The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Maine Republican state representative who was banned from voting over her comments on social media about a transgender-identifying male high school athlete competing against girls.
Representative Laurel Libby was blocked from voting and speaking from the House floor after Democrats voted to censure her after she posted public images of a transgender-identifying high school boy taking first place in girls’ pole vaulting at Maine’s Class B state championship. The court on Tuesday blocked the state from stripping Libby of her voting rights as the case is litigated.
“The U.S. Supreme Court just restored the voice of 9,000 Mainers! After 2+ months of being silenced for speaking up for Maine girls, I can once again vote on behalf of the people of House District 90,” Libby wrote on social media in response to the ruling. “This is a win for free speech — and for the Constitution.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 VICTORY!🚨
The U.S. Supreme Court just restored the voice of 9,000 Mainers!
After 2+ months of being silenced for speaking up for Maine girls, I can once again vote on behalf of the people of House District 90.
This is a win for free speech — and for the Constitution. 🇺🇸
— Rep. Laurel Libby (@laurel_libby) <a href="https://twitter.com/laurel_libby/status/1924903208603758744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“This is a victory not just for my constituents, but for the Constitution itself,” Libby added in a separate <a href="https://x.com/laurel_libby/status/1924906132813885618">post</a>. “The Supreme Court has affirmed what should never have been in question, that no state legislature has the power to silence an elected official simply for speaking truthfully about issues that matter.”
Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor were the only two to side against Libby.
Democrats claimed that Libby&#8217;s social media post put the transgender-identifying boy at risk and voted to censure her, stripping her of the right to vote and speak on the House floor because she refused to apologize. Libby challenged her punishment, but lost at the district and appeals court levels before appealing to the Supreme Court in April.
“It would be a remarkable break from history to permit the continued disenfranchisement of thousands of Americans for their chosen representative’s protected speech,” Libby&#8217;s lawyers wrote.
The Trump administration has been at war with Maine after it has continued to allow males to compete in women&#8217;s sports in defiance of President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive orders. In response, the Trump administration froze federal funding for the state, and Attorney General Pam Bondi <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bondi-unleashes-on-maine-announces-new-lawsuit-against-state-for-violating-title-ix" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced a civil lawsuit</a> against the state.

Supreme Court Continues To Deliver Decisions This Week Ahead Its Summer Break

SCOTUS Sides With Maine Republican Punished Over Post On Trans-Identifying Athlete

Maine

Social Issues

Supreme Court

Transgender

Transgender Athletes

U.S.

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

Courts

Donald Trump

Illegal Immigration

Migrants

Politics

SCOTUS

Trump Administration

Venezuela

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled 7-2 against the Trump administration&#8217;s attempt to swiftly deport Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, requiring officials to provide more than 24 hours for detainees to challenge their removal.
&#8220;Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,&#8221; the majority wrote.
The unsigned <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf">decision</a> clarified that the Court was only ruling on the notice requirement and not whether the Trump administration can use the Alien Enemies Act itself.
&#8220;To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18,&#8221; the Court stated in its ruling, NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-trump-administration-venezuelans-alien-enemies-act-rcna202094">reported</a>.
The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, allows the president to apprehend and deport citizens of a hostile nation during wartime or invasion.
Administration officials argued that Venezuela&#8217;s government has used Tren de Aragua as a proxy force, effectively weaponizing the gang to destabilize the United States through criminal activity and drug trafficking.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Alito writing there were no grounds for the Court to intervene &#8220;at such an early stage of the litigation.&#8221;
&#8220;The Court&#8217;s failure to defer to the Executive Branch in immigration matters in which national security is at stake represents an extraordinary departure from our precedents,&#8221; Alito wrote.
The Court did acknowledge it was &#8220;far removed from the circumstances on the ground&#8221; and was not best positioned to determine the exact deportation process that should be followed.
The case has been sent back to an appeals court to establish appropriate due process procedures for the detainees in yet another legal impediment to Trump’s immigration agenda.
President Trump on Friday accused the high court of &#8220;being played by the radical left,&#8221; who only succeed through &#8220;intimidation of the court.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
THE SUPREME COURT IS BEING PLAYED BY THE RADICAL LEFT LOSERS, WHO HAVE NO SUPPORT, THE PUBLIC HATES THEM, AND THEIR ONLY HOPE IS THE INTIMIDATION OF THE COURT, ITSELF. WE CAN’T LET THAT HAPPEN TO OUR COUNTRY!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1923432648103333919?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 16, 2025</a></blockquote>
“Today’s ruling effectively extends the temporary freeze that the justices put on Alien Enemies Act removals from the Northern District of Texas back on April 19,” <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/16/politics/supreme-court-alien-enemies-act">said</a> Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown Law.
“Because lower courts have blocked use of the act in every other district in which the president has sought to invoke it, that means it’s effectively pausing all removals under the act until the 5th Circuit – and, presumably, the Supreme Court itself – conclusively resolves whether they’re legal and how much process is due if so.”

Multiple Storms Dump Snow From Midwest To East Coast This Week

SCOTUS Blocks Trump’s Bid To Resume Swift Deportations Under Alien Enemies Act

Deportations

Tren De Aragua

During his Middle East trip, President Donald Trump says he might be close to making a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons, the Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship, and football coaching legend Nick Saban has been tapped to bring order to big-money college sports.
It’s Friday, May 16, and this is the news you need to know to start your day.
Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Iran Nuclear Deal? &amp; Birthright Citizenship" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wT6V74pRIfw?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>
If you’d rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/iran-nuclear-deal-birthright-citizenship-5-16-25/id1576594336?i=1000708705032" 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>
<h2>U.S.-Iran Nuclear Deal</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-921029" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_33_14.Still001-3.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_33_14.Still001-3.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_33_14.Still001-3-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: President Trump says the United States is close to a nuclear deal with Iran.
After months of tense negotiations, President Trump says America is on the verge of signing a historic nuclear deal with Iran. Iran has been working for decades to build nuclear weapons. Iranian leaders refer to America as “the great Satan,” and its government spends billions of dollars annually sponsoring terror groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
Over the last four years, President Joe Biden attempted to revive the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran, waiving sanctions as a show of goodwill, but the Iranians refused to meet for formal negotiations, and no agreement was ever reached. But now, after four rounds of formal talks between the White House and Iran, President Trump says they’re ready to cut a deal.
The general idea is that Iran will agree to never produce nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions — and peace. A top adviser to the country’s Supreme Leader told <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/iran-enriched-uranium-nuclear-deal-trump-rcna206833">NBC</a> they would commit to never making nuclear weapons, hand over their existing stockpiles of enriched uranium, only enrich uranium to low levels consistent with civilian use, and allow third-party inspectors to supervise the entire process. In exchange, they want the United States to lift all economic sanctions, which have hobbled the country’s economy for years. President Trump has said he also wants to see them cut funding to the terror groups they support — it remains to be seen if that part will be included in the final deal.
Critics say there’s no way to ensure Iran will hand over its existing nuclear materials and allow inspectors to see the full scope of their operation. Fifty-two GOP Senators and 178 GOP House members signed a letter to President Trump saying the &#8220;scope and breadth of Iran&#8217;s nuclear buildout have made it impossible to verify any new deal that allows Iran to continue enriching uranium.&#8221; Many Republicans want a deal, but not one that allows Iran to enrich any uranium, even low levels for civilian use.
<h2>SCOTUS Hears Arguments On Birthright Citizenship, National Injunctions</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-921031" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_39_00.Still002.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_39_00.Still002.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_39_00.Still002-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: The Supreme Court hears oral arguments challenging birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday in a case challenging President Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship. The pivotal case calls into question whether the lower courts have the power to block executive branch actions.
The case hinges on three lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Trump’s EO interprets the 14th Amendment to deny automatic citizenship to children who are born in the U.S. if their mother was unlawfully in the country and if the father isn’t a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. That order is currently on hold while the Supreme Court considers it.
“ Since January 20th, district courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer <a href="https://x.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1923020348624187655">told</a> the court. “This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations. Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article 3, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party.”
The liberal justices appeared to disagree with the Trump administration’s arguments – they believe Trump’s order is at odds with many years of Supreme Court precedent.
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/nx-s1-5398025/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship">said</a> that the Trump administration seemed to turn the justice system into “a kind of catch me if you can regime … where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people&#8217;s rights … I don&#8217;t understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.”</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Justice Sonia Sotomayor <a href="https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1923031636301709591">argued</a> that the Trump administration was violating precedent and the “plain meaning of the 14th Amendment.”</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that <a href="https://x.com/Tyler2ONeil/status/1923038011966562374">many</a> lower courts are ruling against Trump’s executive order. &#8220;This is not a hypothetical. This is happening. Every court ruled against you.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
Most of the conservative justices also seemed skeptical of the Trump administration’s stance, but Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the United States “survived until the 1960s” without nationwide injunctions.
<h2>Trump Drafts Nick Saban To Save College Sports</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-921035" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_33_26.Still003-2.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_33_26.Still003-2.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_33_26.Still003-2-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: Trump drafts college football coaching legend Nick Saban to bring some order to big-dollar collegiate athletics.
President Trump plans to create a commission to study “ailing issues” in college athletics, with the possibility of signing an executive order. Collegiate sports have been experiencing a bit of turmoil the last few years, with the schools adjusting to a new climate now that student-athletes have name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights and are on the road to receiving direct compensation from their respective universities.
The president announced that he was creating a commission to “deeply examine the unwieldy landscape of college sports, including the frequency of player movement in the <a href="https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/">transfer portal</a>, the unregulated booster compensation paid to athletes, the debate of college athlete employment, the application of Title IX with regards to revenue sharing and, even, conference membership makeup and conference television contracts.”
Trump has named Nick Saban, who won seven national titles as a college football coach, as co-chair of the commission, with the other co-chair being Cody Campbell – the chairman of Texas Tech’s Board of Regents and NIL collective founder. Many people believe Saban is the best person to lead this initiative, given the on-field success, but there have also been accusations of hypocrisy given how much money Saban himself made from college athletics.
Hanging over all of this is the pending settlement of House vs. NCAA, a class-action, antitrust lawsuit that would allow collegiate athletes to participate in revenue sharing from TV rights deals once a settlement is complete. That settlement is expected within the coming weeks, or even days. The plaintiffs&#8217; attorney, Steve Berman, blasted Saban and Trump’s discussions, accusing them of “meddling.”
“College athletes are spearheading historic changes and benefitting massively from NIL deals,” Berman said. “They don’t need this unmerited interference from a coach only seeking to protect the system that made him tens of millions.”

MorningWire-0428_V1

Morning Brief: SCOTUS Hears Birthright Citizenship Case & Trump Drafts Legendary Football Coach

birthright citizenship

General

Iran

Iran Nuclear

Media

Middle East

Morning Wire

Nick Saban

Sports

President Donald Trump panned the notion of birthright citizenship on Thursday ahead of arguments on the subject at the Supreme Court, saying that it&#8217;s bad for the United States and good for illegal aliens who want to gain a foothold in the country. &#8220;The drug cartels love it!&#8221; he said.
Trump laid out his complaint in a lengthy post to his Truth Social platform, arguing that the practice was outdated and that in the 21st century, there was no place for a policy that automatically conferred citizenship to every baby born on American soil.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://t.co/97tfkVKsq2">pic.twitter.com/97tfkVKsq2</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1922987140612231249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 15, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Big case today in the United States Supreme Court,&#8221; Trump began. &#8220;Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the &#8216;SUCKERS&#8217; that we are!&#8221;
&#8220;The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it!&#8221; he continued. &#8220;We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America.&#8221;
Trump went on to explain the roots of birthright citizenship as a policy, noting that it dated back to the end of the Civil War.
&#8220;Birthright Citizenship is about the babies of slaves,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;As conclusive proof, the Civil War ended in 1865, the Bill went to Congress less than a year later, in 1866, and was passed shortly after that. It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years. It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection.&#8221;
&#8220;Please explain this to the Supreme Court of the United States,&#8221; the president added. &#8220;Again, remember, the Civil War ended in 1865, and the Bill goes to Congress in 1866 — We didn’t have people pouring into our Country from all over South America, and the rest of the World. It wasn’t even a subject. What we had were the BABIES OF SLAVES. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Good luck with this very important case. GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.!&#8221;
Trump followed that a short time later with a second post, once again referencing the policy&#8217;s origin just after the Civil War ended: &#8220;Remember, it all started right after the Civil War ended, it had nothing to do with current day Immigration Policy!&#8221;
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) echoed Trump&#8217;s thoughts in a post to X, saying, &#8220;Granting birthright citizenship to illegal aliens is unlawful and it has contributed to the highest levels of illegal immigration in history. President Trump is right to call to end this farce.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Granting birthright citizenship to illegal aliens is unlawful and it has contributed to the highest levels of illegal immigration in history.
President Trump is right to call to end this farce.
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1923043445439975585?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 15, 2025</a></blockquote>

Trump Sounds Off On Birthright Citizenship Ahead Of SCOTUS Argument: ‘Drug Cartels Love It’

Trump Sounds Off On Birthright Citizenship Ahead Of SCOTUS Argument: 'Drug Cartels Love It'

Drug Cartels

The Justice Department on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to rein in federal district court judges by restricting their ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
Solicitor General John Sauer asked the court to limit the scope of federal judges&#8217; ability to issue nationwide injunctions, saying the courts have overstepped the authority given to them in Article III of the Constitution. The case stems from three universal injunctions that were placed on an executive order from President Donald Trump directing his administration not to grant birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants residing in the United States.
“It is a feature, not a bug of Article III, that courts grant relief to the people who sue in front of them,” Sauer said as he took questions from the justices. “So the notion that relief has to be given to the whole world because others who have not taken the time to sue are not before the courts is something that results in all of these problems.”
Sauer said that universal injunctions lead to “rampant forum shopping,” “require judges to make rushed, high-stakes low information decisions,” and “force government to win everywhere,” while those challenging the government only need to win at one court.  
In a press call on Tuesday, a Justice Department official noted that 35 of the 39 total universal injunctions issued against the Trump administration have come from the same five courts: the districts of Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, D.C., Northern California, and Western Washington.
Justices largely focused on procedural questions and only touched lightly on whether Trump&#8217;s executive order on birthright citizenship was legal. The liberal wing of the court, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, kept asserting that Trump&#8217;s actions to restrict birthright citizenship were unconstitutional.
Sotomayor also took issue with Sauer&#8217;s arguments that injunctions should only apply to the parties that specifically sued. She claimed that a president could hypothetically ban all guns, and each gun owner would then need to seek individual relief if the court were to take the Justice Department&#8217;s position.
On the other side, Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the most conservative members of the court, appeared very skeptical of universal injunctions in his questions.
“So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” Thomas asked Sauer. 
“That’s exactly correct,&#8221; the solicitor general replied. 
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also pushed Sauer to discuss how Trump&#8217;s executive order on birthright citizenship would be carried out. Sauer replied that the administration never got the opportunity to develop its framework because it was blocked just days after the order was issued.
Trump weighed in on the case from the Middle East, posting on Truth Social that birthright citizenship was meant for slaves, and not for &#8220;people pouring into our Country from all over South America, and the rest of the World.&#8221;
&#8220;Big case today in the United States Supreme Court. Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the &#8216;SUCKERS&#8217; that we are! The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it,&#8221; Trump wrote.

US-POLITICS-JUSTICE-TRUMP-CITIZENSHIP-PROTEST

Supreme Court To Consider Taking Action Against Judges Blocking Trump Agenda

The Justice Department heads to the Supreme Court on Thursday to defend President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive order on birthright citizenship in a case that could have far-reaching implications on activist judges&#8217; ability to hamper Trump&#8217;s agenda. 
While the case, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/daycall/Day%20Call_05-15-25.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Trump v. Casa</a>, revolves around Trump’s day one actions on birthright citizenship, the primary arguments are expected to focus on the power of lone judges to issue universal injunctions that apply to the whole country. The Trump administration has asked the court to rule three nationwide injunctions issued against the birthright citizenship order are only applied to the parties involved and not the whole country. 
“For the first 170 years of American jurisprudence, nationwide injunctions were virtually unknown,&#8221; Solicitor General John Sauer <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A886/354849/20250407110347000_24A886%20Reply.pdf">wrote</a> in an April 7 filing. &#8220;Their use remained sparing until this century, when they saw a dramatic upsurge in 2017, followed by an explosion in the last three months.&#8221;
“These injunctions exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II. This Court’s intervention is urgently needed to restore the constitutional balance of separated powers,” he added. 
A win for the Trump administration would be significant blow to the Left, which has utilized judges to block much of Trump&#8217;s policies from immigration to efforts to dismantle the sprawling federal bureaucracy.
Sauer will present arguments before the court for about 30 minutes before two lawyers from public and private groups challenging Trump’s order argue for 15 minutes each. The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of the three injunctions issued against Trump&#8217;s &#8220;Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” executive order.
That executive order directed the government to stop granting citizenship to individuals who were born to people illegally in the country or who were born to people living transiently in the United States. 
During a background call on the case attended by The Daily Wire, a Justice Department official said “the key question” in the case is about “what to do about all these nationwide injunctions.” The official noted that the rash of universal injunctions was &#8220;devastating&#8221; for Trump’s “ability to effectuate the agenda that he was elected to do.”
The official noted that 35 of the 39 total universal injunctions issued against the Trump administration have come from the same five courts: the districts of Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, D.C., Northern California, and Western Washington.
&#8220;They just shop for the favorable forums in order to drag the executive branch’s policies to a halt,” an official said, adding that the Trump administration would be ready to defend the merits of the birthright citizenship order when and if those arguments came up.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Wire, that he suspected the Supreme Court decided to take up the case partially in response to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/heres-how-activist-judges-fought-trumps-agenda-in-the-first-100-days" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criticism</a> for not reigning in district court judges in a multitude of other cases.
“The fact that they scheduled oral arguments on this case, past their usual deadline, tells you the importance that the court is attaching to this,” he said, noting the last oral arguments are typically scheduled for the beginning of May. 
Previous rulings from the court, including U.S. v. Mendoza (1984), could provide guidance for the court. In that decision, the court ruled that when a judgment is rendered against the government, courts can only apply judgment to parties in the lawsuit, von Spakovsky said. 
Von Spakovsky said that he expects the justices to focus on the injunction issue, and not the substantive debate after Trump&#8217;s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. He said that a win for the Trump administration could act as a warning to judges to not overstep their activity.
However, a loss he said would even further open up the floodgates of challenges to the administration.
“If the government loses this particular issue, it’s like opening the gates to a rock concert and letting the crowd just rush in without giving tickets,&#8221; he told The Daily Wire. &#8220;It’s going to mean that these judges all over the country can continue to issue these nationwide injunctions against almost any executive order.&#8221;

Supreme Court Continues Busy Week With Cases On Immigration Visas And Starbucks Union

Trump DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Restrain Activist Judges

Department of Justice

Fourteenth Amendment

Illegal Immigation

Judges were one of the big wins of President Donald Trump’s first term. His initial batch of nominees this term suggests he’s not tired of winning yet.
Last week, Trump named several judges for the district court in Missouri and the municipal court in Washington, D.C. And earlier this month, he <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/white-house-press-release-president-donald-j-trump-announces-judicial-candidate-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> Whitney Hermandorfer as his nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
All are strong picks, but Hermandorfer has garnered the most attention — and for good reason.
She’s Trump’s only court of appeals nominee so far. This is significant because the courts of appeals are one level below the Supreme Court in more ways than one. They resolve upwards of 99% of federal litigation, while the High Court rules on around 60 cases each year.
Moreover, the court of appeals is a common stepping stone to higher office. Eight of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices previously served on the court of appeals,
But perhaps most importantly, Hermandorfer’s nomination suggests that Trump will apply the same criteria we saw for his first-term judicial nominees: originalists who will uphold the rule of law and are not afraid of the opprobrium heaped on those who take on the Left’s sacred cows.
That’s what has the Left running scared.
As Hermandorfer’s current boss, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, <a href="https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2025/5/2/pr25-26.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> upon the announcement of her nomination, she is “an absolute rock star” and “perhaps the single most credentialed lawyer in America, having clerked for a full third of the justices on the Supreme Court.” He wasn’t exaggerating.
She graduated from Princeton University magna cum laude and was first in her class at the George Washington University Law School, where she was editor-in-chief of the George Washington University Law Review. Most lawyers would consider having clerked at the Supreme Court the gold standard for a nominee, but Hermandorfer went even further.
After clerking for Judge Richard Leon of the D.C. district court, she served then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit before clerking on the Supreme Court for Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett. That’s a trifecta of every type of federal clerkship possible, plus an extraordinary double Supreme Court clerkship. As Trump put it in his Truth Social <a href="https://x.com/TruthTrumpPosts/status/1918151975453245946" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announcement</a>, Hermandorfer “has a long history of working for Judges and Justices who respect the RULE OF LAW.”
Hermandorfer has long been part of the conservative legal movement, and in recent years has played an integral role in the successful Tennessee Attorney General’s office, where she has served under <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/tennessee-ag-jonathan-skrmetti-is-the-real-deal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Skrmetti</a> as director of the Strategic Litigation Unit. State attorneys general were the tip of the spear defending constitutional limits under the Biden administration, and Hermandorfer played an important role by leading two successful multi-state coalitions <a href="https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/02/242249P.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">challenging</a> Biden’s Title IX regulations mandating that boys be allowed to play girls’ sports and use girls’ facilities in schools and <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0150n-06.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arguing</a> against his attempts to rewrite Pregnant Workers Fairness Act regulations to circumvent pro-life state laws.
Of course, Hermandorfer’s stellar resume won’t guarantee her a smooth confirmation. Leftist groups, including the Alliance for Justice, have already come out <a href="https://afj.org/article/trumps-first-judicial-nominee-has-disturbing-extremist-record/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">attacking</a> her for embracing Trump’s “discriminatory authoritarian agenda” and said Trump nominees do “not deserve the benefit of the doubt…when we already have 234 examples of his judges causing harm on the bench.”
Indeed, the 234 Article III judges Trump <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judicial-nominations-update-64/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">appointed</a> during his first term are among the highest four-year totals in history. And the quality of those picks was even more impressive than the quantity, course-correcting the Supreme Court and much of the rest of the federal judiciary after years of rootless activism.
Because Trump begins this term with far fewer judicial <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judicial-nominations-update-73/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vacancies</a> than he faced eight years ago, his second-term totals are unlikely to match those of his first, but he is nonetheless <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-judicial-appointment-train-is-leaving-the-station/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">on track</a> to close out eight years with more judicial appointments than any other president. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/05/07/confirming-trumps-court-nominees-is-priority-judiciary-committee-sen-lee-says/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> that judicial nominations will be a “big priority” for the Judiciary Committee, which suggests the senators also recognize how key judges are, and time is of the essence to confirm as many judges as possible while Republicans control the Senate.
Hermandorfer’s hearing before the committee will be <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/05/13/grassley-senate-republicans-trump-judges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scheduled</a> for June 4th, setting her up for potential confirmation before the August recess.
Liberal dark money groups like the Alliance for Justice know very well that a president’s judicial appointments have an impact that lasts much longer than his term. While presidents come and go, federal judges serve for life. President Trump has the opportunity to bolster what could be his most enduring legacy with his second-term judicial appointments. He’s off to a great start.
Carrie Severino is the president of JCN and co-author of the bestselling book Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Court.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP

Trump Is Off To a Great Start On Judicial Nominees

Brett Kavanaugh

Judges

Judiciary

Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who was nominated to the court by GOP President George H. W. Bush in 1990, then sided with leftist judges in some critical cases, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/09/supreme-court-david-souter-dies.html">died</a> at his home in New Hampshire on Thursday. He was 85.
Souter, a lifelong bachelor, was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University in England and graduated from Harvard Law School before eventually becoming Attorney General of New Hampshire.
“Bush’s chief of staff assured Republicans that the pick would be a ‘home run for conservatives’ who were on the brink of a significant remaking of the court. But the nominee proved to be anything but,” The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2025/05/09/david-souter-supreme-court-justice-dead/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>. “In nearly two decades on the court, Justice Souter was a reliable vote for the liberal side of the bench in cases involving affirmative action, gay rights, separation of church and state, and restriction of the death penalty.”
Although he was nominated by a Republican, Souter may have given a hint that he would not stick to an originalist view of the Constitution during his confirmation hearings. Asked about Griswold v. Connecticut —the case in which a &#8220;right to privacy&#8221; was enshrined by the court, arguing it was derived from penumbras of other explicitly stated constitutional protections — Souter <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=mvV0cVeWVmUC&amp;q=david+souter+%22home+run%22#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> that the “due process clause &#8230; does recognize and does protect an unenumerated right to privacy.” He later stated that the Constitution’s “concept of limited government” was “not to simply be identified with the enumeration of those specific rights or specifically defined rights that were later embodied in the &#8216;Bill of Rights.'&#8221;
The ”right to privacy” was extended by the Supreme Court in the cases <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-17" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Eisenstadt v. Baird </a>(1971), <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v._wade_%281973%29" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roe v. Wade </a>(1973) and <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lawrence v. Texas </a>(2003), affirming the nationwide right to abortions as well as ultimately leading to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), in which the Supreme Court affirmed the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Two years after he started serving on the Supreme Court, Souter joined Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O&#8217;Connor to reaffirm a woman’s constitutional right to have an abortion, arguing that to reverse the basis of Roe v. Wade would appear to be a “surrender to political pressure. . . . So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.”
Souter joined the majority opinion in 1992′s <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Planned Parenthood v. Casey</a>, upholding the federal constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade.
Constitutional scholar John O. McGinnis contended, “Souter will be known wholly for doing the unexpected by becoming one of the most liberal justices on the court. . . . He leaves no independent jurisprudential mark and not a single memorable phrase in an opinion of which he was the acknowledged author.”
Souter retired in 2009 at the relatively young age of 69, permitting former President Barack Obama to replace him with leftist Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Supreme Court Justices Attend News Conference

Retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Who Vexed Conservatives, Dies At 85

David Souter

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump announced his first wave of his judicial nominees on Tuesday, a highly-anticipated event given the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/inside-leonard-leos-plan-for-conservatives-to-crush-liberal-dominance">massive impact</a> Trump had on the federal judiciary during his last administration.
The nominations comes as top Trump administration officials — and Trump himself — daily express their frustration with judges who immediately block the president&#8217;s orders. As recently as Wednesday morning, Trump posted on Truth Social: &#8220;Our Court System is not letting me do the job I was Elected to do. Activist judges must let the Trump Administration deport murderers, and other criminals who have come into our Country illegally, WITHOUT DELAY!!!&#8221;
Trump <a href="https://x.com/TheElizMitchell/status/1919868297916391549">promised The Daily Signal&#8217;s Elizabeth Mitchell</a> on Sunday evening that he would release his nominee names &#8220;rapidly,&#8221; noting, “We’re putting them in rapidly and trying to get very good ones.&#8221; Several nominees came from Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey&#8217;s office, Bailey pointed out on Wednesday, boasting: &#8220;Missouri is leading the way in restoring legal excellence to the federal bench.&#8221;
First came the nomination of Whitney D. Hermandorfer of Tennessee, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Her nomination drew quick criticism from leftist critics and judicial groups, such as the Leadership Conference on Civil &amp; Human Rights, which called her nomination “appalling.&#8221;
Trump described her as &#8220;a staunch defender of girl&#8217;s and women&#8217;s sports,&#8221; and Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) praised her career as &#8220;nothing short of outstanding,&#8221; dubbing her &#8220;a rising star in Tennessee.&#8221;
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement that &#8220;Whitney Hermandorfer&#8217;s unwavering commitment to the rule of law, her exacting analytical rigor, and her unshakeable optimism will serve our country well.&#8221;
JCN&#8217;s Carrie Severino predicted that Trump&#8217;s other nominees will face criticism from left-wing groups as well,<a href="https://x.com/JCNSeverino/status/1920169760408363483"> warning</a>, &#8220;Expect to see more of the same duplicated attacks from the Left on the president’s judicial picks as we did with Hermandorfer.&#8221;
The Heritage Foundation&#8217;s Thomas Jipping <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-judicial-appointment-train-is-leaving-the-station/">offered</a> a similar prediction: &#8220;Expect more of this mantra, with the name of the current nominee cut and pasted, in the months ahead.&#8221;
Trump also nominated a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, Joshua M. Divine of Missouri, to serve as judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and Western District of Missouri. Divine also previously served as chief counsel to Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and is currently the Solicitor General of Missouri.
<div id="attachment_917233" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-announces-first-wave-of-judicial-nominees-amid-fury-from-left-wing-activists/neil-gorsuch-is-sworn-in-as-associate-justice-to-supreme-court-2" rel="attachment wp-att-917233"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-917233" class="wp-image-917233 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" /></a>(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)</div>
&#8220;Joshua has devoutly served the Great State of Missouri, as the State’s Solicitor General and, previously, as Chief Counsel to Senator Josh Hawley, a true Patriot,&#8221; the president said in a Truth Social post. &#8220;A former Clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Joshua knows what is required to protect the Rule of Law and Constitutional Rights for the Great People of Missouri. We must have Constitutionalist Judges now, more than EVER BEFORE. Congratulations Joshua!&#8221;
Trump tapped Zachary Bluestone to serve as judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Bluestone (described by Trump as a &#8220;true legal warrior&#8221; as well as &#8220;tough, smart, and LOVES our great country&#8221;) is currently appellate chief and a violent crimes prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri and previously served in the Missouri Attorney General’s Office as Deputy Solicitor General.
Maria A. Lanahan, the current principal deputy solicitor general in the Missouri Attorney General&#8217;s Office, has been nominated to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and Cristian M. Stevens, who served as first assistant attorney general and deputy attorney general of the criminal division in the Missouri Attorney General&#8217;s Office, is also nominated to serve as judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Trump described Stevens as &#8220;a Great Patriot,&#8221; and Lanahan as &#8220;a very Smart and Talented Lawyer&#8221; who &#8220;will do GREAT work in this new role.&#8221;
The last Trump nominee is Edward Aloysius O’Connell, whom Trump is nominating to serve as an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. O&#8217;Connell is currently the chief of staff and deputy general council of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. He has spent the past two decades serving as a prosecutor in the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
&#8220;Eddie will help fix Violent Crime in the City by restoring the RULE OF LAW to Washington, D.C.,&#8221; Trump posted on Wednesday evening. &#8220;Eddie served for nearly two decades as a Tough on Crime Prosecutor for the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, where he prosecuted many Horrific Crimes, including Homicides, Domestic Violence, Organized Crime, Narcotics Offenses, and more. D.C. could, and should, be a wonderful place, if political hacks would stop making such terrible decisions.&#8221;
&#8220;I know Eddie will help make everyone much safer,&#8221; the president added. &#8220;Congratulations Eddie!&#8221;
Demand Justice, one of the most vocal leftist activism groups opposing the president&#8217;s nominees, this week accused Trump&#8217;s nominees of having  &#8220;extreme backgrounds&#8221; and arguing that their resumes &#8220;signal Trump’s intent to continue to transform the federal judiciary into another arm of the MAGA movement by appointing loyalist judges who will rubber stamp his most controversial and lawless policies.&#8221;
&#8220;These state AGs have aggressively used their offices to advance the MAGA agenda and, in one case, even to protect Trump himself from legal accountability,&#8221; the group argued.
“Trump’s first slate of nominees is exactly what we predicted–it includes loyalists who have a proven record of advocating for the kinds of radical policies featured in the Project 2025 agenda,&#8221; claimed Demand Justice Interim Executive Director Maggie Jo Buchanan. &#8220;While Trump and his allies continue to attack fair-minded jurists, he is also going after the independence of our courts by appointing politically motivated lawyers who will greenlight his extreme agenda from the bench.&#8221;

US-CHINA-POLITICS-DIPLOMACY

Trump Announces First Wave Of Judicial Nominees Amid Fury From Left-Wing Activists

9th Circuit

Amy Coney Barrett

Clarence Thomas

WASHINGTON—In a major victory for the White House, the Supreme Court sided Tuesday with President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration, lifting a lower court&#8217;s order pausing the ban on trans-identifying troops in the military from going into effect.
The High Court granted the Trump administration&#8217;s application for a stay on Tuesday afternoon, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. The decision allows Trump&#8217;s order to proceed, at least for the time being.
The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court in late April to allow the Pentagon to enforce its ban on troops who suffer from gender dysphoria or have undergone transgender medical treatments after two federal judges blocked the administration from removing troops who identify as transgender.
Those judges had ruled that the Trump order is probably unconstitutional and motivated by discrimination rather than negative impacts on the military, though the Defense Department’s policy is based on findings during the first Trump administration showing that individuals with gender dysphoria impact “military effectiveness and lethality,” as the appeal states.
Service members who undergo so-called transition surgeries can take a minimum of 12 months to recover, often using heavy narcotics during this time, and are not physically capable of meeting military readiness requirements, the White House has said. They also require consistent medical care, which is not conducive to deployment or other readiness requirements.
Trump’s executive order on transgender troops not only bans military members from using taxpayer dollars to get gender transition surgeries, but also prohibits males from using or sharing sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities that are designated for females. The order rescinds President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 14004, which allowed for all sorts of accommodations of gender identity in the military, and opened wide the door for gender ideology and taxpayer-funded transgender interventions within military ranks.
Trump also issued an executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which banned individuals with gender dysphoria from entering the military. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition wherein a man might believe he is actually a woman, or a woman might believe she is actually a man.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-COURT-TRUMP

WHITE HOUSE WIN: Supreme Court Allows Trump’s Ban On Trans-Identifying Troops To Proceed

Pentagon

White House

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.

Menu