Feed aggregator

A federal criminal complaint unsealed Tuesday charges an upstate New York woman with attempting to provide financial support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization by sending cryptocurrency to an individual who claimed to be an active member of the group, the U.S. Department of Justice announced.

Federal authorities arrested the 37-year-old woman, alleging that she transferred digital currency to Islamic Jihad as part of an effort to support the designated foreign terrorist organization.

If convicted of attempting to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization, she faces up to 20 years in federal prison and a maximum fine of $250,000.

According to court documents, investigators identified the defendant as a prominent member of the Direct Action Movement for Palestinian Liberation (DAMPL), a radical organization that emerged in the wake of the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel.

Prosecutors allege that DAMPL rejects peaceful protest in favor of so-called “direct action,” including vandalism, property destruction, and acts of sabotage targeting organizations and institutions it associates with Israel.

Justice Department officials said the allegations demonstrate that the defendant not only expressed support for terrorism but also allegedly attempted to send money to an individual who claimed to be actively participating in attacks.

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg said that the woman allegedly “repeatedly voiced support for violence against Israeli civilians and attempted to provide material support to the Palestine Islamic Jihad by sending cryptocurrency to an individual who claimed to participate in its attacks. Those who aid foreign terrorist groups will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

According to prosecutors, the alleged financing operation was motivated by extremist ideology and relied on encrypted communications to facilitate the transfer of funds overseas.

U.S. Attorney Michael DiGiacomo for the Western District of New York said investigators were able to disrupt the financial support before it could provide additional assistance to the terrorist organization.

Federal officials also stressed that dismantling funding networks for foreign terrorist groups remains a top priority.

“This individual, as alleged in the criminal complaint, provided money to a foreign terrorist organization engaged in acts of violence,” said Acting Assistant Director Coult Markovsky of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. “The FBI is committed to cutting off funding to terrorist groups and will continue to work side-by-side with our Justice Department partners to make sure anyone who engages in terrorism or provides assistance to such organizations is held fully accountable in our justice system.”

The investigation was led by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which executed search warrants in February and March 2026. According to the complaint, forensic investigators recovered extensive communications between the suspect and a self-described Islamic Jihad terrorist in the Gaza Strip who claimed to have personally taken part in attacks against Israeli forces.

Investigators said those messages included repeated expressions of support for terrorism. According to the complaint, the suspect wrote, “[i]f I lived in Gaza, I would fight alongside the resistance,” while praising the terrorist’s activities. She also wrote, “I wish every day were October 7th.” During the same exchange, prosecutors say she indicated that this was not her first contact with a terrorist, declared that she hated Jews “very much,” and expressed the wish that Israel “would disappear.”

Authorities also recovered additional conversations discussing military operations, weapons, and ammunition. In one message cited in the complaint, the suspect stated, “I feel excited every time I see news of the killing of an occupation soldier.”

Investigators further allege that a forensic review of the woman’s cryptocurrency accounts showed she regularly converted assets into digital currency to finance terrorist activities. According to the complaint, she made approximately 80 separate cryptocurrency transfers totaling 30,116 USDC—equivalent to $30,116—to a digital wallet allegedly controlled by the Islamic Jihad operative.

The complaint also alleges that the suspect understood the legal risks of her actions. In one message sent in November 2025, she wrote, “[b]ased on my passed [sic] fundraising and posting Im [sic] gonna get put away for a few life times,” followed by a laughing emoji.

Following her initial court appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen, the defendant was ordered held in federal custody pending further proceedings.

{Matzav.com}

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear Pennsylvania’s appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down the state’s prohibition on emergency concealed carry by adults between the ages of 18 and 20, leaving the Third Circuit’s decision in place.

The case, Lara v. Evanchick, was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, which challenged Pennsylvania laws restricting firearm carry rights for law-abiding young adults during declared states of emergency.

Explaining the significance of the case, the Duke Center for Firearms Law summarized the Third Circuit’s ruling:

“On January 18, [2024,] a panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated on Second Amendment grounds a set of Pennsylvania statutes that operated to bar 18-20-year-olds from carrying firearms in public during declared states of emergency. The ruling in Lara v. Commissioner is one of a growing number of post-Bruen decisions addressing firearm restrictions on that specific age group. Lara brings into sharp focus doctrinal and procedural questions surrounding these age-restriction cases, especially as the Supreme Court is poised to decide related questions of who may be restricted from possessing firearms in Rahimi.”

After the appellate ruling, Pennsylvania sought a rehearing before the full Third Circuit. That request was rejected, a decision the Second Amendment Foundation hailed as another victory in the case.

In announcing the outcome at the time, the organization said:

“The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a petition for a rehearing in the Second Amendment Foundation’s victory in a case challenging Pennsylvania statutes that prohibit law-abiding young adults from carrying firearms for self-defense and prevents them from acquiring a state license to carry (LTCF) because of their age.”

Pennsylvania then asked the Supreme Court to review the case by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. On Tuesday, however, the justices declined to take up the appeal, allowing the Third Circuit’s ruling to remain in effect.

Following the Supreme Court’s action, Pennsylvania Gun Rights welcomed the decision, noting that the Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves intact what it called a “major win for gun owners in PA.”

{Matzav.com}

Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Rand Paul of Kentucky are renewing their campaign to end birthright citizenship following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the practice. Both lawmakers are now advocating for a constitutional amendment that would limit automatic citizenship for children born in the United States.

Amending the Constitution, however, presents a steep challenge. Such a proposal must secure the support of two-thirds of both the House and Senate before it can be sent to the states for ratification. That level of bipartisan backing is widely viewed as unlikely, given that most Democrats and a number of pro-business Republicans support broad immigration policies.

Cotton argued that the Constitution was never meant to grant citizenship to the children of those who entered the country illegally and urged lawmakers to approve his proposed Constitutional Citizenship Act.

“Birthright citizenship was never intended to benefit illegal immigrants,” Cotton said, calling on Congress to pass his “Constitutional Citizenship Act to ensure only the children of those here lawfully are granted citizenship.”

Under Cotton’s proposal, children born to illegal immigrants, terrorists, and foreign intelligence operatives would not qualify for automatic U.S. citizenship.

“There is no constitutional right for illegal aliens to cross the border to gain citizenship for their children. Granting birthright citizenship to illegal aliens has contributed to the highest levels of illegal immigration in history. Fixing this will help reduce the damage from Joe Biden’s catastrophic border crisis,” he added in his July 15 press release.

The legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to specify that birthright citizenship does not apply to children whose parents are in the country unlawfully, are present as foreign diplomats, or are participating in hostile operations against the United States. The measure is co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, and Bernie Moreno of Ohio.

Paul is pursuing a separate approach, introducing his own proposal to eliminate automatic birthright citizenship through a constitutional amendment.

The Kentucky senator has filed a Joint Resolution that would amend the Constitution to restrict U.S. citizenship and end the current interpretation of birthright citizenship.

“Under current interpretations of American law, anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether the parent was here legally or not,” Paul wrote on X. “This is wrong and not at all the intent of those who wrote the 14th Amendment.”

The debate centers on the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War. Originalist legal scholars generally contend that its citizenship clause was intended to guarantee citizenship to the children of formerly enslaved people, while others argue that the amendment extends that protection to everyone born on U.S. soil.

“We are a country filled with immigrants, and legal immigration is valuable and should be protected,” Paul continued. “But we are also a country whose borders have been too open and our generosity exploited too often. President Trump has moved to seal our border from illegal immigrants more than any other president.”

Paul said he believes citizenship should be reserved for the children of American citizens and legal residents, noting that he has advocated for such changes for years.

“I have supported protecting birthright citizenship from the beginning of my tenure in the Senate, when I cosponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, and now I am proposing an amendment to protect United States citizenship in case the Supreme Court fails to address this issue correctly,” he wrote.

{Matzav.com}

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jewish resident of University Heights, Ohio, who is challenging city officials after they ordered him to stop hosting tefillah gatherings in his home without first obtaining a permit. The case could have far-reaching consequences for home minyanim, home shiurim, and other private religious gatherings across the country.

“Every American has the right to host a prayer gathering in his home, and he certainly doesn’t need a city permit to do so,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch said in a news release. “When government officials forbid that, courts must hold those individuals accountable, immediately. The city’s actions underscore a troubling trend of weaponizing zoning laws against people of faith while allowing other gatherings of the same size, like book clubs or poker nights, to meet without issue. We’re pleased the Supreme Court will hear this case.”

The Supreme Court has not yet announced when it will hear oral arguments. The Court’s annual term begins on the first Monday in October and generally concludes in late June or early July.

Grand is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom together with the San Francisco law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. The legal team filed its petition urging the Supreme Court to take up the case on May 28.

A broad coalition of religious and legal organizations has also thrown its support behind Grand by filing amicus curiae briefs. Those organizations include the National Jewish Advocacy Center, the Manhattan Institute, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the General Council of the Assemblies of God, the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists, the Orthodox Union, the National Council of Young Israel, and the American Center for Law and Justice.

Grand has repeatedly emphasized that the case extends well beyond the Orthodox Jewish community and could affect the religious freedoms of Americans of all faiths.

“This is not just a Jewish thing,” Grand previously told Cleveland Kesher. “Would it impact the Jewish people in a good way if we prevail in the Supreme Court? Yes. Would it impact the Christian prayer groups? Yes. Bible study? Yes. It’ll have a major impact for anyone who wants to do what they’re allowed to do by the Constitution, but really by their creator, which is talk to God. This is just about talking to God. We have to bring God back into the home. So, I simply want to have God in my home with a few of my friends. And I was stopped from doing that. That in itself is unconstitutional.”

Grand, who moved to University Heights in 2017, filed suit against the city and then-Mayor Michael Dylan Brennan on September 9, 2022, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The lawsuit names Brennan in both his official and personal capacities.

Also named as defendants are Luke McConville, who served as the city’s law director, and Paul Siemborski, a member of the University Heights Planning Commission, both in their individual capacities.

The dispute centers on the city’s zoning regulations. As an Orthodox Jew, Grand is obligated to daven three times each day with a minyan. Rather than walking to a shul for every tefillah, he sought to hold a minyan in his own home.

According to court filings, Grand emailed approximately a dozen neighbors on January 19, 2021, inviting them to join him for a minyan at his home on Miramar Boulevard and encouraging them to bring others if they wished. Grand’s complaint states that later that month, Brennan confronted him about the gatherings.

According to the lawsuit, Brennan telephoned Grand on January 21, 2021, and informed him that he could not hold religious gatherings in his home unless he first obtained a special-use permit under Chapter 1274 of the University Heights Zoning Code.

Although Grand initially applied for a special-use permit in 2021 to classify his home as “a place of religious assembly,” he later withdrew the application.

The federal district court ruled against Grand on September 30, 2024. That decision was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals on November 13, 2025, leaving the city’s restrictions in place.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case now places the dispute before the nation’s highest court. Its eventual ruling could establish an important precedent not only for home minyanim, but also for home shiurim, tefillah gatherings, and private religious assemblies of many different faiths throughout the United States.

{Matzav.com}