Immigration from Muslim-majority countries down 96%

Donald Trump Used a Pro-Immigration Think Tank’s Own Graph to Show One Shocking Fact About Immigration From Muslim Countries

The Cato Institute spent years pushing for more immigration. Donald Trump just used their own research to prove he shut it down.

And Donald Trump used a pro-immigration think tank’s own graph to show one shocking fact about immigration from Muslim countries. From 22,000 a Month to Nearly Zero.

The White House's official X account dropped a Cato Institute graph showing legal immigration from Muslim-majority countries has fallen 96 percent since Trump took office in January 2025.

At its peak – conveniently timed between July and October 2024, during Biden's final months – immigration from those nations topped 22,000 people per month. By January 2025, it was almost zero. The Left is going to scream "Muslim ban" – they always do.

But here's what actually happened: in June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Trump v. Hawaii that Trump's travel restrictions from Muslim-majority countries were entirely legal. Chief Justice John Roberts concluded the government had provided sufficient national security justification and that the policy passed constitutional scrutiny.

No court has ruled Trump's current immigration restrictions illegal – there have been district court challenges, but the Supreme Court has already told the country how this argument ends.

Ban on Hormone treatments for transgenders in Federal prisons goes to SCOTUS

DOJ asks Supreme Court to let federal prisons enforce ban on hormone treatments for transgender inmates

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to let federal prisons enforce a ban on hormone treatments for transgender inmates, a policy lower courts have blocked.

On Monday, the Justice Department urged the U.S. Supreme Court to block a lower-court ruling so the Bureau of Prisons can immediately enforce its updated policy on gender dysphoria. Fox News reported the filing seeks to restore limits on taxpayer-funded hormone treatments and social accommodations inside federal lockups.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the high court the Bureau of Prisons acted within reasoned bounds when it chose mental-health care over contested medical interventions.

"BOP’s decision to prioritize mental-health treatment, while discontinuing medically disputed and unproven sex-rejecting interventions, falls well within the bounds of reasoned decision-making"

The fight reaches the justices after a district judge ordered the prisons to keep providing the contested care, and an appeals court refused to revive the ban while the case continued. The administration wants the policy back in force now, not after months of further litigation.

Read more about it...

Third-Country Deportations will continue

Supreme Court Allows Trump to Resume Third-Country Deportations

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the administration’s policy can stay in effect. Three justices dissented.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting illegal immigrants to countries to which they have no connection, granting a request to put on hold a lower court order.

The high court, while issuing the pause, said that it will hear arguments on the case in December to come to a final conclusion next year.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have denied the Trump administration’s application to stay the lower court order, issued by a judge on the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts in February. [The EpochTimes]

Cory Booker complains about Supreme Court

Cory Booker calls the Supreme Court 'compromised,' pushes 18-year term limits

Sen. Cory Booker wants to impose term limits on Supreme Court justices and strip the Court of what he calls its independence, framing the proposal as ethics reform while Democrats openly debate how to reshape a bench they no longer control.

The New Jersey Democrat appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday and laid out a plan he said he developed with unnamed Senate colleagues: 18-year terms for justices, two guaranteed appointments per president, and new ethics rules targeting what Booker described as justices accepting "unlimited gifts from billionaires."

He offered no bill name, no co-sponsor list, and no specific ethics violation to justify the overhaul, just the assertion that the highest court in the country is broken and needs fixing on his terms.

Host Kristen Welker set the table by noting that former Vice President Kamala Harris has pushed Democrats to add four justices outright. Welker told Booker the Court has become "a big debate in your party." Booker positioned himself as the reasonable alternative, the senator who wants "pragmatic solutions" rather than raw court-packing.

Read about it...

RNC asking SCOTUS to uphold Arizona law

RNC takes Arizona election integrity battle to Supreme Court

A 22-year-old state law requires proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. The GOP wants the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the law in the face of challenges from the Democratic Party.

Republicans are taking a major election integrity fight to the nation’s highest court as November’s midterm elections loom. Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Joe Gruters revealed in an Aug. 31 Breitbart News op-ed that the RNC is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold an Arizona law requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote.

“At stake is a principle so basic that most Americans would be shocked it is even being debated: Can states verify citizenship before someone is added to their voter rolls?” Gruters wrote.

“The answer should be obvious,” he continued. “Citizenship is required to vote in federal elections. States should be allowed to check it.”

Read more of the latest Democrat Bull 💩

Ballroom will proceed

Supreme Court lets Trump’s White House ballroom project press on as legal fight simmers

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to let President Trump continue building his privately funded White House ballroom despite fierce legal opposition, keeping construction on track while the case plays out in lower courts.

President Donald Trump’s ambitious White House ballroom is moving forward after the nation’s highest court handed his administration a narrow but crucial win. In a contentious split decision, the Supreme Court allowed construction to proceed even as preservationists and liberal justices raised alarms about the project’s legality and process.

The emergency order, issued by a 5-4 majority, replaced an earlier temporary hold from Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the liberal bloc in dissent. 

The order comes in the middle of an intense legal fight, with lower courts previously attempting to halt the work, and preservation groups like the National Trust for Historic Preservation pushing lawsuits to stop the demolition and construction at President’s Park, home to the White House complex in Washington, D.C.

Trump, for his part, celebrated the court’s intervention. In a Truth Social post, he declared the ballroom was “totally funded by Great Patriots and Corporations and, therefore, is a Gift, At no cost to the American Taxpayer.”

He called the lawsuit against the project “baseless,” and described the planned space as a “magnificent Ballroom and Military Complex,” claiming it would be “one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C.” Trump projected the project would be completed by summer 2028, describing it as “something that the entire Country is very proud of.”

Read more...

James Clyburn and Court Packing

Clyburn calls for expanding Supreme Court to thirteen justices, citing Congress’s duty

Rep. James Clyburn publicly endorsed adding four new seats to the Supreme Court for a total of thirteen, arguing on national television that Congress must take “significant actions” to address what he described as a reversal of the nation’s constitutional progress, an idea critics warn could undermine the Court’s independence.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. James Clyburn made his position clear: he wants Congress to expand the Supreme Court from its current nine justices to thirteen. Asked directly by host Kristen Welker whether he supported adding four seats, Clyburn responded, “Yes, I do.”

He called for what he described as “significant actions taken by the Congress” and insisted that “thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court.” Clyburn added that he hoped (he hoped?) the new justices would “follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”

Calls to expand the Supreme Court have become a rallying cry in some progressive circles frustrated with a conservative majority. But Clyburn’s remarks on a national platform escalate the conversation, placing a senior Democratic leader in direct support of a policy long viewed as a partisan power grab.

While Clyburn argued that new justices would “follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation,” critics have long warned that court-packing risks turning the judiciary into a tool of the party in power, eroding the very independence the Founders designed. The Supreme Court’s legitimacy depends on its ability to stand above partisan cycles and enforce the Constitution even when doing so is unpopular in Washington.

Expanding the Court would set a precedent difficult to reverse. If Congress can add seats to tilt the balance, nothing prevents future majorities from doing the same. The end result? A judiciary that follows the political winds, not the law.

Read more...

86 year old James Clyburn has been in Congress for over 33 years, having assumed office on January 3, 1993.

Dan Patrick interviews Ted Cruz Part 2

Judge Talwani Forced to Lift Mail-In Ballot Injunction

Judge Talwani Forced to Lift Mail-In Ballot Injunction After Supreme Court Rebuke

That didn't take long

Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani has lifted her nationwide injunction blocking new Postal Service safeguards for federal mail-in ballots.

The move came after the Supreme Court rejected a separate injunction tied to the same election-order fight. The Justice Department then asked Talwani to reconsider her own ruling. On Wednesday, she issued a nine-page order lifting the freeze.

Talwani acknowledged that the League of Women Voters plaintiffs are “not likely to prevail as to ripeness” unless they revise their complaint now that the Postal Service has issued a final rule.

The ruling did not read like a change of heart. Reporting around the order said the Supreme Court’s decision “compelled” Talwani to lift the injunction. At the same time, she continued to warn that President Trump’s election-integrity directive could create “chaos.”

The result is clear: The injunction is down, and the USPS rulemaking can move forward.

Read about it...

Ballroom can proceed says Chief Justice

Supreme Court Chief Justice Removes Block on White House Ballroom Construction

The order is in place until the justice, or the Supreme Court, rules otherwise.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Aug. 21 said the Trump administration can proceed with construction of a new White House ballroom.

The lower court order “is hereby stayed pending further order of The Chief Justice or of the Court,” Roberts said.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday allowed the White House to continue construction on President Donald Trump's $400 million ballroom project to continue for now, as the Supreme Court considers the Trump administration's emergency request to intervene in lawsuits over the project.

The temporary order comes hours before lower-court rulings would have forced a halt to aboveground construction. The brief, one-page document does not detail Roberts' reasoning or lay out a timeline for a fuller decision from the high court.

A Washington-based judge ordered work to stop because Trump didn't have congressional approval. The decision was signed by Roberts because he oversees appeals of cases filed in the capital.

The Trump administration has scored a series of victories on the high court's emergency docket, though the justices have ruled against some of the president's signature policies after fuller review.

Read more..

Federal District Courts no longer can block TPS Terminations

The Obama Judge Who Blocked Somalia Deportations Just Reversed Herself and Handed Donald Trump a Win

The Same Judge Who Blocked Trump Just Cleared His Path...She was the wall.

Then the Supreme Court handed down Mullin v. Doe on June 25 – a 6-3 ruling along conservative lines that stripped federal district courts of their power to block TPS terminations based on non-constitutional claims.

Burroughs wrote that she was "bound … to view things through the Mullin prism," referring to the Supreme Court case.

"Plaintiffs have made a convincing showing that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld … and the balance of hardships and the public interest also favor Plaintiffs, given that the government has made no showing that maintaining TPS status for the duration of this litigation would impose an undue burden," she wrote.

Burroughs lifted her own stay.

Somalia's TPS designation is now officially terminated – effective August 14, 2026 – after 35 years of protections that were supposed to be temporary.

Work permits previously issued to Somali TPS holders are now void.

Read more...

Trrump v. Clinton

President Trump is pushing his lawsuit against Hillary Clinton all the way to the Supreme Court

He is seeking to overturn an appellate ruling that rejected his claims and hit him with nearly $1 million in sanctions.

Justice Clarence Thomas granted Trump’s request for more time to file a formal petition with the high court, extending the deadline to September 9. Thomas handles routine administrative motions from the relevant circuit, and the extension itself does not signal how any justice might vote on the merits. But the move keeps alive a legal fight that Trump’s own attorneys say raises “exceptionally important” issues with consequences for the presidency itself.

The case, Trump v. Clinton, centers on Trump’s allegation that Clinton and others conspired to “weave a false narrative” that his 2016 campaign colluded with Russia. A lower court tossed the suit. A conservative appeals court upheld that dismissal and went further, imposing sanctions of nearly $1 million against Trump, his attorney Alina Habba, and Habba’s law firm. The appellate panel wrote that “many of Trump’s and Habba’s legal arguments were indeed frivolous.”

Trump’s legal team disagrees. In their extension motion, filed July 23, his lawyers argued that the ruling and sanctions carry “profound impact on the Presidency, and the nation as a whole.” They signaled that the forthcoming petition will challenge both the substance of the dismissal and the sanctions themselves.

Four justices must agree to hear a case before the Supreme Court grants review, a high bar that most petitions never clear. Whether Trump can persuade that many remains an open question.

Read more...

E. Jean Carroll and Presidential Immunity

Trump petitions Supreme Court to overturn $83.3 million E. Jean Carroll defamation judgment

President Trump's legal team has asked the Supreme Court to throw out the $83.3 million defamation judgment won by writer E. Jean Carroll, arguing the Second Circuit ignored presidential immunity protections the high court itself established.

Attorneys Robert J. Giuffra of Sullivan and Cromwell and Michael C. Martinich-Sauter of the James Otis Law Group filed the petition on July 28, contending that Trump's 2019 statements denying Carroll's allegations were made from the White House in response to press questions and therefore fall squarely within the scope of official presidential conduct.

The filing invokes the Supreme Court's 2024 landmark ruling on presidential immunity, a decision that recognized broad protections for a president's official acts, and argues the Second Circuit refused to apply it.

The petition puts a stark question before the justices: Can a sitting or former president face tens of millions of dollars in civil damages for statements made in an official capacity? Trump's lawyers say the answer, under the Court's own precedent, is no.

Trump's lawyers call the judgment unprecedented in American history.

Read more...

Is the Supreme Court Compromised by Deep State Cronyism?

ICYMI: Chief Justice Roberts Is Good Pals with Trump-Hating Deep State Leader Norm Eisen

Vacationed at His Palace in Czech Republic for a Week

In a bombshell revelation that’s sending shockwaves through conservative circles, it turns out Chief Justice John Roberts has been rubbing elbows with none other than Norm Eisen—the radical leftist operative who’s spent years orchestrating lawfare campaigns against President Donald Trump, his close advisers, and his allies.

According to a previous report from Revolver News, Roberts didn’t just bump into Eisen at a D.C. cocktail party.

No, these two are apparently such “good pals” that Roberts jetted off to the Czech Republic for a week-long sleepover at Eisen’s lavish 150-room palace.

It’s straight from the mouth of Norm Eisen himself—the very same man who practically wrote the Deep State’s instruction manual on how to destabilize political opponents via color revolutions, lawfare, and weaponized legal warfare against President Trump.

According to Eisen, during an interview with Pantsuit Politics LLC, Chief Justice Roberts is a longtime friend who joined him overseas to work “on American and European rule-of-law issues.”

Read about it...

Norm Eisen has been involved in multiple lawsuits against Donald Trump. From 2019 to 2020, Eisen served as the special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for the impeachment and trial of President Trump.

The Supreme Court on Birthright Citizenship

The Court on Birthright Citizenship

Roberts seizes the opportunity to cite Chief Justice John Marshall, in his 1812 opinion (214 years ago) in Schooner Exchange v. McFadden on the scope of “jurisdiction.”

He adds that the 1898 case ofUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark “confirms this rule” that children born here satisfy both elements of the citizenship clause: they are “born … in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

He spends a few minutes picking apart the government’s arguments, before concluding that “we break no new ground today.” (The line is apparently not in the written opinion).

Roberts explains that Jackson has a concurring opinion in which Sotomayor has joined in part. Kavanaugh has an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Thomas has a dissent joined by Gorsuch, while Alito and Gorsuch each have separate dissents.

Thomas’ 91-page dissent is a doozy, but he rarely has read a dissent from the bench, and he does not do so in Court.

Supreme Court Opinions

Supreme Court Protects Female Sports

MAJOR VICTORY — U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Laws Protecting Girls’ Sports

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J., a landmark case that definitively ruled that both Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause permit the separation of males and females on the basis of biological sex.

America First Legal (AFL), alongside co-counsel Christopher Mills, submitted an amicus brief urging the Court to reverse the decisions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, which respectively held that West Virginia had violated Title IX by prohibiting males from participating in female sports and that Idaho had violated the 14th Amendment by doing the same.

“This case was always about whether courts would apply the law as written or rewrite it to advance an ideological agenda,” said Gene Hamilton, President of America First Legal. “The Supreme Court correctly recognized that Title IX was enacted to protect women and girls, and those protections mean little if biological reality can be ignored.

Today’s decision is a major victory for the rule of law and for every female athlete who deserves a fair, safe, competitive environment.”

Read about it...

Birthright Citizenship 6/3

‘MEDIEVAL’: Justices Thomas, Alito Argue ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Ruling Reverses the Declaration of Independence on Its 250th Anniversary

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito tore into the court’s majority for imposing a “medieval” rule on “birthright citizenship” that negates the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, days before the 250th anniversary of America’s founding document.

Both justices issued dissenting opinions in Trump v. Barbara (2026), in which the court’s 6-3 majority upheld the notion of “birthright citizenship,” that any baby born on U.S. soil—regardless of his parents’ immigration status—is a citizen.

Thomas said the court’s majority in Trump v. Barbera (2026) presented a legal argument that was “not historically accurate.”

“American citizenship, the court says, was based on a medieval English ‘feudal’ principle, according to which each person ‘owed personal service to the lord of the soil’ as his ‘master’—a perpetual servitude that was ‘born with the child and only ended in the grave,’” he summarized. According to the court’s majority, Americans adopted the feudal principle and Congress codified it in the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.

Alito, for his part, cautioned that “before saddling the nation with a medieval rule, we had better be certain the Constitution requires it.”

He warned that the court’s decision confers citizenship on “birth tourists,” the children of women who travel to the United States just to give birth.

Read about Dissenting arguments

The solution:

Stop the selective enforcement of laws against illegal immigration, disallow sanctuary cities, and get rid of the "anchor baby" situation by correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment. Enforce laws against employees who hire illegal labor, and allow no government entitlements to illegal entrants to this country.

Democrats don't know what "legal" and "temporary" mean

Democrats unravel after Supreme Court upholds Trump's authority to end Haitian TPS protections

The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration three 6-3 victories on immigration Thursday, and the Democratic response arrived within minutes, loud, emotional, and revealing.

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rushed to the microphones to denounce the rulings, accuse the justices of white supremacy, and recast hundreds of thousands of Temporary Protected Status holders as "American families", a rhetorical sleight of hand that tells you everything about where the left stands on the distinction between legal and temporary.

1. The most consequential of the three decisions, Mullin v. Doe, confirmed that the Trump administration can end TPS for roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians living in the United States, overturning lower federal court orders that had blocked the termination.
2. A second ruling, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, clarified that a migrant who has not physically set foot on U.S. soil is not entitled to apply for asylum and does not have to be inspected by an immigration officer.
3.  A third, Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, will make it easier for the Department of Homeland Security to deport green card holders convicted of crimes.

All three decisions came down on the same 6-3 margin. All three restored executive authority that lower courts had stripped away. And all three drew the same furious reaction from Democrats who have spent years treating temporary immigration protections as permanent entitlements.

Read about it...

The Biden Lie That Opened the Border

Sonia Sotomayor Read Her Dissent Aloud and Samuel Alito Fired Back on the Bench

Joe Biden stood in front of the country and said he needed Congress to pass a law before he could stop the border invasion.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 today that he was lying.

Here's what Alito said to Sotomayor's face – and why it ended the argument.

Biden's entire border strategy rested on one claim: his hands were tied.

Biden repeated it for four years as millions of economic migrants poured across the southern border. Democrats echoed it on every cable news hit they could book.

The Senate Republican caucus called it out in a formal resolution, stating plainly that Biden "used executive power to open the border and has the authority to close and secure the border but is purposefully failing to do so."

Republicans were right. Biden was lying

Asylum claims at the border

Supreme Court backs federal power to turn away asylum seekers at the border

The Supreme Court ruled 6, 3 on Thursday that the federal government may turn back asylum seekers at the U.S., Mexico border before they set foot on American soil, handing the Trump administration a major legal victory in its effort to control who enters the country and when.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, held that a migrant standing in Mexico has not legally "arrived in the United States" and therefore cannot demand asylum screening under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The decision reverses a Ninth Circuit ruling that had blocked the practice known as "metering", a policy that caps the number of daily asylum applications accepted at ports of entry. With that lower-court barrier now removed, the administration regains a tool it has called essential to managing the southern border.

The practical meaning is plain: border officials are not required to inspect or process asylum claims until a person physically crosses onto U.S. soil. For years, immigrant-rights groups argued the opposite, that presenting yourself to a U.S. officer at the border line was enough to trigger legal protections. Six justices disagreed.

Justice Alito grounded the majority opinion in common sense and statutory text. As the New York Post reported, Alito wrote:

"In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person arrives in a place, for example, a house, a city, or a country, before the person enters that place."

Read about it...