WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in a case that could change the way presidents interact with the massive federal bureaucracy.
At issue in the case, Trump v. Slaughter, is whether a president has the authority to fire officials from independent agencies. Rebecca Slaughter, a former Federal Trade Commissioner, sued the president for removing her from the commission in March. Over the day&#8217;s three-hour proceeding, the court&#8217;s six conservative justices seemed inclined to side with President Donald Trump. Doing so would upend the way the federal bureaucracy interacts with the executive branch — a win not just for Trump, but for small-government conservatives anxious to claw back power from the &#8220;deep state.&#8221;
Slaughter’s team argues that independent agencies like the FTC have long-standing statutory protections allowing commissioners to be removed only “for cause” rather than “at will.” The team also insisted that these protections are essential for preserving agency independence, preventing partisan interference, and maintaining the separation of powers.
“We are asking the court to adhere to all of its precedents and to give effect to the collective wisdom and experience of all three branches of government,” said attorney Amit Agarwal. “Multi-member commissions with members enjoying some kind of removal protection have been part of our story since 1970.”
Solicitor General John Sauer contends, however, that Slaughter&#8217;s case rests on a precedent he called a “decaying husk.&#8221; Relying on the 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, &#8220;continues to tempt Congress to erect, at the heart of our government, a headless branch,” he argued.
Sauer acknowledged, however, that not all independent agencies are alike. In response to a question from Justice Brett Kavanaugh about how the Federal Reserve differs from the FTC, Sauer said the Fed was “sui generis” and should be treated as such.
Kavanaugh was frequently at odds with Justice Elena Kagan throughout oral arguments.
“Once you’re down this road, it’s a little bit hard to see how you would stop,” Kagan <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-332_p8k0.pdf">said,</a> arguing that giving the president control of the bureaucracy would essentially cede power to the executive.
Kavanaugh pushed back, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-332_p8k0.pdf">noting</a> that &#8220;the real world of this is the independent agencies shift power from the presidency to the Congress. Everyone recognizes that.&#8221;
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
In the email notifying Slaughter that she was being fired, the White House <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/trump-v-slaughter-an-explainer/">said</a> that allowing Slaughter to remain on the commission would be “inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities.” Former President Joe Biden appointed Slaughter to her second term at the Federal Trade Commission, which would have ended in 2029.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on the president’s authority to dismiss Slaughter by June 2026. If the Supreme Court sides with President Trump, Slaughter’s attorneys <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/trump-v-slaughter-an-explainer/">argue</a> the decision “would profoundly destabilize institutions that are now inextricably intertwined with the fabric of American governance.”

Supreme Court Confronts Trump’s Power To Disrupt Global Economy

Supreme Court Seems Likely To Give Trump Power To Remove Independent Agency Heads

Courts

Donald Trump

Executive

Federal Reserve

Federal Trade Commission

Politics

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is looking at the possibility of ensuring that the federal executive branch is a unitary executive.
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-independent-agencies.html">reports</a>:
<blockquote>As a young staff member in the Reagan administration, John G. Roberts Jr. was part of a group of lawyers who pushed for more White House control over independent government agencies.
The “time may be ripe to reconsider the existence of such entities, and take action to bring them back within the executive branch,” the future chief justice of the United States advised the White House counsel in a 1983 memo. Independent agencies, he wrote, were a “constitutional anomaly.”
Once he ascended to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts joined other conservatives on the bench in a series of rulings that have chipped away at Congress’s power to constrain the president’s authority to fire independent regulators.</blockquote>
The real question here is this: Where in the Constitution do you find the idea of independent regulators? It does not exist. We have three branches of government, and, in order of power, it’s supposed to be: legislative, executive, and judicial.
With that said, all of these are unitary powers. The president is not supposed to implement legislative power, which is why many of the regulatory agencies that currently exist should be ruled unconstitutional. If there are unelected agencies writing laws — which is what regulations are — there is no mode for that under the Constitution of the United States.
Simultaneously, there is no independent fourth branch of government set up by Congress that is not answerable to the executive branch, but only answerable to Congress. There&#8217;s nothing like that contemplated by the Constitution.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
There will be a case argued in the Supreme Court over whether President Trump can fire people across the federal government in defiance of laws meant to protect their jobs and shield them from politics.
The Court’s majority will likely side with Trump, which makes perfect sense because there is nowhere in the Constitution where it says Congress has the power to set up an agency inside the executive branch that the president of the United States cannot run.
This case revolves around whether President Trump can fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, simply because he says she does not align with his agenda. That firing would be despite a law that says the president can only remove commissioners for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
The administration is asking the justices to toss out a 90-year-old precedent that said the Constitution allowed laws like that one and put limits on the president&#8217;s authority to dismiss some quasi-independent government officials.
There are two dozen other agencies charged with protecting consumers, workers, the environment, or nuclear safety. They have been insulated from complete presidential control by similar laws.
One of the points Trump makes is that he&#8217;s doing the obvious thing. Democrats have been firing these people by ginning up cases against them for a very, very long time. This is also how they manage to maintain control of the regulatory state even after they lost an election. This is what Trump would label the so-called “deep state.”
Trump has repeatedly ousted Democratic leaders — including at the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission —  to make way for replacements who share his policy priorities. That makes perfect sense. When you elect a president, you&#8217;re supposed to be able to shift regulatory policy along those lines.
It is why the Constitution was written the way that it was. Once you have a gigantic regulatory authority wedded to the executive branch, either the executive branch itself, run by the president, gains significant power, or you have to set up a fourth unregulated branch of government that is the regulatory state that actually runs the place.
Neither of those two solutions is good. Thus, the Constitution states that no lawmaking power lies with Congress. Executive power lies with the president.
We should hope that we return to the idea of a functional unitary executive, meaning everything that happens under the executive branch is run by the president.
If we go back to that, maybe Congress would actually legislate instead of kicking the can over to the regulatory branches of government to avoid responsibility.
The theory of the unitary executive is an idea that dates back to the Reagan administration. In a 2010 decision, Chief Justice Roberts said that the president&#8217;s power generally includes the authority to remove those assisting him in carrying out his duties. Without such power, the president could not be fully held accountable for discharging his own responsibilities.
That is exactly right, and I hope that the Supreme Court carries through on all of that. That would be a genuinely positive development.

Gemini generated Roberts Scotus Trump

Supreme Court Poised To Rein In ‘Fourth Branch,’ Restore Unitary Executive

Ben Shapiro

Congress

executive power

Federal Government

John Roberts

Judicial Branch

Opinion

Presidency

The Supreme Court takes up a case that could decide the future of so-called birthright citizenship, elected leaders in Minnesota are scrutinized for links to the state&#8217;s massive welfare scandal, and the announced Netflix-Warner Bros merger sends shockwaves through Hollywood.
It’s Monday, December 8, 2025, and this is the news you need to know to start your day. Today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below, and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mrn-251208">video version can be seen on The Daily Wire</a>:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/birthright-citizenship-showdown-minnesotas-fraud-firestorm/id1576594336?i=1000740192995" 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 style="text-align: center;">Trump vs Birthright Citizenship</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1011047" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Weighs-Citizenship-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Weighs-Citizenship-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Weighs-Citizenship-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Weighs-Citizenship-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Weighs-Citizenship-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Weighs-Citizenship.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: The Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of birthright citizenship in what could be a historic court case brought on by the Trump administration.
On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants and other short-term visitors would no longer be considered American citizens.
That order was immediately challenged in multiple lower federal courts and subsequently put on hold. But on Friday, the White House got some major news: the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case and will decide on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. A ruling is expected by this summer.
Preview: The case will hinge on the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Supporters of birthright citizenship say that sentence includes virtually everyone born on U.S. soil, but opponents say those born to illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and thus are not Americans.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
Essentially, the White House says birthright citizenship was originally a good-intentioned provision meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves after the Civil War.
But they argue it’s now been abused by millions of illegal immigrants and even tourists, who race across the border while pregnant to ensure their children will get citizenship. 
Lawyers for the White House argue that Trump’s executive order would simply “restore the clause’s original meaning.”
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Massive Minnesota Fraud</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1011049" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Welfare-Scandal-Widens-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Welfare-Scandal-Widens-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Welfare-Scandal-Widens-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Welfare-Scandal-Widens-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Welfare-Scandal-Widens-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Welfare-Scandal-Widens.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: The Somali-linked welfare fraud scandal in Minnesota is now being tied to Democrat leaders in the state, drawing more attention from the Trump administration and Congress.
Catch up: Billions of tax dollars have been stolen in the state of Minnesota during the tenure of Democrat Gov. Tim Walz. City Journal reporting has uncovered that at least a billion dollars in welfare and social service schemes have largely been connected to the Somali community in Minnesota. Alarmingly, some of this money was allegedly <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/minnesota-welfare-fraud-somalia-al-shabaab" target="_blank" rel="noopener">funneled</a> to Somalia-based terrorist group Al-Shabaab.
How could it be worse? Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller says the welfare fraud scheme is far worse than the American people think, involving “complicit” state government officials and totaling more stolen money than initial early estimates stated.
“We believe we have only scratched the very top of the surface of how deep this goes,” <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1997135207707615556?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1997135207707615556%7Ctwgr%5E79d8d486c99e2a14a41c75308117655867895db2%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fthe-somali-welfare-fraud-scandal-is-even-worse-than-you-think">said</a> Miller in an appearance on Fox News. “We believe the state government is fully complicit in this scheme, and we believe that what we are going to uncover is going to shock the American people.”
Miller also underscored the Somali ties to this fraud, connecting it to a larger conversation the nation is having about immigration from third-world countries.
“Seventy-five percent of the Somali population in Minnesota is on welfare, and that’s likely a significant undercount of just how much of a financial burden the Somali refugee population is imposing on this country,” <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1997135207707615556?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1997135207707615556%7Ctwgr%5E79d8d486c99e2a14a41c75308117655867895db2%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fthe-somali-welfare-fraud-scandal-is-even-worse-than-you-think">said</a> Miller.
Who knew what: Reporting from the New York Post has tied Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar to the scandal. Omar held parties at one of the key restaurants named, and she knew one of its owners, who is now convicted of stealing millions in funds. Additionally, one of her own staffers has been convicted of stealing millions. Omar even introduced the bill that led to $250 million in fraud.
“I just think that a lot of the COVID programs were set up so quickly that a lot of the guardrails did not get created,” Omar <a href="https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1996395142001864889?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1996395142001864889%7Ctwgr%5Edaf0b98b351595e957decab8d8baed2dec55e0db%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Filhan-omar-says-trump-supporters-might-attack-somalis-brushes-off-fraud-scandal">told</a> CNN last week when asked about the fraud.
There have also been questions about Walz’s oversight. The Treasury Department is investigating this scandal, and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) has announced a congressional investigation.
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Netflix-Warner Bros Seismic Merger</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1011051" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Streaming-Studio-Shake-up-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Streaming-Studio-Shake-up-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Streaming-Studio-Shake-up-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Streaming-Studio-Shake-up-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Streaming-Studio-Shake-up-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Streaming-Studio-Shake-up.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: In a seismic shift for Hollywood, Netflix has struck an $83 billion deal to acquire Warner Brothers. The merger would potentially reshape the entertainment business for generations.
Announced just days ago, Netflix&#8217;s binding offer will give it not just Warner Bros the movie studio, but also streaming assets like HBO Max. And it&#8217;s gobbling up classics like Batman, Superman, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Looney Tunes, Friends, etc.
It’s being called one of the biggest, if not the biggest, mergers in Hollywood history. It comes after a bidding war that saw heavyweights like Paramount Skydance and Comcast get outmaneuvered or outspent by Netflix.
The Netflix angle: Netflix has been in a content arms race with Disney and Amazon. The Warner Bros. vault offers instant firepower.
Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos says it&#8217;ll “accelerate HBO Max growth” while blending Warner&#8217;s “theatrical expertise.” But many critics are concerned that this means Netflix will shorten theatrical windows and further decimate the moviegoing business.
That’s part of the reason many creatives hate this deal. During the bidding war, director James Cameron <a href="https://x.com/Todd_Spence/status/1996991743116591550?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> that Netflix&#8217;s acquisition of Warner Bros would be “a disaster” for the industry.
Batman director Christopher Nolan is representing the Directors Guild in meetings with Netflix to express concerns. Both the East and West Writers’ Guilds issued a joint statement unequivocally opposing the sale and asking regulators to block it.
Could it be blocked? There are already rumbles in Washington that the Trump administration doesn’t like this merger.
And opposition is bipartisan. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), chair of the antitrust subcommittee, said Netflix should “Buckle up for an intense antitrust hearing.” Meanwhile,  Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has called the merger an “anti-monopoly nightmare,” warning that it could lead to higher subscription prices and fewer choices for consumers.
There’s no question that because Netflix is already the largest global streamer, adding Warner Bros. content and HBO Max subscribers would give it extraordinary dominance–over a third of the streaming market.
Netflix, though, already seems to be trying to soothe customer jitters. It sent a message to subscribers on Saturday night, repeatedly assuring them that their plans, fees, content access, and the separate operations of both Netflix and HBO Max will not change.

MRN_251208_V1

Morning Brief: Birthright Citizenship Showdown & Minnesota Fraud Firestorm

birthright citizenship

Ilhan Omar

Minnesota

Morning Wire

Netflix

Stephen Miller

Tim Walz

Warner Bros

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether President Donald Trump&#8217;s push to end birthright citizenship is legal, according to reports.
Upon re-entering the White House, Trump signed an executive order to prevent the children of illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary visas from receiving citizenship upon birth.
It quickly faced a slew of lawsuits arguing that the order violated the 14th Amendment, which affords citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents&#8217; immigration status.
The high court is now expected to decide in late June or early July on the longtime interpretation of the 14th Amendment, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to The New York Times.
In June, the high court justices <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> 6-3 along ideological lines to allow Trump to try to end birthright citizenship in some parts of the country.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
The ruling, however, did not address the question of birthright citizenship itself, which is the practice of granting automatic citizenship rights for babies born on United States soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.
The Trump administration <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-hear-birthright-citizenship-case?author=Reuters&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Asks+Supreme+Court+To+Hear+Birthright+Citizenship+Case">asked</a> the Supreme Court in September to take up the case after several lower courts paused the order.
“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the President and his Administration in a manner that undermines our border security. Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” the Justice Department wrote in the appeals at the time.

Donald Trump/Supreme Court

Supreme Court To Rule On Trump’s Push To End Birthright Citizenship

Illegal Immigration

A Christian evangelist&#8217;s battle with a Mississippi city over street preaching took center stage at the Supreme Court on Wednesday as the justices heard arguments that could have far-reaching consequences for Americans who want to defend their constitutional rights in federal court. 
The case <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/24-00993qp.pdf">revolves</a> around whether 33-year-old Gabriel Olivier can challenge an ordinance from Brandon, Mississippi, that restricted street preaching in a public park outside of a local amphitheater. Olivier, who was convicted in 2021 of street preaching outside of the designated area, is now attempting to overturn the ordinance on First Amendment grounds. 
“This is a really important case,  for Christians specifically, because I noticed that all around the country, there&#8217;s always an exercise of free speech [that] does not seem to be cracked down on the way that Christians&#8217; free speech is nowadays,” Olivier told The Daily Wire in an interview. 
The city of Brandon argues that Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance in federal court because he has previously been convicted of violating it. Olivier says that he doesn’t want to revisit the 2021 conviction, for which he paid a fine, but wants to protect his right to share his faith in the future. 
During oral arguments on Wednesday, the justices seemed sympathetic to Olivier’s arguments that he should be able to seek relief in federal court despite his previous conviction. Nate Kellum, a lawyer with First Liberty Institute representing Olivier, told The Daily Wire that he was encouraged by the questions he heard from the justices. 
Kellum said that all he wants is for Olivier to have his day in court to argue against the ordinance and make an appeal for his First Amendment rights. 
“Everybody, regardless of their ideology and their belief, deserves their day in court,” Olivier said. “We&#8217;re just asking that people would continue to pray for us.”
The Trump administration is <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1414041/dl">supporting</a> Olivier’s petition, as are a number of other conservative organizations. 
The ordinance implemented by Brandon, a suburb east of Jackson, restricts protest activity in the park surrounding the city&#8217;s amphitheater to a designated area when events are being held. 
“What the ordinance does is it puts him in a place where no one can hear him,” Kellum told The Daily Wire. “You can&#8217;t have a conversation.  You can&#8217;t hand out literature. If he preaches, he cannot be heard, and if he held up a sign, no one could read it. And so that seemed to be the whole idea, is that the city wanted to pass a law that separated him from his would-be audience.”
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
The city and some legacy outlets have attempted to suggest that Olivier shouted rude or inappropriate things during his previous outings at the park. 
“It&#8217;s patently false. And it seems to be an attempt to try to malign Gabe, malign his character,” Kellum said. “But if Gabe or really anyone else would say anything that would amount to fighting words or could be something that could lead to an altercation, there&#8217;s disorderly conduct ordinances.”
Olivier first went to the park in 2019, where he had productive conversations about his faith with others. But when he returned in 2021, the city had passed an ordinance against such evangelism. His passion for street evangelism comes from his own conversion ten years ago when he encountered a street preacher. 
“I see it very clearly as a command in scripture,” he said. “And so I choose to do that and exercise the rights that we have enjoyed here in America. And we would like for an opportunity to continue to fight for those rights to be upheld.”
Todd Butler, the attorney representing Brandon, said in a statement to The Daily Wire: &#8220;The City of Brandon was excited to present its position to the Court. The case before the Supreme Court is not about the constitutionality of the ordinance or religious expression. It is about whether a person who has been found guilty in criminal court may undermine his conviction through a civil tort lawsuit. The importance of this case cannot be overstated as it will impact cities across the country.&#8221;

MixCollage-04-Dec-2025-02-39-PM-4809

Supreme Court To Weigh In On Christian Evangelist’s Street Preaching Battle With City

Street Preaching Heads To Court: Evangelist’s Battle With City Heard By Supreme Court

Christianity

First Amendment

Free Speech

Mississippi

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Texas could forge ahead with its newly redrawn congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26338616/25a608-order.pdf">initial order</a> was unsigned, and declared that the lower court&#8217;s decision to block the map — which favors Republicans — had been made in error. A brief concurring opinion followed that was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson joined together in dissent.
The order opened with a brief explanation, noting that a three-judge District Court had granted the League of Latin American Voters&#8217; request for an injunction — which would have prevented the state from implementing the new map — and stated that the Court intended to stay the injunction, as requested by the state of Texas. &#8220;The District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature,&#8221; the explanation read, in part.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
Justice Alito, in his concurring opinion, argued that the lower court&#8217;s determination — that the Republican-drawn map was based on race rather than politics — was made in error. He wrote that it was &#8220;indisputable&#8221; that the &#8220;impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple&#8221; — and that being the case, the state should be permitted to move forward with that map. Thomas and Gorsuch agreed.
&#8220;When the asserted reason for a map is political, it is critical for challengers to produce an alternative map that serves the State’s allegedly partisan aim just as well as the map the State adopted. Id., at 34; Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U. S. 234, 258 (2001). Although respondents’ experts could have easily produced such a map if that were possible, they did not, giving rise to a strong inference that the State’s map was indeed based on partisanship, not race,&#8221; their concurring opinion continued.
Justice Kagan, in her lengthy dissent, complained that the ruling had declared the redrawn maps to not be based on race, as the lower court had found, but had instead justified them being drawn for political reasons.
The ruling, she said, &#8220;disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.&#8221;

Greg Abbott

Red State Wins Massive Supreme Court Victory On Redistricting

2026 Midterms

Elections

Redistricting

SCOTUS

Texas

Supreme Court justices ranging from conservative Clarence Thomas to liberal Elena Kagan pressed the state of New Jersey on Tuesday about its expansive investigation targeting a Christian pro-life crisis pregnancy center. 
The justices heard arguments about whether a Christian pregnancy center can challenge a wide-ranging subpoena from the New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin that demanded donor information. The case hinges on whether the subpoena had the impact of chilling supporters of  First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and is entitled to relief in federal court. 
During oral arguments on Tuesday, many of the justices appeared skeptical of the arguments made by Sundeep Iyer, a lawyer for the state of New Jersey. 
In one exchange, Justice Thomas pushed Iyer on why the subpoena was issued to First Choice. 
“Did you have complaints that formed the basis of your concern about the fundraising activities here?” Thomas asked.
Iyer responded by saying that they had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers in general, but not specifically First Choice. Thomas then suggested that New Jersey had “no factual basis” for believing that the pregnancy center was deceiving donors and that the subpoena was a “burdensome way to find out whether someone has a confusing website.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-jerseys-war-on-crisis-pregnancy-centers-heads-to-the-supreme-court?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=5&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=New+Jersey’s+War+On+Crisis+Pregnancy+Centers+Heads+To+The+Supreme+Court">Related: New Jersey’s War On Crisis Pregnancy Centers Heads To The Supreme Court</a>
Another key question in the case is whether the subpoena could be considered “chilling” because it had not yet been approved by a court. Justice Kagan, one of the court’s liberals, pushed Iyer on that question. 
“I think here, too, you would make the same argument is that an ordinary person, one of the funders for this organization or for any similar organization, presented with this subpoena, and then told, ‘But don&#8217;t worry, it has to be stamped by a court is not going to take that as very reassuring,’” Kagan said. “Why isn’t that right?”
Other justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts, were also critical of New Jersey’s interpretation of the subpoena it had issued. 
First Choice has centers in five of New Jersey’s largest cities, including New Brunswick, Newark, Morristown, Montclair, and Jersey City. Services include free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and options counseling. They also offer a parenting program that provides essential needs such as baby clothes and diapers. 
“This court has long safeguarded the right of association by protecting the membership and donor list of nonprofit organizations like First Choice,” said Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Erin Hawley. “Yet the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena, commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers, so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”
Platkin first subpoenaed First Choice in November 2023, asking for ten years of documents related to its promotion of the abortion pill reversal, information they provided to clients and donors, personnel records, and copies of every advertisement the centers had run. 
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
Pregnancy centers across the country that support vulnerable women in blue states like California, New York, and Illinois have all faced legal challenges for promoting the abortion pill reversal protocol.

2025-Netroots-Nation

Supreme Court Justices Clash With New Jersey In Pregnancy Center Battle

Supreme Court Justices Push New Jersey Over Targeting Of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Abortion

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Clarence Thomas

pregnancy centers

Pro-Life Movement

A couple who won a landmark Supreme Court victory in favor of parental rights said their Christian faith helped them through the dramatic ordeal that began when their daughter took a book pushing transgender ideology home from her Maryland school.
In April, Chris and Melissa Persak, a Catholic family, found themselves and other allied parents arriving at the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in their case against the Montgomery County Board of Education over whether they had the right to opt their kids out of instruction on transgender ideology. In June, the Persaks, who were represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, won a decisive 6-3 victory with the Supreme Court majority declaring that they and other parents had expansive oversight over what their children were taught at schools.
“We said prayers of the Holy Spirit, and just felt this unbelievable calmness as we&#8217;re walking in. Even with the protesters, even with members of the leadership of Montgomery County, who were protesting against us live that day,” Chris told The Daily Wire.
“We just felt like this was the right thing that God was saying, ‘Yep, this is exactly what I asked you to do. It&#8217;s been 24 months, and I know you guys have taken shrapnel and things that have come at you and people threaten your children, and you and your friends, and it was vindication day,” he added.
On Tuesday, the Persaks <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfCn1zWnXGQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">appeared</a> on Becket’s “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfCn1zWnXGQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Stream of Conscience</a>” podcast alongside Jeff and Svitlana Roman, another family who challenged Montgomery County’s opt-out policies.
The legal battle began in March 2023, when the school board said that it would no longer let parents opt out of books pushing transgender and queer ideology. In response, a group of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish parents challenged the county in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
Svitlana said during her appearance on the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfCn1zWnXGQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">podcast</a>, which was previewed by The Daily Wire, that she became involved in the legal fight because she just wanted parents like her to have the option to opt their elementary-aged kids from sexualized materials in the classroom.
“All I would like to ask is, one, to make it very clear that the teachers have an optionality to teach it or not, and then two, give the choice to parents to opt in,” she said.
Melissa Persak echoed that sentiment.
“This whole lawsuit was we just wanted the rights to our own children and what they&#8217;re gonna learn,” she said. “It has nothing to do with anybody else&#8217;s kids, but, you know, obviously, in the process, now, we want to protect everyone, all the parents, and all of their children.”
<div id="attachment_1002015" style="width: 1952px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1002015" class="size-full wp-image-1002015" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM.png" alt="" width="1942" height="1089" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM.png 1942w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM-300x168.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM-1024x574.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM-768x431.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM-1536x861.png 1536w" sizes=" (max-width: 1942px) 100vw, 1942px" />The Romans and Persaks appear on the Becket podcast.</div>
Chris, her husband, added that the entire saga revealed how citizens could fight for their rights under the Constitution. He described being at the Supreme Court as a “powerful moment” because “citizens can stand up for what we believe protected under the Constitution by a system that was essentially set up nearly 250 years ago.”
“We just want the best for our kids and our families and have access to the freedoms granted under the Constitution,” he added. “And the ability to see that happen in real time at the political level has been awesome, it&#8217;s been awe-inspiring.”
When the decision was announced, Chris said the “jubilation was unbelievable.”
Becket Lawyer Will Haun told The Daily Wire that the decision in Mahmoud came 100 years after the Supreme Court issued a decision protecting the rights of parents to send their kids to religious schools.
“It took a long time for the Supreme Court to confirm that parents don&#8217;t lose that freedom when they send their children to public schools,” he said. “But thanks to the heroic example of Chris and Melissa and all the parents who stood with us, that is confirmed in the law now as well.”
In light of the decision, Montgomery County has rolled out a system known as &#8220;refrigerator curriculum,” giving parents broad access to essentially every material used in the classroom. The breadth of material has prompted some parents to worry they might miss something, but Haun said it was a sign that things were changing.
“Business as usual in Montgomery County when it came to opt outs was not acceptable anymore,” he said. “And I think that became abundantly clear with the Supreme Court&#8217;s decisive victory for the parents.”

Mahmoud v. Taylor

Caught In A SCOTUS Clash Over Trans Ideology, Parents Turned To Faith And The Constitution

Education

Maryland

Parental Rights in Education

Religious Liberty

Schools

Transgender

The Supreme Court on Monday <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111725zor_f2bh.pdf">agreed</a> to hear a case challenging a major Ninth Circuit ruling on the government’s former “metering” policy — a system that limited how many asylum seekers could be processed each day at southern border ports of entry. By taking the case, the Court will now consider the government’s argument that the Ninth Circuit’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5/364238/20250701145005805_Al_Otro_Lado_Petition.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com">decision</a> has already made it much harder for the Executive Branch to manage the southern border and will continue to do so.
The dispute centers on how federal law defines when a noncitizen “arrives in the United States” for purposes of applying for asylum. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), any noncitizen “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … whether or not at a designated port of arrival” may apply for asylum, and § 1225(a)(1) requires inspection of such individuals. From 2016 to 2018, however, the Department of Homeland Security <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-border-crossings/">implemented</a> and formalized a “metering” system. During periods of heavy migration, Customs and Border Protection officers stood at the international boundary and turned back individuals without valid travel documents — even those expressly seeking asylum — preventing them from entering U.S. territory to begin the statutory screening process.
Al Otro Lado, an immigrant-rights group, and several asylum seekers challenged the policy in federal court, arguing that it violated statutory duties to inspect and process applicants. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2–1 decision, <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-55988/22-55988-2024-10-23.pdf?ts=1729701050">ruled</a> in favor of the plaintiffs. Judge Michelle Friedland’s majority opinion held that asylum seekers who reach the border and encounter U.S. officials have “arrived in” the United States for statutory purposes, even if physically located on the Mexican side of the line. She concluded that once an asylum seeker presents at the border, the government must inspect and process that individual.
A sharply divided Ninth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc. In dissent from that denial, Judge Daniel Bress — joined by eleven others — argued that the panel’s interpretation “violates clear statutory text,” improperly applies U.S. law extraterritorially, and radically departs from longstanding understandings limiting asylum processing obligations to persons actually within U.S. territory.
The federal government, in its petition for certiorari, echoed those objections. It argued that the Ninth Circuit had effectively rewritten Congress’s chosen phrase “arrives in the United States” to mean merely “presents at the border,” a move dissenting judges called “breathtaking” and “radical.” The Solicitor General warned that, if left intact, the ruling would deprive the Executive Branch of a critical operational tool at the border — namely, the ability to manage migrant surges by preventing entry until capacity exists to process arrivals safely. The government stressed that for decades, administrations of both parties have used such practices during periods of overcrowding.
Although the challengers urged the Court to deny review — emphasizing that the metering policy was rescinded years earlier and that the case has “almost no present implications” — the Supreme Court nonetheless agreed to take up the dispute. By issuing the writ of certiorari, the Court signaled its intention to resolve the statutory meaning of “arrives in the United States” and determine whether the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation improperly expands asylum rights and unduly restricts executive border-management authority.

Migrant Crossings At The Southern Border Continue Despite Title 42 Ruling

Supreme Court To Decide Fate Of Border ‘Metering’ Policy Blocked By Left-Leaning Judges

Asylum

Southern Border

President Donald Trump issued a <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115529446165908851">Truth Social post</a> on Monday that centered on a major Supreme Court case that could reshape the limits of presidential power over U.S. trade policy.
President Trump warned that the U.S. Supreme Court “was given the wrong numbers” regarding the economic stakes of the pending tariff case. He stated that if the Court rules against him, the resulting “unwind” of the tariff system — reversing investments, refunds, and related measures — would exceed $3 trillion. He characterized that scenario as an “insurmountable National Security Event,” warning it could devastate the U.S. economy and threaten the country’s sustainability.
Trump’s statement is both an economic and political message, emphasizing that the stakes of the Supreme Court’s decision extend well beyond trade law. He suggests that an unfavorable ruling could require returning massive tariff revenues collected under his administration’s 2025 “reciprocal tariffs,” potentially exceeding $3 trillion when including lost investment and refunds. This would unwind a significant source of federal revenue and destabilize fiscal planning.
Trump is also framing tariffs as essential to protecting U.S. manufacturing and reducing dependence on foreign suppliers. Therefore, reversing them would not only hurt the economy but also compromise U.S. national security. By calling it a “national security event,” Trump connects trade policy to his broader presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), arguing that tariffs are a legitimate tool for addressing threats tied to trade deficits and foreign economic influence.
Trump’s claim that the Supreme Court “was given the wrong numbers” implies he believes the economic consequences have been understated to the justices, a move aimed at shaping public perception and potentially influencing the Court’s understanding of the stakes.
The Supreme Court case, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., consolidates challenges to Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose wide-reaching tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit <a href="https://www.swlaw.com/publication/what-if-the-supreme-court-overrules-the-reciprocal-tariffs-plan-now-for-refunds-protests-and-contract-reconciliation/">ruled</a> that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Lower courts have ruled against Trump, saying that IEEPA does not authorize open-ended tariffs and that such economic measures require a clear congressional delegation. If the justices affirm those rulings, it could force the government to refund hundreds of billions — possibly trillions — in tariff payments, upend trade contracts, and reshape the executive’s emergency powers. On the other hand, if the Court rules in favor of the administration, it will dramatically expand the president&#8217;s authority to set trade policy under emergency declarations.
The federal government <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trump-warns-supreme-court-tariff-ruling-could-trigger-3t-unwind">collected about $213 billion</a> in tariffs through September 2025, with monthly records of more than $31 billion in late summer.  Some forecasts <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tariff-revenue-fiscal-year-2025-soars-10948543">project</a> around $3 trillion in tariff revenue over a decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these tariffs reduce deficits by $2.8 trillion over ten years but slightly dampen GDP and increase inflation by 0.4% by 2027.
According to a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inflation-tariffs-trump-prices-consumers/">study</a> by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, tariffs haven&#8217;t driven up consumer prices as much as some critics have predicted, because businesses want to see where tariff rates settle before they adjust their prices.

President Trump Takes Part In Swearing In Of US Ambassador To India

Trump Sounds Alarm: SCOTUS Tariff Ruling Could Trigger $3 Trillion Economic ‘Unwind’

Tariffs

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case that will decide whether states can count mail-in ballots received after Election Day. 
The case could have widespread implications for the 2026 midterm elections, as 17 states currently allow mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted several days after the election. Justices will <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/24-01260qp.pdf">consider</a> “whether the federal election-day statutes preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.”
The case comes after the Mississippi Republican Party and the Republican National Committee (RNC) sued Mississippi over a state law that allowed mail-in ballots to be counted if received up to five days after Election Day. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Mississippi, saying that federal law preempted state law and required all ballots to be received by Election Day. 
After the decision from the 5th Circuit, Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue. Watson argued to the court that the 5th Circuit’s decision “defies statutory text, conflicts with this Court’s precedent, and — if left to stand — will have destabilizing nationwide ramifications.”
He said that as long as the ballots had been filled out by Election Day, they should be counted. Nineteen mostly blue states and the District of Columbia are supporting Mississippi in its efforts to reverse the lower court’s decision. 
The RNC had asked the Supreme Court not to take up the case, saying that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to side against Mississippi was correct and did not need review. 
“A post-election receipt deadline for mail ballots thus extends ‘the election’ beyond the ‘day’ set by Congress. Text, history, and precedent all confirm this conclusion,” the RNC wrote in a brief to the court. “In no sense is the ‘election’ over when ballots are still coming in.”
The RNC also noted that the policy of accepting ballots after Election Day could delay election results for weeks. 
“Many States can’t conclude their elections for weeks after election day because they’re still receiving ballots from voters. Weeks after the ‘day for the election’ has come and gone, the elections in those States continue,” they wrote in a brief. 
President Donald Trump has <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/">called</a> for an end to mail-in voting, saying that it opens the door to election fraud. 
In an executive order earlier this year, Trump directed the Justice Department to take action against states that count “absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day in the final tabulation of votes for the appointment of Presidential electors and the election of members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives.”

Voters Across The Country Head To The Polls For The Midterm Elections

Supreme Court To Hear Critical Challenge To Mail-In Ballots

Supreme Court To Consider Challenge To Mail-In Ballots Counted After Election Day

Election Fraud

Mail-In Voting

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with President Donald Trump late Friday night, temporarily blocking an order for the administration to somehow fully fund food stamps while Senate Democrats keep the government shut down.
The administration already planned to tap into emergency funds to partially pay out Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments to the tune of billions of dollars. Administration officials said it would be impossible to provide the remaining billions needed to fully fund the program without congressional action, noting that the shortfall was the fault of Congress, not the executive branch.
SNAP payments are made to a stunning 42 million Americans every month.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Judicial activism at its worst.
A single district court in Rhode Island should not be able to seize center stage in the shutdown, seek to upend political negotiations that could produce swift political solutions for SNAP and other programs, and dictate its own preferences for…
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1986940990146449762?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
&#8220;Given the imminent, irreparable harms posed by these orders, which require the government to transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight, the Solicitor General respectfully requests an immediate administrative stay of the orders pending the resolution of this application by no later than 9:30pm this evening,&#8221; the administration&#8217;s request said.
&#8220;Congress has failed to appropriate funds to pay for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for this fiscal year,&#8221; the request continued. &#8220;The Executive Branch has since exhausted the entirety of its SNAP contingency reserve, which amounted to over $5 billion. But that will be only enough to cover partial payments for the month of November. Such a funding lapse is a crisis. But it is a crisis occasioned by congressional failure and one that can only be solved through congressional action.&#8221;
SCOTUS sided with Trump, and agreed to temporarily block the lower court order for 48 hours. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/07/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-snap-benefits-ruling-00643639?utm_source=chatgpt.com">issued</a> the stay.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
More from the administration&#8217;s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> filing over <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SNAP?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SNAP</a> benefits &#8211; putting blame squarely on lawmakers:
&#8220;Congress has failed to appropriate funds to pay for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for this fiscal year. The Executive Branch has 
since…
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1986950886644486149?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
🚨SNAP UPDATE: The Supreme Court has issued a temporary stay.
The Federal Government can&#8217;t just create money for food stamps when Democrats CHOOSE to not fund the government (14 times and counting🤦🏻‍♀️).
Activist judges have ordered reckless and unconstitutional legal maneuvers… <a href="https://t.co/kbh2izckOz">pic.twitter.com/kbh2izckOz</a>
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecRollins/status/1987166731081498904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
“The core power of Congress is that of the purse, while the Executive is tasked with allocating limited resources across competing priorities,&#8221; the Department of Justice argued. &#8220;But here, the court below took the current shutdown as effective license to declare a federal bankruptcy and appoint itself the trustee, charged with picking winners and losers among those seeking some part of the limited pool of remaining federal funds.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
As our Supreme Court brief puts it:
“The core power of Congress is that of the purse, while the Executive is tasked with allocating limited resources across competing priorities. But here, the court below took the current shutdown as effective license to declare a federal…
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1986940996899262542?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
&#8220;The Supreme Court just granted our administrative stay in this case,&#8221; Attorney General Pam Bondi posted to X on Friday night. &#8220;Our attorneys will not stop fighting, day and night, to defend and advance President Trump’s agenda.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Supreme Court just granted our administrative stay in this case.
Our attorneys will not stop fighting, day and night, to defend and advance President Trump’s agenda. <a href="https://t.co/VJnf2GwPLk">https://t.co/VJnf2GwPLk</a>
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1986985866900738242?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
Currently, the main webpage of the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that SNAP delays are due to Democrats, who have now voted 14 times to keep the government closed.
&#8220;Senate Democrats have voted 14 times against reopening the government. This compromises not only SNAP, but farm programs, food inspection, animal and plant disease protection, rural development, and protecting federal lands,&#8221; the USDA message reads. &#8220;Senate Democrats are withholding services to the American people in exchange for healthcare for illegals, gender mutilation, and other unknown &#8216;leverage&#8217; points.&#8221;

Menu