In an apparent leak from the New York attorney general's office, the identities of donors to former UN Ambassador and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley's nonprofit, Stand for America, have been revealed to the public. Politico reports:

Like other nonprofits, Stand For America files an annual tax return with the IRS. While the agency and the nonprofit must make those filings available to the public, including the amounts of contributions to the group, such nonprofits do not have to disclose the identities of their donors.

When it comes to electing people who will defend our rights, many believe the races for statewide and federal office are the most important. However, races for local offices play a crucial role in ensuring that our liberties are preserved from the ground up. In Florida, parental rights won big during Tuesday's primary as several school districts had their school boards flip to conservative control:

Five school boards in Clay, Miami Dade, Duval, Sarasota, and Martin counties are now Republican-dominated. Miami’s takeover is especially notable as it became the largest county in America with a conservative school-board majority. . .

On Tuesday, a U.S. District Court judge blocked guidance that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  This guidance would have required all hospitals to perform abortions in circumstances that violate state laws. Fox News explained:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Wednesday hailed a federal judge’s decision to temporarily block the Biden administration from forcing hospitals to provide abortions services if the mother’s health or life was at risk. 

Last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court blatantly ignored the will of voters to hand down an unprecedented decision that opens the door for two state constitutional amendments to potentially be struck down. The court did this by arguing that because many of the legislators that referred the amendments to the ballot were elected from maps that were adjudicated gerrymandered, the amendments were likely invalid. Never mind the fact that a majority of North Carolina voters statewide voted to approve the amendments. RedState reported: 

In what can only be described as a full-scale judicial coup, the Democrat-controlled body has ruled that the North Carolina General Assembly is illegitimate and can not enact amendments to the state’s constitution. Their reasoning? That the state’s legislature is “gerrymandered.”

The Left spent four years complaining about the rate that the Trump Administration was filling federal judicial vacancies and attempting to paint nominees as outside of the mainstream. However, a project tracking judicial nominations from The Heritage Foundation illustrates that President Biden has made significantly more appointments than President Trump did at this point in his administration, and the nominees themselves are more controversial. 

Check out the updated Judicial Appointment Tracker, with current and comparative data for 7 features of the appointment process. Pres Biden has appointed 74% more judges than Pres Trump at this point, but they are more than twice as controversial. https://t.co/yLA8GOxJpV

— Thomas Jipping (@TomJipping) August 22, 2022

On Thursday, Republican attorneys general challenging the Biden Administration received another victory in court:

A Louisiana judge issued a permanent injunction against the Biden administration’s moratorium on new oil and gas leasing on federal lands Thursday night, a day after another court tossed an earlier injunction against it. 

State supreme court elections often fall under the radar, but issues like redistricting and the overturning of Roe v. Wade are raising their profile as we approach the 2022 midterm elections. As Politico explained:

Thirty states have or will hold state Supreme Court elections this year, in a combination of traditional elections or a retention vote — an up-or-down vote to decide if a judge should stay on the bench. And some of the biggest state Supreme Court contests this year map alongside traditional battlegrounds, like Michigan and North Carolina, while others creep into redder or bluer territory. . .

The breakdown of law and order on our southern border with Mexico has reached new heights with over 2 million migrant encounters in fiscal year 2022 alone:

The number of migrant encounters at the southern border this fiscal year has now exceeded two million, sources tell Fox News — a number that marks a new record, as well as a glaring sign of the enormous and ongoing crisis facing agents, officials and communities at the border.

To promote poll worker recruitment for the 2022 midterm elections, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission declared today "Help America Vote Day":

Help America Vote Day aims to address the nationwide shortage of poll workers resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, inspire greater civic engagement and volunteerism, and help ensure safe, secure, accessible, and transparent elections in 2022 and beyond.

It appears that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has quietly "un-recused" herself from the UNC affirmative action case coming before the Court during its 2022-2023 term. As Dan McLaughlin explained, the case was previously consolidated with a case implicating Harvard in a similar alleged violation:

As I set forth in detail back in February, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has an obligation to recuse herself from the pending case on racial preferences in Harvard admissions because she sat on the Harvard Board of Overseers not only during the events under challenge — which are ongoing — but also during the yearslong defense of the litigation, including at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson agreed, and testified at her confirmation hearing that she would recuse. But Jackson’s recusal obligation should have extended as well to the consolidated case, for two reasons: because Harvard was engaged in a joint defense of the case with the University of North Carolina (the two cases were consolidated) and because a victory for UNC could redound to the benefit of Harvard in the event that the Court divided 4-4 or reached a fractured outcome in the Harvard case (granting that the two legal standards could end up differing). . .