These Laws Will Save Your Life in 2026

I started with three, but this page quickly enlarged to incorporate more, so hang on as we explore the NUMEROUS court cases that are on the books to protect your rights in 2026,

Almost 100 years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote that "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."   https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/oliver-wendell-holmes-jr/​  And, Holmes even argued that free speech include the right to sedition!
​

Court Case You Can Use if ZIONISTS Attack You

•   Terminello v. City of Chicago (1949)
  

It has been said by Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas that "a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute.  "The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends upon free discussion. This right is therefore one of the the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes. Accordingly, it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a state of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea." Douglas goes on to assert that this kind of speech is PROTECTED unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious, substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance, or UNREST." There is, he writes, "no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by LEGISLATURES, courts or dominant POLITICAL or community groups." What speech was Terminello engaging in? He was exhorting his fellow Christians to avoid Zionist Jews who were, in his words, "destroying America". He said, "Christians must not lock themselves up in the upper room for fear of the Jews." The Chicago court fined him $100; he then appealed to the Illinois appellate court and the Illinois Supreme Court, both of which affirmed the conviction. But the US Supreme Court OVERTURNED IT and Douglas' speech is what stands today in 2026.

Anti-Zionism is generally considered protected free speech under the First Amendment in the United States.  Criticism of Zionism, which is a political ideology supporting the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, falls within the scope of political expression—core to free speech protections. Courts and civil liberties organizations like the ACLU and FIRE have emphasized that opposing Zionism is not inherently antisemitic and does not constitute hate speech simply by nature of its message. The First Amendment protects even offensive or controversial viewpoints, as affirmed in cases like the Skokie Nazi march, where the Supreme Court upheld deeply unpopular speech. Protected speech includes calls for boycotts (BDS), criticism of Israeli policy, and anti-Zionist rhetoric.

Habeas Corpus Laws on the Books Right Now

Since the start of 2020, we have been hearing "trust the plan" and "the military is the only way" from those that support Donald J. Trump. @startthestorm has talked weekly for five years about military tribunals held in secret with Michael Jaco and Juan O'Savin leading the charge, along with GitmoTV plus Benjamin Fulford on Restored Republic along with all of Judy Byington's "drops." If this is going on, it's patently illegal and the following court cases prove that fact. Civilians are tried in civilian court; military personal are tried in military tribunals and never the two shall meet. Who says so? THE SUPREME COURT. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=facpub​

• Rasul v. Bush (2004)

Habeas corpus is a legal principle that translates from Latin to "you should have the body," requiring a judge to have a detained individual physically present to assess the legality of their confinement. It is a safeguard against unlawful detention, ensuring that the government must justify why a person is being held. The burden lies on the custodian to prove the detention is lawful, and if they fail, the individual must be released. This writ, often referred to as the "Great Writ," is a fundamental protection of individual liberty in both common law and constitutional systems.

Ex parte Milligan is a landmark Supreme Court decision from 1866 that established the principle that civilians cannot be tried in military courts when civilian courts are available, even during wartime. 

In the USA, treason is exclusively tried in civilian courts, as defined by the Constitution, which requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act. While military tribunals can handle severe offenses, and acts of treason could potentially be addressed under UCMJ articles like "mutiny" or "sedition," the constitutional definition and strict evidence requirements mean treason is a civilian matter. CIVILIAN COURTS must be OPEN and available for treason cases.

No, the War Powers Act does not supersede the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution and can strike down laws it deems unconstitutional and the President cannot suspend the authority of the Supreme Court without being deemed a TRAITOR.

Rasul was held at GITMO, not as an "enemy combatant", or a member of any fighting force violated the Fifth Amendment DUE PROCESS rights. Any prisoner has the right to challenge his dention according this case. In the lease agreement of Cuba, the USA can operate a base as long as Cuba retains sovereignty. Our military used that fact to claim GITMO was outside of the USA and outside of our rule of law, which did not fly.

Rasul described being captured by the Northern Alliance, kicked, beaten, starved, shackled, hooded, stripped naked, threatened with dogs, forced to stay awake for days, forbidden to speak, forbidden to pray, had guns held to his head, been forced into stress positions past the point of permanent injury, being locked in a cage and interrogated for months until he finally lie and told the story the military expected of him. (Many of us saw pictures of the torture at GITMO and Abu Grahib, with bags on their head, forced into pyramid poses for the soldiers to capture...with medical staff nearby watching with clipboards as they were waterboarded until unconscious, then brought back to life, time and time again.) https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/11/abu-zubaydah-drawings-guantanamo-bay-us-torture-policy

By law now, this cannot occur any longer. Congress made it clear habeas corpus extends to foreign nationals. Doing such is unConstitutional. It cannot be "suspended" for any reason, at any time.

• The Hamadi Case (2004)

Hamadi was born in Louisiana, but was taken to GITMO during the Afghanistan war, and his citizenship rights were denied. Habeas corpus litigation was begun that led all the way up to the Supreme Court. The court's decision was clear: "A state of war is not a BLANK CHECK for the President when it comes to the rights of the nations citizens." In substance, this meant that while the government could hold US citizens in military custody, the COURT would scrutinize the procedures used to determine where someone was in fact an enemy combatant. The PRESIDENT's say-so was not sufficient. A person the government seeks to designate as such has to "receive notice of the FACTUAL BASIS for his classification, and a fair opportunity to REBUT those assertions before a NEUTRAL decisionmaker."

• The Hamdan Case, The Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act

The Court ruled that military commissions other than ordinary court-martials of servicemen are permissible ONLY IF warranted by military exigency or and Act of Congress. No act of Congress authorized the military commissions. The Geneva Conventions still held firm for treatment of prisoners. Justice Kennedy further stated that imprisoning Hamdan on the grounds of "conpiracy" without any evidence of a direct overt act was illlegal. He had not committed a war crime. The military commissions were also found to be "defective" by Kennedy, "for trying to conduct trials OUTSIDE of the presence of the accused."
​
ICE cannot legally arrest or deport U.S. citizens.  Its enforcement authority is limited to individuals believed to be in the country illegally. U.S. citizens are protected from civil immigration detention under federal law. Despite this, ICE has wrongfully detained U.S. citizens in practice due to errors such as misidentification, outdated government records, or unclear citizenship documentation.  Reports, including investigations by ProPublica, have documented over 170 cases of U.S. citizens being detained by ICE.

Privacy of E-Mail

• United States v. Warshak (2010)
  

United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) is a criminal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet service provider (ISP) to turn over his emails without first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause. However, constitutional violation notwithstanding, the evidence obtained with these emails was admissible at trial because the government agents relied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The court further declared that the SCA is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows the government to obtain emails without a warrant.

This case is notable because it is the first case from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to explicitly hold that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of e-mails stored on third party servers and that the content of these emails is subject to Fourth Amendment protection.

Right to Autonomy in Medical Decisions

Four court cases in the USA alone prove the 2020 vaxx mandate was illegal — Mohr v Williams, Pratt v Davis, Rolater v Strain, and Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital— they were established and solidified the principle of patient autonomy that ultimately formed the basis for informed consent. But Congress and two presidents overrode laws on the books against trying experimental vaccines on an unwitting and unwilling public.
​

• Mohr v Williams

In January 1908, Mary Schloendorff, also known as Mary Gamble—an elocutionist from San Francisco—was admitted to New York Hospital to evaluate and treat a stomach disorder. Some weeks into her stay at the hospital, the house physician diagnosed a fibroid tumor. The visiting physician recommended surgery, which Schloendorff adamantly declined. She consented to an examination under ether anesthesia. During the procedure, the doctors performed surgery to remove the tumor. Afterwards, Schloendorff developed gangrene in the left arm, ultimately leading to the amputation of some fingers. Schloendorff blamed the surgery, and filed suit. The Court found that the operation to which the plaintiff did not consent constituted medical battery. "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages. This is true except in cases of emergency where the patient is unconscious and where it is necessary to operate before consent can be obtained."

• Pratt v Davis

In the case of Pratt v Davis, a 1905 Illinois appellate decision, the plaintiff, Mrs Parmelia J. Davis, had filed suit against her surgeon for battery after he performed a hysterectomy without her consent. The physician had obtained consent for an earlier operation but admitted to failing to obtain consent for the second procedure and not disclosing the fact that he intended to perform a hysterectomy to treat Mrs Davis's epileptic seizures. The surgeon, Dr Edwin H. Pratt, acknowledged intentionally misleading the plaintiff as to the purpose of the operation, claiming that because Mrs Davis suffered from epilepsy, she was not competent to give her consent or to deliberate intelligently about her situation. In its decision in favor of Mrs Davis, the appellate court stated,"…under a free government at least, the citizen's first and greatest right, which underlies all others—the fight to the inviolability of his person, in other words, his right to himself is the subject of universal acquiescence, and this right necessarily forbids a physician or surgeon, however skillful or eminent, who has been asked to examine, diagnose, advise and prescribe (which are at least the necessary first steps in treatment and care) to violate without permission the bodily integrity of his patient."

• Rolater v Strain

 In Rolater, the plaintiff sued her surgeon for removing a bone from her foot during an operation that was ostensibly to incise and drain an infection. While the surgeon had obtained consent to perform the procedure to drain an infection, the patient had expressly stated the wish that the surgeon not remove the bones of the foot during surgery, so that the removal constituted a trespass to her person and resulted in the charges of assault and battery.

• Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital

The 1914 case of Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital was the final landmark case that legally established the principle of patient autonomy. The plaintiff, Mary Schloendorff, explicitly stated her wish not to undergo surgery yet was subjected to hysterectomy to remove a fibroid tumor without her consent. In the ruling, Judge Benjamin Cardozo wrote, “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.”
​​

Anti-SLAPP lawsuits
​by Whistleblowers

Anti-Slapp lawsuits prevent people from intimidating journalists who are simply trying to exercise their First Amendment rights to expose corruption. News organizations and individual journalists can use anti-slapp statutes to protect themselves from financial threat by those exposed in an investigative story.  The journalist simply makes a motion to dismiss, citing anti-slapp laws, stating the matter was of public concern and exposure was warranted.

In many states anti-Slapp laws were expanded to project whistleblower.Check to see if yours is one of them at Reporters Committee For Freedom of Press. I was pleasantly surprised to find my state had passed TWO new laws since 2019, strengthening Anti-SLAPP protections:
https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/  here: https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/