor. Thursday’s ruling is his most politically consequential decision from the bench to date.

federal courts, politics, elections, judiciary, elections disputes, voting

MAGA firebrand Congressman Randy Fine, R-Fla., warned the U.S. must stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons as he cautioned America is losing the battle against radical Islam.

In a wide-ranging interview with Digital, he weighed in on the debate over whether Rep. Ilhan Omar D-Minn., should be deported after the recent announcement by Tom Homan that the Department of Homeland Security was investigating the congresswoman.

«If she engaged in immigration fraud, she should be deported. And by the way, as should anyone who engaged in immigration fraud. And look, the woman is enmeshed. She’s bathed in fraud. I think the best example that we know is fraud is when she said she made 30 million dollars, which she either did and then lied about it and said she didn’t make it, or she made it up in the first place,» he claimed.

FROM CAMPUS RADICALS TO BEIJING’S AI SABOTAGE: REP. RANDY FINE SAYS ‘US FIGHTING TO SAVE WESTERN CIVILIZATION’

«I mean, this is someone whose community that she comes from engages in wholesale welfare fraud. Some of her relatives had been involved in that as well, and if she engaged in immigration fraud she should be denaturalized. She should be deported back to her home country of Somalia.»

A request sent to Omar’s office for reaction to Fine’s accusations was not returned by time of publication.

Fine said that the battle against political correctness is directly tied to mainstream Islam.

«Well, I don’t know that we’re winning. I think we’re losing. And you can see it in the unbelievable fear that people have about talking about mainstream Islam. I saw a video today about a mosque in Texas that [is] literally showing the erasing of a church and the building of a mosque. They are openly fundraising on the premise that they will eliminate Christianity in this country. 

«And people are absolutely petrified to speak the truth about it. That is a battle we are losing. And if we’re not willing to tell the truth about mainstream Islam, we’re done. You can see what has happened in the United Islamic Kingdom. That will happen to America if we are unwilling to deal with this problem,» he said.

«I’m not surprised because when they stood up, the Iranians killed an estimated 100,000 of them. People are afraid. They don’t have weapons. They don’t have access to the internet to learn about what is going on.»

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD-LINKED NETWORKS EMBEDDED ACROSS CANADIAN INSTITUTIONS, NEW REPORT ALLEGES

He continued, «And I think they’re hoping that the American pressure, both military and economic, will cause the regime to either restructure or collapse. I certainly would like to see them stand up for themselves and overthrow the mainstream Muslim religious leaders that are in charge there.»

Following the IRGC’s recent call to the American electorate to oppose Donald Trump in the midterm elections, Fine said that the move has the potential to impact the ballot box.

«Well, I hope it does. Look, it’s been clear to me, based on my time in Congress, that the Democrats are on the side of Iran, and it’s simply because they hate Donald Trump. 

«What’s extraordinary about it is the same Democrats who called for an overthrow of the mainstream Muslim religious leaders who run Iran all of a sudden got upset when Donald Trump did something about it. And I personally believe the conflict would have been over a long time ago if it wasn’t for Democrats supporting the enemy,» he said.

«See, the mainstream Muslim religious leaders in Iran can see that Democrats aren’t on board. And they say, ‘hey, maybe we can wait out Donald Trump and the Republicans and get that nuclear weapon that we want to use in the United States.’ So, I’m not surprised.»

He added, «I think we need to make sure people understand that Muslim terrorists in Iran have endorsed the Democratic Party. That’s who you’re voting for. You’re voting it for the people supported by Muslim terrorists if you vote Democrat.»

Despite strong support for Trump’s military engagement in Iran, Fine does not believe that regime overthrow is an imperative.

TURKEY’S NATO ROLE UNDER SCRUTINY AMID NEW REPORT ON HAMAS, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TIES

«I don’t think it should be an explicit goal of American foreign policy. I think it probably happens as a result. But I’m an America First guy. And if crazy people want to run Iran, that’s not America’s problem unless they threaten America. And that’s what they have done.»

He said, «For 47 years, the mainstream Muslim religious leaders who’ve run Iran have said ‘death to America.’ They’ve killed thousands of Americans. They’re trying to build missiles that can reach America. They’re trying to build a nuclear weapon that can reach America, so stopping that is in our interest.»

He added, «But if they said, ‘look America’s our friend, we’re going to leave you alone’ well then it’s not an America First problem anymore. We’re not the world’s policeman, but we have to look out for America’s interests and making sure Iran can’t nuke us: that’s about as America First as it gets.»

However, given the prospect of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, Fine’s answer modulates.

«I mean, the answer is they can’t have a nuclear weapon. And by the way, we had explicit intelligence that they were getting close. And so we did something about it. And I absolutely support that.»

Fine said,»The most important thing about the Iran conflict that I tell people, is Iran was spending tons of money to build a missile that could go thousands and thousands and thousands of miles. They already had missiles that could make it to Israel. They had all the missiles they wanted that could hit Israel, as we’ve seen. They had missiles that could hit Europe, as we’ve also seen.»

He concluded,»You know where they didn’t have a missile that could hit? The United States of America, which is why they were focused on building a long-range missile, so they could threaten the east coast of the United States. That’s simply something we can never, ever allow to happen, and that’s why I’ve supported the president in this.»

war with iran, house of representatives politics, house of representatives, florida, midterm elections, islam

En los bosques tropicales de Panamá viven insectos de menos de un centímetro que mantienen conversaciones sorprendentemente complejas sin emitir sonidos como los percibimos los humanos.

Son los membrácidos, pequeños animales reconocibles por una llamativa estructura semejante a un casco sobre su cuerpo, pero capaces de pasar inadvertidos entre tallos y hojas pese a su peculiar apariencia.

Su secreto está en las plantas. Según una investigación divulgada por el Instituto Smithsonian de Investigaciones Tropicales (STRI), los membrácidos se comunican mediante vibraciones que transmiten por los tallos.

Sujetan sus patas a la planta y sacuden o hacen rebotar rápidamente el abdomen, generando señales que viajan por el tejido vegetal hasta ser detectadas por otros individuos a través de sus patas.

Para una persona que observa la escena, aparentemente no está ocurriendo nada, porque los humanos no pueden escuchar ni sentir directamente esas señales. Pero cuando los científicos registran las vibraciones y las convierten en sonidos audibles, aparece una comunicación inesperadamente elaborada.

Algunas señales cambian de tono, incorporan pulsos y pueden prolongarse durante el intercambio entre dos ejemplares.

La investigadora postdoctoral de NOMIS-STRI Judith AH Smit estudia precisamente ese lenguaje oculto. Al escuchar las grabaciones obtenidas durante sus experimentos, encontró una comparación difícil de imaginar para animales tan pequeños: las señales producidas por las hembras pueden recordar al canto de las ballenas, con respuestas prolongadas cuyo tono disminuye gradualmente.

Los membrácidos, conocidos en inglés como treehoppers, pertenecen a un grupo extraordinariamente diverso, con más de 3,000 especies conocidas alrededor del mundo.

Panamá ofrece un escenario privilegiado para investigarlos: existen alrededor de 300 especies descritas en el país, y Guayaquila gracilicornis, utilizada por Smit en sus estudios, resulta particularmente abundante en Gamboa.

Una de sus características más reconocibles es el pronoto desarrollado que forma estructuras parecidas a cascos, espinas o extensiones sobre el cuerpo. A pesar de ese aspecto extravagante, su reducido tamaño facilita que permanezcan escondidos.

Para Smit, encontrarlos resulta relativamente sencillo una vez que se aprende dónde y cómo buscarlos entre la vegetación tropical.

Pero la parte más fascinante aparece cuando buscan pareja. El cortejo funciona como un auténtico dúo entre macho y hembra, en el que cada uno produce su propia señal vibratoria. Smit lo compara con el conocido juego infantil de “Marco Polo”: uno llama, el otro responde y ese intercambio proporciona información que permite localizar al compañero sobre la planta.

El macho de Guayaquila gracilicornis produce una vibración compleja que puede pasar de tonos bajos a altos e incorporar pulsos, mientras una hembra receptiva responde con otra señal. A medida que intercambian mensajes, ambos pueden modificar su comportamiento durante la búsqueda, hasta reducir la distancia que los separa y finalmente encontrarse sobre el tallo.

Este comportamiento también cuestiona una visión tradicional de la comunicación animal centrada principalmente en machos que cantan, bailan o realizan exhibiciones para atraer pareja.

Las observaciones del Smithsonian muestran que las hembras de estos membrácidos desempeñan un papel activo, responden a las llamadas y pueden influir en la manera en que el macho se comporta durante el cortejo.

Durante el cortejo, el macho de Guayaquila gracilicornis produce una compleja señal vibratoria con cambios de tono y pulsos, mientras espera la respuesta de una hembra receptiva.

Para descubrir cómo funciona esa conversación, Smit trabajó junto con Maria Paz Rueda Rodríguez y Omar Morosse, quienes recolectaron ejemplares y sus plantas hospedantes para estudiarlos en los laboratorios del STRI en Gamboa.

Allí, machos y hembras preparados para aparearse fueron colocados juntos en recintos instalados en ambientes tranquilos para registrar sus interacciones.

Captar algo que una persona no puede percibir exige instrumentos especialmente sensibles. Los investigadores utilizaron acelerómetros capaces de amplificar las vibraciones y un vibrómetro láser Doppler, que mide el tiempo empleado por un rayo láser para viajar hasta la planta y regresar.

Así pueden detectar movimientos diminutos y transformar esas señales físicas en sonidos que los científicos sí pueden escuchar y analizar.

El equipo fue todavía más lejos y reprodujo artificialmente las “conversaciones” para observar cómo reaccionaban los insectos. Mediante un dispositivo similar al mecanismo que hace vibrar un teléfono celular, transmitieron señales por las plantas.

Los investigadores pudieron alargarlas, modificar su tono y cambiar determinadas características, comprobando después si los membrácidos respondían o alteraban su comportamiento.

El experimento busca responder una pregunta mayor: hasta qué punto estos pequeños animales pueden modificar su comunicación dependiendo de quién está al otro lado.

Comprender esa flexibilidad permitiría conocer mejor cómo seleccionan pareja y cómo ajustan su comportamiento durante las interacciones sociales, un terreno mucho menos estudiado que la comunicación mediante sonidos.

Las vibraciones, además, no constituyen una rareza exclusiva de los membrácidos. Otros animales utilizan movimientos transmitidos por superficies para comunicarse; investigadores del STRI han estudiado, por ejemplo, arañas lobo cuyos machos vibran el abdomen y golpean sus patas durante el cortejo, mostrando que existe todo un universo de señales fuera del rango sensorial humano.

El trabajo también abre interrogantes sobre cómo estas formas de comunicación responden a un ambiente transformado por las actividades humanas.

Smit está interesada en conocer qué ocurre ante factores como contaminación lumínica, ruido o calentamiento global y si los animales pueden modificar sus señales y conductas para adaptarse a condiciones diferentes de aquellas en las que evolucionaron.

Para la investigadora, estudiar animales tan pequeños obliga finalmente a salir de la “burbuja sensorial” desde la que los humanos interpretamos la naturaleza. Mientras prepara junto con sus estudiantes la publicación de los resultados, los membrácidos de Panamá revelan un mundo de duetos, llamadas y respuestas que siempre estuvo allí, viajando silenciosamente por los tallos sin que pudiéramos escucharlo.

corresponsal:Desde Panamá