President Trump’s current term is marked by unprecedented corruption and self-enrichment, exceeding the concerns of his first term. Unlike his first term where Republican guardrails existed, he now operates with an unqualified, loyalist cabinet and lacking party opposition. The Supreme Court’s rulings further embolden his actions, allowing him to pursue personal gain at the expense of the nation. This behavior, ranging from foreign financial dealings to domestic policy decisions, demands immediate and sustained public outrage to pressure elected officials into accountability.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a late-night decision blocking the Trump administration’s imminent deportation of Venezuelan detainees from a Texas facility to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison. The unsigned opinion sharply criticized the administration for misrepresenting facts, providing insufficient notice of removal (only 24 hours), and attempting to circumvent judicial review by transferring detainees to a foreign country where U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction. The Court rejected the administration’s strategy to avoid class-action lawsuits by promising different treatment for named plaintiffs, highlighting its frustration with efforts to evade due process. This decision, while impacting the Fifth Circuit, effectively halts further removals under the Alien Enemies Act nationwide until further judicial review.
Read More
The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, halting a lower court’s injunction that preserved Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans. This decision potentially exposes these individuals to deportation, overturning a ruling by a San Francisco judge who cited the significant disruption and economic impact of ending TPS. The Supreme Court offered no explanation for its ruling, a common practice in emergency appeals. This action follows similar recent appeals by the Trump administration concerning immigration, demonstrating an aggressive push to limit immigration protections.
Read More
The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Venezuelans accused of gang affiliation without due process, prompting Trump’s outrage. He, echoing comments from ally Mike Davis, labeled the Court’s injunction “illegal” on Truth Social, despite lower courts consistently ruling against the deportations. This represents a departure from Trump’s previous praise of the Court and continues a pattern of attacking judges who rule against him, raising concerns about his disregard for judicial authority. The Court’s decision highlighted concerns about bypassing due process rights.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act for deportations, citing insufficient due process for affected immigrants. This ruling stemmed from the administration’s failure to provide adequate notice and opportunity to contest deportation, despite claiming to have addressed previous concerns. Trump, however, has vehemently criticized the decision, claiming the court is obstructing his efforts to deport individuals deemed terrorists, while ignoring the court’s focus on constitutional due process rights. The Court’s action sends the matter back to a lower court for further review.
Read More
President Trump vehemently criticized the Supreme Court’s temporary block on his administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite migrant deportations. This followed a 7-2 Supreme Court decision citing insufficient due process afforded to migrants facing deportation. Trump, amplifying a suggestion from an advisor, shared a post proposing the release of “terrorists” near the homes of justices. This action came after the administration ignored a court order to return a deported man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to the United States. The president’s response underscores his frustration with judicial oversight of his immigration policies.
Read More
The Supreme Court extended a block on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals, citing insufficient due process afforded to the detainees. The 7-2 decision mandates advance notice and the opportunity to challenge deportation in court, a ruling that angered President Trump, who criticized the Court on social media. While the ruling specifically addresses Venezuelan gang members detained in Texas, similar legal challenges are pending nationwide, potentially halting Trump’s broader deportation efforts. The Supreme Court’s opinion did not address the legality of invoking the Alien Enemies Act itself, leaving that question for lower courts to decide.
Read More
The Supreme Court temporarily blocked President Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants, citing insufficient notice and due process violations. The justices remanded the case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for further review of the act’s legality and the required notice period. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing against the Court’s intervention. This decision effectively halts all deportations under the act until lower courts and potentially the Supreme Court definitively rule on its legality and procedural requirements.
Read More
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to temporarily block the deportation of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act, citing insufficient notice and resources provided by the Trump administration before their removal. The court found the 24-hour notice given before deportation inadequate, mandating a lower court revisit the appropriate notice period. While not addressing the Act’s proper application, the decision grants temporary relief pending the lower court’s determination, acknowledging both national security interests and constitutional due process. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, questioning the urgency of the situation and criticizing the lower court’s actions.
Read More
Following oral arguments in a Supreme Court case challenging his executive order ending birthright citizenship, President Trump accused Democrats of “playing the ref,” alleging coordinated efforts to influence the justices. He warned the court against succumbing to these perceived games, claiming widespread public support. However, this assertion contradicts recent polling data showing low approval ratings for both Trump and his executive order. Trump’s rhetoric implied potential repercussions for justices ruling against his administration.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker