The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Trump administration can revoke protected status for more than 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela from deportations.
The unsigned decision was not a final ruling on the case, but it will allow the Trump administration to continue its mass deportation efforts as an appeal of the president&#8217;s order plays out in the courts, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-supreme-court.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor signed onto a written dissent, arguing that the court&#8217;s decision would have “the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.&#8221;
The ruling centers on former President Joe Biden&#8217;s humanitarian parole program that allowed migrants from certain countries facing instability to enter the United States and quickly receive work authorization. On day one in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for the end of the migrant parole program, and the Department of Homeland Security responded by moving to terminate the program in March, Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-revokes-legal-status-530000-cubans-haitians-nicaraguans-venezuelans-2025-03-21/">reported</a>.
Biden opened up the United States to thousands of Venezuelans in 2022 and then to Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans in 2023. After Trump moved to revoke the protected status for these migrants, lawyers representing many of the migrants sued, arguing that Trump&#8217;s &#8220;actions are not only illegal, but shockingly callous.&#8221; Biden&#8217;s parole program also extended to around 240,000 Ukrainians, but the Trump administration has not yet sought to revoke protected status for the Ukrainians fleeing the war.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
The Trump administration&#8217;s move to terminate the parole program was paused by a federal judge in Massachusetts in March, and that pause was upheld by an appeals court earlier this month. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in a May 8 emergency application to the Supreme Court that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has “broad discretion over categories of immigration determinations” and has the power to revoke the protected status recognized under Biden&#8217;s parole program, according to the Times.
Sauer <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1079/358354/20250508121118618_Kristi_Noem_v_Svitlana_Doe_et_al_%20application_stay.pdf">wrote</a> that the district court upended &#8220;critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry, vitiating core Executive Branch prerogatives, and undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election.&#8221;
The Supreme Court&#8217;s Friday decision is its second ruling this month that allows Trump to seek the removal of migrants from the United States as an appeals process plays out. On May 19, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-allows-trump-to-end-temporary-protected-status-for-certain-migrants">ruled</a> 8-1 that the Trump administration can remove Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for around 350,000 Venezuelan migrants who were allowed to remain in the United States under the Biden administration.

Donald Trump

SCOTUS Rules Trump Can Revoke Protected Status For Half A Million Migrants From Multiple Countries

Biden Administration

Courts

Department of Homeland Security

Deportations

Joe Biden

Politics

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Trump Administration

On Thursday, the Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to fire two members of federal labor review boards appointed by former President Joe Biden, whom he said were at odds with his agenda.
In a 6-3 decision, the court said that Trump could terminate Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board after lower courts blocked the firings. The court granted the request from the Trump administration as litigation plays out.
The court wrote that “because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President &#8230; [Trump] may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions.”
&#8220;The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power. But we do not ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within such a recognized exception; that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument,&#8221; the court wrote.  
&#8220;The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,&#8221; the conservative wing of the court wrote in their decision. 
The ruling added that the court did not believe that it would pave the way for Trump to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or members of the Federal Open Market Committee.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all dissented from the majority decision.
&#8220;Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency—a multi-member, bipartisan commission exercising regulatory power whose governing statute contains a for-cause provision,&#8221; Kagan wrote in her dissent.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
In court filings, Solicitor General John Sauer said that presidents were not mandated to keep federal bureaucrats in power if they did not align with his agenda.
&#8220;The president should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the administration&#8217;s policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months that it would likely take for the courts to resolve this litigation,&#8221; Sauer wrote.
Since his inauguration in January, Trump has pushed to fire broad swaths of federal workers across all levels of the federal government.

President Trump Meets South African President Cyril Ramaphosa At White House

Supreme Court Sides With Trump, Allows Firings Of Agency Heads As Litigation Plays Out

The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-sides-with-maine-republican-punished-over-post-on-trans-identifying-athlete" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sided with Maine state Rep. Laurel Libby</a> on Tuesday, after the Republican challenged her punishment from state Democrats for standing up for girls and refusing to back down. 
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-will-not-be-silenced-democrats-censure-maines-laurel-libby-for-calling-out-trans-sports-policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">chronicled by The Daily Wire</a>, Rep. Libby was censured — banned from voting and speaking on the House floor — by Maine Democrats back in February over a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1053801876552826&amp;set=pb.100057690715704.-2207520000" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook post</a> drawing attention to Maine&#8217;s controversial transgender policies. Specifically, the post featured a public image of a boy winning a state championship in high school girls&#8217; pole vaulting.
&#8220;The Democrat majority in the Maine House voted to censure me and at the same time, to strip my constituents of their voice and their vote,&#8221; Libby told The Daily Wire in a phone interview Wednesday. &#8220;And following the censure vote is when Democrat House Speaker Ryan Fecteau declared that, until I apologize, I would not be allowed to speak or vote on the floor.&#8221; 
Libby said she knew immediately she was going to fight back. &#8220;That night after the censure, I had decided to move forward with a lawsuit, and we filed two weeks later,&#8221; she said. 
And so far, the fight has paid off for Libby. The Republican has become a leading player in the fight for girls sports, and on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that she&#8217;s allowed to vote while her legal battle plays out.
“I can vote, which is the key part,&#8221; Libby said. &#8220;That&#8217;s the most important, right? Because my constituents have been without a vote on important legislation for three months now. I can vote on their behalf, but I still cannot speak.&#8221; 
Not only did SCOTUS side with Libby, but there were only two dissents, which came from Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor. Notably, Jackson, who was the only one to explain her dissent, suggested that it&#8217;s likely Libby will ultimately win her case.
“I was surprised that it was 7 -2. Frankly, I&#8217;m really thrilled with that result,&#8221; Libby said, before noting Jackson&#8217;s dissent: &#8220;It really came down to the process and the procedure and timeframe, and not the merits.&#8221; 
&#8220;I was hopeful, but perhaps not optimistic before,&#8221; the Republican said. &#8220;And I would say I&#8217;m outright optimistic now.”
Libby told The Daily Wire she believes her case was picked up by the Supreme Court since the actions taken against her were “unprecedented.&#8221; 
“I think when folks who are not involved in politics think of the role of their representative, they think of the fact that they&#8217;re voting on legislation, right?&#8221; she explained. &#8220;To have a duly elected representative stripped of that right, which is how they speak for their constituents, is shocking and an attack on democracy.”
As for now, Libby said she&#8217;s excited to give her constituents their voice back. The first bill she&#8217;s able to vote on concerns a measure to repeal the national popular vote compact in Maine. 
&#8220;I&#8217;m thrilled to be able to vote on that bill and others on their behalf — we&#8217;ll also have some really important budget bills coming up where there are probably going to be new and raised taxes, which I will vote against,&#8221; Libby explained. &#8220;I&#8217;m glad to be able to exercise my vote on behalf of the people of House District 90.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/janet-mills-and-her-family-are-getting-rich-off-the-maine-governors-transgender-battle" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Janet Mills And Her Family Get Rich Off The Maine Governor’s Transgender Stance</a>

Rep. Laurel Libby

She Stood Up For Girls, Then Got A SCOTUS Win: Laurel Libby Speaks Out

Maine

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Monday that the Trump administration can remove Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for around 350,000 Venezuelan migrants who were allowed to remain in the United States under the Biden administration.
In an unsigned order that included no opinions, the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the green light to end TPS for Venezuelan migrants pending an appeal of the case, likely paving the way for the administration to ramp up deportations, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/us/politics/supreme-court-protected-status-venezuelans.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, was the only justice to say she would have denied the Trump administration&#8217;s request.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem kicked off the controversy over protected status for Venezuelan migrants in February when she terminated an 18-month extension of TPS for the migrants granted by Biden just before he left office. The extension would allow the Venezuelan migrants to remain in the United States and seek work authorization until October 2026.
After a lawsuit was brought against the Trump administration, Judge Edward M. Chen of the Federal District Court in San Francisco blocked Noem&#8217;s move to end TPS, saying that plaintiffs would have likely succeeded in showing that the secretary&#8217;s decision was “unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then rejected Trump&#8217;s request to pause the district court&#8217;s ruling before the case ended up in the Supreme Court.
In Solicitor General John Sauer&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-admin-asks-supreme-court-to-revoke-legal-protections-for-350k-venezuelans?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Admin+Asks+Supreme+Court+To+Revoke+Legal+Protections+For+350K+Venezuelans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">appeal</a> to the Supreme Court, he wrote, “The Secretary’s decision whether to designate, extend, or terminate TPS implicates sensitive judgments as to foreign policy and, in this case, the ‘national interest’—a discretionary determination that Congress expressly committed to her judgment.”
Monday&#8217;s order from the high court is welcome news for Trump after justices ruled against the president 7-2 last Friday, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-trump-administration-venezuelans-alien-enemies-act-rcna202094" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ordering</a> the administration to pause deportations of suspected Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador. In that case, the majority ruled that the Trump administration must give detainees more time to raise legal objections. Only conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Trump blasted Friday&#8217;s decision, <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114519567610751944" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a>, &#8220;The Supreme Court won&#8217;t allow us to get criminals out of our country!&#8221;

ICE agent

SCOTUS Allows Trump To End Temporary Protected Status For Certain Migrants

Illegal Immigration

Migrants

Venezuela

The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to greenlight its efforts to end a Biden-era immigration program shielding hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals from deportation. 
Solicitor General John Sauer filed a 38-page <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25925690/24a1059.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">emergency appeal</a> to SCOTUS asking it to block a federal judge’s ruling that said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not end Temporary Protected Status for 348,202 Venezuelans. Sauer argued that Noem’s decision to end one of the TPS designations for Venezuela was unreviewable and up to her discretion. 
“The Secretary’s decision whether to designate, extend, or terminate TPS implicates sensitive judgments as to foreign policy and, in this case, the ‘national interest’—a discretionary determination that Congress expressly committed to her judgment,” Sauer wrote in his filing. 
Noem <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/noem-ends-biden-program-shielding-thousands-of-venezuelans-from-deportation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> in February that she would end the program, which was started during the Biden administration in October 2023, because she had determined it was not in America’s best interest to continue with it, adding that conditions in Venezuela had improved. Just weeks before leaving office, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas extended the designation until October 2026. 
“TPS has allowed a significant population of inadmissible or illegal aliens without a path to lawful immigration status to settle in the interior of the United States, and the sheer numbers have resulted in associated difficulties in local communities where local resources have been inadequate to meet the demands caused by increased numbers,&#8221; the Department of Homeland Security said.
In April, U.S. Senior District Judge Edward Chen <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-says-trump-admin-must-keep-biden-era-program-shielding-venezuelans-from-deportation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sided</a> with the National TPS Alliance and blocked Noem from ending the program, saying that the revocation would cause “irreparable harm” and hurt the economy. The Obama-appointed judge also claimed that TPS recipients were more educated, involved in the workforce, and less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. 
Sauer argued that Chen’s ruling “undermines the Executive Branch’s inherent powers as to immigration and foreign affairs.”
“The court contravened an express bar on judicial review, sidestepped black-letter law authorizing agencies to reverse as-yet-inoperative actions, and embraced a baseless equal-protection theory on the road to issuing impermissible universal relief that intrudes on central Executive Branch operations,” he wrote. “Its order upsets the judgments of the political branches, prohibiting the Executive Branch from enforcing a time-sensitive immigration policy and indefinitely extending an immigration status that Congress intended to be ‘temporary.’”
Last month, the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan illegals suspected of being members of Tren de Aragua under the Alien Enemies Act. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

US-IMMIGRATION-politics-court

Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court To Revoke Legal Protections For 350K Venezuelans

Kristi Noem

If you talk to any experienced and honest teacher these days, from elementary school on up, one of the first things they will tell you is how quickly gender ideology has taken hold. Virtually overnight, students began adopting fake pronouns and made-up genders.
To call this phenomenon &#8220;unnatural&#8221; would be a vast understatement. It&#8217;s obviously engineered. Teachers and school boards are pushing this nonsense on children who are far too young to know any better. The public school system has committed itself to indoctrinating children, in many cases without their parents&#8217; knowledge or consent. But after what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, it&#8217;s very clear that accountability is finally coming for these ghouls.
After many years of spewing LGBT propaganda with total impunity, school districts will soon face major new restrictions on their ability to pollute the minds of elementary-school-age children. Based on how the justices acted during oral arguments yesterday, “Mahmoud v. Taylor” could easily turn out to be one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings of this generation.
Before we review the oral arguments, here is some background. The case began after Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest school district in Maryland — introduced a new &#8220;gender and sexuality curriculum.&#8221; Initially, students (or their parents) could opt out of this curriculum for any reason. But after a short period of time, the school district claimed that it wasn&#8217;t feasible to continue allowing opt outs. So it&#8217;s mandatory now. To give you an idea of what exactly this curriculum entails, here&#8217;s an image from one book that children are introduced to.
<div id="attachment_911559" style="width: 690px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-911559" class="wp-image-911559 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg" alt="Screenshot: What Are Your Words?" width="680" height="446" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg 680w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U-300x197.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px" />Screenshot: What Are Your Words?</div>
This is what&#8217;s apparently known as an &#8220;LGBT storybook.&#8221; This one&#8217;s called, “What Are Your Words?” As you can see, one line of dialogue reads, “My pronouns are like the weather. They change depending on how I feel.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is a nonprofit, reported on some other books that were included in this <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/will-scotus-back-parents-when-it-comes-to-lgbtq-storybooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new curriculum</a>:
<blockquote>[O]ne book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes &#8216;intersex flag,&#8217; &#8216;drag queen,&#8217; &#8216;underwear,&#8217; &#8216;leather,&#8217; and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to &#8216;make sense.&#8217; Teachers are instructed to say doctors only &#8216;guess&#8217; when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway.</blockquote>
When parents of varying religious faiths — including Muslims and Christians — objected to the idea that their 5-year-olds needed to be taught about &#8220;sex work&#8221; and &#8220;gender transitioning&#8221; by Left-wing activists posing as teachers, the school district told them they had no recourse. In fact, the district slandered the parents as bigots. All these parents were seeking was the ability to opt out of this indoctrination. They didn&#8217;t even demand that the classes be removed from the curriculum. But the school district denied their request. So the parents sued.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1581-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Which brings us to yesterday&#8217;s oral arguments. I want to begin with this question from Justice Alito, because it gets to the core of the issue. Alito wants to know why the school district is so hell-bent on forcing children to read books about homosexuality, transgenderism and so on. (To be clear, that&#8217;s what the school district is doing. They&#8217;re not merely providing these books in the school library. Teachers are actively telling students to read the books as part of class.) The truthful answer to Justice Alito&#8217;s question is simple: The Left understands that, if the LGBT movement is going to survive, it needs to indoctrinate new members at a very young age.
But the school district can&#8217;t say that out loud, of course. So instead, the lawyer representing the Montgomery school district&#8217;s superintendent, a man named Alan Schoenfeld, starts talking in circles about how impossible it would be, at a practical level, for the school district to allow students to opt out of this curriculum. But nothing he says actually makes sense. It gets so bad that, at the end of his rambling non-answer, Justice Kavanaugh chimes in to confirm that indeed, no one has any idea what the hell this guy is talking about. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 alito, whats the big deal" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q118nmS1g2s?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
As best I can tell, the lawyer for the school district is claiming that, because students might talk among themselves about certain LGBT books that are discussed in this curriculum, it&#8217;s therefore impossible to allow students to opt out of this kind of curriculum. In other words, whether or not students opt out, there&#8217;s a chance that they&#8217;ll hear about the materials that are discussed in these gay adventure books.
But this ignores a couple of obvious points.The big one is that, when a teacher is communicating a lesson to a class, it has a very different effect, as compared to one student talking to another student about a book during recess or whatever. The teacher is in a position of authority. It&#8217;s much easier for a 5-year-old to discount something another 5-year-old says, than it is to discount the wisdom of a 40-year-old teacher he&#8217;s told to trust. If this is an argument for anything, it&#8217;s an argument for not having these materials in the school to begin with. Which of course is the correct answer. But either way, it is not an argument against allowing parents to opt out.
The lawyer for the school district knows this but he can&#8217;t admit it. So he ends up confusing everyone in the room with a bunch of doublespeak. This kept happening throughout the oral arguments. Listen to this moment where Justice Gorsuch points out that, in Montgomery County, teachers are told to actively correct students who dare to suggest that men can&#8217;t become women. Gorsuch then asks the lawyer for Montgomery County whether this could constitute &#8220;coercion.&#8221; The obvious answer is yes. But instead of saying that, here&#8217;s the gibberish that the attorney comes back with:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 gorsuch, coercion, correcting himself" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x3sWOLDR4Q0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Justice Gorsuch gives an example where a student says, &#8220;a boy can&#8217;t be a girl.&#8221; And then the lawyer states that it&#8217;s not &#8220;coercive,&#8221; in any way, for the teacher to correct the student&#8217;s comment, in front of the entire class. He then changes his mind and says the opposite.
Even when he&#8217;s not contradicting himself, the school district&#8217;s lawyer managed to make a mockery of the entire case. 
Here&#8217;s his opening statement, for example:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 beginning with mr shonfeld" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xkw27dw9T5g?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Yes, according to this attorney for the school district, there&#8217;s no difference between teaching elementary-school students about wars, and teaching them that boys can become girls. Telling students about the War of 1812 is just like telling them that it&#8217;s totally reasonable to chemically castrate minors.
One of the ways we know this isn&#8217;t true, aside from using basic common sense, is that there&#8217;s no army of parents demanding that schools stop teaching students about wars. That&#8217;s because it&#8217;s understood that teaching students about wars is not a general endorsement of violence. Additionally, everyone agrees that history is important and useful because it&#8217;s grounded in reality. On the other hand, gender ideology is just that — ideological.
This lawyer was not the only person to embarrass himself yesterday. That&#8217;s a given. After all, Ketanji Brown Jackson was also in attendance at the hearing. And as you&#8217;d expect, she did not disappoint. Single-handedly, she dropped the collective IQ in the room by about 10 points, just by opening her mouth. And of course, she opened her mouth on the side of indoctrinating children, because she takes the Left&#8217;s position on every issue. Behold, Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s argument in favor of mandatory indoctrination in public schools:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 can just go to private school" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y-FJrhGbwrw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Yes, you can homeschool, says Ketanji Brown Jackson. You can pay for an expensive private school. Therefore, there&#8217;s no &#8220;burden&#8221; on these parents, apparently. It&#8217;s not a &#8220;burden&#8221; to have to pay more money, and change your child&#8217;s school, because Montgomery County decided to teach LGBT propaganda. And then the lawyer representing the parents responds, and points out that she&#8217;s completely wrong, and many other cases demonstrate why she&#8217;s wrong. And then she goes quiet and they move on.
Here’s one more clip from these arguments, involving Justice Alito questioning the school board&#8217;s lawyer. He follows up on this logic, about how the parents can supposedly just go to a private school. He begins by talking from the perspective of one of these parents:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="009 alito, too bad" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hgRo17KtvU8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
This is what it looks like in the Supreme Court when &#8220;sparks fly,&#8221; so to speak. Alito is making his disdain for the school district&#8217;s argument extremely clear, which is exactly what he should do. They&#8217;re trying to force-feed gender ideology to children, and instead of owning it, they&#8217;re lying and telling the parents to pay more money to find a private school that won&#8217;t interfere with their religious liberties. But the Constitution doesn&#8217;t work that way. And it appears the Montgomery County school district, and school districts all over the country, are about to discover that.
This is not a close case. That&#8217;s why even the far-Left outlet Vox <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250422191725/https://www.vox.com/scotus/409921/supreme-court-dont-say-gay-mahmoud-taylor">reported</a>: 
<blockquote>The Supreme Court’s &#8216;Don’t Say Gay&#8217; argument went disastrously for public schools.</blockquote>
At the moment, the most likely outcome is that, when very young children are involved, parents will retain the right to opt out of curriculums involving gender ideology, or any other extreme ideology that conflicts with their established religion. Everyone can see this coming.
And just to underscore that, yesterday Randi Weingarten, the head of one of the largest teachers&#8217; unions in the country, went on Fox News. And she admitted, right away, that she wouldn&#8217;t read these books in the classroom. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="010 Randi" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/luc0jWbW_HA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
We all know that Randi Weingarten isn&#8217;t saying this because she believes it. She&#8217;s maybe the most calculating political operative in the country, after Nancy Pelosi. But Weingarten understands when the Left is overplaying its hand. She knows that they&#8217;re on the cusp of yet another crushing defeat in their efforts to indoctrinate children, and she&#8217;s trying to soften that blow when it inevitably comes.
Unfortunately for Weingarten, the truth is, there&#8217;s no way to accomplish that. Gender ideology and LGBT activists, as we&#8217;ve discussed many times, are now extremely unpopular. They have alienated the entire country, to the point that they may have cost Democrats the last election. The only way an ideology like this can survive is by targeting children before they&#8217;re able to develop their cognitive abilities. That&#8217;s their only viable play. And in a few short months, after this case is inevitably decided against the public school system of Montgomery County, it&#8217;ll be much, much harder for these people to accomplish that.

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

The Lawyers Promoting Child Indoctrination To SCOTUS Were Absolutely Humiliated

Books

Brett Kavanaugh

Children's Books

Education

Elementary Schools

gender ideology

Ketanji Brown Jackson

LGBTQ

Matt Walsh

Neil Gorsuch

Opinion

Parents rights

Samuel Alito

Virginia

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court indicated that it would side with parents who want the option of keeping their children away from LGBTQ-themed books in schools.
The justices offered their comments during <a href="https://www.c-span.org/event/public-affairs-event/supreme-court-hears-case-on-lgbtq-books-in-public-schools/432473" target="_blank" rel="noopener">oral arguments</a> in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which revolves around parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, near Washington, D.C. In 2022, the county’s school board approved LGBTQ-themed books for its language arts curriculum. In 2023, the board refused parents the option of having their children excused from such instruction.
“One book describes the story of a girl attending her uncle’s same-sex wedding, for example, while another book, Pride Puppy, tells the story of a puppy that gets lost during a Pride parade,” <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-likely-to-rule-for-parental-opt-out-on-lgbtq-books-in-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SCOTUSblog</a> noted.
A lower court ruled that the school board did not have to notify parents when the storybooks would be used, as such notification would have allowed parents to opt their children out of the curriculum. “A federal appeals court reasoned that on the ‘threadbare’ facts before it, the parents had not demonstrated that exposing their children to the storybooks compelled the parents to violate their religion,” SCOTUSBlog reported.
Eric Baxter, an attorney for the parents, told Justice Clarence Thomas that teachers were required to use the books and the school board suggested they do so five times in the school year. Justice Samuel Alito bluntly stated the county’s policy permitted schools to teach children moral principles that were “highly objectionable to parents and they can’t opt out,” and asked simply, “What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?” while pointing out that students could opt out of health classes.
Meanwhile, the defendants’ attorney argued there was a difference between “exposure” and “coercion.” Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch contended that the presentation of the curriculum was more than just exposing children to the ideas, making coercion a possibility. Gorsuch asked the attorney for the school board, “The exposure versus coercion line that you ask us to draw, how does that play out in the case of the Mohammed image for the Muslim student?”
“In those circumstances, the school is coercing the individual to act contrary to a religious belief,” the attorney replied.
“Just being exposed to the image? The exposure there is coercion, in your view?” Gorsuch asked.
“I think it’s the difference between exposure to ideas and activity that coerces you to engage in conduct that is in violation of your belief,” the attorney answered.
“So the idea is the image of the prophet?” Gorsuch asked. “So it’s the image that makes the difference, rather than an idea?”
“I think it’s conduct that makes the difference. &#8230; So if there were a book that described someone making an image of the prophet Mohammed, I don’t think the parent would have the ability to object, even given the religious prohibition at issue, on simply being exposed to the idea that people might depict the image of Mohammed. Being required to view the image of the prophet Mohammed in contravention of a religious objection, is being required to engage in conduct,” the attorney replied.
“The child is sitting passively and the teacher’s just reading a storybook,” Gorsuch pointed out, prompting the attorney to admit, “I think if the storybook features the depiction of the prophet Mohammed, that is a compulsion to engage in conduct that violates your religious belief.”
Gorsuch pointed out, “You say this is only about exposure, but we also have in the records some guidance materials for teachers, one of which is if a students says that a boy says a boy can’t be a girl because if he was born a boy, a teacher is to respond, ‘That comment is hurtful, and we shouldn’t use negative words to talk about people’s identities.’ Is that exposure, or is that something else for a 3 to 5-year-old?”
Chief Justice John Roberts declared that even if the school did not require students “to affirm what is being taught in books or lessons,” that may not be “a realistic concept for a five-year-old.”
Meanwhile, leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson “asked how far the parents’ rule would extend. For example, she inquired, could a parent ask to have her child not placed in a classroom with a gay teacher who has pictures of her same-sex wedding in the classroom?” SCOTUSblog reported.

Preschool children playing with colorful shapes

SCOTUS Hints It Will Side With Parents Who Want Opt-Out For Kids Exposed To LGBT Materials

U.S.

In 2007, when Hillary Clinton was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/us/politics/26DEBATE-TRANSCRIPT.html">asked</a> in a Democratic primary debate whether she would be comfortable having “King and King” — a children’s picture book about a prince who marries another man — read to her second-grade child as part of the school curriculum, she responded that it was a “matter of parental discretion.”
It’s remarkable how far off the deep end the Left has gone in just a few short years.
This week, the Supreme Court will <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalApril2025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hear a case</a> brought by a group of parents claiming what Clinton argued years ago: Parents should be able to decide whether or not their children read LGBTQ storybooks at school.
Oral arguments will be heard for the parental rights case Mahmoud v. Taylor, which <a href="https://becketfund.org/media/religious-parents-ask-supreme-court-to-restore-opt-outs-for-pride-storybooks/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">originated</a> when the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced LGBTQ storybooks to the elementary school curriculum and revoked its existing parental notice and opt-out policies. Muslim, Jewish, and Christian parents challenged the school district’s ban on elementary school opt-outs on the grounds that the policy burdened their constitutional right to free exercise of religion.
The diverse coalition of parents isn’t asking the school district to remove the LGBTQ storybooks from classrooms. They simply want the option to remove their children from the classroom when content is taught that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Parents are the primary educators of their children, and that vocation doesn’t stop when kids begin to attend school.
The board of education added storybooks that introduce gender ideology and sexuality to children as young as three or four years old. These storybooks are transparently part of an activist push to introduce children to same-sex relationships, transgender ideology, and LGBTQ vocabulary at a startlingly young age.
“Born Ready” features a female main character who repeatedly claims, “Inside, I’m a boy,” and whose parents immediately start treating her like a boy. “Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love,” Penelope’s mom tells her confused older brother. The book’s author, Jodie Patterson, serves on the board of the Human Rights Campaign, a radical LGBTQ advocacy group.
Another book in the Montgomery County curriculum, <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">titled</a> “My Rainbow,” is about a transgender-identifying boy’s desire to have long hair to fit in with “cisgender girls.” Trinity Neal, a transgender-identifying boy, and his mother, DeShanna, a nonbinary activist, wrote the story based on their experiences. DeShanna <a href="https://history.delaware.gov/lgbtq/my-rainbow-and-trinity-neals-rainbow-wig/">advocated</a> for Medicaid coverage of Trinity’s puberty blockers, resulting in the first Medicaid coverage of transgender medical procedures in their home state of Delaware. Subsequently, Trinity <a href="https://history.delaware.gov/lgbtq/my-rainbow-and-trinity-neals-rainbow-wig/">became</a> the first minor in the state to change his birth certificate’s gender marker from male to female.
“Jacob’s Room to Choose,” about a cross-dressing boy whose school accommodates him by abolishing gendered bathrooms, was <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">published</a> through the American Psychological Association’s children’s book imprint. APA has prominently <a href="https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2024/02/policy-supporting-transgender-nonbinary#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAPA%20also%20affirms%20the%20essential,appropriate%20youth%20self%2Dadvocacy.%E2%80%9D" target="_blank" rel="noopener">supported</a> transgender medical procedures for minors and advocated for so-called “gender-affirming care.”
The other books at the heart of Mahmoud v. Taylor are similarly written at an elementary school reading level but focus on complex adult topics of sexuality and gender identity. “Love, Violet” <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">focuses</a> on a same-sex relationship between elementary school classmates. “Pride Puppy” <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">instructs</a> readers to identify leather, underwear, a lip ring, an intersex flag, and a drag king in its illustrations.
“What Are Your Words?” <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">encourages</a> kids to change their pronouns, promoting confusing pairs like “ey/em,” “ze/zir,” and “xe/xir,” and using they/them pronouns to refer to individuals in the story. And “Intersection Allies,” another book <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">featured</a> in the case, includes a foreword by critical race theorist and activist Kimberle Crenshaw.
These storybooks are examples of radical propaganda written by progressive activists to shape the hearts and minds of the next generation. Kids may not know better than to believe what they’re taught, but American adults aren’t so convinced by these woke storybooks. Only 3% of Americans <a href="https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20250115160612/Religious-Freedom-Index-2024-Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">believe</a> that instruction on human sexuality and gender identity is appropriate for pre-K or kindergarten-aged children. And 77% of Americans <a href="https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20250115160612/Religious-Freedom-Index-2024-Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">believe</a> that parents should be able to opt their children out of gender and sexuality instruction.
Just a few years ago, I pulled my children out of Fairfax County Schools because of the progressive garbage they were being exposed to in their classrooms on a daily basis. My family is not alone. There is a large movement of parents who have made the same decision we have, but not every family is in a position to do so. Parents should undoubtedly have the right to opt their children out of reading these radical activist storybooks: Children are not wards of the state.
When public schools add storybooks that teach gender ideology as truth, the state has violated the right of parents to raise their children in their religious tradition, along with teaching them the corresponding religious beliefs about gender, human sexuality, and the meaning of marriage.
The government has no business mandating that elementary students learn radical gender ideology. Fortunately, parents will do whatever it takes to protect their children and exercise their parental rights — even if it means taking the case to the Supreme Court.
* * *
Terry Schilling is a parental rights advocate and president of the American Principles Project.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Mixed race teacher reading to class

Will SCOTUS Back Parents When It Comes To LGBTQ Storybooks?

Children

Gender

Parental Rights in Education

Parenting

Public Schools

Schools

Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court faces a crucial test: deciding whether states can criminalize undercover journalism simply because those in power dislike being recorded. At stake is more than just one organization’s right to expose wrongdoing — it’s about safeguarding free speech and transparency in an era increasingly defined by censorship and institutional distrust.
Project Veritas, known for undercover exposés revealing abuses within powerful institutions, recently petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge Oregon’s restrictive recording law. This statute demands that anyone recording in even the most public of places notify everyone else that they are being recorded. But there’s a rub: the state doles about permission slips making it easier to record some subjects, but not others. In short, Oregon law says you can easily record police abuse but not a school administrator admitting to indoctrinating students.
This arbitrary distinction represents precisely the kind of content-based speech restriction the First Amendment prohibits. It gives state authorities unchecked power to silence investigative efforts those in power dislike while permitting other investigations deemed politically acceptable.
Daily Wire readers should understand these implications clearly. The conservative movement has seen firsthand how selective enforcement of “privacy” laws punishes those uncovering inconvenient truths. Consider the notorious prosecution of David Daleiden and his investigation into Planned Parenthood. Instead of pursuing Planned Parenthood, California authorities, led by then-Attorney General Kamala Harris, targeted Daleiden himself.
Matt Walsh <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-california-prosecuting-journalists-doing-matt-walsh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">aptly warned</a> at the time that such prosecutions could “criminalize all forms of undercover journalism.” Walsh was right: when governments can weaponize privacy laws against whistleblowers, corruption thrives unchecked. We’d like to stop that.
Project Veritas’s case underscores this danger. If Oregon’s law stands, it sets a precedent emboldening other states to enact similarly repressive measures. Such laws don’t merely threaten controversial groups like Project Veritas — they imperil every citizen-journalist, whistleblower, and parent aiming to hold those in power accountable.
Imagine parents secretly recording school officials implementing extremist curricula, or a VA hospital employee documenting abuse against veterans. Under Oregon’s model, these citizen-journalists become criminals rather than heroes. Balderdash.
Critics argue undercover journalism invades privacy. Yet, there’s a critical difference between personal privacy and public accountability. Recording private citizens’ truly private conversations — happening, say in someone’s home or a doctor’s office — is rightly protected against. But public officials and newsworthy figures talking about bad deeds or public policy in public must not be shielded from scrutiny.
The hypocrisy here is glaring. Legacy media applauded secret recordings like the Access Hollywood tapes or Greenpeace’s hidden-camera sting of Exxon executives because these aligned politically with their interests. Yet conservative-leaning investigations face condemnation and criminalization. Oregon’s law codifies this double standard into state policy, echoing Orwell’s chilling warning in &#8220;Animal Farm,&#8221; “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The state now decides whose truths may be exposed and whose must remain hidden, a hallmark of dystopian control.
Today, Americans distrust legacy media precisely because traditional reporting methods often fail to reveal the full truth. In our digital age, audiences demand — and deserve — objective evidence. Hidden cameras have become essential tools for accountability journalism, offering unfiltered glimpses into realities otherwise obscured by spin, stonewalling, and hidden agendas.
If the Supreme Court allows Oregon to criminalize this essential method of truth-gathering, it cripples the First Amendment. Citizen-journalism, which Daily Wire audiences rightly value, becomes vulnerable nationwide. The justices must affirm a core constitutional principle: truth doesn’t need permission from those hiding it. Our American guarantee of free speech supports rigorous, bold investigations capable of exposing hidden abuses. In 2025, undercover journalism isn’t a fringe tactic — it’s a fundamental aspect of free inquiry and transparency.
It’s time the Supreme Court rejects Oregon’s unconstitutional censorship. America needs more citizen-journalism, not less. The freedom to expose wrongdoing must remain protected — even if it makes the powerful uncomfortable.
* * *
Benjamin Barr is a partner at Barr &amp; Klein PLLC where his practice engages in a variety of constitutional litigation nationwide. Along with his law partner, Stephen R. Klein, the firm represents Project Veritas in this matter.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

DALLAS, TX – NOVEMBER 29: James OKeefe, founder of Project Veri

Supreme Court Must Protect Citizen-Journalists From Oregon’s Censorship

Supreme Court Must Protect Citizen-Journalists From Oregon's Censorship

Censorship

interview

Journalism

Oregon

Privacy

Project Veritas

Whistleblowers

The United States and China continue their tariff war, the Supreme Court rules on several emergency requests, and El Salvador’s president is set to visit the White House.
It’s Monday, April 14, and this is the news you need to know to start your week. If you’d rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
&nbsp;
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/china-escalates-trade-war-trump-scotus-victories-4-14-25/id1576594336?i=1000703434916" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
&nbsp;
<h2>Trade Negotiations Continue</h2>
<div id="attachment_902939" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-902939" class="size-large wp-image-902939" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2208185431-864x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 02: U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a “Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. Touting the event as “Liberation Day”, Trump is expected to announce additional tariffs targeting goods imported to the U.S." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2208185431-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2208185431-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2208185431-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2208185431.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)</div>
Topline:  President Donald Trump will host a number of foreign leaders for trade negotiations this week as Congress prepares to pass a crucial spending package. Meanwhile, China has cut off shipments of rare earth minerals and magnets after Trump paused most tariffs for everyone but them.
Beijing predictably responded by raising its own tariffs on U.S. goods from 84% to 125%. The communist nation went a step further Sunday, halting the export of rare earth minerals and magnets.
For context, China produces upwards of 60% of the world’s rare earth minerals and 90% of all rare earth magnets, which are crucial for high-tech chips, semiconductors, batteries, and car manufacturing. That pause could have significant impacts on the American auto and tech industries. The White House says the fact that America is so reliant on Chinese products shows how crucial it is to increase American manufacturing and form stronger trade alliances elsewhere. 
Stateside, President Trump made big news over the weekend, announcing that electronics like smartphones and laptops will temporarily be exempt from tariffs. That’s a major relief to tech giants like Apple, Nvidia and Microsoft. The White House said those exemptions would be temporary — presumably, they’re sending a message to Beijing that they better make a deal before they become permanent. 
Public Perception: A <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-trump-tariffs-13-04-2025/">CBS</a> poll this weekend showed that just 42% of Americans favor tariffs on imported goods, compared to 58% who oppose them, while Trump&#8217;s approval rating on the economy fell to 44%. Similarly, the University of Michigan’s closely watched <a href="https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/">Consumer Sentiment Index</a> fell 11% to its lowest point since the COVID lockdowns. Americans cited the potential for rising inflation and unemployment as their biggest areas of concern.
In better news for the president, that same CBS poll found that nearly 60% of Americans believe Trump is using tariffs as a negotiating tool — so that message seems to have gotten through. <a href="https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1910714949418045563?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">Quinnipiac</a> found that Republicans and Democrats are now tied on the question of “Which party cares more for the needs of people like you.” For decades, Democrats have had a massive, oftentimes twenty-point lead on that question. It now appears that more and more Americans view Republicans as caring about the needs of average people. That is a generational shift indicative of where Trump is taking the party economically. 
&nbsp;
<h2>Supreme Court Scoreboard</h2>
<div id="attachment_907193" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-907193" class="size-large wp-image-907193" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />(Al Drago/Getty Images)</div>
Topline: The Supreme Court weighs several of Trump’s executive actions. How is his agenda faring – and what’s next on the docket? 
The Trump administration is at the center of several high-stakes battles before the Supreme Court. The rulings are testing the limits of executive power on issues ranging from deportations to federal regulations. At this point, SCOTUS has ruled on six emergency applications, and thus far, the president is faring well. 
One of the most significant rulings we’ve seen has been on the Alien Enemies Act. It’s a somewhat unique legal case where both sides—the Trump administration and the ACLU—are claiming victory. The administration argued that Venezuelan gangs like Tren de Aragua pose such a national security threat, and under the authority of that 1798 Act, they can remove alleged gang members rapidly, without hearings, because they’re not U.S. citizens. Last week, SCOTUS lifted a lower judge’s block on those deportations, but it did add some guardrails. Detainees must now receive notice and due process. 
In addition, the Supreme Court also overturned a lower court decision ordering Trump to rehire 16,000 probationary federal employees. In a 7-2 ruling, SCOTUS found the organizations suing lacked standing since individual workers weren’t part of the lawsuit.
On the Docket: Next week, the court will hear arguments regarding the president&#8217;s claim of immunity from prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. There are also challenges to executive orders on birthright citizenship and federal funding cuts in the pipeline. But so far, the court has been notably restrained. Many analysts are pointing out that Chief Justice Roberts is steering the court toward narrow, technical rulings to avoid blockbuster showdowns with Trump.
&nbsp;
<h2>Bukele Visits the White House</h2>
<div id="attachment_907027" style="width: 875px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-907027" class="size-large wp-image-907027" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1171054018-865x576.jpg" alt="US President Donald Trump and President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador shake hands as they hold a meeting in New York, on September 25, 2019, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)" width="865" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1171054018-865x576.jpg 865w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1171054018-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1171054018-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1171054018.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 865px) 100vw, 865px" />(SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)</div>
Topline:  President Trump is set to welcome El Salvador’s president to the White House on Monday – after what Trump’s calling a “model” deal to deport alleged violent gang members.
The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, arrived in Washington, D.C. on Sunday. The administration has worked closely with the Salvadoran leader on immigration and the detainment of suspected foreign gang members. The United States has sent about 250 illegal immigrants with suspected gang ties to a high-security prison in El Salvador. The two leaders have been on remarkably positive terms; White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the relationship has “become a model for others to work with” the Trump administration.
“I think [Bukele]&#8217;s doing a fantastic job and taking care of a lot of problems that we really wouldn’t be able to take care of from a cost standpoint,” Trump <a href="https://x.com/Karla_veron1/status/1911444833874424126">told</a> reporters over the weekend.
In addition to immigration, trade may also be on the agenda. Trump and Bukele haven’t mentioned this publicly, but El Salvador is technically under a blanket 10% tariff that Trump put into place last week. Roughly a third of El Salvador’s exports are sent to the United States, meaning the impact of the tariff on their economy could be significant.
&nbsp;

Trump-greets-Jordan-King-and-Crown-Prince-at-White-House

Morning Brief: China Escalates Trade War, SCOTUS Scoreboard & Trump Hosts Bukele

China

Communist China

El Salvador

Media

Morning Wire

Nayib Bukele

Tariffs

In a win for President Donald Trump on Tuesday, the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision blocked the effort of U.S. Judge William Alsup to force the Trump administration to rehire thousands of fired workers in numerous federal agencies.
On March 13, Alsup, a San Francisco judge appointed by former President Bill Clinton, had ruled on a lawsuit brought by federal employee unions that federal agencies had to rehire more than 16,000 probationary employees fired by the Trump administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM). He ordered OPM and the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs to bring back employees immediately.
Calling the fact that the Trump administration attributed the firings to “performance,” Alsup<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/13/fired-federal-probationary-employees-court-ruling-00228721" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> called</a> that a “gimmick,” adding, “It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie. &#8230; The words that I give you today should not be taken that some wild-and-crazy judge in San Francisco said that an administration cannot engage in a reduction in force. It can be done, if it’s done in accordance with the law.”
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court for a stay of Alsup’s order, which was granted. “The district court’s extraordinarily overbroad remedy is now inflicting ongoing, irreparable harm on the Executive Branch that warrants this Court’s urgent intervention,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the court.
“The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing,” the Supreme Court <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25888805/24a904-order.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a>.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
“The full implications of the ruling are not clear given that a federal judge in Maryland earlier this month issued a preliminary injunction that reinstated some of the employees not covered in the case before the Supreme Court,” CNN <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/08/politics/probationary-fired-employees-supreme-court-trump/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>.
<p style="font-weight: 400;" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cm98p7u660006356obqvmvacy@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true" data-analytics-observe="on">“Although the court put Alsup’s order on hold, a different federal judge in Maryland also has issued an order, which remains in effect for now, that requires the reinstatement of probationary employees at 20 federal agencies who live and work in the 19 states (along with the District of Columbia) that brought the case,” ScotusBlog <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/justices-pause-order-to-reinstate-fired-federal-employees/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explained</a>.

President Trump Holds “Make America Wealthy Again Event” In White House Rose Garden

SCOTUS Gives Trump Another Win, Blocks Rehiring Of Fired Federal Employees

Firings

Office of Personnel Management

Top Trump administration officials promised Monday to continue deporting suspected gang members after the Supreme Court ruled against a federal judge blocking the deportations from taking place under the Alien Enemies Act. 
 In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned a block on carrying out the deportations imposed on the Trump administration by D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg. After the ruling, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that the Trump administration has designated as a terrorist organization, should leave the country now or face deportation.
“Following tonight’s landmark Supreme Court ruling, the American people can rest assured that [Noem], [Border czar Tom Homan] and I will direct our assets to scour the country for any remnants of Tren De Aragua and DEPORT THEM,” Bondi posted on X.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Following tonight’s landmark Supreme Court ruling, the American people can rest assured that <a href="https://twitter.com/Sec_Noem?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Sec_Noem</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/RealTomHoman?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RealTomHoman</a> and I will direct our assets to scour the country for any remnants of Tren De Aragua and DEPORT THEM.
&mdash; Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1909389172680335671?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Those comments were echoed by Noem, who has toured the El Salvadorian prison where the administration sent around 250 suspected members of MS-13 and Tren de Aragua last month. 
“President Trump was proven RIGHT once again! SCOTUS confirms our Commander-in-Chief Donald J. Trump has the power to stop the invasion of our country by terrorists using war time powers. LEAVE NOW or we will arrest you, lock you up and deport you,” Noem said. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
President Trump was proven RIGHT once again! SCOTUS confirms our Commander-in-Chief Donald J. Trump has the power to stop the invasion of our country by terrorists using war time powers. LEAVE NOW or we will arrest you, lock you up and deport you. <a href="https://t.co/irLTSEo0GF">pic.twitter.com/irLTSEo0GF</a>
&mdash; Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) <a href="https://twitter.com/Sec_Noem/status/1909384333263298865?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In its <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a>, the Supreme Court said that while potential deportees must get due process, the cases should not be litigated in the District of Columbia but in Texas, where the suspected gang members were in custody. 
“The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments,” the majority wrote. “The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the court’s three liberal justices dissented. 
President Donald Trump celebrated the decision, saying it would allow him to protect the border. 
“The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself,” he <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114299368234840539" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> on Truth Social. “A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!”

US deports over 250 alleged gang members to El Salvador’s mega-prison

‘LEAVE NOW’: Trump Admin Vows To Keep Deporting Suspected Gang Members After SCOTUS Win

Department of Justice

Pam Bondi

Tren De Aragua

Menu