The White House commended two major decisions from the Supreme Court on Thursday morning, which bolster the Trump administration’s ability to crack down on immigration. In these rulings, the high court decided that the Trump administration could cut off temporary legal protections for thousands of Haitians and Syrians and cleared the path for the administration…
"This bill is a major step toward reducing housing costs for millions of American families, and Donald Trump just doesn't care," Elizabeth Warren told HuffPost.
A decision by Justice Sonia Sotomayor to take 12 minutes of the court’s time on Thursday to read her dissent in a 6-3 ruling that makes it significantly harder for asylum seekers who traveled through Mexico and South America to enter the US provoked Justice Sam Alito to take an unseemly potshot at her, which stunned court regulars.According to MS NOW legal analyst Lisa Rubin, arch-conservative Alito sat and listened to a very “calm” Sotomayor read her dissent, with Rubin pointing out, “That is certainly not unusual.”“But here there was a moment of tension between Justices Sotomayor, with her dissent and Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion here,” she elaborated. “Producer Peggy Helman, who is in the court for the reading of all of these decisions, said that Justice Alito said in response out loud, ‘There's much I would have added if I had known a dissent would be read from the bench.’”“She [Helman] said that people in the Supreme Court, in the gallery gasped when he said that because this is a group of people that, for all of their differences in terms of legal, interpretive methodology or even the outcome of cases, they like to make it seem as if they get a long; that they are all just rowing in the same direction, trying to do their job to uphold the rule of law” Rubin reported. “Even when their conceptions of what the rule of law is differs, that very obvious public fracture between the two of them was one that was surprising even to the most veteran court watchers in the room today,” she added. - YouTube youtu.be
Like most professional sports, Major League Baseball players have been forced to promote the LGBTQ community — especially during Pride Month.But this Pride Month things are changing, and gay baseball fans are not happy about it.In one article for the magazine “Out Sports” titled “Gay Giants fan’s heartbreaking letter shows the cost of the team’s Pride Night failure,” a fan laments the actions of several San Francisco Giants players who chose to do their own thing on Pride Night.“So this fan wrote a note to the San Francisco Giants ... about this incident that happened at their Pride Night festival,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere explains on “Stu Does America.” “Now as you may know, every Major League Baseball team has a Pride Night with the exception of the Texas Rangers.”While the team did celebrate Pride Night, multiple Giants players wore hats boasting Bible verses.“Signifying, ‘Hey, like you know this isn’t a thing that we want to be involved in, and we have a different opinion,’” Stu explains.The Bible verse in question “talks about the rainbow and how it was God’s sign.”The disgruntled fan wrote that he has been “a lifelong Giants fan for over 40 years,” beginning when he “attended games as a kid” and “arrived early to get autographs from players.”“As an LGBTQ athlete, I’ve had the honor of going to a Pride night or day for many years. I’ve also organized 200 plus softball players to attend the game annually,” he said.“I was unbelievably disappointed by the offensive and disrespectful actions of a few Giants players who chose to write a Bible verse on their hats that was meant to reclaim the rainbow as a Christian/Catholic symbol,” he continued.“Now, my understanding was the Bible came long before Pride Night. I don’t know if that’s accurate, Dave, historically, but I believe it is,” Stu says.The gay author went on to explain that in 1978, Gilbert Baker created the rainbow flag in San Francisco as a symbol of pride.“I will note 1978 is after the Bible came out,” Stu comments, pointing out that “not everything has to be about sex.”“Like you can actually have a sport where people come out and enjoy the sport,” he adds.Want more from Stu and Dave?To enjoy more of Stu and Dave's lethal blend of wit, humor, and insightful commentary subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
This was the right result, but the decision should have been unanimous.
The decision means similar laws in other states likewise violate the Second Amendment, and it casts doubt on the constitutionality of location-specific gun bans that cover a lot of territory.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and the Trump administration regarding when asylum-seekers officially "arrive" in the U.S.In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the Court held that aliens seeking asylum do not “arrive in the United States” until they physically cross the border into the country and therefore are not entitled to inspection by border officials until they have entered onto U.S. soil.'An alien "arrives in the United States" only when he crosses the border.'The case stems from the federal government’s “metering” policy — first adopted in 2016 amid a surge of migrants at the southern border — that limited the number of aliens whom Customs and Border Patrol agents would inspect each day for asylum. When a port of entry reached capacity, officials physically prevented additional aliens from entering until capacity became available again. In 2017, asylum-seekers and Al Otro Lado, an immigration advocacy organization, brought forward a class-action lawsuit arguing that the federal government was unlawfully denying aliens access to asylum procedures. The federal district court in Southern California granted summary judgment in favor of the noncitizens and declared the government’s policy unlawful. The metering policy was then discontinued in November 2021, though the second Trump administration has attempted to revive it. A divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that an alien “arrives in the United States” when said alien — even while standing on the Mexico side of the border — encounters a U.S. official and thus must be inspected for asylum claims. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito reversed the lower court’s ruling. The court held that the meaning of “arrives in the United States” requires physically entering the country. Therefore, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, an alien standing on the Mexico side of the border is not entitled to inspection by a U.S. official. “We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border,” Alito wrote.RELATED: Ketanji Brown Jackson melts down over SCOTUS ruling against Hawaii gun law: 'The court's objective is protecting guns' U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices Samuel Alito (L) and Clarence Thomas (R).Chip Somodevilla/POOL/AFP/Getty ImagesThe court highlighted the text of other INA provisions and subsequent amendments to the statute to indicate that Congress intended asylum and inspection rights to apply only after an alien enters the country. “That Congress amended §1158(a) in IIRIRA to replace ‘at a land border or port of entry’ with ‘arrives in the United States’ suggests that we should not read those phrases — which carry different ordinary meanings — to have the same meaning.”Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that Congress intended border officials to inspect and process all aliens who present themselves at ports of entry, regardless of whether they have physically stepped into the U.S. The dissent contended that the majority’s decision “ignores the statutory context and history” of the INA and weakens the asylum protections Congress created for people fleeing persecution. "The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil.” Sotomayor added, "The Court's illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: 'in.'"Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Almost a fifth of Americans would like Pride Month to be canceled.
The Supreme Court has ruled to allow the Trump administration to end the Temporary Protected Status for thousands of immigrants from Haiti and Syria. NBC News' Gary Grumbach reports on the court's split among ideological lines and how the ruling impacts the administration's immigration policies.