The Trump administration, in a Supreme Court brief, argues it can deport anyone—citizen or immigrant—to a foreign country without due process and deny them all constitutional rights. This claim, made in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, wrongly deported to El Salvador despite having protected status, asserts the government’s inability to retrieve individuals held in foreign prisons, even if the deportation was an error. The administration contends that federal courts lack jurisdiction over individuals held abroad at the government’s request, even though the US pays for their detention. This unprecedented assertion, if accepted, would effectively allow the government to create overseas black sites from which individuals could be permanently disappeared, undermining fundamental due process protections for all.
Read More
Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily stayed a midnight deadline for the Trump administration to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man mistakenly deported to a dangerous El Salvadoran prison. The Justice Department argued that Judge Paula Xinis’ order overstepped her authority, claiming the administration lacked the means to retrieve Abrego Garcia from a foreign sovereign’s custody. While the administration admitted the deportation was an error, they contested the court’s injunction, framing it as part of a broader effort to impede the President’s agenda. The case is further complicated by a separate Supreme Court appeal concerning the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to the same prison.
Read More
Elon Musk’s America PAC altered a video of a $1 million check recipient, removing the word “vote” after the recipient linked receiving the money to voting in the Wisconsin election. This action followed a Wisconsin Supreme Court race where the candidate Musk supported lost, despite his attempt to incentivize voting through large cash prizes. The altered video aimed to avoid potential legal repercussions under Wisconsin’s election bribery laws, which prohibit paying individuals to vote. Musk later revised his own statements about the giveaway to further distance himself from accusations of illegal inducement.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision temporarily blocking the Biden administration’s freeze on millions in federal grants for teacher shortages, representing the administration’s first high court victory since January. The court reasoned that the states possessed sufficient funds to maintain their programs while litigation continued, allowing recovery of wrongfully withheld funds later. However, the decision was narrow, with dissenting justices highlighting the significant harm caused to states and questioning the court’s handling of a temporary restraining order. The ruling could have broader implications for future challenges to Trump administration policies. The case centers around allegations that grant recipients engaged in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, prompting the administration to freeze the funds.
Read More
Despite spending $25 million to support conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel, Elon Musk’s preferred candidate lost to liberal Susan Crawford. Musk attempted to frame the outcome as a victory due to the passage of a voter ID amendment, already existing state law, minimizing his substantial financial investment’s failure. This prompted widespread online mockery, highlighting the disconnect between Musk’s significant spending and his chosen candidate’s defeat. Crawford’s win maintains a liberal majority on the court, impacting crucial cases on abortion access, voting rights, and redistricting.
Read More
Elon Musk’s America PAC removed a video of $1 million giveaway winner Ekaterina Deistler after she stated the money was partly for voting in a Wisconsin Supreme Court race. A revised video, omitting the reference to voting, was subsequently released. Experts suggest this alteration reflects attempts to avoid accusations of violating state bribery statutes, related to Musk’s substantial spending in support of a conservative Supreme Court candidate. The initial video’s removal and subsequent re-edit underscore concerns about the legality of Musk’s actions.
Read More
The liberal candidate’s victory in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race is a significant rebuke to both Donald Trump and Elon Musk, a development that’s sent ripples of excitement and relief across a considerable segment of the population. This win feels particularly potent because it directly counters the influence of powerful figures who have been actively involved in shaping the political landscape.
The margin of victory, a landslide by most accounts, suggests a stronger rejection of the tactics employed by these figures than many had anticipated. This outcome casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of their efforts, and even suggests that those efforts may have backfired.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood