Julie Chrisley’s surprise release from prison drew attention—not just for the pardon that set her free, but for her dramatically different look.
Spotted in Nashville after receiving a last-minute pardon from Donald Trump, the reality star appeared with natural hair, a softer smile,
and a toned-down style. Julie had been serving time for fraud before Trump’s full pardon. Online reactions were mixed: some were shocked
by her appearance, others praised the authenticity. A photo shared by daughter Savannah showed Julie and Todd Chrisley reunited, marking
the end of their prison time. Trump’s pardon reignited debate about celebrity justice. Supporters called it a fair second chance; critics called it political favoritism. Savannah, emotional and grateful, promised continued support for Trump and said her parents now have a chance to start over.
Delivers Major Win for Presidential Tariff Power
A complex legal battle over presidential trade powers has taken a significant turn as a federal judge dismissed California’s lawsuit challenging recent tariff implementations. The ruling has set the stage for appeals court proceedings that could have far-reaching implications for executive authority and state-federal relations in trade policy.
The decision represents the latest development in ongoing legal challenges to presidential use of emergency economic powers, highlighting tensions between different levels of government and branches of the federal system.
California’s lawsuit, filed in April by Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, represented a direct challenge to presidential authority in implementing trade policies through emergency powers. The state argued that recent tariff implementations exceeded constitutional boundaries and violated principles of separation of powers.
The legal challenge centered on tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a federal statute that grants the president broad authority to regulate international commerce during declared national emergencies. California contended that the use of this authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval violated constitutional principles governing the separation of powers.