Tag: scotus

Supreme Court likely to rule for parental opt-out on LGBTQ books in schools

The Supreme Court on Tuesday was sympathetic to a group of Maryland parents who want to be able to opt their elementary-school-aged children out of instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes. The parents argued that the local school board’s refusal to give them that choice violates their religious beliefs and therefore their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. During nearly two-and-a-half hours of oral argument, a majority of the justices seemed to agree with them, with several justices questioning whether there would even be any harm to simply allowing the parents to excuse their children from the instruction. 

The parents in the case have children in the public schools in Montgomery County, which is in the Washington, D.C., suburbs and is one of the most religiously diverse counties in the United States. The parents include Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, who are Muslim, Melissa and Chris Persak, who are Roman Catholic, and Svitlana and Jeff Roman, who are Ukrainian Orthodox and Roman Catholic. 

In 2022, the county’s school board approved books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for use in its language-arts curriculum. One book describes the story of a girl attending her uncle’s same-sex wedding, for example, while another book, Pride Puppy, tells the story of a puppy that gets lost during a Pride parade. 

The following year, the board announced that it would no longer allow parents to excuse their children from instruction using the LGBTQ-themed storybooks. That prompted the parents in this case to go to federal court, where they argued that the board’s refusal to allow them to opt their children out violated their rights under the First Amendment to freely exercise their religion because it stripped them of their ability to instruct their children on issues of gender and sexuality according to their respective faiths and to control how and when their children are exposed to these issues. 

The lower courts refused to temporarily require the school board to notify the parents when the storybooks would be used and give them a chance to opt their children out of instruction. A federal appeals court reasoned that on the “threadbare” facts before it, the parents had not demonstrated that exposing their children to the storybooks compelled the parents to violate their religion. 

Several justices had questions about what it means for children to be “exposed” to the storybooks. Justice Clarence Thomas asked Eric Baxter – who argued on behalf of the parents – whether the LGBTQ-themed storybooks were merely present in the classroom, or instead actively used as part of the curriculum. 

Keep reading

Trump slams Supreme Court over deportations, says it is ‘not possible’ to try every illegal migrant

President Donald Trump on Monday slammed the United States’ court system, including the Supreme Court, over their response to his efforts to deport illegal migrants, stating it is “not possible” to try every person who is in the U.S. illegally.

The Supreme Court over the weekend temporarily blocked Trump’s latest round of deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Trump’s deportations have come under scrutiny after he removed hundreds of illegal migrants he accused of being gang members without due process. 

The president defended his actions in a post on Truth Social, claiming it would take “200 years” to try every illegal migrant, and slammed the Supreme Court for allegedly not wanting him to “send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela.” 

“I’m doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our Country, but the Courts don’t seem to want me to do that,” Trump wrote in the post. “My team is fantastic, doing an incredible job, however, they are being stymied at every turn by even the U.S. Supreme Court, which I have such great respect for, but which seemingly doesn’t want me to send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela, or any other Country.”

The president praised Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent, stating the justice was right for wanting to “dissolve the pause on deportations.”

Keep reading

Is This Why the Supreme Court Halted the Tren de Aragua Deportation Flights?

Over the weekend, the Supreme Court halted the deportation flights of Tren de Aragua members. It was a 7-2 decision. Only Justices Alito and Thomas dissented. The liberal media will once again overplay their hand here, as they’ve done on the Abrego Garcia case, the MS-13 gang member who got deported back to El Salvador. The Supreme Court never ordered Trump to bring him back.

On this issue, the initial ruling was that the president has the authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport these illegal alien terrorists—members of Tren de Aragua. Still, they had to give ample notice of their deportation and the ability to challenge it in court. For this group in Texas that was about to be shipped out, they claim no options to challenge was afforded to them. The American Civil Liberties Union raced to block these deportations. Ed Whelan at National Review claims one reason the court issued this temporary pause is because they don’t trust the Trump administration.

It’s ridiculous that no due process shenanigans were brought up when Joe Biden was importing criminal illegal aliens, but now they’re being deported and Democrats are crying, we must go through them on a case-by-base basis.

Keep reading

Rap sheets, photos of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members Trump admin tried to deport before SCOTUS ruling

The Trump administration on Saturday released the rap sheets and photos of alleged Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members detained in Texas who the administration is trying to deport.

The suspects of the violent Venezuelan gang were going to be deported using the recently reinstated Alien Enemies Act of 1798 before the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled Saturday morning against deportations under the 18th century law.

In a decision in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, the administration was barred from removing Venezuelans held in Texas’ Bluebonnet Detention Center “until further order of this court.”

Following the ruling, Trump administration lawyers filed an opposition to the request to block the deportations, noting the government provided advance notice to detainees prior to removals, and they had adequate time to file habeas claims.

At a minimum, attorneys argued the court should limit the administrative stay to removals.

SCOTUS previously ruled the president could conduct deportations under the Alien Enemies Act as long as suspected illegal aliens were afforded due process to challenge their removal from the US.

“These are some of the TdA gang members detained in Texas that we are trying to deport,” a senior Trump administration official told Fox News.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Showdown: Justice Alito Issues Scathing Rebuke of Politically Motivated Order Blocking Trump from Deporting Foreign Terrorists Under Alien Enemies Act

In a blistering dissent, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, has called out the reckless and legally dubious move by the Court’s liberal majority to block President Donald Trump’s lawful efforts to deport dangerous foreign nationals under the Alien Enemies Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a late-night, unsigned emergency order blocking President Donald Trump from deporting foreign nationals tied to the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, who are being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Texas under the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act.

According to the order:

“There is before the Court an application on behalf of a putative class of detainees seeking an injunction against their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The matter is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. Upon action by the Fifth Circuit, the Solicitor General is invited to file a response to the application before this Court as soon as possible.

The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a). Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissent from the Court’s order. Statement from Justice Alito to follow.”

The ruling came in response to a hastily filed emergency appeal from the ACLU on behalf of a “putative class” of noncitizen detainees.

According to ACLU, “Plaintiffs learned that the government has begun giving notices of removal to class members, in English only, which do not say how much time individuals have to contest their removal or even how to do so… And officers last night told class members that they will be removed within 24 hours, which expires as early as this afternoon. Upon information and belief, individuals have already been loaded on to buses.”

In a fiery dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Alito took direct aim at the Court’s liberal majority, blasting their eleventh-hour injunction as legally questionable and procedurally incoherent.

Keep reading

Supreme Court blocks, for now, new deportations under 18th century wartime law

The Supreme Court on Saturday blocked, for now, the deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas under an 18th century wartime law.

In a brief order, the court directed the Trump administration not to remove Venezuelans held in the Bluebonnet Detention Center “until further order of this court.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The high court acted in an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union contending that immigration authorities appeared to be moving to restart removals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Supreme Court had said earlier in April that deportations could proceed only if those about to be removed had a chance to argue their case in court and were given “a reasonable time” to contest their pending removals.

“We are deeply relieved that the Court has temporarily blocked the removals. These individuals were in imminent danger of spending the rest of their lives in a brutal Salvadoran prison without ever having had any due process,” ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said in an email.

On Friday, two federal judges refused to step in as lawyers for the men launched a desperate legal campaign to prevent their deportation, even as one judge said the case raised legitimate concerns. Early Saturday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also refused to issue an order protecting the detainees from being deported.

The administration is expected to return to the Supreme Court quickly in an effort to persuade the justices to lift their temporary order.

The ACLU had already sued to block deportations of two Venezuelans held in the Bluebonnet facility and sought an order barring removals of any immigrants in the region under the Alien Enemies Act.

In an emergency filing early Friday, the ACLU warned that immigration authorities were accusing other Venezuelan men held there of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang, which would make them subject to President Donald Trump’s use of the act.

Keep reading

Supreme Court will review Trump’s plan to ban birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would hear oral arguments for President Donald Trump’s plan to end automatic birthright citizenship for individuals born in the U.S. to illegal migrants.

Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship has been halted by three district courts across the U.S., according to The Associated Press.

The Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments on May 15.

Trump’s policy to end birthright citizenship is blocked across the nation.

Birthright citizenship has been allowed due to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which allows automatic citizenship to almost anyone born in the United States.

Some conservative scholars have argued that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment doesn’t grant citizenship to children of immigrants if they are born in the U.S., while liberal scholars argue it does.

Keep reading

Here’s What You Need to Know: Trump Did Not Ignore a Supreme Court Ruling in El Salvador Deportation Case

The media would have you believe that President Trump defied a Supreme Court ruling in the deportation case of Kilmar Abrego García, an MS-13 gang member recently returned to El Salvador.

However, his gang affiliation was established by an immigration court back in 2019. The deportation itself is legal.

The only legal question is whether he should have been sent to El Salvador, given that he had “withholding of removal” status due to a credible fear of gang violence.

The Supreme Court has ordered the administration to facilitate his return from El Salvador—but President Nayib Bukele has refused to hand over one of his own citizens, and the United States has no authority to forcibly retrieve him.

The media has completely misrepresented this case, sparking outrage among liberals who claim the man is a victim. They keep referring to him as “a Maryland man,” implying that he is a U.S. citizen. But he is not.

He was a U.S. resident who happened to be living in Maryland. In reality, he is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States in 2011 at the age of 16.

In most cases, the U.S. deports individuals to their country of citizenship or, if that’s not possible, to the last country they resided in before entering the U.S. which both instances is El Salvador.

Keep reading

Sotomayor’s Specter: No, the Alien Enemies Act Can’t Deport Americans

The ink was barely dry on the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision lifting the stay on deportations under the Alien Enemies Act when the legacy media began breathlessly quoting Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent—in apocalyptic tones. 

Her warning? That under the Court’s logic, an American citizen could be deported—stripped of rights, booted from the country, exiled without due process, never to return.

Cue the headlines. Cue the hashtags. Cue the hair-on-fire social media engagement from people who haven’t read the statute, the ruling, or a single line of immigration law in their lives.

One not-so-insignificant problem here is that her argument is legally incoherent, constitutionally unserious, and factually implausible. More than a few logical fallacies are also greasing this rabbit hole’s tunnel into Abaddon.

But that’s par for the course these days—especially when the audience isn’t fellow jurists but cable news anchors and social media bots.

Let’s be clear: the Alien Enemies Act applies to aliens, not citizens. The text refers explicitly to “subjects of a foreign nation.” It has never—not once in over 225 years of existence—been applied to a U.S. citizen. This isn’t a gray area. It’s not ambiguous. 

It’s a fundamental category error that wouldn’t pass a first-year law school exam.

Even worse, it wasn’t just made—it was practically shouted from the rooftop of the Supreme Court Building, seemingly to inflame and distort rather than interpret and clarify.

And it did precisely that. And that’s the real danger here: not that Americans might suddenly be deported under the Alien Enemies Act, but that the public is being misled about what the law says.

Sotomayor’s dissent also trots out the banner of “due process.” But here again, the analysis collapses. Due process means precisely that—you receive the process you are due. Under the AEA, that process is—and always has been—limited.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rejects Fire Chief’s Religious Freedom Case

Ronald Hittle was fired as Stockton, California’s fire chief after facing misconduct allegations, including an anonymous letter that labeled him a “corrupt, racist, lying, religious fanatic.”

One factor behind his dismissal was his attendance, along with other managers, at a church-sponsored summit for Christian leaders during work hours.

Hittle attempted to sue, arguing that he was terminated because of his Christian faith, but lower courts ruled that his case wasn’t strong enough to proceed to trial. Hittle maintains that the Supreme Court’s standard for evaluating workplace discrimination claims—a test established over 50 years ago—warrants reexamination.

But on Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear his case, sidestepping a potential showdown over workplace religious discrimination at a time when the Court is also scrutinizing issues related to religion in schools and religion-based tax exemptions.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch indicated they would have accepted the appeal. Thomas noted that Hittle presented ample evidence of discriminatory intent, and that his case could have provided clear guidance on when workplace discrimination claims should proceed, the outlet reported.

Hittle was terminated in 2011 after a city investigation found that he lacked effectiveness and judgment, failed to report time off, engaged in favoritism, and attended a religious event with other managers while on the job, among other issues.

The event—a church-sponsored summit for Christian leaders—was something Hittle attended at the city’s direction for leadership training, USA Today noted.

Hittle contends that his attendance at the Global Leadership Summit was the main reason for his dismissal, alleging that the deputy city manager accused him of being part of a “Christian Coalition.”

Keep reading