Posts

DOJ Vows ‘Birth Tourism’ Crackdown after Supreme Court Rules Against Trump in Birthright Citizenship Case

/1 Comment/in , , /by

The Justice Department on Tuesday pledged to crack down on so-called “birth tourism” after the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order outlawing birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and US visitors.

Colin McDonald, the DOJ’s assistant attorney general for fraud enforcement, directed federal prosecutors to “zealously protect the sanctity of United States citizenship by investigating and prosecuting those who fraudulently exploit our immigration system” by traveling to the country under “false pretenses” to give birth.

“The criminal laws of the United States already prohibit conduct inherent to so many of these so-called ‘birth tourism’ schemes,” McDonald, the administration’s “fraud czar,” wrote in a memo to DOJ employees. “For example, many such schemes start with a false visa application – with lies about the purpose or duration of one’s travel to the United States.”

McDonald included three examples of birth tourism schemes the DOJ has prosecuted in recent years.

In 2024, Michael Wei Yueh Liu and Jing Dong – a husband-and-wife team – were each sentenced to 41 months in prison after being accused of running a birth tourism business that catered to Chinese nationals. Their company – “USA Happy Baby” — charged clients tens of thousands of dollars and assisted them in fraudulently obtaining US visas, according to McDonald. (Read more from “DOJ Vows ‘Birth Tourism’ Crackdown after Supreme Court Rules Against Trump in Birthright Citizenship Case” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Three of Nine Supremes Believe in ‘Transgender Girls’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Three of the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court believe that boys can swap their legal sex to become girls by just saying so.

The endorsement of the revolutionary demands of transgenderism came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, backed by Justice Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote:

[Male] Respondent B. P. J. is a transgender girl who wants to live her life consistent with her gender identity.

The three judges’ acceptance of the so-called “transgender” claim is based on the progressives’ political demand that people they favor can and should be liberated from biological, intellectual, and social constraints that they dislike. In contrast, conservatives believe that civic norms and laws should manage the competitive and unchanging nature of human biology, such as biological differences that would disadvantage nearly all women in mixed-sex sports competitions.

The faith in progressive self-liberation is described in the three judges’ dissent against the court’s majority decision that recognized the legal term “sex” has been based on unchangeable biology:

The term “sex” in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context

(Read more from “Three of Nine Supremes Believe in ‘Transgender Girls’” HERE)

Supreme Court Restores Access to Abortion Pill Mifepristone through Telehealth, Mail and Pharmacies

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Monday restored broad access to the abortion pill mifepristone, blocking a lower-court ruling that had threatened to upend one of the main ways abortions are provided across the nation.

The order signed by Justice Samuel Alito temporarily allows women seeking abortions to obtain the pill at pharmacies or through the mail, without an in-person visit to a doctor.

Those practices had been permitted for several years until a federal appeals court imposed new restrictions last week.

The latest order will remain in effect for another week while both sides respond and the high court considers the issue more fully. (Read more from “Supreme Court Restores Access to Abortion Pill Mifepristone through Telehealth, Mail and Pharmacies” HERE)

SCOTUS Backs Trump: Votes 9:0 to Curb Migrants’ Asylum Claims

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court has unanimously decided to handcuff liberal judges who want to help the growing number of migrants who lose their asylum pleas at the Justice Department.

“The unanimous decision in Urias–Orellana v. Bondi is a win for the Trump Administration in maintaining a high burden to overturn [the Justice Department’s] immigration courts in asylum cases,” said lawyer Jonathan Turley.

The decision means that millions of migrants will face even tougher pressure to leave the United States, especially after they are arrested by ICE.

The win is one of many gains by President Donald Trump’s deputies as they try to accelerate the number of self-deportations and ICE deportations. For example, in December, 38 percent of the migrants detained by ICE chose to go home rather than file lawsuits to stay in the United States.

The court decision in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi was written by the court’s most left-wing judge, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Read more from “SCOTUS Backs Trump: Votes 9:0 to Curb Migrants’ Asylum Claims” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Supreme Court Blocks California Law That Stopped Schools From Telling Parents if Their Kid Is Transgender

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a law that prevents California schools from telling parents if their child comes out as transgender, after granting an emergency appeal from a conservative legal group.

The order for now blocks a state law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in July 2024 that made California the first state to bar school districts from requiring staff to notify parents of their child’s gender identification.

The ruling also blocks a rule that required teachers to use a student’s preferred pronouns.

Monday’s granting of an emergency appeal from a conservative legal group comes after many parents and teachers challenged the law.

The Thomas More Society, representing two sets of Catholic parents, argued the law causes schools to mislead them and secretly facilitates gender transition in minors. (Read more from “Supreme Court Blocks California Law That Stopped Schools From Telling Parents if Their Kid Is Transgender” HERE)

Trump’s Ominous Two-Word Warning If Supreme Court Rules Against Emergency Tariffs

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Trump declared Monday that the US would be “screwed” if the Supreme Court rules against his reciprocal tariff policies — arguing the feds would have to “pay back” billions in revenue collected over the past year.

“[I]f the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“The actual numbers that we would have to pay back if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs, would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars,” he wrote.

“[A]nd that doesn’t include the amount of ‘payback’ that Countries and Companies would require for the Investments they are making on building Plants, Factories, and Equipment, for the purpose of being able to avoid the payment of Tariffs.”

Trump argued that “[w]hen these Investments are added, we are talking about Trillions of Dollars! It would be a complete mess, and almost impossible for our Country to pay.” (Read more from “Trump’s Ominous Two-Word Warning If Supreme Court Rules Against Emergency Tariffs” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Supreme Court Extends Block on Full SNAP Payments as Shutdown Nears Possible End

/1 Comment/in , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday extended its order blocking full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments, prolonging uncertainty for millions of Americans who rely on the program to feed their families. The decision comes as Congress inches closer to a deal that could end the ongoing government shutdown and restore federal aid.

The temporary order—set to expire just before midnight Thursday—keeps in place a chaotic patchwork of food aid distribution across the country. In some states, SNAP recipients have received their full monthly benefits, while others have gotten partial payments or none at all.

The Senate has already passed a bipartisan bill to reopen the government, and the House of Representatives could vote as early as Wednesday. If approved and signed into law, the measure would restart the flow of funds to roughly 42 million Americans who depend on SNAP. Still, it’s unclear how quickly full payments could resume once the government reopens, as implementation timelines vary by state.

Advocates and state officials say the uneven distribution of benefits has left families scrambling to make ends meet. “It’s easier to make full payments quickly than partial ones,” said Carolyn Vega, a policy analyst with the anti-hunger group Share Our Strength, who noted that states issuing partial benefits may face technical hurdles when processing remaining payments.

In Pennsylvania, some recipients received their full November benefits last week, while others remain empty-handed. Jim Malliard, 41, of Franklin, said his family’s $350 monthly benefit has yet to arrive. Caring full-time for his blind wife and medically fragile teenage daughter, Malliard said he’s been rationing what’s left in the pantry.

“It’s been a lot of late nights, counting every penny,” he said. “Anxiety doesn’t even begin to describe it.”

The Trump administration halted full SNAP funding after October, triggering a wave of lawsuits and conflicting court rulings. While some judges ordered the government to restore partial payments—up to 65% of normal benefits—one ruling last week required the administration to resume full funding, prompting the Justice Department to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In its filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that “the answer to this crisis is not for federal courts to reallocate resources without lawful authority,” maintaining that only Congress can resolve the issue by reopening the government.

An appeals court on Monday ordered the return of full payments, a move that was set to take effect Tuesday night before the Supreme Court stepped in to block it.

The Senate-passed bill would replenish SNAP funding and reopen the federal government through the fiscal year. House Speaker Mike Johnson has called lawmakers back to Washington to consider the deal, which was negotiated between Senate Democrats and Republicans.

President Donald Trump has not confirmed whether he will sign the bill but told reporters Sunday that “it looks like we’re getting close to the shutdown ending.”

For now, millions of low-income Americans remain caught in limbo—waiting on Washington’s next move to determine whether they’ll be able to afford their next meal.

Supreme Court Blocks Court Order Requiring Trump Admin Pay Full Snap Benefits

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking an order from a federal judge that required the Trump administration to pay full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November.

The decision from the Supreme Court came after the Trump administration requested that U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s order that the administration dish out full SNAP benefits by Friday be blocked, according to the Associated Press.

Per the outlet:

A judge had given the Republican administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.

While Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a temporary pause of McConnell’s order in order “to give an appeals court more time to weigh the legal arguments raised by the government,” she did not issue a ruling “on the legality” of the Trump administration’s actions, according to the New York Times. (Read more from “Supreme Court Blocks Court Order Requiring Trump Admin Pay Full Snap Benefits” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s ‘One-Gun-Per-Month’ Law

/11 Comments/in , /by

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has officially overturned California’s “one-gun-a-month” restriction, issuing a mandate Thursday that makes the court’s earlier ruling enforceable.

The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two federally licensed firearms dealers, and six private citizens, including Michelle Nguyen.

Under the overturned law, most California residents were prohibited from purchasing more than one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle from a licensed dealer within any 30-day period. Supporters of the challenge argued the measure unfairly restricted law-abiding citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment.

The August 14 mandate follows a June 20, 2025, decision by a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel that affirmed a lower court ruling against the restriction. Writing for the majority, Judge Danielle Forrest stated:

“California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”

The decision marks the first time the Ninth Circuit has issued a final judgment striking down a law under the Second Amendment, according to the Firearms Policy Coalition.

With the mandate now in effect, California’s one-gun-per-month purchasing limit is no longer enforceable.

Supreme Court Allows State to Defund Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that South Carolina is allowed to block Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood clinics in the state.

The case was brought by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a Medicaid patient after South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed an executive order in 2018 seeking to exclude the abortion giant from its Medicaid program. The abortion organization argued the order violated federal law and contended that Medicaid patients had a right to sue the state under Section 1983, part of the Civil Right Act of 1871, to choose their own qualified healthcare provider.

The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision disagreeing with Planned Parenthood’s arguments and siding with South Carolina, essentially allowing the state to defund Planned Parenthood after being blocked from doing so for years by lower courts.

“Section 1983 permits private plaintiffs to sue for violations of federal spending-power statutes only in ‘atypical’ situations … where the provision in question ‘clear[ly]’ and ‘unambiguous[ly]’ confers an individual ‘right,’” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, adding that the law in question “is not such a statute.”

“After all, the decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy,” Gorsuch continued. “New rights for some mean new duties for others. And private enforcement actions, meritorious or not, can force governments to direct money away from public services and spend it instead on litigation. The job of resolving how best to weigh those competing costs and benefits belongs to the people’s elected representatives, not unelected judges charged with applying the law as they find it.” (Read more from “Supreme Court Allows State to Defund Planned Parenthood” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr