The Trump administration sued the city of Los Angeles on Monday, accusing the city of violating the Constitution with “sanctuary city” policies that impede federal immigration enforcement.
The Justice Department said in a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1406366/dl" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> that the city’s policy prohibiting any city resources from being used for federal immigration actions violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The DOJ argued that the city’s policies contributed to the anti-ICE riots that rocked Los Angeles County earlier this month as law enforcement officers were attacked and vehicles were burned.
“Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said. “Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level – it ends under President Trump.”
Shortly after Trump was elected in November, the Los Angeles City Council voted to officially designate itself as a sanctuary city. These policies prevent the city from working with or sharing information with federal immigration authorities.
“The Supremacy Clause prohibits the City of Los Angeles and its officials from singling out the Federal Government for adverse treatment — as the challenged law and policies do — thereby discriminating against the Federal Government,” the lawsuit says. “Accordingly, the law and policies challenged here are invalid and should be enjoined.”
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-2388">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
The suit names Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the Los Angeles City Council, and Los Angeles City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson.
Dozens of people were federally or locally <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/we-are-coming-for-you-feds-reveal-more-charges-against-anti-ice-rioters?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=‘We+Are+Coming+For+You’%3A+Feds+Reveal+More+Charges+Against+Anti-ICE+Rioters" target="_blank" rel="noopener">charged</a> earlier this month after riots broke out in response to ICE conducting arrests in Los Angeles County. President Donald Trump sent in the Marines and the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property in response to the riots.
“Today’s lawsuit holds the City of Los Angeles accountable for deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law,” said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli for the Central District of California. “The United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause prohibits the City from picking and choosing which federal laws will be enforced and which will not. By assisting removable aliens in evading federal law enforcement, the City’s unlawful and discriminatory ordinance has contributed to a lawless and unsafe environment that this lawsuit will help end.”

Protesters continue to clash with the Los Angeles Police Department in downtown Los Angeles due to the immigration raids in L.A.

Trump Admin Hits Los Angeles With Lawsuit After Violent Anti-ICE Riots

Courts

Department of Justice

Donald Trump

Illegal Immigration

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Karen Bass

Los Angeles

Pam Bondi

Sanctuary Cities

Trump Administration

U.S.

The sex-trafficking trial of disgraced music mogul Sean &#8220;Diddy&#8221; Combs ground to screeching halt on Monday, just one hour after the jury began deliberating, when the jurors slipped a note to Manhattan Federal Court Judge Arun Subramanian questioning whether or not &#8220;Juror 25&#8221; would be able to carry out his civic duty.
The note, sent to Subramanian around 12:40 p.m. local time, stated that the majority was unsure of said juror&#8217;s ability to adhere to the judge&#8217;s instructions — but it did not give any indication as to why they believed that was the case.
&#8220;We have a juror, ‘Juror 25,’ who we believe cannot follow your honor&#8217;s instructions,&#8221; the note said, according to a report published Monday by the New York Post.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
JUST IN: Jury deliberating Diddy&#8217;s fate sends note to Judge
&#8220;We have a juror, No. 25, who we are concerned cannot follow your honor&#8217;s instructions.&#8221;<a href="https://t.co/XkHn2q4y3s">pic.twitter.com/XkHn2q4y3s</a>
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) <a href="https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1939760285184819411?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The juror&#8217;s name was not revealed, but the Post described him as &#8220;a 51-year-old man with a thick European accent,&#8221; and noted that he works as a scientist in Manhattan and holds an advanced degree in molecular biology.
A live report from CourtTV stated that during jury selection, the juror revealed he&#8217;d seen the video of Combs attacking then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura and said that &#8220;he had formed an opinion about that particular video,&#8221; but said at the time that he would be able to &#8220;set his opinion aside&#8221; when it came time to discuss the case.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-2388">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
The foreperson requested the chance to speak with the judge personally — or, if that was not possible, suggested that the judge should interview Juror 25.
Combs&#8217; trial came to an end on Friday after seven weeks of testimony and evidence, and the jury began deliberating at 11:30 a.m. on Monday. The rapper and music producer has pleaded not guilty to all charges, including sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion; transportation to engage in prostitution; and racketeering — and could spend up to life in prison if he&#8217;s convicted on any one of the three biggest charges against him.
Thus far, the judge has directed the jury to continue deliberations until further notice.

Sean “Diddy” Combs attends trial in New York federal court

Diddy Trial On Pause After Just One Hour Of Jury Deliberations, Note Reveals Problem With ‘Juror 25’

Diddy Trial On Pause After Just One Hour Of Jury Deliberations, Note Reveals Problem With 'Juror 25'

Celebrities

Crime

Sean 'Diddy' Combs

Sex Crimes

trial

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Republican challenge to campaign finance regulations that restricts political parties from coordinating campaign spending with political candidates.
The challenge from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) argues that restricting the amount parties can spend in coordination with candidates violates the First Amendment by restricting speech. The court is expected to hear arguments on the case when its fall 2025 term begins.
&#8220;The government should not restrict a party committee&#8217;s support for its own candidates. These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the Court&#8217;s decision to hear our case,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/NRSC/status/1939735374395232752" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> NRSC Chair Tim Scott and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson. &#8220;Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRSC and NRCC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.&#8221;
The case was originally brought by the NRSC and now-Vice President J.D. Vance back in 2022 in a challenge to restrictions on coordinated spending introduced by the 1972 Federal Election Campaign Act.
In September 2024, the restrictions were <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0212p-06.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">upheld</a> by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its decision, the appeals court said that the NRSC made “fair points” about speech restrictions; it could not side with them because of previous Supreme Court precedent.
The precedent in question was the 2001 FEC vs. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee decision, which ruled that limits on coordinated spending do not violate the First Amendment.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-2388">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
“The key reality is that the Supreme Court has not overruled the 2001 Colorado decision or the deferential review it applied to these provisions of the Act. In a hierarchical legal system, we must follow that decision and thus must deny the plaintiffs’ First Amendment facial and as applied challenges,” the Sixth Circuit Court wrote in its September decision.
In its December 2024 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-621/333312/20241204134722325_NRSC%20v.%20FEC%20Cert%20Petition.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">petition</a> to the Supreme Court, the NRSC said that Congress &#8220;has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.”
“Should this Court decline to take this case, future litigants will interpret that decision as proof that, whatever the Court has said in more recent campaign-finance cases, it is content to leave the political parties as second-class holders of First Amendment rights,” they wrote.
The Trump administration has signaled support for the challenge, while the Supreme Court allowed the Democratic National Committee to intervene in support of the campaign finance restrictions.

Supreme Court Releases Decisions On Final Day Of Term

Supreme Court To Hear GOP Free Speech Challenge To Campaign Spending Restrictions

campaign donation

First Amendment

Free Speech

Republicans

Supreme Court

Tim Scott

Justice Amy Coney Barrett may have penned the majority opinion in the Supreme Court&#8217;s recent case on birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions. But it was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and her dissent that landed in the spotlight — and not in a good way.
In her opinion for the 6-3 majority in Trump v. Casa, INC, Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-amy-coney-barrett-lays-the-legal-smackdown-on-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson">jabbed at Jackson</a>, suggesting that her dissent was &#8220;untethered&#8221; to any past precedent and stood in direct opposition to the Constitution.
&#8220;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,&#8221; Barrett wrote.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
But a closer look at Jackson&#8217;s dissent reveals that Barrett left out some of the strangest rabbit holes down which Jackson attempted to take the Court.
&#8220;A Martian arriving here from another planet would see these circumstances and surely wonder: &#8216;what good is the Constitution, then?'&#8221; Jackson wrote in her dissent.
&#8220;What, really, is this system for protecting people’s rights if it amounts to this—placing the onus on the victims to invoke the law’s protection, and rendering the very institution that has the singular function of ensuring compliance with the Constitution powerless to prevent the Government from violating it? &#8216;Those things Americans call constitutional rights seem hardly worth the paper they are written on!'&#8221;
Jackson was roundly mocked for adding a parenthetical &#8220;wait for it,&#8221; ostensibly to give her dissent a dramatic pause.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
KBJ’s dissent actually includes the phrase…wait for it… <a href="https://t.co/AGMu2KQULB">pic.twitter.com/AGMu2KQULB</a>
— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) <a href="https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1939002006913614116?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 28, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab — but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are . . . (wait for it) . . . the district courts.&#8221;
Throughout her dissent, Jackson — whom President Joe Biden named to the Court after <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-supreme-court-pick-championed-advocates-of-critical-race-theory-in-lectures-speeches">pledging</a> to nominate a black woman — gives no quarter to the possibility that district courts, by dramatically increasing the power and reach of their own decisions based solely on their demand that it be so, actually are the ones participating in a &#8220;power grab&#8221; — nor does she consider the possibility that an executive acting in a way that she dislikes is not necessarily a lawless one.

President Biden Delivers Remarks On Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Confirmation To Supreme Court

Biden’s Lone SCOTUS Pick Wonders What Aliens Would Think Of The Court’s Latest Decision

Biden's Lone SCOTUS Pick Wonders What Aliens Would Think Of The Court's Latest Decision

Amy Coney Barrett

Ketanji Brown Jackson

CNN Republican commentator Scott Jennings took a swing at Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, pointing out how quickly she&#8217;d changed her tune on the topic of nationwide injunctions when the party in power had changed.
Jennings raised the point during a panel discussion on &#8220;CNN Newsnight&#8221; with host Abby Phillip, captioning a video of the exchange, &#8220;Does anyone remember Justice Kagan being against nationwide injunctions when we had a DEMOCRAT President? Pepperidge Farms remembers.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Does anyone remember Justice Kagan being against nationwide injunctions when we had a DEMOCRAT President?
Pepperidge Farms remembers. <a href="https://t.co/s31HUKrkNo">pic.twitter.com/s31HUKrkNo</a>
— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) <a href="https://twitter.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/1938988002598101383?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 28, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Phillip began the conversation by noting that both Democrats and Republicans had opposed the idea of nationwide injunctions — a tool used by lower courts to extend what would otherwise be limited rulings to apply across the entire country — mostly when they were being used by the opposition party to restrain an executive with whom they agreed.
&#8220;The nationwide injunction is officially dead and the court taking an opportunity here to do something that a lot of conservatives, perhaps, have wanted for a while. But, as we’ve discussed plenty of times, the nationwide injunction has been sort of the bane of the existence of Democrat and Republican presidents. It’s just that now this court has actually done it,&#8221; Phillip said.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
Jennings, who has said on a number of occasions that the real &#8220;constitutional crisis&#8221; in play at present was a runaway judiciary bent on restraining President Donald Trump by any means necessary. &#8220;Yeah, they’ve finally done something about it. Friday was a great day for Donald Trump. The market ended at all-time highs. He’s breaking peace agreements in the Oval Office on a Friday afternoon. And then the court really clears the way for him to enact the agenda on which he ran.&#8221;
&#8220;I was trying to sort out my feelings on this matter, and I came up with a quote from a very smart lawyer, and I just want to quote it, because I think she was right when she said it. &#8216;It just can’t be right that one District Judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks,'&#8221; Jennings continued, pivoting to reveal his source: &#8220;Justice Elena Kagan in 2022 said that. Of course, when we had a democratic president. Now she voted against the decision on Friday. Just goes to show you that some of these folks really are hacks.&#8221;
&#8220;But as you correctly said, this has been the bane of existence of presidents and I’m glad they went ahead and fixed it because it’s not right that one of these individual district court judges can act like a king or a monarch and stop the elected president from acting,&#8221; Jennings concluded.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Speaks At George Washington University

‘Some Of These Folks Really Are Hacks’: CNN Republican Hits Kagan For Flip On Nationwide Injunctions

'Some Of These Folks Really Are Hacks': CNN Republican Hits Kagan For Flip On Nationwide Injunctions

Media

Politics

Scott Jennings

SCOTUS

President Donald Trump once again came to the defense of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, chastising the courts in Israel for proceeding with the case against him and comparing it to the cases against the president during the run-up to the 2024 presidential election.
Trump took to his Truth Social platform to <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114763460580044614">address the issue</a>, saying that if the case proceeded, it could &#8220;interfere&#8221; with ongoing negotiations — both between Israel and Iran and between Israel and the terror group Hamas.
&#8220;It is terrible what they are doing in Israel to Bibi Netanyahu,&#8221; Trump began. &#8220;He is a War Hero, and a Prime Minister who did a fabulous job working with the United States to bring Great Success in getting rid of the dangerous Nuclear threat in Iran.&#8221;
&#8220;Importantly, he is right now in the process of negotiating a Deal with Hamas, which will include getting the Hostages back,&#8221; Trump continued. &#8220;How is it possible that the Prime Minister of Israel can be forced to sit in a Courtroom all day long, over NOTHING (Cigars, Bugs Bunny Doll, etc).&#8221;
Trump then made a direct comparison to the cases against him, which he&#8217;s repeatedly said were politically motivated, and argued that the case against Netanyahu was no different.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-2388">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
&#8220;It is a POLITICAL WITCH HUNT, very similar to the Witch Hunt that I was forced to endure. This travesty of &#8216;Justice&#8217; will interfere with both Iran and Hamas negotiations. In other words, it is INSANITY doing what the out-of-control prosecutors are doing to Bibi Netanyahu,&#8221; he said, arguing that the prosecution also directly impacted the United States. &#8220;The United States of America spends Billions of Dollar a year, far more than on any other Nation, protecting and supporting Israel. We are not going to stand for this. We just had a Great Victory with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu at the helm — And this greatly tarnishes our Victory. LET BIBI GO, HE’S GOT A BIG JOB TO DO!&#8221;

US-ISRAEL-POLITICS-DIPLOMACY-TRUMP-NETANYAHU

Trump Slams Israeli Courts For Prosecuting Netanyahu: ‘LET BIBI GO!’

Benjamin Netanyahu

Global Politics

Israel

World

Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro reacted to three massive Supreme Court rulings that came down in favor of conservatives on Friday, one on birthright citizenship, one on LGBT children&#8217;s books, and the third on a Texas pornography law.
&#8220;The three biggest decisions all came down in favor of President Trump,&#8221; Shapiro said in his video reaction to the news on Friday.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eXGQhV6jA-Q?si=nO16xYGfzQxOjAiu" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
In the first case, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-limits-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-fight?author=Mairead+Elordi&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Supreme+Court+Sides+With+Trump%2C+Limits+Nationwide+Injunctions+In+Birthright+Citizenship+Fight">cracked down</a> on lower courts trying to hamstring President Trump&#8217;s agenda, ruling that Trump may end birthright citizenship in some parts of the country while legal challenges against his order proceed in others. Previously, courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state had issued nationwide injunctions that blocked Trump’s order from taking effect across the country.
The ruling did not address the question of birthright citizenship itself, which is the practice of granting automatic citizenship rights for babies born on United States soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.
Nationwide injunctions by courts blocking Trump&#8217;s agenda have been a &#8220;massive problem&#8221; for his administration since he took office, Shapiro said in his response.
&#8220;The basic issue here is that there is nothing in the history of the U.S. judicial system that suggests universal injunctions from district courts are a thing,&#8221; the host of &#8220;The Ben Shapiro Show&#8221; said. &#8220;You can&#8217;t just randomly make up universal injunctions and then start applying them without any sort of limitation.&#8221;
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-2388">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who penned the court&#8217;s majority opinion, blistered Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent.
&#8220;The court goes out of its way to smack down Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s dissent, which is truly a crazy dissent,&#8221; Shapiro noted. &#8220;I mean, her dissent in this case essentially says that because she feels like it, any district court judge should be able to issue any nationwide injunction against the Executive branch.&#8221;
&#8220;As the court points out, that&#8217;s kind of crazy,&#8221; Shapiro said. &#8220;For the Left, the answer always and forever is more power to whatever branch is useful to them. There is no actual through-line to their jurisprudence. This has always been the problem with constitutional jurisprudence from the Left.&#8221;
The second decision the Supreme Court handed down on Friday was in favor of a group of religious parents who sued over their Maryland school district barring them from opting their children out of LGBT books in the classroom.
Justice Samuel Alito <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-parents-says-schools-cant-mandate-lgbt-curricula?author=Mairead+Elordi&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Supreme+Court+Sides+With+Parents%2C+Says+Schools+Can’t+Mandate+LGBT+Curricula">penned</a> the court&#8217;s majority opinion, writing that the school district burdened the parents’ First Amendment rights.
The Maryland parents who sued included Catholics, Muslims, and Ukrainian Orthodox.
The controversial LGBT books included “Prince and Knight” about a prince who falls in love with a knight instead of a princess, and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” about a girl’s uncle who marries another man.
&#8220;So basically they were just going to force kids to listen to LGBTQ plus, minus, divided-by sign agitprop without notifying parents or allowing them the possibility of opt out,&#8221; Shapiro said.
Shapiro remembered how his own parents were able to opt him out of sex education in middle school.
&#8220;That&#8217;s an extraordinary thing,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I remember, when I went to public middle school, we reached the age where [Los Angeles Unified School District] decided that it was necessary that you be taught sex ed, and my parents, who had already taught me about sex, did not wish to have a bunch of left-wing agitprop shoveled into my brain by a bunch of public school educators, and so they opted me out. And they were allowed to opt me out because religious freedom and all that. Well, this particular school district said no, you cannot opt out no matter what you do.&#8221;
&#8220;Justice Alito goes into excruciating detail, pointing out what exactly happens in these books that are being taught to extremely small children, about sexual fluidity, gender identity, same-sex marriage, and all the rest,&#8221; Shapiro noted. &#8220;It is very, very obvious, very clear, of course, that the goal here is not just to teach what the law is nationally in the United States that men can marry men and women can marry women. The idea here is that it&#8217;s supposed to be upheld as a moral good, and you can&#8217;t opt out.&#8221;
&#8220;If you are teaching third graders that it is a positive good, an excellent positive good for boys to marry boys and girls to marry girls, boys to be girls, girls to be boys, and all the rest, that of course is what Justice Alito calls a chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical rights of parents to guide religious development of their children,&#8221; Shapiro said.
In Friday&#8217;s last major decision, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-texas-law-requiring-age-verification-to-shield-kids-from-pornography?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Supreme+Court+Upholds+Texas+Law+Requiring+Age+Verification+To+Shield+Kids+From+Pornography">voted</a> to uphold a Texas law requiring users to verify their age before viewing pornography, ruling against a trade organization for the porn industry.
&#8220;It is not some gigantic burden for somebody who is above the age of 18 to type in their age. That&#8217;s the basic finding,&#8221; Shapiro said. &#8220;The fact that, again, the three liberals on the court found this to be some sort of violation of core First Amendment liberty is insane.&#8221;
Shapiro added that he would have &#8220;gone further.&#8221;
&#8220;Pornography should not be covered by the First Amendment,&#8221; Shapiro said. &#8220;The notion that the Founding Fathers were sitting around talking about the necessity of accessing pornography when they wrote the First Amendment is insane. In fact, there were pornography laws on the books of I believe every state at the time of the founding.&#8221;
Shapiro emphasized that all three decisions tie back to Trump&#8217;s 2016 election.
&#8220;If he had not won the 2016 election, you would have had a left-wing bench cramming down the worst form of left-wing radicalism imaginable via the Supreme Court,&#8221; Shapiro said.

Senate Prepares For Supreme Court Nomination Hearings After Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett For Open Seat

Birthright Citizenship, LGBT Books, Porn Law: Ben Shapiro Reacts To Trump’s Trifecta Of Wins At SCOTUS

Ben Shapiro

LGBTQ

Texas

The Ben Shapiro Show

When the Justices on the Supreme Court are at odds over major and often contentious issues, the verbal jabs and sometimes even insults that typically play out behind closed doors can make their way into written opinions — and in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc., Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not disappoint.
Barrett penned the majority opinion in the case that revolves around the idea of birthright citizenship and whether it should apply to the children of illegal aliens — but also tackles the issue of the universal injunctions, being handed down on a regular basis by cherry-picked judges in liberal courts in an attempt to prevent President Donald Trump from implementing his policies.
Trump cheered the win in a post to his Truth Social platform, saying, &#8220;GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.&#8221;
But in addition to laying out the Court&#8217;s opinion, Barrett took the opportunity to deliver a few precision strikes on the body&#8217;s newest justice, appointed by former President Joe Biden, Ketanji Brown Jackson. Barrett&#8217;s remarks aimed at Jackson — who is perhaps best known for her inability to answer, on direct questioning, &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/yes-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-can-define-woman-the-woke-left-just-wont-let-her">what is a woman?</a>&#8221; — paint a clear picture of a justice more interested in activism than a Constitutional reading and application of the law.
Barrett began by addressing the principal dissent — which was joined by Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan, but written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor — and then panned Jackson&#8217;s by comparison.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
&#8220;The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,&#8221; Barrett wrote. &#8220;JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a &#8216;mind-numbingly technical query &#8230; she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of the courts is to &#8216;order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop.'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Amazing. Justice Barrett goes straight after Justice Jackson’s inability to do law. Jackson wants to tell the entire executive branch what to do and refuses to comply with Constitutional limitations. Insanely dangerous, and Barrett is right to call it out. <a href="https://t.co/lRmkQvEgYZ">pic.twitter.com/lRmkQvEgYZ</a>
— May Mailman (@MayMailman) <a href="https://twitter.com/MayMailman/status/1938605036184990038?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Still referencing Jackson&#8217;s dissent in the case, Barrett wrote, &#8220;We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON&#8217;S argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries&#8217; worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Amy Coney Barrett pulls no punches on judicial authoritarianism. Says Jackson is at odds with “the Constitution itself” and “ decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.”
This is good ACB! <a href="https://t.co/vPFGm078qd">pic.twitter.com/vPFGm078qd</a>
— Megan Basham (@megbasham) <a href="https://twitter.com/megbasham/status/1938629561601888502?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Observing the limits on judicial authority — including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789 — is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law,&#8221; Barrett continued, adding, &#8220;JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring &#8216;legalese,&#8217; post, at 3, she seeks to answer &#8216;a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?&#8217; Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: &#8216;[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.&#8217; Ibid. That goes for judges too.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
More of Barrett nuking Jackson from orbit: <a href="https://t.co/joKaIdtr0v">pic.twitter.com/joKaIdtr0v</a>
— Conn Carroll (@conncarroll) <a href="https://twitter.com/conncarroll/status/1938606567508644039?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Senate Holds Confirmation Hearing For Amy Coney Barrett To Be Supreme Court Justice

Justice Amy Coney Barrett Lays The Legal Smackdown On Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

birthright citizenship

What Is A Woman

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday to uphold a Texas law requiring users to verify their age before accessing pornography, handing a defeat to a trade organization for the porn industry.
The case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, focused on a requirement for users to demonstrate that they are 18 years old or older to access pornographic websites. The law prompted PornHub to <a href="https://versustexas.com/blog/age-verification-law-texas/">suspend access</a> for all Texas users while claiming that the legislation infringed on free speech.
The ruling affirms a lower court&#8217;s decision against a trade group working on behalf of the pornography industry.
“Age-verification laws … fall within States’ authority to shield children from sexually explicit content. The First Amendment leaves undisturbed States’ traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">wrote</a>. “That power necessarily includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech.”
“The power to verify age is a necessary component of the power to prevent children’s access to content that is obscene from their perspective,” Thomas went on to note, adding that the legislation “falls within Texas’s traditional power to protect minors from speech that is obscene from their perspective.”
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan dissented, alongside Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“For adults cannot be limited to ‘only what is fit for children,’” Kagan wrote in the dissenting opinion. “Their right to view ‘[s]exual expression,’ outside the traditional obscenity category, is ‘protected by the First Amendment,’” she went on to say before charging that Texas’ law “impedes the exercise of that right.”
“It imposes what our First Amendment decisions often call a ‘chilling effect,’” Kagan said of the law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could clear the way for other states to impose age restrictions on pornographic websites, with 18 states already passing <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/27/supreme-court-decision-porn-website-age-verification-texas/84379183007/">similar legislation</a>.

Supreme Court Justices

Supreme Court Upholds Texas Law Requiring Age Verification To Shield Kids From Pornography

minors

Pornography

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that schools violate religious liberty when they bar parents from opting their children out of classroom instruction involving LGBT-themed books, a major win for religious conservatives.
Justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines to back a group of religious parents affiliated with Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland who argued they should be able to opt their children out of lessons with LGBT themes.
The Maryland parents who sued included Catholics, Muslims, and Ukrainian Orthodox.
The controversial LGBT books included &#8220;Prince and Knight&#8221; about a prince who falls in love with a knight instead of a princess and &#8220;Uncle Bobby&#8217;s Wedding&#8221; about a girl&#8217;s uncle who marries another man.
Justice Samuel Alito penned the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf">opinion</a>, writing that the school district burdened the parents&#8217; First Amendment rights.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
&#8220;Today, we hold that the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses &#8216;a very real threat of undermining&#8217; the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,&#8221; Alito wrote.
Alito said the &#8220;storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender&#8221; and the school board has &#8220;specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes far beyond mere &#8216;exposure.'&#8221;
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was joined by the other two liberal justices in which she criticized the court allowing &#8220;parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.&#8221;
&#8220;The reverberations of the Court&#8217;s error will be felt, I fear, for generations,&#8221; Sotomayor wrote.
Rosalind Hanson, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said she is &#8220;thrilled&#8221; with the decision.
&#8220;I am thrilled with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold religious liberty and parental rights against our authoritarian school district pushing a one-sided agenda,&#8221; Hanson told The Daily Wire.
&#8220;Our children should never have been forced to learn about such sensitive topics without the ability for parents to know or opt them out,&#8221; said Hanson, who also chairs the Moms for Liberty Chapter in Montgomery County.
The legal team for the plaintiffs called the decision a &#8220;historic victory.&#8221;
“Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission. Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents — not government — have the final say in how their children are raised,&#8221; said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs.
Trump called the decision a &#8220;tremendous ruling for parents.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;I think the ruling was a great ruling, and I think it&#39;s a great ruling for parents&#8230; they lost control of the schools. They lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/Pla2qrLE36">https://t.co/Pla2qrLE36</a> <a href="https://t.co/jqySSHA8QM">pic.twitter.com/jqySSHA8QM</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938631684284432695?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“I think it’s a great ruling for parents. It’s really a ruling for parents. They lost control of the schools, they lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents. And I’m not surprised by it, but I am surprised that it went this far,” Trump said in the White House briefing room on Friday.
Parental rights advocates and religious groups celebrated Friday&#8217;s decision as well.
“Storybooks like those at issue in Mahmoud convey normative messages on sex and gender, and those messages can and often do conflict with the beliefs of parents and their children,&#8221; said Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education.
&#8220;Today&#8217;s ruling should act as a directive to every American school district: notify parents of controversial material, and provide them the opportunity to opt their children out — especially if you provide opt-outs for other curriculum or other reasons,&#8221; Perry said.
Kelsey Reinhardt, president and CEO of CatholicVote said the case was a &#8220;major victory&#8221; but that it should &#8220;alarm every American&#8221; that the high court had to step in.
&#8220;For over two years, Catholic parents alongside parents of other faiths have been forced to defend their constitutional right to opt their pre-K-8th grade children out of radical LGBTQ+ course materials that contradict their own religious beliefs,&#8221; Reinhardt said, adding that Montgomery schools &#8220;insisted on forcing explicit curriculum about gender ideology on children as young as 3 years old.&#8221;
&#8220;The Court’s ruling sends a clear and powerful message: America still respects the rights of parents to raise their children in line with their faith and conscience,&#8221; she said.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Parental Rights Regarding LGBTQ Books In Schools

Supreme Court Sides With Parents, Says Schools Can’t Mandate LGBT Curricula

Supreme Court Rules Schools Must Let Religious Parents Opt Out Of LGBT Books

LGBT

Parents rights

Religious Freedom

Religious Liberty

The Supreme Court handed down an opinion on Friday in a case regarding President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive order on birthright citizenship, ruling that lower courts do not have the unilateral authority to block Trump&#8217;s agenda.
The justices <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf">ruled</a> 6-3 along ideological lines, allowing Trump to try to end birthright citizenship in some parts of the country while legal challenges against his order proceed in others.
The ruling did not address the question of birthright citizenship itself, which is the practice of granting automatic citizenship rights for babies born on United States soil, regardless of their parents&#8217; citizenship status.
Previously, lower courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state had issued nationwide injunctions that blocked Trump&#8217;s order from taking effect.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf">opinion</a> for the majority.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
She wrote that &#8220;federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.&#8221;
“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Barrett said.
Trump celebrated the ruling on Friday.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;This is SUCH A BIG DAY&#8230; this is a very big moment, and it gives power back to people that should have it&#8230; it only takes bad power away from judges.&quot;
&quot;This is a very monumental decision.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/FTTt8Ur8r9">pic.twitter.com/FTTt8Ur8r9</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938639417062892021?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Big one, wasn’t it? This was a big decision,” Trump said from the White House briefing room, calling the ruling an “amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about.”
Trump said a &#8220;whole list&#8221; of his policies can now move forward thanks to the decision, including ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, and stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.
Trump also praised Barrett, whom he nominated to the court in 2020.
“I just have great respect for her. I always have. And her decision was brilliantly written today — from all accounts,” the president told reporters.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated Friday&#8217;s ruling and said she is “very confident” the Supreme Court will eventually rule in its favor on the merits of Trump&#8217;s order ending birthright citizenship.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers <a href="https://twitter.com/TheJusticeDept?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheJusticeDept</a> and our Solicitor General John Sauer.
This…
&mdash; Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1938602739157570000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion saying, &#8220;For good reason, the Court today puts an end to the &#8216;increasingly common&#8217; practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.&#8221;
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.
Jackson also wrote her own dissent, which stated that &#8220;the Court&#8217;s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.&#8221;
Barrett blistered Jackson&#8217;s dissent in the court&#8217;s opinion.
&#8220;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.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Very sharp rebuke of Jackson&#39;s dissent. Last sentence ends: &quot;law against anyone, anywhere.&quot; ACB majority opinion concludes: &quot;JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/CU9Ryss8rq">pic.twitter.com/CU9Ryss8rq</a>
&mdash; Philip Wallach (@PhilipWallach) <a href="https://twitter.com/PhilipWallach/status/1938601818524660079?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Barrett went on to say that Jackson &#8220;skips over&#8221; the &#8220;limits on judicial authority.&#8221;
&#8220;Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring &#8216;legalese,&#8217; &#8230;  she seeks to answer &#8216;a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?'&#8221; Barrett wrote. &#8220;In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: &#8216;[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.&#8217; That goes for judges too.&#8221;

Supreme Court Sides With Trump, Limits Nationwide Injunctions In Birthright Citizenship Fight

Supreme Court Uses Birthright Citizenship Case To Crack Down On Courts Blocking Trump's Agenda

Executive Orders

Anyone following the news in recent months has likely heard that there is a constitutional crisis going on. Anyone paying close attention, not to the hysterical headlines but to the actual legal issues at play, should understand that there is indeed a constitutional crisis, but it has nothing to do with Trump being a tyrant. No, the real crisis is not in the executive branch. The crisis stems from <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#3">Article III</a> of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” (emphasis added). In case it isn’t clear, judicial power is invested in the Supreme Court. All other federal courts are created by statute (they have no necessary constitutional right to exist) and are inferior to the Supreme Court.
Yet, an observer might be forgiven for thinking this is not the case. The federal district courts (which have jurisdiction over a particular district within a state and are subject to the rulings of the higher courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court) seem to have almost unlimited control over the rule of law in America today. This is indeed a crisis.
It is a problem when district courts, who are supposed to decide particular cases about the parties before them, somehow have jurisdiction to issue nationwide rulings that thwart the president’s agenda all across the country. But it is quite another problem, a more dire and disturbing one, when district courts not only attempt to govern the country but directly subvert the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, to whom these district courts are inferior.
There are many egregious instances of federal district courts running wild. For example, on April 4 the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a910_f2bh.pdf">vacated a decision</a> by a Massachusetts district court. The district court attempted to apply a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Trump administration from terminating various education-related grants. The district court’s order also required “the Government to pay out past-due grant obligations and to continue paying obligations as they accrue.” The Court reasoned that the administration’s order should stay in place until the final resolution of the case, because if the administration prevailed they would never see those grant funds returned and the education programs had sufficient money to continue operating without those disputed grants. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s restraining order and allowed the administration to freeze the grant funds until the final decision was made.
Yet the fight to stop the Trump administration from defunding and dismantling the Department of Education continues. Just a couple weeks later, a Connecticut <a href="https://ctmirror.org/2025/04/24/dei-education-funding-trump/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">district court blocked</a> the Trump administration’s efforts to cut funding to schools that continue to implement DEI programs. And in May, another district judge in Massachusetts <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-blocks-trumps-executive-order-to-dismantle-education-department">blocked</a> the administration’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education.
In the most recent and perhaps most troubling example, on June 23 the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf">stayed a preliminary injunction</a>. The injunction attempted to stop the administration from holding suspected illegal immigrants in “third countries” (neither the United States nor the country of origin, which often will not take these people back). Yet after the Supreme Court vacated the district court injunction, the district judge <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2025/06/sotomayor-outlawyers-supreme-court-majority-in-shadow-docket-deportation-ruling/">immediately &#8220;clarified&#8221;</a> that his pause on these third country deportations is still in effect. How? Well, he relied on Justice Sotomayor’s dissent from the Supreme Court ruling and claimed that his order was not properly before the Supreme Court in the first place.
We are watching a dangerous game playing out here. The Supreme Court (the court with actual judicial authority under the U.S. Constitution) says that a district judge may not stop the Trump administration from freezing Department of Education funds, then district courts continue stopping those types of actions. The Supreme Court says the district court may not stop the removal of illegal aliens to third countries, then the district court claims that its orders preventing those same deportations remain in effect. One can quibble about procedure, but the reality is the Supreme Court’s rulings are being boldly and disturbingly undermined by inferior courts.
Two things to note. First, it is troubling that the lower courts are relying on dissents to thwart the rulings of the Supreme Court. That is not how law works. Dissenting opinions simply do not have force of law and they cannot be relied upon in undermining the majority opinions of the Supreme Court.
Second, the Supreme Court’s actions in these cases are quite modest: the court is vacating the lower courts’ extreme choice to stop the Trump administration’s actions while the cases are still being decided. The Supreme Court is not issuing final decisions; it is simply saying that lower courts need to stop interfering with every action the administration takes until the courts actually rule on these cases. This is a prudent action in the face of activist courts trying to thwart the actions of the people’s president.
The Supreme Court has the power to decide what the law says. The Court is doing just that and, often, what the Court is saying is that the Trump administration has the power to make executive decisions that cannot be stopped by activist district court judges.
Federal district courts are frankly out of control. The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/122-contempt-of-the-supreme-court">has the power</a> to hold people in contempt who disobey the Court’s orders. That power should extend to lower court judges who are clearly doing just that. Perhaps desperate times call for desperate measures and this is what it will take to rein in the out-of-control actions of renegade district judges.
* * *
Frank DeVito is Senior Counsel and Director of Content at the Napa Legal Institute. His work has previously been published in The American Conservative, the Federalist, Public Discourse, the Daily Wire, First Things, and several other publications. He lives in eastern Pennsylvania with his wife and children. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily his employer.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

U.S. Supreme Court Allows South Carolina To Block Medicaid Funds To Planned Parenthood

Menu