The U.S. Supreme Court has proven to be a new source of drama given how the conservative majority decides on certain issues, and especially when conservative justices break away from the pack and side with the liberal justices.
According to Newsweek, Justice Neil Gorsuch shocked his colleagues and Republicans across Washington D.C. this week after he joined liberal justices in a dissent regarding an opinion on one of the latest immigration cases.
President Donald Trump's immigration policies have been wrapped up in the judicial system since Day One of his second term in office. Many of those cases are filtering up to the Supreme Court, and those decisions have been coming down mostly in Trump's favor as of late.
It was on Thursday, when the high court made a ruling on Riley v. Bondi that Justice Gorsuch broke away from his conservative colleagues on a ruling that favored the Trump administration.
Newsweek recapped what the case involved and how the Trump administration had to fight to make it happen.
The outlet noted:
The case centers around Pierre Riley, a man from Jamaica facing deportation from the United States who had been convicted on drug charges in 2008. After his release in 2021, immigration authorities took him into custody and sought his removal under a final administrative removal order (FARO).
Notably, Riley didn't contest his deportation from the United States, except he argued that he should not be returned to Jamaica, invoking the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
He claimed that he could be killed by a drug kingpin should he be returned to his home country.
Newsweek added:
An immigration judge sent his case to a "withholding-only proceeding," which decided whether he could be removed to his home country. During that proceeding, a judge granted deferral of his removal to Jamaica over those concerns.
Kristi Noem's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), "which opted to enforce the earlier removal order," the outlet noted.
Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Trump, joined three liberal justices in dissenting from the case.
"The question is when Riley should have petitioned for judicial review of the Board's order," the dissent reads.
"Was his petition due 30 days after the Government first notified him he would be deported, well over a year before the Board issued the order Riley sought to challenge? Or was it instead due 30 days after the order denying his claim for deferral of removal? The answer is clear: One should not be required to appeal an order before it exists."
It'll be interesting to see what the final decision the case will be.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A barrage of uncontrolled backlash has been unleashed against a Christian bookstore whose operators objected to the town council posting a "Pride" flag above its window.
They requested that the promotion of the LGBT alternative lifestyle choices be removed because their aim "is solely to promote the Christian faith," and town officials agreed that was reasonable.
But promoters of the emblem of the leftist agenda revealed their tolerance level for those with differing beliefs: None.
According to a report at the Christian Institute, attackers branded the store "bigoted" and "homophobic" and complained that the flag actually was removed "in a sly way."
The Institute explained the fight happened in Derbyshire, United Kingdom, where officials on the Matlock town council have previously flown a number of flags up and down their main street.
Earlier the flag of St. George was provided. Also the Union Jack.
But when Pride flags appeared recently, officials at the Cornerstone Bookshop simply asked that the one above their window be taken down. Operators said they didn't want to be promoting homosexuality.
"The council did so without issue, but LGBT activists took offense," the Institute reported.
According to a report in the Guardian, "Townspeople and the local MP" are demanding the LGBT "standard" be put back in front of the Christian bookstore.
The report cited comments from Kate Bond, who expressed support for the Pride logo.
"I was just thinking it looked really good," she said. But then the single flag was taken down, and she said she suspected "homophobes."
"It's crazy. You just can't believe it. More than anything, what I'm bothered about is the fact that it's happened without anybody knowing about it. This sly little way it's been done, it's wrong somehow. If it's your idea to put them up, stand by it," she claimed.
The bookshop owner said, "We have to respect other people's views. But we didn't want the flag flying outside our shop.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Genteel. Restrained.
Those descriptives often are applicable in Supreme Court opinions when factions, a majority and a dissent, disagree.
It sometimes moves toward the critical, such as when Chief Justice John Roberts and others, disagreeing with the leftist majority at that time that fabricated out of nothing a "right" to same-sex marriage pointed out that there was nothing in the Constitution supporting that scheme.
But all of a sudden, the rantings of Ketanji Jackson, the leftist nominated by Joe Biden who confirmed her lack of ability by assuring senators at her confirmation hearing that she was unable even to define "woman," are generating a reaction.
Among the paragraphs in the majority opinion on Friday that said entry-level court judges in the federal judiciary have been exercising powers they are not given by the Constitution through their nationwide injunctions, giving President Donald Trump a court victory that could reverberate for presidencies, were the following:
"We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."
And, "JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.' … That goes for judges too."
It is in a commentary at the Federalist that the writings of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion, were cited as taking "a flamethrower to KBJ's reality-challenged dissent."
A fight over birthright citizen prompted the court case, as the president challenged the multiple lower-court nationwide injunctions issued, but the justices did not comment on the birthright dispute, which now will return to its progression in the court system.
"Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has never been one to shy away from engaging in left-wing political activism while on the bench. And now, it appears some of her Supreme Court colleagues are growing tired of it," the commentary said.
It took literally no time at all for those doing satire online to walk through the door that had been opened. From the satire site the Babylon Bee:
Eric Trump, son of President Donald Trump, hinted that he may wade into the political world after all, Newsmax reported. The president has long speculated about the prospect of his adult children joining him in Washington, D.C.
Donald Trump was named Time's Person of the Year and sat for an interview in December. When asked about whether his children would follow suit, the then-president-elect said that Eric Trump was a possible contender.
"Eric is very capable, and a very different type [than Don Jr.]," Trump said of his middle son. Now, Eric Trump is also indicating it may be the next move for him.
Donald Trump is TIME's Person of the Year https://t.co/IjP5W2otV5 pic.twitter.com/CVHX9o0DB3
— TIME (@TIME) December 12, 2024
Eric Trump seems to be mulling the possibility, but isn't taking it lightly. In an interview with Financial Times, Eric Trump said that a foray into politics "would be an easy one" considering his father's clout.
"The real question is: 'Do you want to drag other members of your family into it?'" Eric Trump posited. He acknowledged that the prospect of a political dynasty for his family comes with many pitfalls.
"Would I want my kids to live the same experience over the last decade that I've lived? You know, if the answer was yes, I think the political path would be an easy one — meaning, I think I could do it," the 41-year-old said.
"And by the way, I think other members of our family could do it too," he added. Donald Trump's other children have been tangentially involved in his political career, including his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, who served in his administration.
Donald Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., has also been involved in the political world. However, it is Eric Trump and his wife, Lara Trump, who seem the most enthusiastic about a political future.
It seems Eric and Lara Trump are well-positioned for a transition into a formal political role. Lara Trump is the co-chair of the Republican National Committee and helped get her father-in-law elected to the White House.
According to the Associated Press, she stepped down from that role in December and left open the possibility of running for office to replace Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. His seat will up for a vote in the 2026 election season.
"It is something I would seriously consider. If I’m being completely transparent, I don’t know exactly what that would look like," Lara Trump told the AP at the time.
"And I certainly want to get all of the information possible if that is something that’s real for me. But yeah, I would 100% consider it," she added.
President Donald Trump has crafted an impressive political career and overcame numerous obstacles to achieve it. Now, his children can benefit from their father's success, as long as they're willing to endure the hardships that come with it.
President Donald Trump celebrated the Supreme Court's decision barring lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions, the Washington Examiner reported. Trump championed the ruling in remarks during a news conference held shortly after the decision was released.
District courts have been thwarting Trump's agenda on many fronts by issuing sweeping injunctions against his policies. This particular case before the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of birthright citizenship.
In one of Trump's first executive orders, he sought to limit the practice that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. While the high court didn't rule on the underlying issue, it concluded that lower courts may not impose nationwide injunctions, a move that is sure to rock Washington, D.C., leftists who tried to stop him.
Trump hailed Friday's decision as a significant win for his presidency during the White House news briefing. "This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law," Trump began.
"I was elected on a historic mandate. But in recent months, we've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president, to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers," Trump went on.
"It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly," Trump added. "And instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump said of the lower courts.
"In practice, this meant that if any one of the nearly 700 federal judges disagreed with the policy of a duly elected president of the United States, he or she could block that policy from going into effect, or at least delay it for many years, tied up in the court system. This was a colossal abuse of power, which never occurred in American history prior to recent decades," Trump charged.
"And we've been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century together...I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem. And they've made it very simple," Trump said.
As part of the crackdown on immigration, Trump has sought to close the birthright citizenship loophole. This allows for chain migration of other family members who would become eligible for citizenship based on one baby born in the U.S., even if to illegal immigrant parents, NBC News reported.
Trump noted that the provision was originally "meant for the babies of slaves" and not "for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation." Although the Supreme Court left the underlying issue alone, Trump acknowledged that the decision has far-reaching implications.
The president said he can now focus on "ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people." Trump went on to thank the Supreme Court justices.
"It's a giant," he said of the win they handed him. "It's a giant. And they should be very proud, and our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today," Trump concluded his remarks.
The Supreme Court did the right thing in acknowledging the role of district courts and the limits of their power. Trump has notched quite a win, and it is only just beginning.
Newly released documents have confirmed that the Department of Justice under former President Joe Biden let Hunter Biden off the hook by not forcing him to register as a foreign agent.
The Oversight Project, a government watchdog, obtained the release of the files under a Freedom of Information Act request that the Trump administration was likely eager to comply with.
The Oversight Project president, Mike Howell, sat down for an exclusive interview with The Daily Mail, where he accused the DOJ of "refusing to look at the obvious, that Hunter was a foreign agent" due to his ties to a Ukrainian energy company.
Hunter Biden has been under scrutiny for years due to his position on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, despite his lack of qualifications. The former First Son has wiggled his way into multiple foreign companies, sparking suspicion that he was leveraging his family name.
These suspicions have since been confirmed as the entire Biden family made a profession out of selling access to the White House. However, we now know that the Biden DOJ was complicit in protecting the Biden family business.
The Oversight Project discovered that the Biden DOJ did not require Hunter Biden to register as a foreign agent even as they required other individuals undertaking similar ventures to register as foreign agents.
Documents show that in 2022, the DOJ determined that Burisma's former US lawyer, John Buretta of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, should have registered as a foreign agent when lobbying for Burisma in meetings with government officials in 2016.
Buretta should have registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which is designed to keep government officials and the American public informed about individuals acting on behalf of foreign governments or organizations.
All of this led to Howell stating, "Special Counsel David Weiss tried to basically pardon Hunter by a plea deal, refusing to look at the obvious, that Hunter was a foreign agent. The government, to include the intelligence community, federal law enforcement, prosecutors and the White House, twisted itself into pretzels over a long period of time to avoid the obvious with the Biden family."
It was obvious that Joe Biden, his brothers, and Hunter Biden were all selling access to the White House beginning when Joe Biden was former President Barack Obama's Vice President.
President Donald Trump pointed all of this out during the 2020 presidential election, but thanks to censorship by social media platforms in collusion with the intelligence community, it took years for the truth to become settled.
The corruption of the Biden family has gone unpunished despite the fact that the Bidens enriched themselves to the tune of millions by selling out the U.S. to foreign interests, most notably China.
While Hunter Biden's activities in Ukraine received the most scrutiny, there is also extensive documentation on the Biden family's ties to Chinese companies that are owned by the Chinese Communist Party.
The Trump administration is looking into the Biden family's activities, but the preemptive pardon given to Hunter Biden by Joe Biden in the last month of his term has complicated that investigation.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth excoriated Jennifer Griffin, a former Fox News colleague, when the reporter questioned the success of the U.S. attack on Iran's uranium enrichment, the UK Daily Mail reported. Hegseth has expressed a wider mistrust of the mainstream media.
Last weekend, the U.S. launched Operation Midnight Hammer to take out Iran's supply of enriched uranium. It was widely believed this was part of a clandestine nuclear program that has now been taken out, though reporters have attempted to undermine that success.
Griffen was one of those reporters who pushed back on the Pentagon's official remarks about the operation. Hegseth, a former Fox News weekend host, was not about to let his former co-worker get away with it, as a video from the briefing shared Thursday demonstrated.
Hegseth fielded questions about the White House's assessment of the operation. Griffin, a longtime Fox News Pentagon reporter, probed the defense secretary about whether all of the enriched uranium at the site was destroyed in the bombing attacks.
"There's nothing that I've seen that suggests that what we didn't hit exactly what we wanted to hit in those locations," Hegseth responded. Griffin pushed back trying to craft a narrative and asked if he had "certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was in Fordow" when the strike happened.
"There were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance? Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?" Griffin persisted.
"Of course, we're watching every single aspect," Hegseth replied. Then he quickly turned to personally admonish Griffin for her coverage that skews against the Trump administration.
"But Jennifer, you've been about the worst, the one who misrepresents the most intentionally what the President says," Hegseth said. Griffin defended herself, noting she "was the first to describe the B-2 bombers, the refueling, the entire mission, with great accuracy," and this made her "take issue" with Hegseth's remarks.
While Hegseth retreated briefly from his combativeness, another reporter followed up with a question that played off of Griffin's gripe last week about remarks made following the bombing. After the successful mission, Hegseth thanked "our boys" who made it possible.
Hegseth schooled the reporter in the room that he used the phrase as a blanket term for all of those involved in the mission, regardless of their sex. However, it was Griffin who first needled Hegseth about it on social media.
"We were able to destroy nuclear capabilities. And OUR BOYS in those bombers are on their way home right now," Griffin quoted Hegseth in a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday, adding her own emphasis.
"Fox News has learned that at least one of the B2 pilots who took part in the Iran mission was female," Griffin sought to correct the record. This demonstrates that Griffin is at odds with President Donald Trump's Pentagon, or at least with her former colleague.
The mainstream media should be impartial and cover issues from a neutral standpoint. However, something about the Trump presidency has revealed their biases, and perhaps Griffin was just the latest to succumb to the force of such emotions.
Rep. Laura Gillen warned that "socialism doesn't work," as evidenced by Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Breitbart reported. The New York Democrat made these remarks during an appearance on Newsmax's "Elizabeth Vargas Reports" on Wednesday.
The discussion was about New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, who won the primary this week. He is a self-described Democratic socialist with a radical agenda that will destroy New York City's economy.
Somehow, Mamdani beat out the rest of the field while spewing his lefist talking points and agenda proposals. Gillen is warning New Yorkers that he's about to run the city into the ground with his far-left policies just as Johnson has in Chicago.
While discussing Mamdani's proposed agenda, Vargas mentioned how Johnson's progressivism has damaged the Windy City. She noted that the "progressive mayor who was elected there…has abysmal approval ratings there," revealing that there is a problem.
"It’s been, according to many people who live in Chicago, a bit of a disaster," the host added. Gillen agreed, noting that it revealed the fatal flaw in the ideology.
"Yeah, listen, look, socialism doesn’t work. We need to lower costs for Americans, but in a responsible way," Gillen said.
The lawmaker added it's what she's "fighting to do every single day in Congress," keeping residents in her district afloat so "they can afford to stay there, that their parents can afford to stay there, and that young people want to come back," Gillen said. She said the key was "helping businesses thrive" in New York.
The host pointed out that other Democrats are similarly uneasy about Mamdani's newfound success. "It is notable that Speaker Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, both New York Democrats, congratulated Mamdani but did not endorse him, at least not yet," Vargas pointed out.
Mamdani has shared a range of terrible ideas that are likely to exacerbate the already difficult situation for New Yorkers. Some of the policies Mamdani wants are city-run grocery stores, safe injection sites, rent freezes, and a history of calling to defund police, Fox News reported.
This is the worst of Democratic policies all rolled into one candidate, but it seems to be what New Yorkers want. President Donald Trump summed it up best in a post to his Truth Social on Wednesday.
"It’s finally happened, the Democrats have crossed the line. Zohran Mamdani, a 100% Communist Lunatic, has just won the Dem Primary, and is on his way to becoming Mayor," Trump wrote.
"We’ve had Radical Lefties before, but this is getting a little ridiculous. He looks TERRIBLE, his voice is grating, he’s not very smart, he’s got AOC+3, Dummies ALL, backing him, and even our Great Palestinian Senator, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, is groveling over him. Yes, this is a big moment in the History of our Country!" Trump added.
Socialism never works because it is based on false assumptions about human behavior and fairness. The most frightening aspect of Mamdani's candidacy is that it seems to be what the people of New York City want, even if it means their own demise.
Food giant Nestle said it would remove all food, drug and cosmetic (FD&C) colors from its foods by mid-2026, handing a victory to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who has called for the dyes to be phased out or banned.
Nestle said in a June 25 press release that most of its foods are already free of these dyes, but they signaled their commitment to remove them completely.
“This effort is part of the company’s ongoing commitment to provide consumers with a range of high-quality, nutritious foods and beverages that reflect the diversity and choices that they want,” the press release read.
“Consumers enjoy a wide variety of foods and beverages as part of their daily diet. They want choice and value shaped by a dynamic – and highly personal – combination of nutrition, quality, price and convenience,” Nestlé USA CEO Marty Thompson said in a statement.
The move to eliminate the dyes, which some studies have indicated are harmful to the health of children and others, shows that companies are beginning to fall in line with the MAHA, or Make America Healthy Again, initiative.
In addition to Kennedy, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary is also calling for the dyes' removal. Makary and Kennedy said in April that they will be working together to get the food industry to remove them.
For now, they are eliciting cooperation from food companies rather than trying to impose mandates.
The focus is on “petroleum-based food dyes,” which include FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Blue No. 1, and FD&C Blue No. 2.
They would like to see these dyes removed from the American food supply by the end of 2026.
“For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent,” Kennedy said in a corresponding statement.
“These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development. That era is coming to an end. We’re restoring gold-standard science, applying common sense, and beginning to earn back the public’s trust. And we’re doing it by working with industry to get these toxic dyes out of the foods our families eat every day,” he added.
Kraft Heinz, Conagra Brands Inc., and General Mills are also taking steps to end the production of foods using the dyes in their foods, although it doesn't seem like they will all meet the hoped-for 2026 deadline.
The end of 2027 seems like a more realistic deadline for some of them, but they all plan to make significant progress during 2026.
These food dyes, while not explicitly banned in Europe and other parts of the world, are more heavily regulated and often require warning labels when they are used in food products.
In a significant legal decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina can exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid funding, as Breitbart reports. The decision, split at 6-3, overturns a prior decision and supports the state's stance against Planned Parenthood's claim of federal law violations.
The ruling stems from a 2018 executive order signed by South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. This prompted legal action from Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a Medicaid patient, who argued that the order infringed upon federal law by restricting patients' rights to select qualified healthcare providers.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, dismissed Planned Parenthood's argument regarding Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. He asserted that this section allows private plaintiffs to sue only in "atypical" circumstances where a statutory right is "clearly" and "unambiguously" designated for individuals.
In contrast, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented against the ruling. Justice Jackson argued that Section 1983 traditionally enables any citizen to seek redress for violations of constitutional or federal statutory rights.
South Carolina's efforts to sever Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood align with the state's legislation to prohibit abortions after six weeks with certain exceptions. Proponents of the Supreme Court's decision frame it as a successful push against taxpayer funding for abortion facilities.
Planned Parenthood maintained that the conflict revolves around broader healthcare access issues, rather than exclusively targeting abortion services. The organization expressed concerns for the precedent set by the ruling, fearing similar actions by other states might harm Medicaid coverage.
The reversal of the previous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has drawn public and organizational reactions. Conservative and pro-life organizations have praised the decision, viewing it as a triumph for unborn lives and the reduction of abortion funding.
Katie Daniel of Alliance Defending Freedom conveyed satisfaction with the ruling. She highlighted the protection of Medicaid from potential lawsuits over unqualified providers, framing the decision as beneficial for public policy.
Kelsey Reinhardt, another pro-life advocate, emphasized the ethical implications of taxpayer funds supporting what she termed as an industry founded upon the termination of innocent lives.
Beyond South Carolina, efforts persist at a national level to defund Planned Parenthood. Congress is reportedly working on legislation aimed at barring Planned Parenthood from accessing federal funding throughout the United States.
This landmark legal case, titled Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, No. 23-1275, has garnered substantial attention due to its broader implications on healthcare policy and state-federal balancing concerning Medicaid operations.
Justice Gorsuch further elucidated that permitting private individuals to enforce new statutory rights can pose significant public policy challenges. He suggested that such matters require careful legislative consideration rather than judicial determination.
The ruling signals potential shifts in the Medicaid landscape in South Carolina, where conservative groups point to the availability of 200 alternative publicly funded health clinics. They argue that these facilities can accommodate Medicaid patients needing non-abortion-related services.
Planned Parenthood's South Atlantic region has vocalized apprehension about the decision's impact on healthcare service accessibility for Medicaid recipients. The organization underscores the importance of inclusivity in healthcare provider choices under Medicaid coverage.
While the Supreme Court's decision marks a pivotal moment in Planned Parenthood's funding battles, it also highlights ongoing debates around legal interpretations of individual rights under federally supported programs.