Tag: scotus

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

Supreme Court Shuts Down Activist Judge, Lets Trump Cut $250 Million In DEI Training For Teachers

The Supreme Court on Friday overruled an activist judge in Boston, allowing the Trump administration to slash $250 million for more than 100 teacher training grants for DEI and other woke programs.

In a 5-4 decision nine days after the request, the Supremes sided with the Trump administration’s emergency request to stay the court order by judge Myong J. Joun of the federal District of Massachusetts – who had ordered the Trump administration to “immediately restore” the “pre-existing status quo prior to the termination.”

According to the ruling – which is likely to narrow the ability of district courts to halt agency actions involving grant function, Joun lacked authority to order the Trump admin to restore the funding.

In his ruling, Myong sided with California and eight other blue states that argued that the cuts were likely driven by efforts by the Trump administration to gut DEI programs (duh).

Keep reading

RESIGN: Justice Roberts’ secret friendship with Norm Eisen has been revealed…

According to Norm Eisen—the man who practically wrote the Deep State’s playbook on color revolutions, all things anti-Trump, and lawfare in the US—he and Chief Justice John Roberts are not only good pals, but they even spent a week together in the Czech Republic. According to Norm, the two BFFs were there working on “American rule of law” issues.

Hmm…

Norm was so proud of this that he actually bragged about the trip and made it very clear that Roberts isn’t corrupt—he’s just a “close friend” who happened to fly overseas and stay at Eisen’s posh 150-room palace to collaborate on transatlantic political projects.

Really…

And no, that’s not just weird; it’s a massive conflict of interest and could also explain a lot.

As it stands now, Justice Roberts has no business presiding over any of the cases that Eisen and his army of lawfare activists are funneling through the courts, and we all know Norm is tied to so many of these weaponized cases. He should have been recusing himself from the get-go—and probably outright resigning—for the integrity of the court.

Keep reading

Recycling Power: Rethinking Nuclear Waste

The oral arguments before the Supreme Court earlier this month is a reminder that our nation has a 66-year-old nuclear energy problem – and there is a ready and available solution in recycling used nuclear fuel. 

The Problem

Nuclear energy produces nearly 20% of our electricity. The fuel used to run our reactor fleet loses its intensity over time. That used, but not yet depleted, fuel is called Used Nuclear Fuel (“UNF”). There are 90,000 metric tons of UNF currently stored at reactor sites across 39 states in America, including approximately 4,000 metric tons in my home State of Texas.

In 1982, the federal government was made responsible by an act of Congress for removal and disposal of UNF from reactor sites, and has collected over $20 billion from reactor owners to pay for disposal of UNF. To date, the government has not removed any significant quantity of UNF from any site anywhere in America, including Texas, nor is there a current plan to do so.

As Secretary of Energy under President Trump’s first term, it became clear that any plan to move tonnage of UNF required some practical consent of the receiving state and local community, even if legal consent was not required by the 1982 Act.  

The consequence of not solving this problem results in a financial loss to America and leaves the UNF at the numerous reactor sites across America. There have been private efforts to establish UNF interim storage facilities in West Texas and New Mexico. Though there has been some local acceptance of an interim storage facility in Texas or New Mexico, there has also been significant opposition. Resistance to those private interim storage proposals led to the NRC v. Texas case currently before the Supreme Court.

Keep reading

‘Blesses the Government’s overreach’: Clarence Thomas swipes at fellow justices over ‘series of errors’ in ‘ghost gun’ regulations ruling, and includes his own evidence

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Wednesday to uphold a federal agency’s rule regulating so-called “ghost guns,” with the conservatives breaking ranks as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from a majority opinion penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“Ghost guns” and “weapons”

The case, Bondi v. Vanderstok, stems from a 2022 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulatory revision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) that defines firearm, firearm frame, and receiver. The GCA authorizes the ATF to regulate “any weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”

That revision followed a 2021 statement from Merrick Garland in which the then-attorney general said: “Criminals and others barred from owning a gun should not be able to exploit a loophole to evade background checks and to escape detection by law enforcement.”

Keep reading

The case against Justice Roberts: Is he owned by the CIA?

By now, we all know that Justice Roberts and Justice Coney-Barrett aren’t exactly batting for the home team.

We’ve been sounding the alarm on the Amy Coney Barrett disaster from day one—even urging President Trump to steer clear. We knew she wasn’t the right pick for a moment this big, and sadly, we were right.

Revolver:

Amy Coney Barrett strikes again—alongside Justice Roberts. However, by now, Roberts’ betrayals have become pretty much predictable, but many had high hopes for Barrett, given her history as a clerk for Justice Scalia, one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices of our time. In fact, she was once hailed as “Scalia’s heir.”

Sadly, that claim couldn’t be further from the truth.

In what many conservatives are calling an outright slap in the face, Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts dealt a blow to President Trump and the US Constitution. They got political, sided with the progressives, and ruled against Trump in the Trump v. New York case.

Thanks to Roberts and Coney Barrett, Trump was dragged through the lawfare circus in New York City and sentenced by deep state lapdog Judge Merchan.

[…]

As we’ve said before, Roberts is practically a liberal masquerading in a black robe. Many believe there’s something hanging over him, which might explain why he’s always handing the left their key victories. But Amy Coney Barrett was supposed to be different—a powerhouse for the conservative movement, a beacon of hope. Meh. Instead, she’s turned out to be another weak-kneed RINO. It’s like having a “Susan Collins” type on the Supreme Court bench.

A much better choice would’ve been Judge Bridget Shelton Bade. The Revolver piece goes on:

The truth is, here at Revolver, we always had our doubts about Amy Coney Barrett. We never believed she’d truly be the “heir” to Justice Scalia. In fact, we tried to sound the alarm four long years ago. In a piece urging President Trump to nominate Judge Bade over Coney Barrett, we acknowledged Amy’s skills and her conservative roots. But even then, we knew she wasn’t the “shock and awe” powerhouse that this pivotal moment in history needed.

Amy had the credentials, sure, but she lacked the passion our side needed to drive the real change we needed. We saw it four years ago, and now, we’re watching it play out in real time.

Revolver:

Fox News isn’t even including Judge Bridget Shelton Bade’s photograph in their frequent on-air lineups of the supposed frontrunners to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That’s a terrible oversight, because Judge Bade is not only in the running and rapidly amassing support, she is the best choice President Trump could make.

This pick is about more than simply getting one of the many strong options from President Trump’s shortlist on the Court. There is, notably, a powerful current of conservative enthusiasm behind Judge Amy Coney Barrett. As we’ve written here at Revolver, Judge Barrett is an extraordinary woman and exemplary conservative jurist. She would make a great Supreme Court Justice, but she is simply not the ideal nominee for this political moment. Amy Coney Barrett may appear to promise the shock we all know the system deserves, but her nomination risks reframing the precarious Trump reelection effort from a winning battle over law and order, immigration, and left-wing political violence to a messy and poorly timed slog through well-worn battles that would be better and more effectively fought after Trump wins re-election.

Keep reading