Supreme Court Lets Border Agents Strip Green Cards Without Proof

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled 6-3 that border officers may deny reentry to green card holders based on unproven criminal allegations without requiring “clear and convincing evidence” of actual wrongdoing. The decision strips lawful permanent residents of foundational due process protections and empowers border agents to treat returning green card holders as “applicants for admission” vulnerable to detention and removal on mere suspicion, even if convictions occur only after their return or result in acquittal.

The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident since 2007, who was arrested in 2012 for allegedly selling counterfeit goods and briefly left the U.S. Upon return, immigration officers declared him inadmissible based on pending charges. A federal appeals court had previously required “clear and convincing evidence” of an actual crime before changing his status, but the Supreme Court overturned that protection Tuesday. Lau ultimately pleaded guilty in 2013 and was ordered removed, but the ruling’s scope extends far beyond his case.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent condemned the majority for handing the government a “massive blank check” to rewrite immigration law and circumvent statutory protections. She warned that green card holders face potential years in legal limbo or detention even if later acquitted, as the sequencing of charging before conviction or conviction before hearing fundamentally contradicts the plain terms of immigration statutes. The ruling violates the rights of lawful permanent residents who have already cleared security vetting to establish their status.

This decision amplifies the Trump administration’s coordinated assault on legal immigration pathways, executed by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and immigration officials who have transformed agencies into loyalty enforcement arms of the mass deportation campaign. A federal judge recently found that USCIS policies unlawfully discriminated against asylum seekers, green card applicants, and citizenship candidates “solely by the happenstance of their birth,” using purported national security concerns that “mask anti-immigrant sentiments” to justify sweeping removal actions leaving thousands in legal limbo.

Concurrent efforts target additional legal immigration protections, including attempts to strip Temporary Protected Status from over one million immigrants and accelerated citizenship revocation proceedings against naturalized Americans. The administration also unlawfully terminated status for tens of thousands who used a Biden-era appointment app at the U.S.-Mexico border, a determination a federal judge made earlier this year. Combined with Tuesday’s Supreme Court green card ruling, these actions dismantle legal immigration infrastructure while operating under false claims that enforcement targets only the “worst of the worst.”



(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-green-card-immigration-ruling-b3005036.html)

Trump White House Secretly Pressured Board Protecting Federal Workers

The Trump administration orchestrated a covert pressure campaign on the Merit Systems Protection Board, a federal agency designed to shield civil service employees from arbitrary dismissal, resulting in a March ruling that dismantled decades of precedent protecting federal workers. The board's decision accepted the White House's constitutional theory that President Trump possesses sweeping authority to remove officials without due process, effectively erasing civil service protections for federal employees, including immigration judges whose legal duties often conflict with Trump's political objectives. This ruling represents a deliberate dismantling of the most effective mechanism federal workers possess to contest wrongful termination.

The pressure campaign, led by a White House aide dedicated to expediting federal worker terminations, operated through both public and private channels in ways that parallel direct judicial coercion. By compelling the board to abandon established legal standards, the Trump administration weaponized a protective agency into a tool for authoritarian control over the federal workforce. The board's reversal of longstanding doctrine signals the administration's systematic effort to consolidate executive power and eliminate institutional checks on presidential authority.

This decision implements the "unitary executive" theory, a cornerstone of Trump's governing philosophy that concentrates all executive branch power in the presidency, allowing Trump to direct federal prosecutors, immigration judges, and other officials whose professional independence once constrained his political agenda. The administration has already moved to measure HHS employees' performance based on demonstrable loyalty to Trump's policies, illustrating the practical application of this authority. The ruling defangs the primary legal recourse available to federal workers challenging unlawful dismissals.

Though the board's decision does not directly affect pending Supreme Court cases on presidential power over the civil service, its precedent could devastate protections for vast segments of the federal workforce if upheld on appeal. The timing and methodology of this ruling reveal the administration's calculated assault on institutional independence, transforming independent agencies into compliance mechanisms for Trump's consolidation of power.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/28/us/politics/trump-firings-workers-merit-systems-protection-board.html)

Trump Defies Judge’s Warning to Begin Golf Course

President Donald Trump announced on June 28 that work will begin September 1 on renovating the public East Potomac Golf Course despite a federal judge explicitly warning of “serious consequences” if the administration proceeds with major work without prior court approval and notification. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes stated: “I do not want a situation where something has happened and then I’m being told by the government or by a foundation or by a bulldozing company that it’s too late to do anything about it.”

Trump toured the golf course alongside Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and golf architect Tom Fazio, describing the project as a public-private partnership that will create “one of the Greatest Golf Courses anywhere in the World” capable of hosting major tournaments including the U.S. Open and Ryder Cup. The administration terminated the previous operator’s lease, National Links Trust, in December citing maintenance failures, though the nonprofit disputes those claims and was permitted to continue operating under a May agreement while Trump’s renovation plans advance.

The D.C. Preservation League warned the course would be “razed” before legal challenges could prevent it, citing the rapid demolition of the White House’s East Wing. This follows Trump’s pattern of moving forward with projects despite judicial restraint, including his 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery that prompted a veterans’ lawsuit and his addition of his name to the Kennedy Center before a judge ordered its removal.

Trump also claimed vandals caused algae blooms and liner damage at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, describing the vandals as “Criminal, Radical Left” individuals without evidence. He stated the $16 million pool renovation is now in “full use” and promised additional treatment after July 4 to restore it to “perfect shape.”



(Source: https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-work-begin-dc-golf-despite-judges-warning/story?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dhfacebook&utm_content=app.dashsocial.com/abcnews/library/media/690486707&id=134293591&fbclid=IwVERDUASutIJwZG9mA2ZkaWQWUJkhPhw7MgNMqb6g9axbZGLPouEvK2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR7grCkKIcjfqOt3wEYrxm4M9uG1DPmqyEKDaLjhsw9KIo3aIEojm7_S-B58dg_aem_3syqiwivXYdmw1FAVkwNow)to “perfect shape.”

Trump Defies Congress And Blocks Humdreds of Millions For Foreign Aid

The Trump administration is systematically defying congressional mandates on foreign aid spending, blocking $500 million in global health funds and delaying humanitarian assistance despite President Trump signing legislation that explicitly required these expenditures. Russell Vought's Office of Management and Budget has labeled funds as "unallocated" to maintain control over spending, a tactic legal scholars say violates the Impoundment Control Act and undermines Congress's constitutional power of the purse.

Eight months into the fiscal year, the State Department has obligated only $190 million of the $9.4 billion Congress directed for global health, representing just 5% of typical spending levels for the same period. Programs explicitly funded by Congress for family planning ($524 million), nutrition ($165 million), and neglected tropical diseases ($109 million) have seen little or no implementation, while PEPFAR, the HIV/AIDS program credited with saving 26 million lives globally, has been restricted to half its available budget despite congressional appropriation of $4.6 billion.

Jeremy Lewin, a 29-year-old lawyer with no prior humanitarian experience who arrived via Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, controls foreign aid policy as an unconfirmed acting undersecretary. Lewin refuses to meet with career staff, withholds information about implementation plans, and demands personal approval for routine payments, creating a bottleneck that has left Congress unable to obtain basic answers about administration spending despite repeated requests for required reports and briefings.

The administration's defiance mirrors its 2025 use of "pocket rescissions," an illegal maneuver under the Impoundment Control Act that clawed back $13 billion in foreign aid Congress had approved. Though a federal court initially blocked the tactic, the Supreme Court issued an emergency ideological split decision allowing it to continue without ruling on its legality. Constitutional scholars and legal experts warn that continued withholding of appropriated funds constitutes a fundamental assault on the separation of powers, threatening U.S. democracy itself.

The State Department has denied withholding funds while simultaneously announcing bilateral deals requiring recipient nations to provide health data as a condition for receiving medications the United States previously donated. Additionally, the administration funneled $3.8 billion to a small U.N. office without allowing independent U.S. audits, and has delayed $661 million in required contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, forcing the organization to reduce support to nations that depend on American funding for lifesaving treatments.

(Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-defying-congress-foreign-aid-usaid-vought-rubio-constitutional-crisis?utm_campaign=propublica-sprout&utm_content=1782567906&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwdGRleASs8iRwZG9mA2ZkaWQWUJdPWI_QwoRxn6jpTg7VaYtDYAhPDmV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR5zL9Tu-THjlQ6p44jYmgmO5iK178eT2QOztVFD-z51WyPduid3hOBL41yaDA_aem_pkPqY5Bc-FMN9QGc-i5Kdw)

DOJ Defies Judge’s Oath Demand on Trump Weaponization Fund

The Justice Department defied a federal judge’s order on Friday by refusing to swear under oath that Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” is dead. Judge Leonie Brinkema had given the administration a seven-day deadline to declare, under penalty of perjury, that the fund would not proceed. Instead, DOJ attorneys claimed the oath requirement violated “separation of powers,” rejecting the judge’s explicit demand.

The fund, announced in May by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche following a Trump-IRS settlement, was designed to compensate individuals claiming “weaponization and lawfare” by the federal government. Lawmakers and watchdogs immediately flagged that the $1.776 billion would likely flow to Trump’s political allies and supporters, with no genuine safeguards against partisan abuse. After public backlash, Blanche told House lawmakers in June the fund was “not moving forward, ever,” yet the administration has continued to dodge court accountability through written oath.

Democracy Forward, representing plaintiffs challenging the fund, characterized the DOJ’s filing as proof of evasion. “It is telling that even after the federal court gave them a week, the Acting Attorney General and other senior administration officials continue to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of the organization. The DOJ’s refusal to commit in writing contradicts its public assurances and signals the fund’s legal status remains unresolved despite official denials.

DOJ counsel Andrew Block argued that prior statements by administration officials, made “against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity,” should satisfy the court without formal sworn declarations. However, his assertion that penalties alone substitute for testimony under oath undercuts the judicial authority to enforce compliance and verify executive accountability. Trump previously attacked media coverage of his abandoned anti-weaponization fund during an Oval Office press session, indicating the administration’s sensitivity to scrutiny of the scheme.

Federal courts were closed Friday for Juneteenth, with Judge Brinkema unlikely to respond before Monday. The administration’s defiance of the judge’s direct order exemplifies Trump’s broader pattern of disregarding judicial oversight and refusing transparent accountability for executive action, particularly regarding funds that would have redistributed billions toward his political base.



(Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/5932296-doj-snubs-judge-weaponization-fund/?fbclid=IwdGRleASjHeNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe0RHlZAtCTd-K1VzzDlsNgkPiPV2ofZ6eegFe9bcVc_HCWwpiOljhMudJL5w_aem_qnM_3Nm8oGzpkfnt_vuGDw)

DOJ argues Trump could ‘bulldoze’ Statue of Liberty during White House ballroom hearing – ABC News

The Justice Department defended the Trump administration’s White House ballroom project before a federal appeals court on Friday, arguing that the judiciary cannot block the construction and that no court could stop the president from demolishing any historic site, including the Statue of Liberty. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the project, which has already demolished the White House East Wing and installed over 3 million pounds of steel rebar, cannot be enjoined because moving fast enough prevents plaintiffs from establishing legal standing to challenge government action. When Judge Patricia Millett posed a hypothetical about the Statue of Liberty, Roth acknowledged the same logic applied: if the administration moved quickly enough to demolish it, the injury would become “non-redressable” and no lawsuit could proceed.

Judge Millett rebuked what she termed the administration’s “move fast and break things” approach, questioning whether speed alone could foreclose judicial review. Roth affirmed that doctrine explicitly, stating that rapid action rendering harm impossible to undo eliminates standing. The panel also heard arguments about national security, with Roth framing the ballroom as essential protection for the president against modern threats like drones, though this claim contradicts the statutes the administration initially cited, which authorize only maintenance and upkeep of the White House, not demolition and reconstruction.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation brought the lawsuit to block construction, citing its congressional charter to protect historic sites. Judge Millett appeared skeptical of the government’s position that the organization lacked standing, noting that Alison Hoagland, a National Trust board member involved in the case, had a legitimate interest in preserving the architectural integrity of the White House complex. Trump attacked Hoagland directly overnight in response to her courtroom testimony about the harm the ballroom would cause to historic design principles.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had halted construction in late March, finding Trump exceeded his authority in authorizing the ballroom. However, the appeals panel administratively stayed Leon’s order on April 17, allowing work to continue while the court considered the case. During oral arguments, Judges Bradley Garcia and Neomi Rao questioned whether the statutes cited by the administration actually granted the president power to demolish and replace structures, with Garcia noting the relevant law permits only maintenance, not improvements or reconstruction.

The case hinges on whether Trump possesses unilateral authority to modify the White House complex without congressional approval and whether courts retain power to review such decisions. The administration’s theory that rapid execution of government(Source: https://abcnews.com/amp/US/appeals-court-hear-arguments-trumps-ballroom-plans-continue/story?id=133589066) projects eliminates judicial oversight entirely represents an unprecedented assertion of executive immunity from legal challenge, one the appellate panel appeared divided on accepting.

Trump Administration Defies Court Order on Kennedy Center

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum refused to commit to complying with a federal court order requiring President Donald Trump's name be removed from the Kennedy Center within two weeks. When asked on CNN's State of the Union whether the name would be removed, Burgum deflected by suggesting the ruling might be appealed and claimed "there's controversy on both sides," despite U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's clear ruling that only Congress has authority to change the center's name under the 1964 statute that created it.

Trump's administration had added his name to the building's facade in December 2025 after the board, comprised entirely of Trump appointees, voted to rename it "The Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts." Judge Cooper found this decision violated federal law, writing that "Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it." The board's vote to close the venue for a two-year renovation was also deemed "ill-informed and seemingly preordained" by the judge, who noted the decision lacked sufficient independent analysis of the center's actual needs.

Trump responded to the court order by attacking Judge Cooper and his wife on Truth Social in posts exceeding 1,300 words, making unfounded claims about the judge's impartiality and alleging without evidence that Cooper's wife, attorney Amy Jeffress, influenced the ruling because of her work with President Biden's legal team. Trump claimed the center was "rusted, rotted, and rat and bug infested," language echoed by Burgum, who cited deterioration in HVAC systems to justify the renovation as necessary.

The Kennedy Center controversy reflects deeper tensions over Trump's control of the institution. Multiple high-profile artists have withdrawn or canceled performances in response to the takeover, including folk singer Kristy Lee, jazz group the Cookers, and the producers of Hamilton, with creator Lin-Manuel Miranda stating the center was "not created in this spirit" under Trump's leadership. The center has already conducted massive layoffs in preparation for the shutdown.

Judge Cooper's ruling only temporarily blocks the closure and does not prevent the board from reconsidering the decision if it does so with proper analysis of the center's actual operational and maintenance needs. The administration's refusal to acknowledge the court's authority to enforce this decision, combined with Burgum's equivocation, demonstrates a pattern of disregarding judicial orders when they conflict with Trump's interests. A spokeswoman for the center stated confidence that "on appeal the court will uphold the Board's will," signaling continued defiance of the judge's determination.

(Source: https://time.com/article/2026/05/31/burgum-says-trump-s-name-won-t-be-taken-off-kennedy-center-after-judges-ruling/)(

Trump Defends Exodus of Lawyers from His Administration

The departure of over 10,000 government lawyers from Trump’s administration is not just an isolated event but part of a broader strategy, viewed by some as a “deep state” conspiracy endorsed by Trump and the Republicans. This approach targets those not blindly loyal to Trump, seeing periodic loyalty purges as necessary for authoritarian control. Low-quality loyalists replace experienced civil servants, willing to follow Trump’s directives regardless of constitutionality. This aligns with Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation policy blueprint aiming to dismantle federal bureaucracy.

Project 2025 outlines a plan to replace tens of thousands of career civil servants with political loyalists, ensuring presidential control over the executive branch. Key strategies include the proposed revival of “Schedule F,” which would reclassify approximately 50,000 federal workers into political appointments, stripping their job protections. It also relies on “unitary executive theory,” granting the president total control over federal agencies, challenging the independence of bodies like the Department of Justice and the FBI.

The project organizes databases of pre-vetted conservative loyalists to fill government positions swiftly, aiming to install “conservative warriors” in legal, regulatory, and policy-making roles across all departments.

Trump Demands Judge’s Impeachment Over Kennedy Center Ruling

President Donald Trump demanded the impeachment of U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper after Cooper temporarily blocked Trump's planned renovations to the Kennedy Center and prevented Trump from adding his name to the building. Judge Cooper ruled that Congress alone has authority to establish the Kennedy Center's name and that the Board cannot unilaterally alter it without legislative approval. Trump attacked Cooper, accusing him of conflict of interest and alleging that the judge's wife's political views influenced the ruling, calling for the judge to face charges.

Trump characterized the Kennedy Center as "dilapidated, rusted, rotted, and rat and bug infested," framing the renovation project as necessary restoration work. The Kennedy Center Board has secured $257 million for the project and announced its intention to appeal Cooper's decision, continuing to push for approval to proceed with renovations. Trump's demand that a federal judge be impeached for an unfavorable ruling exemplifies his pattern of attacking the judiciary when court decisions contradict his agenda, undermining judicial independence and the rule of law.

(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/trump-kennedy-center-judge-cooper-b2986769.html)

Trump Targets Late-Night Hosts Using FCC Regulatory Power

President Donald Trump declared victory over Stephen Colbert's departure from CBS, stating on Truth Social that the late-night host's firing marked the "Beginning of the End" for late-night television and predicting others would follow. Trump has systematically pressured the Federal Communications Commission to strip broadcast licenses, directly called on Disney to fire ABC host Jimmy Kimmel, and demanded NBC terminate Seth Meyers, making clear his intent to eliminate critical voices from television.

CBS cancelled Colbert's top-rated show last year citing financial reasons, but the timing exposed the administration's pattern of regulatory retaliation. The cancellation occurred days after Paramount settled a $16 million lawsuit Trump filed against CBS over editing of a "60 Minutes" interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, and immediately preceded FCC approval of Paramount's $8 billion Skydance merger, leading critics to identify the decision as quid pro quo silencing of political satire in violation of First Amendment protections.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has weaponized his regulatory authority against networks that air criticism of Trump. Carr ordered an unusual early license review of ABC's eight television stations after Trump cited a Kimmel joke as grounds for his dismissal, and in September 2025 pressured broadcasters to remove Kimmel entirely after comments about conservative activist Charlie Kirk. When Trump demanded Meyers' firing in November, Carr reposted the demand on X, demonstrating direct coordination between the executive branch and the FCC to suppress dissent.

Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez documented the administration's systematic assault on free speech, stating that Trump cannot tolerate critics and is deploying "every regulatory lever" to target content he dislikes, from late-night comedy to political programs. Trump has publicly attacked multiple late-night hosts as "deranged" and "untalented" while simultaneously using state power to force them from the air, treating television criticism as a threat requiring government elimination rather than democratic discourse.

Colbert responded by naming the threat directly, stating that "Donald Trump's administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV." The coordinated campaign against late-night hosts represents authoritarian suppression of political speech through regulatory capture and merger leverage, dismantling constitutional protections for satire and criticism that have defined American media since the 1950s.

(Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-says-more-night-talk-154303498.html?link_source=ta_first_comment&taid=6a10cd35c6ff4c00012b7467&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQKNjYyODU2ODM3OQABHu9KHF8av5yRtOq_NNxcMcNficKGS5jg4DreLVWYgXOWETNQ-oTh8Bt-tMTj_aem_SzS3k30dy53tiPTZv2_Zcw&guccounter=1)

1 2 3 4