***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

356,106 Views | 3236 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by nortex97
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TRM • 9:07p, 2/3/26
Arrest her.
Reply Quote
6
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TRM • 4:18a, 2/4/26
AG
TRM said:

She's just so, so bad. Still, it is partially SCOTUS' fault for failing to be clear.


She is one of those judges whose opinions I look forward to though, as they are simply comical in their idiocy.
Reply Quote
13
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:10a, 2/5/26
Reply Quote
4
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 6:21a, 2/5/26
Cloward-Piven. This is a political attempt by a supposedly unbiased judge to destroy our immigration system, and ultimately our country.

And Republicans refuse to confirm Trump's judicial appointments. They're effectively forfeiting. This is only going to get much, much worse.
Reply Quote
15
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 10:14a, 2/5/26
will25u said:

Once again another Article 3 judge getting outside his jurisdiction and infringing on the US Constitution. Come on SCOTUS start slapping these activist judges down.

Quote:
art. III, sub sec 1. See also Black's Law Dictionary 1572 (10th ed. 2014) (defining separation of powers as the division of governmental authority into three branches of governmentlegislative, executive, and judicial each with specified duties on which neither of the other branches can encroach ).

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-2/ALDE_00000031/#:~:text=Id.-,art.,the%20other%20branches%20can%20encroach%20).
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Reply Quote
9
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 12:30p, 2/5/26
AG
will25u said:

Don't they have administrative warrants for most of the folks they catch?
You can turn off signatures, btw
Reply Quote
3
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 12:35p, 2/5/26
Ag with kids said:
will25u said:

Don't they have administrative warrants for most of the folks they catch?

If you have an order for removal, yes.
Reply Quote
3
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 12:45p, 2/5/26
AG
Ag with kids said:
will25u said:

Don't they have administrative warrants for most of the folks they catch?

I took it to mean they wanted judicial warrants for everybody, but maybe that is misreading it.
Reply Quote
2
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 3:27p, 2/5/26
AG
Yes.

Grumble grumble…
Reply Quote
6
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:19p, 2/5/26
I'm going to make this perfectly clear. These Article 3 judges are overreaching their jurisdictional boundaries.


This is a C&P of the EXACT law over Immigration and the powers under Article 2

Quote:
When someone enters the U.S. illegally, they are subject to removal (deportation) through expedited removal (immediate, without a hearing) or formal immigration court proceedings. The process typically involves apprehension by DHS, detention by ICE, a Notice to Appear (NTA) in court, and a hearing before a judge, unless they express fear of persecution.

The Exact Removal Process:
  • Apprehension and Detention: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains the individual and verifies their status.
  • Expedited Removal: Individuals who cannot prove they have been in the U.S. for more than two years and are apprehended shortly after crossing may be removed quickly without a hearing.
  • Credible Fear Interview: If an individual in expedited removal expresses a fear of persecution or torture, they are interviewed by an asylum officer. If they pass, they move to a full removal hearing.
  • Formal Removal Proceedings: If not expedited, the person is served a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court.
  • Court Hearing: An immigration judge (EOIR) reviews the case. The government must prove the person is not a U.S. citizen and is removable. The individual can apply for relief (e.g., asylum, cancellation of removal).
  • Final Order and Removal: If the judge orders removal, or if the individual waives their right to a hearing, ICE (specifically the Enforcement and Removal Operations - ERO) coordinates the physical removal to the home country via commercial or chartered flights.

Key Aspects:
  • Detention: Individuals may be held in detention centers during this process.
  • Legal Representation: Noncitizens have the right to an attorney, but not at the government's expense.
  • Appeals: Individuals may appeal the judge's decision to an immigration appeals board.
Expedited removal allows DHS immigration officers to quickly deport certain noncitizensincluding those at the border or, more recently, interior, undocumented individualswithout a hearing before an immigration judge. The process generally involves a sworn statement, a summary interview, and an immediate removal order, usually within 2448 hours.

The Expedited Removal Process:
  • Initial Inspection/Apprehension: An immigration officer (CBP at the border, ICE in the interior) determines if a person is inadmissible due to lack of proper documents or fraud/misrepresentation.
  • The Interview: The officer conducts a brief, sworn interview to verify citizenship and admissibility.
  • Order of Removal: If the officer finds the person inadmissible, they issue a final order of removal.
  • Exceptions (Credible Fear): If an individual expresses fear of persecution or torture upon return, they are entitled to a "credible fear interview" with an asylum officer. If they pass this screening, they may have a hearing before an immigration judge; otherwise, they are removed.
  • Consequences: Individuals removed through this process are barred from re-entering the U.S. for a set period.
  • Limited Review: The order is generally not subject to administrative appeal.
Under recent expansions, this process can occur for individuals arrested within the U.S. who cannot prove they have been physically present for the preceding 14 days.


NO WHERE does the immigration laws and authority grant powers to ANY Article 3 court PERIOD. These judicial branch judges are way out over their skis and beyond their jurisdictional authority, and the SCOTUS sits back and lets this happen over and over, when the SCOTUS can intervene in and overturn a lower judge's order if it is unconstitutional through its power of judicial review Through a petition for a writ of certiorari, SCOTUS reviews cases from federal appellate courts or state supreme courts involving federal constitutional issues. If a lower court order is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to declare it null and unenforceable.
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Reply Quote
7
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:42p, 2/5/26
lolol

Reply Quote
5
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 7:45p, 2/5/26
I'm sure you are correct. They do not want us to be able to remove illegal aliens.
Reply Quote
6
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 5:26a, 2/6/26
AG
Ol' Indira Talwani strikes yet again. LOL, such a clown. From shipwrecked:
Quote:
Didn't she hold that Congress could not cut off funds that Congress previously committed to spending?

You'll excuse me if I don't take seriously anything that comes from her computer.


Sigh…
Reply Quote
7
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:02p, 2/6/26
Reply Quote
12
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 2:36p, 2/6/26
AG
Even with the correct result/remand, Diaz couldn't help himself. He wrote a one-page concurrence telegraphing his views of the actions of the administration and inviting Plaintiffs to keep doing what they are doing.

I met Diaz early in his judicial career - I actually obtained a favorable ruling from him in an employment case. He was anything but impressive, but he seemed fair at the time. He really has no business on the 4th Circuit bench.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:24a, 2/7/26
The very fact that the POS Adrian Conejo Arias was broken out of detention and flown FIRST CLASS back to Minnesota by Joaquin Castro thanks to the unconstitutional order issued by Fred Biery, now justly revers by the 5th Circuit.

ICE needs to go back and rearrest that SOB and bring him right back to San Antonio and await deportation in custody



"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Reply Quote
14
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 4:51a, 2/7/26
AG
Yep, nice win at the 5th circuit for detention without bond. Predictably, the Biden judge dissents/cries.
Quote:
plit on the ruling with two judges ruling that the Trump administration had the correct interpretation of the immigration law when it comes to the ability to detain people that will be deported, according to Politico.
"That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority … does not mean they lacked the authority to do more," Judge Edith Jones, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote for the majority.

The case centers on the interpretation of a statute that requires migrants who are still "applicants for admission" to be held without bond while seeking admission to the United States.

The law was previously interpreted as new illegal migrants and not those who have been in the country illegally for years, but the Trump administration said in July that anyone targeted for deportation would be treated as an "applicant for admission," and therefore subject to detention.

Judge Dana Douglas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, claimed in her dissent that the ruling would require as many as two million migrants residing in the United States to be detained without bond.

"Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel," she wrote. "The government's proposed reading of the statute would mean that, for purposes of immigration detention, the border is now everywhere. That is not the law Congress passed, and if it had, it would have spoken much more clearly."

Communists will appeal to SCOTUS for sure, but I think they are unlikely to take it.
Reply Quote
10
FatZilla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 6:54a, 2/7/26
AG
nortex97 said:
Yep, nice win at the 5th circuit for detention without bond. Predictably, the Biden judge dissents/cries.
Quote:
plit on the ruling with two judges ruling that the Trump administration had the correct interpretation of the immigration law when it comes to the ability to detain people that will be deported, according to Politico.
"That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority … does not mean they lacked the authority to do more," Judge Edith Jones, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote for the majority.

The case centers on the interpretation of a statute that requires migrants who are still "applicants for admission" to be held without bond while seeking admission to the United States.

The law was previously interpreted as new illegal migrants and not those who have been in the country illegally for years, but the Trump administration said in July that anyone targeted for deportation would be treated as an "applicant for admission," and therefore subject to detention.

Judge Dana Douglas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, claimed in her dissent that the ruling would require as many as two million migrants residing in the United States to be detained without bond.

"Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel," she wrote. "The government's proposed reading of the statute would mean that, for purposes of immigration detention, the border is now everywhere. That is not the law Congress passed, and if it had, it would have spoken much more clearly."

Communists will appeal to SCOTUS for sure, but I think they are unlikely to take it.


SCOTUS pretty much has to take it. Its split by the circuits now that 5th has ruled for Trump. Maby they won't take the appeal from the 5th but they will take this without bond topic for sure out of one of the liberal circuits when Trumps admin appeals it.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FatZilla • 8:14a, 2/7/26
FatZilla said:
nortex97 said:
Yep, nice win at the 5th circuit for detention without bond. Predictably, the Biden judge dissents/cries.
Quote:
plit on the ruling with two judges ruling that the Trump administration had the correct interpretation of the immigration law when it comes to the ability to detain people that will be deported, according to Politico.
"That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority … does not mean they lacked the authority to do more," Judge Edith Jones, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote for the majority.

The case centers on the interpretation of a statute that requires migrants who are still "applicants for admission" to be held without bond while seeking admission to the United States.

The law was previously interpreted as new illegal migrants and not those who have been in the country illegally for years, but the Trump administration said in July that anyone targeted for deportation would be treated as an "applicant for admission," and therefore subject to detention.

Judge Dana Douglas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, claimed in her dissent that the ruling would require as many as two million migrants residing in the United States to be detained without bond.

"Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel," she wrote. "The government's proposed reading of the statute would mean that, for purposes of immigration detention, the border is now everywhere. That is not the law Congress passed, and if it had, it would have spoken much more clearly."

Communists will appeal to SCOTUS for sure, but I think they are unlikely to take it.


SCOTUS pretty much has to take it. Its split by the circuits now that 5th has ruled for Trump. Maby they won't take the appeal from the 5th but they will take this without bond topic for sure out of one of the liberal circuits when Trumps admin appeals it.

What other circuit has opposed? I can't find any split between circuits?
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Reply Quote
1
fredfredunderscorefred
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:26a, 2/7/26
AG
I've said before that borders are almost like a necessary evil. It's strange that being born on one side of a river versus the other can alter a life so much. With that said, a country is only a country if it enforces its laws and borders.

We are not a serious country that the argument they are making is even allowed to proceed without saying "ok then, time to go." They're saying "yes we are here illegally, but we are not even trying to stay legally, so we should get to leave detention." Such an insane argument should end the process immediately with a trip home, instead of engaging in a circus of semantics. I can't copy/paste but top of page 9:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26884355/ca5detention.pdf
Reply Quote
5
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 8:42a, 2/7/26
AG
FatZilla may be right, as the politico piece cites a 7th circuit opinion, which I am otherwise unaware of.
Quote:
The circuit's ruling is unlikely to be the last word. Challenges to the administration's policy have been crowding court dockets across the country and are pending in nearly every appellate circuit. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals signaled it opposed the administration's view of the policy in a ruling that was primarily focused on other issues.
At the heart of the issue is a 30-year-old immigration statute that requires the detention without bond of all "applicants for admission" to the United States while they are "seeking admission" to the country. For decades, administrations of both parties applied this to people who had newly arrived in the country, perhaps by crossing the southern border.

A (direct) circuit split seems likely to happen, if it hasn't. Caveat; Politico is a garbage leftist publication and could just be making it up as well.

Shipwreckedcrew thinks it will be upheld, fwiw. Just because past administrations didn't use the authority granted by congress to hold illegal aliens arrested in the interior without bond, doesn't mean the authority doesn't exist as enacted.
Also;

Quote:
This decision is massively important - one of the most important of the year. It means that if you are an illegal alien who never presented themselves at a port of entry, and ICE finds you, you can and must be detained without bail.

The knock on effects from this will be enormous. Prior to this - if you were caught as an illegal alien and put in removal proceedings, you were entitled to bail while your lawyers string things along. You could stay out of jail for months - even years - and keep doing what you were doing in our country. No more.

Now - if you crossed illegally and ICE finds you, you're done. You're not walking American streets freely again unless you prevail in your removal proceeding (which is supremely unlikely). You won't be able to go to your apartment and grab your things. You are simply done. You can either accept deportation or sit in immigration detention while your lawyer wastes their time on futile filings, and then get deported when you lose.

This will lead to a lot more illegal aliens simply giving up on their frivolous court fights and accepting deportation, which will help relieve the court backlogs. This will also lead to many more illegal aliens self-deporting. Would you rather pack up your things, settle your affairs, and get a free flight and $2500? Or would you rather try and hide from ICE, knowing that the moment they find you, you will never breathe free air in America again?

It's a much easier choice.

Congratulations to Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, and everyone at DOJ responsible for this victory. It's a milestone win.


Aaron and Kyle are furious, so clearly this is a big deal/good for America.
Reply Quote
15
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 8:57a, 2/7/26
Poor Kyle. This is the only due process these illegals merit.
Reply Quote
8
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 10:11a, 2/7/26
AG
And a precedent is set. Very good.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
9
FatZilla
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 3:46p, 2/7/26
AG
Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:
FatZilla said:
nortex97 said:
Yep, nice win at the 5th circuit for detention without bond. Predictably, the Biden judge dissents/cries.
Quote:
plit on the ruling with two judges ruling that the Trump administration had the correct interpretation of the immigration law when it comes to the ability to detain people that will be deported, according to Politico.
"That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority … does not mean they lacked the authority to do more," Judge Edith Jones, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote for the majority.

The case centers on the interpretation of a statute that requires migrants who are still "applicants for admission" to be held without bond while seeking admission to the United States.

The law was previously interpreted as new illegal migrants and not those who have been in the country illegally for years, but the Trump administration said in July that anyone targeted for deportation would be treated as an "applicant for admission," and therefore subject to detention.

Judge Dana Douglas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, claimed in her dissent that the ruling would require as many as two million migrants residing in the United States to be detained without bond.

"Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel," she wrote. "The government's proposed reading of the statute would mean that, for purposes of immigration detention, the border is now everywhere. That is not the law Congress passed, and if it had, it would have spoken much more clearly."

Communists will appeal to SCOTUS for sure, but I think they are unlikely to take it.


SCOTUS pretty much has to take it. Its split by the circuits now that 5th has ruled for Trump. Maby they won't take the appeal from the 5th but they will take this without bond topic for sure out of one of the liberal circuits when Trumps admin appeals it.

What other circuit has opposed? I can't find any split between circuits?

I thought I saw it was ruled already in one of the others but I guess its still sitting in appeal. Glad the 5th is first then.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Bulldog73
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FatZilla • 3:55p, 2/7/26
AG
FatZilla said:
Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:
What other circuit has opposed? I can't find any split between circuits?

I thought I saw it was ruled already in one of the others but I guess its still sitting in appeal. Glad the 5th is first then.

Supposedly the 7th Circuit is considering the issue, but the 5th beat them to it because DOJ filed an expedited appeal in the more conservative 5th while slow walking in the 7th. The Biden appointed dissenter in the 5th complained about that, apparently not recognizing the irony of how leftist lawfare lawyers have been forum shopping like rabid dogs. Apparently only wokeists are the only ones who can selectively choose which courts they want to have render precedence.
Reply Quote
10
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:05p, 2/7/26
This idiot Kyle Cheney voicing his feelings as actual legal analysis is rich, he's not an attorney, he's a politico hack, but this 2-1 decision by the 5th Circuit court that upheld the Trump administration's interpretation of federal law clearly shows Bondi's legal argument that does not distinguish between those caught at the border and those who snuck in. It's plain language cut and dry supported by legal statutes.

Cheney's claim that hundreds of federal judges claim if an illegal is already here and wasn't "seeking admission" at the border at the time they were taken into custody, the illegal is not subject to mandatory detention and should receive a bond hearing isn't supported by any legal precedent. Hell if you're here 25 years and haven't made the attempt to apply for some level of legal status through the asylum process for instance, screw you you have no protection under the 14th Amendment. You're not a US citizen and have no legal status.PERIOD full stop

Not only does it defy common sense, what difference does it make if someone is caught at the border or sneaks in?.. The two affirming appellate judges clearly articulated why DOJ/DHS is on the right legally footing by treating both the same. The illegal who evades inspection at the border is not entitled to a bond hearing upon arrest inside the US regardless of how long the illegal has been here.

Minnesota Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz framed his decision in ordering the release of that Ecuadorian man who had been in the US illegally for 25 years. This is the same argument made by judges in hundreds of cases granting habeas petitions for the illegals, basically based on logistics. This supports reversing all of that crap. What I REALLY is a ruling on the jurisdictional overreach of the Article III judges, chopping them off at the ankles so the DOJ can just ignore all of these forum shopped activist judges gumming up the works with these TRO's and habeas petitions. STOP LETTING THESE ILLEGALS WALK FREE.....
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Reply Quote
7
Ag In Ok
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:42p, 2/7/26
AG
I'm curious if any of these judges had a case where they ruled against the illegal aliens under Obama.
Reply Quote
2
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:06a, 2/8/26
AG

Emergency briefing responses to Trump appeal to stay GLBTQ Biden Judge-Ruler Reyes immigration edict due by…Feb 16th.

Over an unconstitutional nationwide injunction regarding expiration of Biden-era finding TPS for Haitians where the statute says it is non-reviewable by the courts.
Reply Quote
8
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 3:19p, 2/8/26
AG
nortex97 said:

Emergency briefing responses to Trump appeal to stay GLBTQ Biden Judge-Ruler Reyes immigration edict due by…Feb 16th.

Over an unconstitutional nationwide injunction regarding expiration of Biden-era finding TPS for Haitians where the statute says it is non-reviewable by the courts.

Bad rulings like this diminish the respect of the court, and ultimately their power. The only real power they have is the respect we afford the court. Without that, everyone simply ignores them.

But maybe this is by design. Maybe the Dems want to diminish our court system.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
7
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 6:20a, 2/10/26
AG
If course you are correct, but even in the 9th circuit the adults wind up winning usually at this point.

The DC circuit though…well the nicest thing I could come up with is that it is special.
Reply Quote
4
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:14a, 2/10/26
Reply Quote
5
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:32a, 2/12/26
AG
Really big case reviving some of the huge censorship issues SCOTUS shamefully punted on in dismissing Murthy v. Missouri.

Long thread.

Mike Benz has also gone on at length about the (now shuttered) State Department's Global Engagement Center.
Reply Quote
6
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:21p, 2/12/26
One immigration related case was added to the Supreme Court's current term's docket. It will be argued on 4-22.

Bondi v. Lau- Whether, to deport a green card holder who committed a crime of moral turpitude or a drug offense but was subsequently allowed to enter the United States, the government must prove that it had clear and convincing evidence of the offense when the green card holder last re-entered the country.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
2
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 5:25p, 2/12/26
AG
Rapier108 said:
One immigration related case was added to the Supreme Court's current term's docket. It will be argued on 4-22.

Bondi v. Lau- Whether, to deport a green card holder who committed a crime of moral turpitude or a drug offense but was subsequently allowed to enter the United States, the government must prove that it had clear and convincing evidence of the offense when the green card holder last re-entered the country.

Confused. That doesn't make sense to me.
Reply Quote
3
Little Rock Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:31p, 2/12/26
AG
I'll say it again. Ignore the lawless orders of judges. It's not hard and playing by their rules is just foolish.
Reply Quote
1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.