An Obama-appointed judge has ruled that President Donald Trump can't revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Syrian nationals currently inside the United States.
United States District Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled in favor of seven Syrian nationals that sued to prevent the end of TPS that was set for Friday, even though they and the other 6,000 who are here have no status at all in the country.
The decision to end TPS for Syrians came from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in September.
“This is what restoring sanity to America’s immigration system looks like,” DHS’s Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement at the time.
"Conditions in Syria no longer prevent their nationals from returning home," she added. "Syria has been a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades, and it is contrary to our national interest to allow Syrians to remain in our country. TPS is meant to be temporary."
For Democrats, TPS has turned into de facto amnesty without any end in sight, and Trump wants to reverse this trend, and he will surely appeal this decision up to the Supreme Court if he has to.
Syria is not the first country to have TPS ended for its citizens. Since Trump took office, he has ended TPS for nationals from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
He has been challenged on the ending of TPS for Haitian nationals as well as those from Cameroon, with Burma and Ethiopia pending before the end of the year.
Let's face it, people from most countries in the world have it worse than people have it here in the U.S., even non-citizens.
Of course, if you make the immigration laws lax and let people know about it, you will get millions and millions of people flooding here from other countries.
But if we want the U.S. to stay at the top of the heap in its opportunities and lifestyle, then we can't have those numbers of migrants flocking here.
Trump knows this and he's actually doing something about it, no matter how much flack he gets for it.
He has restricted legal immigration a lot more than usual, but that could be because we have had at least 6 million illegal immigrants during the four years of the Biden administration.
Once ICE has a chance to do its job and get illegal immigrants back where they belong, maybe more legal immigration will be allowed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The National Education Association has been revealed to be planning to double down on gender fantasies with a training session, scheduled in just weeks, that is to teach the best practices for imposing gender pronouns, ways to battle "transphobia," and more.
In a document posted online, the NEA revealed a slate of "training" programs that are coming, including a session named "Advancing LGBTA+ Justice," which is set Dec. 2-4.
"Understanding this community and their issues are critical to providing support and guidance that is not only inclusive but liberating," the labor organization announced.
It is a report from Fox News that explains the union's goals, even while teachers' groups are facing criticism across America for the low numbers of students performing basic language and math requirements at grade level.
It is, after all, conservative opponents who are the "villains," the literature claims.
The union plans include setting up "common understandings about the identities under the LGBTQ+ community umbrella" and establishing "shared understanding" as well as addressing "micro-aggressions and stereotypes."
The report explained that Defending Education, an education transparency advocate organization, accessed a "pre-attendance package" and "participant handouts" for the "Advancing LGBTQ+ Justice and Transgender Advocacy."
"The documents are littered with far-left agenda items, including a guide for members who are potentially going through a gender transition at work taken from the Cornell University 'Transgender Guide To Transitioning & Gender Affirmation,'" the report explained.
There's guidance for "coming out" at work and "transitioning at work" and laments that the union's opponents win the argument over allowing males in sports, lockers and showers, for females.
The organization admitted, "Our base and persuadables want to support transgender student athletes, but are extremely susceptible to our opposition's argument that excluding trans youth is necessary to protect the fairness of women's sports."
Then it cites the benefits of having biological males in women's or girls' sports, the report said.
Kendall Tietz, investigative reporter at Defending Education, told Fox News Digital that the NEA is sending the wrong message to both educators and students with the training agenda.
"Every time we get a look behind the curtain at the National Education Association, its priorities are unmistakable: a race-based, gender-ideology-driven model of activist education," Tietz said.
There's a great deal of anger addressed at conservatives, the report said, as a handout charges, "The right has exploited ignorance about transgender people and our lack of an affirmative, race-forward message to advance anti-trans attacks, further splinter and impugn the left, and sabotage progressives on a broad range of issues."
The NEA further identifies its enemies, with, "Name the villains who violate our values, expose their motivation of getting back into or holding onto power, and position them as a barrier to what our families need."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Letitia James, the Democrat New York attorney general who campaigned on a promise to "get" President Donald Trump, then took him to court and obtained a $500 million penalty against him only to see it tossed because of its unconstitutionality, is facing "damning" evidence against her in a mortgage fraud case.
Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney for eastern Virginia, has released a cache of evidence related to the alleged mortgage fraud case pending against James.
According to the Washington Examiner, it is Mike Davis, a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who delivered the verdict on the evidence that showed "that she lied to the lending bank, the IRS, and her homeowners' insurer."
Halligan secured an indictment against James last month on counts of bank fraud and false statements to a financial institution.
"The charges stem from allegations that James lied on a 2020 mortgage application to obtain favorable loan terms for a Virginia property," the report said.
Among the evidence now public is that her "Affidavit of Occupancy" showed her stating under oath her Norfolk residences was a "secondary home," like a vacation home.
Her primary residence, she said, was elsewhere.
But witnesses have confirmed James's niece and three children lived there full-time.
"In her homeowner's insurance application, James claimed that the home would be unoccupied for five months out of the year, despite it being occupied the whole year," the report said. And, "In another insurance application, James claimed only one person would be occupying the house, an adult, and no children."
If convicted, the Democrat could spend years in jail.
Brace yourselves, patriots -- the U.S. Supreme Court is stepping into a fiery showdown over President Donald Trump’s daring push to reshape birthright citizenship, as the Associated Press reports.
The justices convened behind closed doors on Friday to debate Trump’s executive order, which aims to strip citizenship from children born in the U.S. to parents here without authorization or on temporary visas, a policy halted by lower courts nationwide.
Let’s set the stage: Trump issued this order on day one of his second term, kicking off a hardline immigration agenda with a bang.
This citizenship rule is just one piece of a larger enforcement puzzle, alongside intensified operations in urban centers and the unprecedented peacetime use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act.
The Supreme Court has already intervened with emergency rulings, blocking rapid deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members without hearings while approving broad immigration stops in Los Angeles despite lower court objections over profiling.
They’re also considering the administration’s urgent plea to send National Guard troops for enforcement in Chicago, a move currently frozen by a lower court’s indefinite block.
At the heart of this storm is Trump’s challenge to over a century of precedent tied to the 14th Amendment, which has long ensured citizenship for nearly everyone born on American soil.
The administration contends that children of noncitizens aren’t under U.S. jurisdiction, thus ineligible for citizenship -- a theory that’s sparked fierce legal pushback.
Lower courts, from the 9th Circuit in San Francisco to a federal judge in New Hampshire, have unanimously rejected the policy as likely unconstitutional, pointing to the 14th Amendment’s post-Civil War purpose of securing citizenship for all born here.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer is pressing the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that lower court decisions “undermine our border security” by wrongly granting citizenship to many.
On the flip side, Cody Wofsy of the American Civil Liberties Union, leading the New Hampshire class-action fight, scoffs that the administration’s case has “arguments so flimsy” they barely stand up to scrutiny.
While the Supreme Court curbed nationwide injunctions earlier this year, it left wiggle room for blocks in class-action or state-led cases, allowing these lower court rulings to hold -- for the moment.
If the justices agree to hear Trump’s appeal, a decision we might get as soon as Monday, arguments could hit the docket in spring with a final ruling by early summer.
Until then, this policy sits in legal purgatory, a flashpoint in the ongoing battle over immigration and national identity, as the administration fights two key cases to advance its stance.
For now, the nation watches as the Court weighs whether to tackle this monumental issue, one that could redefine what it means to be American while balancing border control with constitutional bedrock.
Well, folks, the judicial gavel has fallen with a resounding thud against former President Donald Trump in his battle against CNN.
In a decision that has conservatives scratching their heads, a federal appeals court panel has affirmed the dismissal of Trump’s whopping $475 million defamation lawsuit against the cable news giant over their use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his claims about the 2020 election, Newsmax reported.
This saga began when Trump filed the lawsuit, arguing that CNN’s repeated use of the phrase was a deliberate attempt to smear him by invoking comparisons to Nazi propaganda and Adolf Hitler. His complaint tallied over 7,700 instances where he believed CNN linked his actions to such historical atrocities. It’s no small accusation, and many on the right see this as yet another media pile-on against a figure who challenges the progressive narrative.
The district court, under Judge Raag Singhal—a Trump nominee, mind you—first tossed out the case, ruling that CNN’s statements were opinions, not verifiable facts, and thus not grounds for defamation. That’s a bitter pill for many conservatives who feel the media hides behind “opinion” to sling mud without consequence.
Trump appealed, hoping for a different outcome, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, consisting of Judges Adalberto Jordan, Kevin Newsom, and Elizabeth L. Branch, stood firm. Interestingly, Newsom and Branch were also Trump appointees, which adds a layer of irony to this defeat. Some might quip that even Trump’s own picks aren’t buying what he’s selling here.
The appeals court’s eight-page ruling didn’t mince words, stating that Trump failed to prove the falsity of CNN’s statements. “Trump has not adequately alleged the falsity of CNN's statements,” the judges wrote. For many on the right, this feels like a dodge—how can a phrase so loaded not carry defamatory weight?
Digging deeper, the court clarified that CNN never directly equated Trump’s actions to Hitler’s, despite the loaded implication of the term “Big Lie.” “To be clear, CNN has never explicitly claimed that Trump's 'actions and statements were designed to be, and actually were, variations of those [that] Hitler used to suppress and destroy populations,'” the judges noted. Still, conservatives might argue that the implication was loud and clear to anyone paying attention.
The court also dismissed the sheer volume of CNN’s use of the phrase as irrelevant to whether it was false or defamatory. For Trump supporters, this feels like ignoring the cumulative effect of a media campaign designed to paint a damning picture.
Adding insult to injury, the panel found that Trump didn’t sufficiently show CNN acted with actual malice—a key requirement in defamation cases involving public figures. That’s a high bar, and one that often leaves conservatives feeling the deck is stacked against them when taking on media behemoths.
Let’s be honest: the term “Big Lie” isn’t just a neutral descriptor; it’s a rhetorical sledgehammer meant to evoke the worst historical parallels. Many on the right see this as part of a broader pattern where the mainstream media weaponizes language to discredit conservative voices. It’s not hard to understand why Trump and his base feel targeted.
Yet, the court’s logic, while frustrating, isn’t without grounding in legal precedent—opinions, even harsh ones, are protected speech. For conservatives, this raises a bigger question: how do you fight a cultural battle when the rules seem to shield your opponents?
Trump sought a hefty $475 million in punitive damages, a figure that speaks to the depth of his grievance. Many supporters likely saw this as a chance to finally hold a media outlet accountable for what they perceive as relentless bias. Alas, the courts had other plans.
The ruling also underscores the uphill climb public figures like Trump face in defamation suits. The “actual malice” standard is a fortress, and breaking through it requires more than just hurt feelings or perceived slights. Conservatives might argue it’s a standard that lets the media off too easily.
For now, this chapter closes with Trump on the losing end, though it’s unlikely to be the last we hear of his grievances with CNN. The right will continue to rally against what they see as a biased press, even if the courts aren’t the battleground for victory.
At the end of the day, this decision might not change the minds of Trump’s base, who see the media as an adversary regardless of legal outcomes. It’s a reminder that in the court of public opinion, narratives often outlast rulings. And isn’t that the real “big” story here?
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the Texas Democrat who is fighting to keep her seat amid a redistricting war in her state, has delivered some apparently unintentional laugh lines in Congress, and to Congress.
She claimed while the House was voting on a censure move against Rep. Stacey Plaskett, D-Virgin Islands, who was revealed to have been texting with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing, that a long list of Republicans and GOP groups took money from Epstein.
They did, only the records show the donations were from Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, not the convicted sex criminal who died in a New York jail awaiting further charges.
Crockett's comments were described as "disastrously wrong" and social media comments pointed out, "And I once had my house painted by a guy named John Kennedy. What's her point?"
And there was immediate discussion about "censure" for her.
The Gateway Pundit pointed to Crockett's "unintentional comic relief" right before the House gave Plaskett a pass for apparently taking direction from and guiding her congressional questioning based on the convicted sex offender Epstein's texts with her.
Crockett, on the House floor, charged the GOP was exhibiting a double standard.
She claimed, "Folks who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein, as I had my team dig in very quickly: Mitt Romney. The NRCC. Lee Zeldin. George Bush, WinRed, McCain-Palin, Rick Lazio. I just want to be clear: if this is standard we're going to make, then we're just going to expose it all! And the FEC filings are available for everybody to review."
In fact, it was the Washington Free Beacon's Chuck Ross who took advantage of those records "available to everybody" and confirmed that the Epstein donations to Republicans were from a different Epstein.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Multiple actors who have participated in the years-long lawfare against President Donald Trump already have been referred to the Department of Justice for various prosecutions.
New York's attorney general, several members of Congress and more.
But now the name of one key player in special counsel Jack Smith's Democrat lawfare against Trump is awaiting an investigation and a decision at the DOJ.
It is Thomas Windom, who formerly was a senior assistant special counsel to Smith, and was involved in those election interference and government records cases created against Trump, both of which have since died.
"Windom corruptly obstructed the committee's duly authorized inquiry by withholding information from the committee during his deposition using improperly invoked privileges, ill defined and inapplicable justifications, and repeated invocation of the same blanket set of objections," a letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to Attorney General Pam Bondi explained.
"Windom's conduct throughout the deposition evidences his improper purpose of impeding the committee's investigation. To be clear, this referral does not result from a good-faith disagreement between the committee and Windom about the scope of Rule 6(e). Had Windom, at his deposition, simply refused to answer the same questions that he had refused to answer on Rule 6(e) grounds during his transcribed interview, the committee would not be making this referral, notwithstanding the committee's strong disagreement with Windom's interpretation of Rule 6(e). Unfortunately, Windom's conduct at the deposition went far beyond that, evidencing an intent to obstruct the committee's investigation."
The letter, 138 pages long plus other evidence, cites Windom's actions to violate the law "when he 'corruptly … obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede … the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee … of the Congress.'"
"Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees corruptly refuse to provide information that the law requires them to furnish. The obstruction of a committee investigation undermines Congress's core constitutional oversight obligations. The committee is providing this information for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1505," the letter said.
In his position helping Smith's lawfare, "Windom possesses unique, firsthand information about the work of that office. Yet, despite being given express authorization by DOJ on two separate occasions, Windom declined to answer questions during his deposition about topics necessary and relevant to the committee's inquiry," Jordon's announcement revealed.
Those topics included "Knowledge of a February 2021 proposal that J.P. Cooney brought to the FBI to investigate President Trump and the individuals within his orbit;
"Interactions with and materials obtained from the January 6th Select Committee;
"Information related to the surveillance of Representative Scott Perry and the seizure of his cell phone;
"Information related to how many other Members of Congress were investigated as part of the Arctic Frost investigation and the Jack Smith investigation; and
"Communications with FBI officials related to potential evidence in the possession of the Willard Hotel."
The DOJ, in fact, had authorized Windom to answer the committee's questions, and the committee provided him with a list of topics and subjects ahead of time.
But then Windom refused to answer questions based on his claim that the DOJ hadn't authorized him to respond.
"Windom declined to answer multiple questions during this transcribed interview on the inaccurate basis that DOJ had not authorized testimony about those topics. For example, Windom invoked an absurd and indefensible interpretation of DOJ's authorization by refusing to testify about communications with FBI officials in part on the grounds that FBI officials are not 'DOJ officials,'" the letter listed among many charges.
The announcement charged, "Windom's improper refusal to answer nearly all questions during his deposition obstructed the committee's fact-finding, and his conduct can only be understood as an intentional, corrupt effort to thwart the committee's inquiry."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Already, Larry Summers, who was Bill Clinton's treasury secretary and held a position in Barack Obama's administration, Virgin Islands delegate Stacey Plaskett and Obama's White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, all Democrats, have been confirmed to have been interacting with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Now there's another: current House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. That's according to U.S. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky.
A report at PJMedia opined, "The Democrat Party's house of cards just took a fresh round of demolition, courtesy of the latest Jeffrey Epstein revelations. Last week, Democrats released a few select and doctored Epstein emails, hoping to destroy Trump. Then the GOP released over 20,000, and suddenly, one Democrat after another found themselves wrapped up in the Epstein fallout."
The report explained Epstein "was not simply on the fringes of the party; he was on the radar of the Democrat establishment, even after his 2008 conviction."
It's because that email shows a Democratic consulting firm reaching out to Epstein in the hope of securing his attendance at a Jeffries campaign event.
Comer confirmed, "Another email shows Democrat fundraisers invited Epstein to an event or to meet privately with Hakeem Jeffries as part of their 2013 effort to win a majority. So Hakeem Jeffries' campaign solicited money from Jeffrey Epstein. That's what we found in the last document batch."
It was Lisa Rossi of Dynamic SRG, a fundraising group for Democrats, who promoted, to Epstein, Jeffries as "Brooklyn's Barack."
"Comer posits that this is likely the reason why Jeffries has refused to condemn Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands) for colluding with Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing with Michael Cohen. Text messages show Epstein closely following Plaskett's questioning during Cohen's testimony and even helped steer her approach," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Onetime popular entertainer Rosie O'Donnell has become a one-person attack machine against President Donald Trump these days.
She "seems to spend much of her days in a constant rave about Trump, Republicans, and the demise of the United States from her new home in Ireland. That is fine and an exercise of free speech. However, it may have crossed the line into defamation in her latest posting," explained constitutional expert Jonathan Turley in a commentary.
In fact, she said, "Did you think it a million years that they would reelect a man who orchestrated an insurrection against the government? They would reelect that guy with all the charges of sex abuse? — the adjudicated rapist…And then I just saw this thing today about all the cases he's settled with children, children's families, accusations about him, that he chose to settle. … When are we going to be able to go, 'We're grown up enough to understand that this kind of deviant, psychotic, mentally ill behavior goes on at the highest level sometimes, and no matter where it goes on, it is our duty to stop it.'"
Turley, whose expertise in the Constitution and the law has qualified him to advise Congress on those issues, even represent members in court, explained the issue.
"O'Donnell may have supplied the president with another defamation case if she cannot back up sensational claims made against the President to her 2.9 million TikTok followers. She states as a fact that the president is an 'adjudicated rapist' and settled child abuse cases."
Turley noted about a year ago, O'Donnell called Trump a "rapist" and a "serial pedophile rapist."
A previous case involving such allegations resulted in a jury refusing to "adjudicate" Trump a "rapist," prompting a leftist judge to issue his own condemnation of Trump.
"Nevertheless, Trump was not legally 'adjudicated' to be a rapist," the commentary said.
Further, "MSNBC and the show 'Morning Joe,' for example, quickly retracted a statement that Trump was a 'rapist,'" he continued. "The second claim is that Trump settled with the 'children's families' over abuse cases."
O'Donnell wasn't even "clear what the basis for this allegation is," Turley said. "It is not clear if O'Donnell can produce support for the claim. If she cannot, it would certainly constitute 'per se' defamation."
He said, "The common law has long recognized per se categories of defamation where damages are presumed and special damages need not be proven. These include: (1) disparaging a person's professional character or standing; (2) alleging a person is unchaste; (3) alleging that a person has committed a criminal act or act of moral turpitude; (4) alleging a person has a sexual or loathsome disease; and (5) attacking a person's business or professional reputation."
A "couple of these categories" could be triggered by O'Donnell's statements.
"That she said this to millions of followers only magnifies the general damages presumed in such cases. Unless O'Donnell can argue truth as a defense with credible support for such settlements, she may have just given Trump a golden opportunity to pursue his long-time critic."
The Supreme Court has declined to hear oral arguments on a case in which a Florida athletic organization would not let a Christian school say a prayer over the loudspeaker before a championship game.
The court's decision in the case of Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association appeared Monday on a list of orders.
It was not signed and no explanation was given for the order.
The appeals court ruling in the case said that the use of the loudspeaker made the prayer "government speech."
Prior to the championship game in 2015 at Citrus Bowl stadium, it was common practice for Cambridge Christian School to say a prayer over the loudspeaker before games.
Cambridge was playing University Christian School in that game, and both teams requested the prayer.
Roger Dearing of FHSAA told the schools that the Citrus Bowl was "a public facility, predominantly paid for with public tax dollars, [making] the facility 'off limits' under federal guidelines and precedent court cases."
"In Florida Statutes, the FHSAA (host and coordinator of the event) is legally a 'State Actor,' we cannot legally permit or grant permission for such an activity," Dearing said at the time.
An appeals court in 2019 reversed a lower court decision upholding the ban, but further appeals reinstated the ban.
The argument given was that FHSAA was essentially regulating its own speech, which doesn't fall under the purview of the First Amendment.
It makes sense given that the two Christian schools were members of FHSAA and would be under its rules and leadership.
If SCOTUS saw the issue similarly, it wouldn't have a reason to take the case.
Though it seems counterintuitive for two teams who both agree they want to have a prayer to be told they can't, it seems that it can happen in a lawful way that makes sense at some level.
The intersection of secular and religious society has become a little too separate for me, but maybe it's for the best in the end.