Latest news with #AnthonyKennedy
Daily Mail
14-07-2025
- Daily Mail
Infatuated corrupt officer who raided police systems 200 times to pass intel to her secret criminal boyfriend is banned from the job
A corrupt officer who was 'infatuated' with her secret criminal boyfriend has been banned from the job after she raided police systems to pass intel to him. Former PC Lorna Pennycook raided West Midlands Police systems 200 times so she could supply information to 'professional' crook Anthony Kennedy. She 'researched' confidential details about investigations and shared them with her lorry jacker partner before attempting to cover her tracks by telling him to delete their messages. Pennycook even convinced Kennedy not to end their sordid affair after he realised she was a police officer. At an accelerated misconduct hearing in July, Pennycook was found to have breached standards of professional behaviour. A panel ruled that her actions amounted to gross misconduct and she would have been dismissed had she still been working for the force. Her actions were 'calculated, deliberate, in no sense coerced', a report from the hearing read. Pennycook joined the force in January 2009, spending the majority of her career on the Birmingham East Neighbourhood Policing Unit where she became acting sergeant in August 2020. In March 2021, she was posted to the organised crime and gangs team as a constable. She started a relationship with Kennedy in 2016, finding out he was 'involved in criminality' the following year. The report from Chief Constable Craig Guildford read: '[Kennedy] wanted to end the relationship upon discovering your profession; you clearly did not want to end the relationship despite learning that he was a criminal. 'You remained in a relationship with him. You did not disclose this relationship to your supervisor.' Pennycook 'used numerous police systems to access sensitive policing information and intelligence' which was not relevant to her duties between August 2017 and February 2021. This was 'deliberate conduct' to get hold of information which would have been useful to Kennedy and his criminal associates, the report read. Pennycook told Kennedy - who was known to be part of an organised criminal group - to delete her messages and 'requested a burner phone' so messages were not linked to her. She was arrested in April 2021 and resigned three months later. The panel heard how she was charged with misconduct in a public office and admitted the charge - but with an 'untruthful basis of plea'. But her basis of plea was later abandoned and she was jailed for four years last December. The report read: 'This is a serious case of corruption whereby multiple repetitive system access was evidenced which included sensitive criminal intelligence over a three and a half year period. 'The confidential data was accessed and shared with a known criminal for a non-policing purpose.' It added: 'She was an experienced officer and knew the rules. 'She accessed the confidential data for personal gain in maintaining and furthering her own intimate relationship with a known criminal. 'Her actions were calculated, deliberate and systemic in my determination.' It read: 'Officers should only check systems for a policing purpose never for personal gain. 'On the balance of probability, she knew full well the consequences of what she shared which included sensitive intelligence concerning a planned search warrant and the details of a complainant.' Pennycook, formerly of Walsall, penned a letter to a case worker within the force's professional standards department in March 2025. She 'fully acknowledged' her wrongdoing and said she expected to be dismissed. The report read: 'The former officer stated that she is truly sorry for her actions and apologises to both West Midlands Police and the public.' Pennycook was found to have breached the standards of professional behaviour relating to confidentiality, discreditable conduct and honesty and integrity. She now features on the College of Policing's barred list. Kennedy, then 43 and of Tipton, admitted assisting in the commission of misconduct in a public office and was jailed for four years last year. Birmingham Crown Court previously heard how he had a criminal record boasting 18 convictions for 41 offences. This included a gang lorry jacking in Oldbury which led to him being locked up for eight years in 2012. Kennedy threatened to end his relationship with Pennycook over concerns it would have been damaging to his reputation with his criminal friends. But Pennycook warned she would not leave him alone and said it would be 'advantageous' for him if they stayed together. The former officer called Kennedy significantly more times than he contacted her during the four-year period, the court heard. Pennycook had access to force computer systems which held information on crime reports, logs, custody records, alleged crimes, telephone numbers, vehicle registrations, wanted suspects, warrants to be executed and the management of prisoners. She also 'attempted to shift the blame' upon Kennedy before she was sentenced, claiming she had acted under pressure.
Fox News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Ex-Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pleads for civil political discourse, warns 'democracy is at risk'
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned Thursday that the tone of political discourse and threats to judges are undermining the ability of the U.S. to serve as an example of freedom and democracy around the world. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who retired in 2018 during President Donald Trump's first term, was speaking during a virtual forum about threats to the rule of law, as he defended the role of judges in a democracy and advocated for the need to protect them and their families from threats. "Many in the rest of the world look to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be," Kennedy said during the "Speak Up for Justice" event, one day before the current Supreme Court justices are set to deliver their final rulings of the current term. "If they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk. Freedom is at risk," he continued. Kennedy did not mention Trump, even as other participants expressed concern about the barrage of threats and attacks against judges for blocking key parts of the president's political agenda during his second term, including his immigration policies, firings of federal workers and his implementation of broad-based tariffs. But Kennedy's remarks appeared to be sparked, at least in part, by the Trump administration's repeated attacks against judges who have ruled against him, including some whom he appointed during his first term. In March, Trump criticized U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg as a "radical left lunatic" and called for his impeachment after he attempted to block the administration from removing alleged Venezuelan gang members from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime presidential power Trump invoked. Last month, Trump attacked "USA-hating" judges as "monsters who want our country to go to hell." Trump's rhetoric has come alongside an uptick in threats against judges, according to POLITICO, although spokespeople for the administration have said the president is against any threats and that they would face prosecution from the Justice Department. Kennedy said "judges must have protection for themselves and their families" and that "judges are best protected when the public and our nation realize how central they are to our discourse." "We should be concerned in this country about, as I've already indicated, the tone of our political discourse," he said. "Identity politics are used so that a person is characterized by his or her partisan affiliation. That's not what democracy and civil discourse is about." Other participants at the forum, which featured judges from the U.S. and other countries who warned about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies, also took aim at Trump's statement denouncing the courts. Without mentioning Trump by name, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed by a disgruntled lawyer who went to her New Jersey home in 2020, said disinformation about judges was spreading "from the top down," with jurists attacked as "rogue" and "corrupt." "Judges are rogue. Sound familiar? Judges are corrupt. Sound familiar? Judges are monsters. … Judges hate America," Salas said. "We are seeing the spreading of disinformation coming from the top down." Salas warned that the number of threats recorded against judges this year was reaching historic heights in the U.S., noting that the U.S. Marshals Service has tracked more than 400 threats against judges since January, when Trump was inaugurated. "We're going to break records, people, and not in a good way," she said.
Newsweek
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Former Supreme Court Justice Warns Freedom and Democracy 'At Risk'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Amid an uptick in threats to judges, former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned that the current hostility in America's political discourse imperils freedom and democracy. Why It Matters Rhetoric by President Donald Trump, including calls on social media for the impeachment of judges who have ruled against his policies, has triggered urgent warnings from current and former members of the Supreme Court about the stability of the country's legal systems. These attacks, which have included labeling judges as "troublemakers" and "monsters" in public posts, have raised concerns about undermining the independence of the judiciary, an institution considered essential to protecting American democracy. Current Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican appointee, also referenced the public attacks on judges in a rare statement, saying, "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose." What To Know In a virtual forum on Thursday for the event "Speak Up for Justice," with other judges from around the world, Kennedy said that "We should be concerned in this country about, as I've already indicated, the tone of our political discourse," according to Reuters. The Ronald Reagan appointee continued: "Identity politics are used so that a person is characterized by his or her partisan affiliation. That's not what democracy and civil discourse is about." Kennedy noted that the rest of the world seems to monitor how things operate in the United States "to see what democracy ought to be." "And if they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk," the retired justice said. "Freedom is at risk." He urged for judges and their families to have protection, and said they are best protected "when the public and our nation realize how central they are to our discourse." Kennedy did not mention Trump by name during the event, Reuters reports. Former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy speaks at the World Law Congress at U.N. headquarters in New York City on July 21, 2023. (Photo by YUKI IWAMURA/AFP via Getty Images) Former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy speaks at the World Law Congress at U.N. headquarters in New York City on July 21, 2023. (Photo by YUKI IWAMURA/AFP via Getty Images) Trump has sharply criticized jurists who have ruled against his administration's key policies—most notably U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg—whom he described as a "troublemaker and agitator" while calling for his impeachment after the judge blocked usage of the Alien Enemies Act for deportation flights. According to Politico, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose family was targeted in a fatal attack in 2020, noted during the same virtual event that the U.S. Marshals Service has recorded over 400 threats against federal judges so far this year. Salas attributed the rise to disinformation and inflammatory rhetoric "from the top down." What People Are Saying Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in May on threats to judges, in part: "The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law." Trump, during his 100th day in office speech in Michigan, in part: "We cannot allow a handful of communist radical left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States. Judges are trying to take away the power given to the president to keep our country safe ... it's not a good thing." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, to Newsweek when asked if Kennedy's comments were a poke at Trump: "It's clearly a poke at the President, especially because Justice Kennedy's exit from the Court allowed Trump to shift it to the right with the appointment of Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh." What Happens Next As threats continue to be tracked by law enforcement, congressional debate and judicial responses are expected to intensify as the Supreme Court approaches the conclusion of its current term.
Reuters
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Retired US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy warns 'freedom is at risk'
June 26 (Reuters) - Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Thursday expressed concern about the "tone of our political discourse" as he defended the role judges play in a democracy and argued for the need to protect them and their families from threats. Kennedy, who retired from the top court in 2018 during Republican President Donald Trump's first term, made the remarks during a virtual forum featuring judges from other countries who warned about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies. Kennedy, in rare public remarks, did not mention Trump during the "Speak Up for Justice" event, even as other participants voiced alarm about the barrage of threats and attacks the judiciary has faced as key parts of the Republican president's second-term agenda have been blocked in courts. But Kennedy, who was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, stressed that "the rest of the world, many in the rest of the world, look to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be." "And if they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk," Kennedy said. "Freedom is at risk." Kennedy said "judges must have protection for themselves and their families." He said "judges are best protected when the public and our nation realize how central they are to our discourse." "We should be concerned in this country about, as I've already indicated, the tone of our political discourse," he said. "Identity politics are used so that a person is characterized by his or her partisan affiliation. That's not what democracy and civil discourse is about." South African jurist Richard Goldstone, who called himself a friend of Kennedy's, criticized what "have been personal attacks on the independence of some judges who have ruled against the administration," saying the judges were fulfilling their duties. U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed by a disgruntled lawyer who went to her New Jersey home in 2020, said disinformation about judges was spreading "from the top down," with jurists being derided as "rogue" and "corrupt." She warned during the event that the number of threats recorded against judges this year were reaching historic heights in the United States. "We're going to break records, people, and not in a good way," she said. Read more: Trump-appointed judges warn of threats, criticize calls to impeach judges Conservative US appeals court judge knocks calls to impeach jurists Republicans seek impeachment of 2 more judges who stymied Trump US Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump's attack on judge US judiciary warns of threats amid 'concerning' calls to impeach judges
Fox News
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Legalized same-sex marriage turns 10 after landmark Supreme Court decision reshaped American law and culture
The Supreme Court 10 years ago voted to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, a landmark 5-4 ruling that changed the course of U.S. history — touching off profound changes in public opinion, as well as seismic cultural shifts. "No longer may this liberty be denied," Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry." The June 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges ensured same-sex couples were guaranteed the same protections and benefits as their heterosexual peers. However, the ruling is not without its detractors. In fact, 10 years after the high court's decision, recent polling shows that public opinion on same-sex marriage is more divided than ever. The 10-year anniversary of Obergefell also comes at a tense political moment. The White House and Congress are governed, as of January 2025, by a new conservative majority — sidelining progressives and emboldening at least some Republican lawmakers who have signaled interest in challenging the Supreme Court's landmark decision. It also comes as the conservative-majority Supreme Court has taken up important cases involving LGBTQ+ eduction, gender-related care and more. Ten years after the court's landmark decision, here is a look at where things stand. The nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage has made such unions more visible, increasing the number of Americans with personal connections to couples directly affected by the Supreme Court's ruling. In fact, the number of married, same-sex couples in the U.S. has more than doubled since 2015, according to data from the Williams Institute at UCLA's College of Law. In the decade since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell, public support for same-sex marriage has continued to climb, driven in large part by support from Democrat and Independent voters, though voters across all parties and demographics have seen an uptick, according to data from Gallup surveys over the past 10 years. Nearly 7 in 10 U.S. voters, or 68% of Americans, said this year that they support same-sex marriage, according to a Gallup poll conducted last month — an 8% increase compared to the 60% majority who said the same in 2015. Buoyed by popular support, then-President Joe Biden codified same-sex marriage protections at the federal level in 2022 by signing the Respect for Marriage Act, which required the federal government to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages performed in states where they are legal. While the law stops short of ordering states or territories to marry same-sex couples, it does require them to recognize the marriages as legitimate, so long as they are valid in the state which they were performed. However, that is not to say these actions have been without detractors. Support for same-sex marriage has dropped among Republicans in recent years, with the number of registered Republican voters who said they support same-sex marriage dropping from a 55% majority in 2021 to just 41% in 2025, according to data compiled by Gallup. It is unclear what exactly prompted the shift. However, at least some Republican lawmakers in state legislatures across the country have urged the high court, via symbolic resolutions, to revisit Obergefell and change the nationwide right to same-sex marriage. In fact, state legislatures in 2024 introduced more than 500 "anti-LBGT" bills, according to the ACLU. Though few of those bills were passed, supporters of same-sex marriage fear that backlash is growing to LGBTQ+ protections — and suggesting it could be an indicator of future opposition — preempting a legal challenge to Obergefell that could, eventually, make its way back to the Supreme Court. Recent Supreme Court decisions have yielded more speculation as to how a conservative-majority court might rule on same-sex marriage, should they decide to take up any cases challenging Obergefell. Justices sent shock waves through the nation in 2022 when they overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion. The decision also sparked renewed fears that the high court could revisit same-sex marriage protections. Justice Clarence Thomas, for his part, explicitly suggested the court should do so in his concurring majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, the case that overturned Roe, writing that the court has "a duty to 'correct the error' established" in Obergefell and other similar cases. "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents … [including] Obergefell," he added. President Donald Trump has declined, in large part, to weigh in publicly on the matter. He has, however, taken action to reverse course on Biden-era actions, including signing an executive order on his first day in office declaring that the U.S. will recognize only "two sexes," male and female, according to a copy of the text. Experts told Fox News Digital they would not be surprised to see Republican-led challenges to Obergefell, with some pointing in particular the Supreme Court's decision earlier this month in United States v. Skrmetti — another pivotal case in which justices on the high court voted 6-3 to uphold a Tennessee law banning certain medical care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, to transgender adolescents in the state. Skrmetti was one of the most closely watched cases of the Supreme Court's term, and advocates for LGBTQ+ organizations such as the ACLU and Lamda Legal, which argued the case in December, have cited fears that the decision could serve as a legal pretext for future cases involving LGBTQ+ protections — including whether sexual orientation qualifies as a "protected class" on par with race or national origin. "I wouldn't be surprised if somebody tried to unwind marriage equality," Ethan J. Leib, a professor at Fordham Law, told Fox News Digital in an interview following the court's decision last week. He noted that the justices who joined John Roberts in the majority opinion — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — "seemed like they did not want to decide whether trans people are a quasi-suspect classification." "My guess is that, if they get another case that's really about transgender adults," they might be willing to see the "technical differences" between them — which he said could carve out room for the justices to distinguish themselves from other conservatives on the court. He also noted Roberts seemingly went to great lengths to determine what counts as a sex classification, which could ultimately make it "much harder" for them to undo Obergefell in the near-term. At the end of the day, Leib said, "I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to unwind marriage equality" and the protections provided under federal law. "I think I'd be surprised if there were five votes for it," he said of securing the majority votes to overturn Obergefell. "But you know, but I could, I could see a way of counting to five."
