The Supreme Court paused a judge's order commanding the Trump administration to bring an alleged MS-13 gang member back to the United States. 

Chief Justice John Roberts lifted the midnight deadline from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, an Obama appointee, hours after the Justice Department filed an emergency appeal.

The Trump administration has conceded that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who entered the U.S. illegally, was deported to his native El Salvador in error.

But officials maintain that he is an MS-13 gang member, and they say Judge Xinis has no authority to compel his return.

Deportation battle

Abrego Garcia has widely been depicted in the media as an innocent father victimized by an arbitrary deportation. In 2019, an immigration judge blocked Abrego Garcia's deportation to El Salvador over his fear of persecution by the 18th Street gang, which is the rival of MS-13.

He is being held in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center, a famous prison built by the country's government in its crackdown on gangs like MS-13.

The Trump administration has said that it is impossible to effectuate his return now that he is being held in a foreign country, and they have blasted Xinis' edict as an unconstitutional attempt by the judiciary to interfere with foreign affairs.

"The district court’s injunction—which requires Abrego Garcia’s release from the custody of a foreign sovereign and return to the United States by midnight on Monday—is patently unlawful,” Solicitor General D.  John Sauer wrote.

Trump vindicated

The Supreme Court's intervention came just hours before the midnight deadline, on the same day that an appeals court upheld Xinis' order.

The administration has been locked in a multi-front legal battle against judges who, Trump says, are improperly stepping on the powers of the presidency.

Xinis' order is similar to the infamous ruling from a different Obama appointee, James Boasberg, ordering Trump to turn back deportation flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members.

The Supreme Court chastened Boasberg on Monday by upholding Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime law, to facilitate rapid deportations.

The liberal justices, joined by conservative Amy Coney Barrett, dissented.

"The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A federal judge on Tuesday took the battle over the Gulf of America to a new level, ordering the White House to restore Associated Press access to the Oval Office and other spaces after President Donald Trump banned the news agency's reporters for their continued use of the Gulf of Mexico name instead of its new moniker, the Gulf of America.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ordered access for the AP into the Oval Office, Air Force One and other limited spaces when available to other members of the media pool.

"Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists – be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere – it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints," McFadden wrote.

"The Constitution requires no less."

However, the judge made it clear that AP is not getting "permanent access."

"The Court does not order the government to grant the AP permanent access to the Oval Office, the East Room or any other media event," he wrote.

"It does not bestow special treatment upon the AP. Indeed, the AP is not necessarily entitled to the 'first in line every time' permanent press pool access it enjoyed under the (White House Correspondents Association). But it cannot be treated worse than its peer wire service either."

"This injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events," McFadden added.

"It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces.

"It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views."

AP spokeswoman Lauren Easton responded to the ruling, saying: "We are gratified by the court's decision."

"Today's ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution."

The White House has not yet responded to the decision.

"For anyone who thinks the Associated Press' lawsuit against President Trump's White House is about the name of a body of water, think bigger," Julie Pace, the AP's executive editor, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

"It's really about whether the government can control what you say."

Trump has previously called the AP a group of "radical left lunatics" and said that "we're going to keep them out until such time as they agree it's the Gulf of America."

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to New York's concealed carry ban for certain "sensitive locations," Breitbart reported. Monday's decision comes on the heels of another favorable ruling for gun control advocates last month.

The ban was enacted following the landmark 2022 Bruen decision that broadened Second Amendment protections for New Yorkers. The Concealed Carry Improvement Act outlaws guns in places like parks, entertainment establishments, churches, health care facilities, and others.

New York Attorney General Letitia James touted the ruling in a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday. "We will always stand up for commonsense gun safety laws that protect New Yorkers and keep our communities safe," she wrote.

The original law

The law was another route for the deep-blue states to restrict Second Amendment rights. With the Bruen decision, there was a danger that people in the Empire State could exercise their Constitutional rights, which made politicians uncomfortable.

According to the Associated Press, the law restricted not only where gun owners could carry weapons but also required proof that they were of "good moral character" to have a gun. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law with certain provisions struck down.

Gun rights advocates are rightly outraged that any part of the law was upheld. "While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision not to take this case, we will never stop fighting to defend the rights of gun owners across the country," said Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America senior vice president.

At least the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case means the parts struck down are out for good, including requiring permission to carry on private property from the owner. "At least as to private property open to the public (the subject of this motion), New York's restriction is unconstitutional," U.S. District Court John Sinatra, Jr., a Trump appointee, wrote, according to Fox News.

"Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the new enactment is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations. New York fails that test here," Sinatra wrote at the time.

Troubling trend

The latest decision from the Supreme Court is perhaps part of a troubling trend. As The Hill reported, the high court recently upheld a law outlawing so-called "ghost guns."

In a 7-2 decision on March 26, the high court shockingly decided that these do-it-yourself gun kits would remain banned. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives enacted the regulation during President Joe Biden's administration.

"Future cases may present other and more difficult questions about ATF’s regulations. But we take cases as they come and today resolve only the question posed to us," Justice Neil Gorsuch said in his majority opinion.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, explaining they would have struck down the regulation entirely. "Congress could have authorized ATF to regulate any part of a firearm or any object readily convertible into one. But, it did not. I would adhere to the words Congress enacted," Thomas said in his dissenting opinion.

The court is heavily conservative, but these recent decisions are leaning towards gun control, typically favored by the leftists. At least parts of New York's law remain struck down by the lower court's decision.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

James Boasberg, the federal judge in Washington who repeatedly has disrupted President Donald Trump's efforts to secure and protect America with his judicial activism, could face impeachment for his actions.

But that's a long and cumbersome process.

So U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., has introduced a resolution simply to remove him from office for refusing to abide by the Constitution's requirement that judges can remain in office during their "good behavior."

"We cannot stand by while activist judges who incorrectly believe they have more authority than the duly-elected president of the United States, impose their own political agenda on the American people," Biggs explained in a statement.

"I have cosponsored resolutions to impeach Judge Boasberg. His removal from office via impeachment, however, will undoubtedly be blocked by Democrats in the Senate, since it requires a two-thirds majority. My resolution, on the other hand, asserts, pursuant to Article III, Section 1, that rogue judges may be removed the same way we confirm them—by a simple majority," he said.

"Judge Boasberg abused his judicial authority for political gain and is not in compliance with the constitutional Good Behavior Clause. He must not be permitted to remain in his position. Congress has a duty to fulfill the promises we've made to the American people, including defending the President's authority to enforce our laws."

Boasberg now is the chief of the federal district court in Washington, the entry-level court for the federal judiciary. The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, but all other federal courts are set up by Congress.

The Constitution provides that judges may hold their offices only during good behavior, a separate requirement from those imposed by the authority of Congress to impeach a judge for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The resolution details how Boasberg knowingly and unjustly interfered with President Trump's execution of foreign policy and targeted the president for partisan purposes and political gain.

That, the resolution charges, subjects him to the process of removal from office for failing to abide by good behavior.

A report at the Gateway Pundit explains the resolution states that Boasberg is in "breach of constitutional order, particularly his unlawful meddling in President Trump's lawful directive to deport members of Venezuela's notorious Tren de Aragua gang under the Alien Enemies Act."

Trump has invoked that federal law to remove illegal alien criminals from America.

When that happened, Boasberg stepped in to try to block those deportations, allegedly "undermining a sitting president's constitutional authority to defend America from foreign enemies," the report said. He even ordered that the White House turn around deportation jets in flight and return the criminal aliens to America, without even knowing whether they would have had fuel enough to make it back.

The plan also cites Boasberdgs prior suspect behavior as a FISA court judge, suggesting "he misused his discretion and failed to disclose payments from outside sources," the report explained.

The report called the move "a direct shot across the bow at activist judges who think they can trample the will of the American people and the duly elected president, Donald Trump."

President Donald Trump snagged a massive Supreme Court victory this week after taking several losses at the hands of federal judges in recent months.

According to Breitbart, the high court "allowed the Trump administration to freeze roughly $65 million in teacher training grants that reportedly promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies."

The move came as one of the major cost-cutting measures led by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The Supreme Court's decision "lifts a lower order that ordered" the Department of Education to resume the grants across eight different states.

What's going on?

The cost-cutting measure carried out Trump's mission to essentially end every trace of DEI-related funding by the American taxpayer, but like many other cost-cutting measures, met immediate legal resistance.

The high court explained its reasoning for the decision in a statement.

"Respondents have represented in this litigation that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running,” the court wrote in its ruling. “So, if respondents ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum."

The Hill noted that "the decision is not a final ruling in the case, and the dispute could ultimately return to the Supreme Court."

Breitbart added:

Breitbart News’s Katherine Hamilton reported in February that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, “slashed 29” DEI teacher training grants totalling $101 million.

Social media reacts

Users across social media weighed in on the high court's backing of Trump's ability to slash the programs, and many questioned why it was only a 5--4 decision.

"5-4 is way too freaking close man. Huge win, but still. That needs to be like 7-2," one X user wrote.

Another X user wrote, "1 down, 50 million more judges orders to remove to go."

Hopefully, Trump's luck with the Supreme Court will continue as he battles Democrat-appointed federal judges across the country who are putting political activism ahead of the law.

Conservative attorney Harmeet Dhillon was confirmed as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division on Thursday, Daily Wire reported. Dhillon will fill the Department of Justice role after receiving a 52-45 Senate vote.

Dhillion has made a name for herself by representing conservatives and their causes, including representing The Daily Wire against then-President Joe Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The company successfully beat back the mandate in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

She has fought for religious liberty and free speech and is a pro-life advocate. Dhillon also defended President Donald Trump, who nominated her to the position, against a coordinated effort to throw him off the Colorado ballot ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Mutual Admiration

As Fox News reported, Trump nominated Dhillon in December. He posted to Truth Social that she had "stood up consistently to protect our cherished Civil Liberties, including taking on Big Tech for censoring our Free Speech, representing Christians who were prevented from praying together during COVID and suing corporations who use woke policies to discriminate against their workers," he wrote.

"Harmeet is one of the top Election lawyers in the Country, fighting to ensure that all, and ONLY, legal votes are counted. She is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the University of Virginia Law School and clerked in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals," Trump went on.

"Harmeet is a respected member of the Sikh religious community. In her new role at the DOJ, Harmeet will be a tireless defender of our Constitutional Rights, and will enforce our Civil Rights and Election Laws FAIRLY and FIRMLY. Congratulations, Harmeet!" Trump said.

Dhillon was unwavering in her support for Trump and said she was "honored" to receive his nod. "It has been my dream to be able to serve our great country, and I am so excited to be part of an incredible team of lawyers led by [Attorney General Pam Bondi]," she said at the time in a post to X, formerly Twitter.

"I cannot wait to get to work! I would not be here today without my amazing mother and brother’s support, and my beloved father Tejpal and husband Sarv, who did not live to see this day. I hope I will honor their memories with God’s grace," she added.

The Opposition

Because Dhillon has been so strong in her conservative values, the left is predictably apoplectic about her confirmation. However, Dhillon also received pushback from one lone Republican after Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against her confirmation.

Trump said Murkowski is suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome," a term widely used on leftists who are disproportionately angry at everything Trump does. However, Murkowski and other establishment Republicans are equally triggered by Trump.

Notably, Breitbart revealed that Murkowski recently praised Democrat Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) after his marathon diatribe against Trump. In his own demonstration of TDS, Booker spent more than 25 hours this week trashing Trump from the Senate floor as a political stunt.

"Whether you agree with him or not, the past 24+ hours was what most people think a filibuster actually looks like. Congratulations to @SenBooker for his historic feat (while staying on his feet!)" Murkowski gushed.

Regardless of what her detractors say, Dhillon is the best person for the job and will expertly represent conservatives and the Trump agenda. Trump and his supporters have much to cheer about in this confirmation, which marks another big win.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that nearly 65,000 ballots from the state Supreme Court race can be challenged, The Guardian reported. The 2-1 decision came as part of a months-long battle over the results.

In November's election, Republican appellate judge Jefferson Griffin lost to Democrat Allison Riggs by just 734 votes. Griffin now sits on the Court of Appeals, where three of his colleagues ruled that his challenge could proceed.

"To permit unlawful votes to be counted along with lawful ballots in contested elections effectively ‘disenfranchises’ those voters who cast legal ballots, at least where the counting of unlawful votes determines an election’s outcome," the majority opinion said. The race remains undecided.

Questionable Ballots

Griffin claims that several ballots counted should not have been due to ineligibility. The 60,000 that are to be challenged come from voters who failed to provide the last four digits of their social security number or North Carolina driver's license number.

In addition, 5,500 ballots were cast by people living abroad and did not include the required ID, including the children of military members who never lived in the state. Despite these concerns, the state board of elections refused to hear Griffin's case.

However, Friday's decision now demands a review of the ballots, which Democratic Judge Toby Hampson said was "directly counter to law" in his dissenting opinion. "The diligent actions these voters undertook to exercise their sacred fundamental right to vote was, indeed, the same as every other similarly situated voter exercising their voting right in the very same election," Hampson wrote.

"Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the constitution," he added. Hampson also believes it's impractical to have voters respond to eligibility request notices after the fact.

"The proposition that a significant portion of these 61,682 voters will receive notice and timely take curative measures is a fiction that does not disguise the act of mass disenfranchisement the majority’s decision represents," Hampson wrote. Despite requiring the verification points since 2004, the state didn't change its form until 2023 to include them.

Unprecedented Situation

According to the New York Times, the decision to potentially toss votes after the fact is unprecedented. Court challenges almost without fail have erred on the side of upholding election results.

Benjamin Ginsberg, an attorney for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and its aftermath, noted the significance of this decision. "By changing the rules of the game after it’s been played to potentially disenfranchise as many as 60,000 voters, this court has gone where no court has gone before," Ginsberg said.

"Until this decision, courts facing challenges to ballots cast in compliance with past practice and election administrators’ instructions had uniformly sided with the voters," he added. This issue in North Carolina could go to the U.S. Supreme Court for resolution.

"If the State Supreme Court affirms the lower court’s decision, that would present a federal constitutional question for consideration by the Supreme Court of the United States," former federal appeals judge J. Michael Luttig, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, said. It's unclear how the conservative-leaning court would rule in that case.

Voter eligibility is a valid concern, especially in races that come down to just a few hundred votes. However, the practicality of overturning election results and dragging out legal battles is questionable and could have a damaging impact on voter confidence.

The United States Supreme Court has made waves by deciding in favor of the Trump administration's initiative to halt over $65 million in funds allocated for teacher training programs focused on diversity and inclusion, the New York Post reported.

The court's narrow 5-4 decision was significant as it marked the Trump administration's first Supreme Court triumph during his second term.

This pivotal decision concluded an ongoing legal battle involving the administration's initiative to cease taxpayer-backed programs now the focus of ongoing debates. Chief Justice John Roberts crossed traditional partisan lines to vote alongside the court's three liberal members, reflecting the deeply contentious nature of this decision.

The controversy began as a result of President Trump's efforts to end federal financing for initiatives that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion within teacher-training schemes. Several states rallied against the administration's move to slash these funds, with California spearheading the legal challenge. A federal court in Massachusetts initially blocked the administration's plan, granting temporary relief.

Supreme Court Overturns Lower Court Order

Following the Massachusetts court's order, the case progressed through various judicial levels. The Trump administration faced setbacks, losing two emergency appeals at the Supreme Court before the present ruling. Before the Supreme Court's decisive vote, the Boston federal appeals court also rejected the administration's request, aligning with the earlier Massachusetts decision.

Despite these earlier judicial roadblocks, the Supreme Court's recent majority opinion noted that the administration would struggle to recuperate any fund amounts if the case concluded in its favor. Meanwhile, the states challenging this move once affirmed in this litigation, demonstrated sufficient financial resources to maintain their programs temporarily.

Justice Elena Kagan's dissent stressed her belief that the Trump administration poorly articulated its stance regarding the legitimacy of terminating these substantial education grants.

Her opposition underscored a critical perspective on the administration’s legal foundations. Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson found it "beyond puzzling" for the majority to view the case as a situation demanding immediate judicial intervention.

Implications for Diversity Programs

The Supreme Court's ruling effectively set aside the Massachusetts court's temporary restraining order, handing President Trump a significant yet tightly-contested legal victory. This move stirred further debates over the broader implications of restricting such diversity-oriented initiatives, as proponents and critics grapple with the ruling's long-term effects on educational equity.

States involved in contesting the federal decision received assurance through judicial processes that any inappropriately withheld funds could be sought upon a favorable outcome through appropriate legal channels. Trump administration's arguments highlighted that the states would not face irreparable damage during the action's continuation.

Legal experts predict this decisive ruling will invite further dialogue regarding federal government roles in education policy and the funding attached to diversity and inclusion initiatives. As litigation continues, observers anticipate that future rulings may address unresolved questions about the program's cessation.

Conclusion of This Chapter

While the present judicial determination has stopped the diversity fund's flow temporarily, its impact on existing educational programs remains an open question.

Both foes and fans await with bated breath to hear further developments and possible conclusions in a case that reverberates beyond financial implications.

This Supreme Court decision, representing a key moment in President Trump's second term, underscores the complexities inherent in balancing federal administration actions with state autonomy and educational equity.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A judge has delivered to major blow to a hockey stick climate scientist who sued National Review and lost.

The court order in the case involving Michael Mann and the publication refused to delay the payment of $530,000 due National Review for its legal costs in fighting Mann's 10-year-old lawsuit.

A report from Daily Caller News Foundation said it was the Superior Court of the District of Columbia that had ruled some weeks ago that Mann owed National Review for the outlet's legal fees in the case.

Mann had requested the payment be delayed, which the court refused to authorize.

The report said that means "he will likely have to pony up cash to an outlet he once described in emails as a 'threat to our children.'"

He had come up with a graph that looked like a hockey stick, a relatively stable, slightly ascending line, that suddenly exploded to new heights. He said this was the danger from climate change.

Canadian commentator Mark Steyn criticized Mann's ideas, and then National Review's Rich Lowry wrote a post following up on Steyn's criticisms.

Mann sued both, along with, Rand Simberg, a former adjunct for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Mann's case against Steyn and Simberg prevailed initially, but the court ordered Mann's payment to National Review.

Mann told the court that the order was "mean-spirited."

It was reported earlier the court found Mann, of the University of Pennsylvania, and his lawyers presented misleading information to the jury.

Mann and his lawyers "each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information," the judge said.

"The Court determines that the appropriate sanction is to award each Defendant the approximate expenses they incurred in responding to Dr. Mann's bad faith trial misconduct, starting with Mr. Fontaine's redirect examination," the filing states, referencing Mann attorney Peter Fontaine. "The Court arrives at such a sanction because the misconduct of Dr. Mann and his counsel (1) was extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent; (2) subjected a jury not only to false evidence and grievous misrepresentations about a crucial part of Dr. Mann's case but also to additional trial proceedings for correcting the record and the jury's impressions thereof that otherwise likely would have been unnecessary; (3) further complicated a trial already rife with convoluted and difficult legal and factual issues; and (4) burdened Defendants and the Court with the time-and resource-intensive task of ascertaining the true extent of the misconduct and determining appropriate remedial measures for the same, all without any meaningful acknowledgment of the nature of the misconduct by Dr. Mann or his attorneys."

Originally, Simberg was ordered to pay Mann $1,001 in compensatory and punitive damages, while Steyn was told to pay $1,000,001.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Democrats thought they had won the election for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court.

True, it was by only 734 votes, but a victory is a victory at the ballot box.

Then a ruling came down that ordered some 65,000 voters to prove their eligibility, or have their ballots removed from the total.

A report at the Gateway Pundit explains the situation now is "spiraling into electoral chaos."

The Democrat who purportedly won was Allison Riggs. Conservative challenger was Jefferson Griffin.

"In a stunning decision filed Thursday, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that approximately 65,000 ballots—cast by voters with incomplete registration information, missing photo identification, or submitted by individuals who have never lived in North Carolina—may be invalid under state and federal election law," the report said.

The 2-1 decision was from Judges John Tyson and Fred Gore, both Republicans. Democrat Judge Tobias Hampson disagreed, expressing that the validation wasn't needed.

The report said the court has ordered election officials from 100 counties to tell voters they have 15 business days to prove their eligibility to vote.

Or have their ballots discounted.

It is possible that the result of the election could now come out differently.

The original results had Riggs the winner, collecting 2,770,412 votes to Griffin's 2,769,678

As with many recent elections, the GOP candidate was leading when all of a sudden ballots came in that turned the tide for Riggs, prompting Griffin to protest.

He argued thousands of people cast ballots even though they never completed their registration by providing a valid driver's license or part of their Social Security number.

The appeals court blasted the state Board of Elections for refusing to uphold state law requiring those.

Patriot News Alerts delivers timely news and analysis on U.S. politics, government, and current events, helping readers stay informed with clear reporting and principled commentary.
© 2026 - Patriot News Alerts