This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Babylon Bee, a popular satire website, has filed a lawsuit against the state of Hawaii challenging a state law that censors online content, "including political satire and parody."
An announcement from the ADF, which is representing the publication as well as a Hawaii resident in the case, said, "The law violates fundamental free speech and due process rights by using vague and overbroad standards to punish people for posting certain political content online, including political memes and parodies of politicians."
The ADF explained Gov. Josh Green signed S2687 into law in July 2024, and it bans the distribution of "materially deceptive media" that portrays politicians in a way that risks harming "the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate."
Further, the state forces satire artists to post disclaimers, destroying the purpose of satire.
"Hawaii's war against political memes and satire is censorship, pure and simple," said ADF lawyer Mathew Hoffmann. "Satire has served as an important vehicle to deliver truth with a smile for centuries, and this kind of speech receives the utmost protection under the Constitution. The First Amendment doesn't allow Hawaii to choose what political speech is acceptable, and we are urging the court to cancel this unnecessary censorship."
Seth Dillon, chief of the Bee, said, "We're used to getting pulled over by the joke police, but comedy isn't a crime. The First Amendment protects our right to tell jokes, whether it's election season or not. We'll never stop fighting to defend that freedom."
The complaint notes, "The Hawaii Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill because of First Amendment concerns, informing legislators that '[p]eople have a First Amendment right to criticize candidates … and make all kinds of political speech attacking candidates.'"
ADF attorneys represent The Babylon Bee in a similar case in California, resulting in state officials agreeing not to enforce the challenged laws as the case proceeds.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has, in a unanimous decision, blasted the discrimination set up by the state of Wisconsin when it banned Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior from participating in the church's less-costly unemployment compensation program.
The 9-0 decision means that Catholic Charities now can avoid being ordered to participate in the state's own less efficient and more costly plan.
The state based its discrimination on the fact that the charities programs offers help to the poor and needy in ways that were not "typical" religious actions.
"At the heart of Catholic Charities' ministry is Christ's call to care for the least of our brothers and sisters, without condition and without exception," said Bishop James Powers, bishop of the Diocese of Superior. "We're grateful the court unanimously recognized that improving the human condition by serving the poor is part of our religious exercise and has allowed us to continue serving those in need throughout our diocese and beyond."
Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion, deciding Wisconsin violated the Constitution by imposing "a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological choices."
The ruling also noted "whether to express and inculcate religious doctrine through worship, proselytization, or religious education when performing charitable work are, again, fundamentally theological choices driven by the content of different religious doctrines."
According to Becket, which represented the religious organization, "Most Catholic dioceses have a social ministry arm that serves those in need. Catholic Charities carries out this important work for the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, by helping the disabled, elderly, and those living in poverty—regardless of their faith. This belief that ministry to those in need should not be limited to Catholics flows directly from Catholic Social Teaching and is embodied in the Church's 'corporal works of mercy'—which include feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless."
Wisconsin law exempts nonprofits that run primarily for religious purposes from the state's unemployment compensation program. The leftists on the state Supreme Court, however, rejected that standard because Catholic Charities serves everyone, not just Catholics.
"Wisconsin shouldn't have picked this fight in the first place," said Eric Rassbach, of Becket. "It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn't religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion. Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors."
The decision said Wisconsin's arguments fail because "the State has not met its burden to show that the law's application is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Wisconsin contends that the exemption advances two principal interests. First, it argues that the law serves a compelling state interest in ensuring unemployment coverage for its citizens. The State, however, has failed to demonstrate that the theological lines drawn by the statute are narrowly tailored to advance that interest, particularly as applied to petitioners.
"Indeed, petitioners operate their own unemployment compensation system, which provides benefits largely equivalent to the state system. The distinctions drawn by Wisconsin's regime, moreover, are underinclusive, exempting religious entities that provide similar services (i.e., without proselytizing or serving only co-religionists) when the work is done directly by a church. Second, the State asserts an interest in avoiding entanglement with employment decisions based on religious doctrine. Resolving misconduct disputes for employees tasked with inculcating religious faith, the State argues, may require it to decide whether those employees complied with religious doctrine. The lines drawn by the exemption, however, are overinclusive in relation to that interest, for they operate at the organizational level, covering employees that do and do not inculcate religious doctrine in equal measure. This poor fit between the State's asserted interests and the distinctions drawn cannot satisfy strict scrutiny."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Western standards for free speech repeatedly have come under attack in recent years in a number of court cases, and now the conviction of one protester in the United Kingdom has highlighted how close that nation has come to the full restoration of blasphemy prosecutions, which were abandoned in 2008.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University and counselor to Congress on constitutional issues, is warning about "how the United Kingdom has continued its erosion of free speech by pushing an effective blasphemy law."
The most recent development was the conviction of a London man of a "religiously aggravated public order offence" for burning a Quran.
It was Hamit Coskun, 50, a Turkish-born Armenian-Kurdish atheist, who was arrested for protesting the Islamic rule of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara.
For his statements, he was slashed by a Muslim man with a knife, and because he was attacked, a judge, John McGarva, claimed his actions were "provocative" and were "motivated at least in party by a hatred of Muslims."
"Judge McGarva made clear that his views of Islam would not be tolerated in the United Kingdom," Turley explained, noting the judge claimed: "After considering the evidence, I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. That's based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family. It's not possible to separate your views about the religion to your views about the followers. I do accept that the choice of location was in part that you wanted to protest what you see as the Islamification of Turkey. But you were also motivated by the hatred of Muslims and knew some would be at the location."
Turley said there's "fear" that such laws attacking "hate" and that outlaw criticism of Islam will "constructively restore" blasphemy prosecutions in the U.K.
The Free Speech Union, representing Coskun, promised an appeal.
"A Turkish political refugee has been convicted of a criminal offence in Britain for burning a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish Consulate in London. The Free Speech Union (FSU) funded his defence. Now we need your help to fund his appeal. Hamit Coskun, who spent nearly 10 years in prison in Turkey for his political activism, was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence. The case turned on a deeply troubling point: one of the Crown's main arguments was that because a bystander attacked him with a knife, he must have caused 'harassment, alarm or distress'. This is a dangerous precedent. It effectively creates a heckler's veto by violence, and opens the door to the return of blasphemy law in all but name. We're supporting Hamit not because we're anti-Islam, but because no one should be compelled to observe the blasphemy codes of a faith they do not share. Free speech includes the freedom to criticise religion. We will take this case to appeal. With your support, we can defend a fundamental principle of liberal democracy: no religion is beyond criticism."
Conservative politician Kemi Badenoch joined with a comment that "de facto blasphemy laws will set this country on the road to ruin."
The The Gateway Pundit reported that man who slashed Coskun, Moussa Kadri, later pleaded guilty to the assault.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Prosecutors in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, filed charges against a pro-life family, the Knotts, for explaining their pro-life views outside an abortion business.
They kept up the case, which essentially attacked the family members for their words, for months.
Then when the trial was scheduled, they "folded" and gave up the "wrongful criminal charges entirely."
Now, on behalf of the family, the American Center for Law and Justice is fighting back with a lawsuit against the city over its First Amendment violations.
"The arrest, prosecution, and ongoing threat of future enforcement have already achieved the government's apparent goal: silencing disfavored speech," the legal team explained about the prosecution. "This case exemplifies why the ACLJ exists: to defend the constitutional rights of Americans against government overreach and discrimination. We refuse to allow local officials to use vague ordinances as weapons against unpopular speech, and we will not stand by while religious and pro-life voices are silenced through selective enforcement."
The organization pointed out, "The First Amendment doesn't guarantee freedom from annoyance or inconvenience – it guarantees freedom of speech, especially for unpopular viewpoints that challenge the status quo. When government officials start deciding which messages deserve protection based on their own preferences, we're all at risk."
Being sought in the legal filing is a declaration that the ordinance manipulated by the city to charge the family is unconstitutional, an injunction ending its use, compensation for the constitutional infringements, return of the family's megaphone that police confiscated and more.
"This case is part of a larger assault on religious freedom and pro-life speech across America. From college campuses to city sidewalks, government officials are increasingly willing to silence religious viewpoints while protecting secular ones," the ACLJ explained. "The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly affirmed that the First Amendment does not permit the government to make such distinctions. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Court emphasized that content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. In Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, the Supreme Court held that viewpoint discrimination is an 'egregious form of content discrimination.'"
The ACLJ explained this case:
What happened to the Knotts family in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, represents a textbook case of viewpoint discrimination – an egregious violation of the First Amendment. The shocking details of their treatment reveal a deliberate pattern of government censorship based solely on the content of their pro-life message.
On December 28, 2024, the Knotts traveled to the Northeast Ohio Women's Center, an abortion clinic, to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights, engaging in sidewalk evangelism and pro-life advocacy. What happened next exposed a troubling pattern of government officials weaponizing local ordinances to silence religious and pro-life speech.
Zack used a battery-powered megaphone – quieter than ambient traffic noise – to share his life-affirming message from a public sidewalk. Meanwhile, abortion clinic escorts actively worked to drown out his speech using their own sound devices, including whistles and kazoos, while making threats against the couple.
One escort even told Zack to "suck-start a shotgun." During a previous encounter, Zack had told escorts how his mother-in-law had considered an abortion while pregnant with his now wife, and if she had gone through with it, his wife "should be dead." An escort interrupted, stating, "We can fix that."
Despite this harassment and the escorts' use of the same types of sound devices prohibited by the city's noise ordinance, only Zack was arrested and cited.
However, among the multitude of problems is that the "complaint" that triggered Zack's arrest mentioned only the pro-life speech, not the abortion kazoos and whistles and noise from the escorts.
Further the arresting officers never witnessed Zack using a megaphone, and they took a statement only from "Officer Oldham," who actually was working for the abortion business in security at the time, an "obvious conflict of interest."
And the threats made by the escorts never were prosecuted.
The fault rests with the city's ordinance, the report said, as it "prohibits amplified sound that might cause 'inconvenience or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities.'"
That's "vague language that invites arbitrary enforcement," the ACLJ said.
Then there are the law's exemptions, which are biased. For example, it exempts amplified sound from "educational organizations and charitable organizations."
The lawsuit, on behalf of Zachary and Lindsey Knotts in U.S. district court in Ohio, charges it is unconstitutional for creating a two-tiered system of speech rights, is so vague as to leave in doubt its validity, and leaves total discretion to cops deciding what they don't like.
Also, it establishes a discrimination against certain viewpoints.
The Supreme Court declined to take up a case on Maryland's AR-15 ban, allowing the Democratic state to continue throttling the Second Amendment rights of its residents - for now.
The court's denial raised objections from Justice Clarence Thomas, who said he "would not wait to decide" a question "of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners."
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also said they would have taken the case. Four votes were needed to take up the issue.
In a brief opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said it is not necessary for the Supreme Court to get involved while lower courts continue to develop the case.
The Supreme Court has largely avoided altering the legal landscape on guns since its landmark decision three years ago in Bruen, which imposed a new historical test that made it significantly harder to regulate firearms.
But Kavanaugh predicted that the Supreme Court would likely decide the AR-15 issue in the next year or two.
"Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decision-making on the AR–15 issue. Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two," he wrote.
In a fiery dissent, Justice Thomas argued that AR-15s are "clearly 'Arms' under the Second Amendment’s plain text."
He chastised the court for waiting to decide a matter of "critical importance."
"I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America," Justice Thomas wrote. "The question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners throughout the country."
The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. and is arguably the most iconic firearm in the world.
The gun control lobby has long sought to paint the AR-15 as a "weapon of war" unfit for civilian use, although millions of Americans use AR-15s for lawful purposes without incident.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals repeated the "weapon of war" talking point in its 2024 ruling upholding Maryland's ban. The court held that AR-15s are "military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.”
Kavanaugh called the appeals court's decision "questionable," suggesting he could help overturn it in the future.
"Given that millions of Americans own AR–15s and that a significant majority of the States allow possession of those rifles, petitioners have a strong argument that AR–15s are in 'common use' by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment under Heller," he wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Can ballots be counted even if they're two weeks late?
Election Day in America for generations as meant Election Day: That single day, for presidential elections in November, when voter cast ballots and those ballots are counted.
A winner is announced then.
But in recent years legislators and others have expanded that window: It's now often election weeks or even more, as they've agreed that ballots that come in late still should be counted.
That's faced opposition from Republicans for multiple elections, and now the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed it will weigh in.
A report at the Washington Examiner notes this case is about a state law in Illinois that lets ballots be counted even if they are two weeks late.
The court has granted a petition by Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., and two Republican elector nominees.
The state law they want to have blocked has election officials counting ballots that arrive up to 14 days after Election Day, if they are postmarked by the deadline.
Lower courts claimed that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue, meaning they weren't injured so could make no claim.
But the high court accepted the case with the question about whether Bost and the others, as federal candidates, have a right to challenge the "time, place, and manner" regulations for elections in Illinois.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch asked for the review.
"In the aftermath of the 2020 elections, however, for a variety of reasons, courts have limited candidates' ability to challenge the electoral rules governing their campaigns. This case presents the latest — and an extreme — example of this trend," according to the petition submitted to the high court.
State election officials in Illinois said the case should be thrown out.
The case didn't ask the high court specifically about counting the ballots, but it would provide a path for exactly that question to arise.
The report cited how states all across the nation have "loosened" their ballot laws.
Rapper 50 Cent is determined to stop P. Diddy from receiving a presidential pardon, as an old feud between the two hip-hop stars continues.
The outspoken "In Da Club" rapper, whose real name is Curtis Jackson, said he will try to convince President Trump against pardoning Sean "Diddy" Combs, who is facing charges in New York for sex trafficking. Combs has pleaded not guilty.
Prosecutors say Combs used violence and blackmail to keep women under his control so he could abuse them in depraved orgies that he filmed, called "freakoffs."
His lawyers say the sex was consensual and that prosecutors are attempting to criminalize his hedonistic lifestyle. The charges have rendered Combs a pariah in the entertainment industry in which he once moved as a power player.
When asked about a pardon Friday, Trump said he has not been following the highly publicized case closely enough to make a decision.
“Nobody’s asked. But I know people are thinking about it. I know they’re thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking,” Trump said.
“First of all, I’d look at what’s happening, and I haven’t been watching it too closely, although it’s certainly getting a lot of coverage,” he added.
50 Cent has mocked Combs over his legal woes, poking fun at the massive stash of lubricant that he kept for his drug-fueled sex romps. Jackson is also producing a Netflix documentary about Combs and the case against him.
The two rap stars have been feuding since their glory days in the 2000s. In 2006, 50 Cent released a diss track accusing the Bad Boy Records founder of knowing who murdered his former protege Biggie Smalls.
Their beef was mentioned in Diddy's trial last week, when his former assistant testified that Combs had threatened to shoot 50 Cent. After leaving an MTV event, Combs allegedly said he would rather use guns than words to get back at his rival.
“Wait a minute PUFFY’s got a gun, I can’t believe this I don’t feel safe,” Jackson wrote in a mocking reply on Instagram.
In response to Trump's pardon comments, 50 Cent said he would try to persuade Trump by appealing to the president's pride.
“He [Combs] said some really bad things about Trump, it’s not ok. I’m gonna reach out so he knows how I feel about this guy,” Jackson wrote.
“Donald doesn’t take well to disrespect, and doesn’t forget who chooses to go against him,” he wrote.
Trump has pardoned several rap stars before, including, most recently, NBA Youngboy, who was sentenced to two years on gun charges.
Given the nature of the offenses Combs is charged with, a pardon would certainly prompt public backlash. But Trump is no stranger to making controversial decisions, and at the end of the day, only he can make that call.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Multiple lawsuits have erupted in recent years filed by plaintiffs who demand their local libraries provide them with pornographic material, or other titles that many find offensive.
They claim a constitutional right to have taxpayers provide such materials, but a decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has destroyed that argument.
To plaintiffs who wildly claim that, "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people," the ruling said such "over-caffeinated arguments" should stop, and parties "take a deep breath … No one is banning (or burning) books."
The solution is clear, the judges wrote in an opinion in the case Little v. Llano County: "If a disappointed patron can't find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend. All that Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections. This is what it means to be a library – to make judgments about which books are worth reading and which are not, which ideas belong on the shelves and which do not."
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that contributed to the arguments with a friend-of-the-court brief, and explained, "For over a year, the ACLJ has been fighting to protect children from far-Left groups that want to expose children to sexually explicit content without your knowledge. School districts have been inundated with far-Left lobbying, demands, and lawsuits seeking to force them to include reprehensible and disturbing content in the children's sections of school libraries. We've been working with school districts around the country to fight back and allow school officials – who represent the parents of the school children they serve – to empower parental rights and protect children from sexualized and Marxist indoctrination. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just issued a decision that will assist us in this fight."
The decision, "unprecedented," according to the ACLJ, resulted in two significant factors.
"First, [individuals and groups] cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books. … Second, a library's collection decisions are government speech and therefore not subject to Free Speech challenge," the ACLJ said.
"This means that school libraries cannot be forced to house inappropriate material no matter how many lawsuits radical librarians and far-Left groups like the ACLU file."
In this case, some people from Llano County sued the Texas library for removing 17 books because of their sexual and/or racial themes.
"The plaintiffs in this case argued that they had a 'right to receive information' – even sexually explicit information – under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and that the public library (and taxpayers) must supply them with whatever books they desire," the ACLJ charged.
"The plaintiffs disingenuously argued that the removal of the inappropriate books constituted a book ban reminiscent of 'totalitarian regimes.'"
The 5th Circuit said, "It is one thing to tell the government it cannot stop you from receiving a book. The First Amendment protects your right to do that. It is another thing for you to tell the government which books it must keep in the library. The First Amendment does not give you that right to demand that."
The ACLJ said, "The Fifth Circuit's ruling is a breath of fresh air and represents a long, overdue, legally sound, and commonsense approach to this issue. As the Fifth Circuit noted, the plaintiffs incorrectly 'demand to receive information from the government itself.'"
"If – as the groups we've battled have been arguing – '[P]eople can challenge which books libraries remove, they can challenge which books libraries buy. . . . Suppose a patron complains that the library does not have a book she wants. The library refuses to buy it, so she sues.' Where would it end? It wouldn't, and groups like the ACLU wouldn't stop until you, the taxpayer, are forced to fund and stock pornography and other inappropriate content on every children's library shelf in America."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court on Friday with a two-word statement, "is granted," approved suspension of a lower court ruling that barred President Donald Trump from moving forward on his plan to halt the temporary legal protections, offered by Joe Biden, to about a million aliens in the country.
The ruling lifted a lower court order that demanded those protections remain in place for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
It follows on a decision by the court earlier to let the Trump administration revoke temporary protections for about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in a separate dispute.
The move allows the Trump administration to advance its efforts to fulfill his campaign promise of deporting millions of illegal aliens allowed into America by the open borders actions of the Biden regime.
The appeal to the high court came after a leftist judge in Boston took over decision-making authority from the executive branch.
The court's full statement: "The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is granted. The April 15, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 1:25–cv–10495, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgement of this court."
Kentanji Jackson, the justice who during her nominating hearing before the Senate was unable to define what is a "woman," complained, in a dissent joined by fellow leftist Sonia Sotomayor, that the decision would disrupt the lives of illegal aliens.
Jackson said the lower court judge, Indira Talwani, was correct that ending the protections would give people the choice of leaving the country or risk being detained and deported.
The dispute now heads to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Jackson cited the "real harm to real people" who came into the U.S. without permission under Biden's open borders. The impact on the nation and the expense to taxpayers of those millions of arrivals, many of whom immediately were dependent on public assistance programs, remains to be fully calculated.
The administration had argued that such orders, usurping the authority of the executive branch, irreparably harmed its obligation to carry out the president's policies.
Jackson accused her fellow justices of facilitating "needless human suffering."
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy abolishing an immigration parole program for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, The New York Post reported. The decision means more than 530,000 migrants could be deported.
Then-President Joe Biden implemented the program as a form of "humanitarian parole" for migrants from those nations ruled by authoritarian leaders. It allowed the migrants to stay and bring their immediate families for up to two years.
President Donald Trump targeted this program as part of his overall crackdown on immigration. The abolition of the program was initially blocked in a ruling by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani.
The judge, appointed by President Barack Obama, decided that deportations should not be a blanket issue but rather be decided on an individual basis. However, the high court overturned that decision Friday.
Seven of the nine justices decided in Trump's favor, with just the left-leaning Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. "The Court has plainly botched this assessment today," Jackson asserted in her dissenting opinion.
"It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm. Even if the Government is likely to win on the merits, in our legal system, success takes time and the stay standards require more than anticipated victory," Jackson contended.
Jackson further claimed that the individuals involved would be subject to "irreparable harm," including dangerous conditions in their countries of origin and family separation. She lamented that the only other option is to stay and face "arrest and detention" by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
However, Biden's plan to import hundreds of thousands of migrants under the program is to blame for the conundrum these people now face. Trump is left to fix the problem, and the president was grateful that the high court was behind him in this.
"We had a great decision from the Supreme Court, thank goodness. That was very important," Trump said following the ruling.
Democrats are wringing their hands over a supposed humanitarian crisis this ruling is sure to create. However, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller explained that this was righting a wrong committed by Trump's predecessor.
"They have to be deported. You can't have a situation where the Biden administration can fly in half a million illegal aliens in the last 24 months and we're having a conversation about, ‘Oh, maybe they should get to stay for life,'" Miller said Friday.
“They've been here for 24 months. They were flown into our country illegally. The good news is the airplanes travel in two directions," Miller added. The clip was shared on X, formerly Twitter, by conservative commentator Benny Johnson.
🔥Stephen Miller on the Supreme Court ruling in favor of President Trump stripping legal status of the 500,000 criminal aliens Biden flew into the country.
He just doesn’t miss:
“They called it parole for those individuals.. Amnesty.. Now of course they're all subject to… pic.twitter.com/GGMJ2o0SxS
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 30, 2025
The Biden administration purposely flooded the U.S. with migrants over the last four years. Democrats claim Trump is the one who is to blame for the aftermath as he works to undo that agenda piece by piece.