Rarely to we get the intimate details from high-level officials. But that’s not the case this time.

Because a Supreme Court Justice revealed what keeps them up at night in fear.

Jackson’s Democracy Concerns Spark Controversy

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, speaking at an Indianapolis Bar Association event on Thursday, shifted from answering light-hearted questions about books and music to a grave concern, stating that “the state of our democracy” keeps her up at night.

The Biden-appointed justice, known for her frequent dissents, elaborated, “I’m really very interested in getting people to focus and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country and in our government,” earning applause but no chance to clarify specific worries.

Her remarks prompted swift backlash on X, with critics questioning her impartiality, one user stating, “What keeps me up [at] night is knowing that we have unqualified Justices like Jackson on the SCOTUS.”

The comments fueled debate about her role on the high court, especially given her pattern of outspoken dissents that have drawn scrutiny from colleagues and the public alike.

Critics Challenge Jackson’s Judicial Approach

Jackson’s assertion that her role includes offering “a slightly different perspective, or a different take on something” intensified accusations of judicial activism.

One X user remarked, “She’s functionally an activist, not a judge,” while another called her dissents “pretty embarrassing,” comparing them to “a substack post” rather than legal rulings.

This week, Jackson stood alone in dissenting against an 8-1 Supreme Court order greenlighting President Donald Trump’s federal workforce cuts, a stance critics cite as evidence of her divergence from judicial consensus.

Her tendency to write separate dissents, even when not the lead dissenter, has positioned her as a polarizing figure, with detractors arguing her emotional rhetoric undermines the court’s commitment to constitutional fidelity.

Sharp Rebuke from Fellow Justices

Jackson’s dissent in a recent birthright citizenship case, where she warned that “our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” drew a pointed rebuke from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

In the majority opinion, Barrett wrote, “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” adding that Jackson’s stance appeared to embrace an “imperial Judiciary.”

This criticism, coupled with Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s rare disagreement with Jackson in the workforce reduction case, shows the tension within the court.

Critics on X seized on these rebukes, with one stating, “Her unprofessionalism is an embarrassment to the bench,” suggesting her approach risks eroding the court’s collegiality and credibility.

Public Outcry Questions Court Impartiality

The reaction on X amplified concerns about Jackson’s public comments, with one user asserting, “Impartial judges committed to faithful application of the law don’t make incendiary comments like this in public.”

Her remarks about democracy, combined with her history of dissenting in high-profile cases, have led some to argue she prioritizes personal views over legal restraint, potentially undermining public trust in the Supreme Court.

The mainstream media has historically run cover for the Left. But times are changing.

Now The Washington Post betrayed the Democrat Party by demanding this investigation.

Washington Post Urges Investigation into Biden’s Health

The Washington Post editorial board on Thursday called for a thorough congressional investigation into former President Joe Biden’s health during his term, asserting that Americans “deserve” clarity on his physical and mental capacity while in office.

The board highlighted concerns raised during a House Oversight Committee hearing where Biden’s personal physician, Kevin O’Connor, invoked the Fifth Amendment multiple times when questioned about his tenure.

The Post emphasized the need for transparency, stating, “Congress should thoroughly investigate whether Biden was physically and mentally capable of carrying out his duties — and not just to sate understandable public curiosity about the previous administration.”

The editorial urged lawmakers to prioritize factual inquiry over partisan agendas to ensure public trust in government leadership.

Oversight Hearing Sparks Partisan Divide

The House Oversight Committee is examining whether Biden’s top aides concealed evidence of his mental and physical decline, a claim the aides have denied.

Republicans pointed to O’Connor’s refusal to testify as evidence of a potential cover-up, while Democrats labeled the hearing as exaggerated and dismissed concerns about Biden’s health as overblown.

The Post’s editorial board criticized both perspectives, stating, “Biden’s case is only the latest evidence that lawmakers should take on the difficult but unavoidable topic of whether to set transparency rules on presidential health.”

Reports of Biden forgetting aides’ names, relying on teleprompters for minor events, needing scripted cabinet meetings, and struggling with long work hours “raise legitimate concerns that Biden’s health threatened national security and continuity of government,” the board noted, calling for reforms to address such issues systematically.

Balancing Privacy and Public Accountability

The Post acknowledged the complexity of O’Connor’s position, noting his “ethical and legal obligations to protect private patient information” and concerns that the Justice Department could use his testimony against him.

However, the board suggested he could clarify whether “he ever felt pressure to sanitize his annual public reports on Biden’s health” without breaching confidentiality.

The editorial stressed that both parties must move beyond political posturing—Democrats by recognizing the issue’s importance and Republicans by focusing on substantive information rather than partisan attacks.

The Post concluded, “Lawmakers have a responsibility to carefully examine the matter and use their findings to consider reforms that would preserve Americans’ confidence in their leaders.”

The Left can’t catch a break. And that trend isn’t going to change.

Now a Democrat Congressman revealed who is targeting him in a bombshell revelation.

Torres Targeted for Pro-Israel Stance

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), a staunch supporter of Israel, confirmed on CNN Thursday that allies of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani are targeting him for a primary challenge due to his vocal defense of the Jewish state.

During a discussion with host Abby Phillip, conservative commentator Scott Jennings pressed Torres, asking, “Are you being honest when you say you don’t know why they’re targeting you?” Torres admitted, “I think they’re targeting me because I’m pro-Israel,” a sentiment Jennings affirmed, stating, “That’s 100 percent correct.”

The threats, backed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and other far-left groups supporting Mamdani’s recent primary win, highlight a divisive agenda that President Donald Trump has consistently opposed, emphasizing his unwavering support for Israel and allies like Torres who stand against antisemitism.

Mamdani’s Allies Fuel Democratic Discord

The controversy erupted after Phillip noted that Mamdani’s allies, including DSA leaders, have listed Torres, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), and other Democrats for potential primaries due to their pro-Israel positions.

Torres, responding to CNN’s Ana Navarro’s question about being labeled “establishment,” remarked, “For me, the lesson learned from Mamdani’s victory is that there is no Democratic establishment,” signaling the growing influence of radical factions.

Jennings praised Torres’ courage, stating, “He’s been courageous on this issue and he stood up to the wacko radicals in his party on this, and he deserves all the credit in the world for it.”

Mamdani’s platform, which critics link to anti-Israel rhetoric, risks alienating mainstream Democrats and bolstering Trump’s narrative of a unified America supporting key allies like Israel against divisive ideologies.

Torres’ Passionate Defense of Jewish Community

In a January 2024 speech at Central Synagogue in Manhattan, Torres condemned the celebration of Hamas’ October 7, 2023, massacre of 1,200 Israelis, stating:

“I found it utterly horrifying to see fellow Americans openly cheering and celebrating the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.”

He likened the reaction to historical atrocities, adding, “And for me, the aftermath of October 7 revealed the barbarity of the American heart that reminded me of an earlier and darker time in our nation’s history.”

Quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Elie Wiesel, Torres criticized the “appalling silence and indifference and cowardice” of leaders, declaring, “October 7 has been an awakening for the Jewish community, but it must be a reckoning for all of America.”

The Democrat Party is fracturing. And now they’re turning on each other.

Because House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries slammed a fellow Democrat for a shocking reason.

Escalating Tensions Within New York Democrats

The Democratic Party in New York City faces a growing rift as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the Working Families Party threaten primaries against prominent Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, following Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the June 2025 mayoral primary.

Jeffries’ team fired back, with senior adviser André Richardson labeling the DSA as “Team Gentrification” and warning, “If Team Gentrification wants a primary fight, our response will be forceful and unrelenting. We will teach them and all of their incumbents a painful lesson on June 23, 2026.”

This feud highlights the divisive tactics of far-left factions, whose aggressive posturing risks undermining Democratic unity and handing an advantage to President Donald Trump’s agenda as he advances policies prioritizing American strength and security.

Left-Wing Challenges Threaten Democratic Cohesion

The DSA’s push for primaries against Jeffries, Reps. Jerry Nadler, Yvette Clarke, and others stems from their claim that Jeffries’ leadership has created a “vacuum” filled by groups like the DSA, as stated by co-chair Gustavo Gordillo:

“His leadership has left a vacuum that organizations like DSA are filling.”

This rhetoric, coupled with Mamdani’s refusal to condemn “intifada” chants at past events, exposes a radical streak that alienates mainstream Democrats.

Rep. Ritchie Torres, who endorsed Andrew Cuomo for mayor, defended Jeffries, stating, “If you side against Jeffries, you’re doing the bidding of Donald Trump. You’re siding against the black political establishment in the US.”

Torres criticized the DSA’s “double standard” for pressuring Democrats to back Mamdani while failing to support Kamala Harris for president, revealing their inconsistent priorities that could weaken Democratic efforts to counter Trump’s legislative successes, like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Jeffries Stands Firm for American Priorities

As Mamdani faces Republican Curtis Sliwa, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and Mayor Eric Adams in the November 2025 general election, his campaign’s pressure on Democrats to align with his far-left platform has sparked backlash.

Brooklyn Assemblywoman Phara Souffrant Forrest, a DSA member, taunted Jeffries on X, saying, “Weird threat to make since Hakeem already went after @JabariBrisport and I. How’d that go for him, again?” while citing her and Brisport’s 2022 primary wins.

Yet, DNC member Robert Zimmerman condemned the DSA’s actions as “dangerously counterproductive and hypocritical,” arguing, “The choice is clear: Hakeem Jeffries as House Speaker or Donald Trump continuing to rule without any checks or balances on his power.”

America has power no one has ever seen before. And we’re not afraid to use it.

And now Trump slapped an existential threat on this foreign leader’s desk.

Bold Diplomacy for Global Stability

A new book, 2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, published Tuesday, reveals President Donald Trump’s assertive approach to foreign policy during his 2024 campaign.

According to the book, Trump told donors he issued stark warnings to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping against military aggression.

“I was with Putin and I told him, ‘Vladimir, if you do it, we’re going to bomb the s— out of Moscow,’” Trump declared, per an audio recording shared with CNN.

He added a similar warning to Xi:

“If you go into Taiwan, I’m going to bomb the s— out of Beijing.” These bold statements underscore Trump’s commitment to deterring global threats through strength, a cornerstone of his America First agenda that resonated with voters in his 2024 election victory.

Restoring American Leadership

The book, authored by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager, and Isaac Arnsdorf, highlights Trump’s leadership in preventing foreign conflicts during his first term, contrasting it with the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine under President Joe Biden.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly reinforced this, stating:

“As President Trump has said time and again, Russia never dared invade Ukraine when he was in office. It happened only when Biden was in office.” She emphasized, “Thanks to this President’s leadership, America is once again the leader of the free world, and peace through strength is restored.”

Trump’s decisive rhetoric, as detailed in the book, reflects his strategy of projecting power to maintain global stability, a key factor in his 2024 mandate to prioritize American interests.

Confronting Ongoing Challenges

Trump’s frustration with Putin has grown as he works to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict. During a Tuesday Cabinet meeting, he expressed exasperation, saying:

“We get a lot of bulls— thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.”

The President is considering new sanctions on Russia to pressure Putin into negotiations, showcasing his proactive stance on resolving international conflicts.

While the White House did not confirm the audio’s authenticity, the book’s account aligns with Trump’s track record of tough diplomacy, which continues to shape his administration’s efforts to secure peace and protect American sovereignty.

The rot runs deep in Washington, D.C. But it’s worse than many thought.

And now we know taxpayer dollars are being funneled for a sinister purpose you won’t believe.

Exposing Media Bias at PBS

A revealing study by the Media Research Center (MRC), released Tuesday, uncovered a stark 93% negative bias against Republicans and the Trump administration on the taxpayer-funded PBS program “Washington Week with The Atlantic” over the past three months.

Despite its claim of delivering “objective” political coverage, the program consistently skewed its narrative, dedicating 83 minutes to discussing Republicans—primarily President Trump and his administration—with 77 minutes of negative commentary and just six minutes positive.

The study, analyzing 13 episodes from April to June 2025, highlights a troubling departure from the balanced reporting PBS is mandated to provide, raising questions about the use of the $445 million in annual taxpayer funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Undermining Trump’s Achievements

The MRC report exposes how even President Trump’s clear successes, like the decisive strike on Iran’s nuclear program, were met with 82% unfavorable coverage on the program.

Trump’s immigration policies, a cornerstone of his administration’s border security advancements, faced unrelenting 100% negative coverage, ignoring significant progress in this area.

Moderator Jeffrey Goldberg set an anti-Trump tone from the start, with introductions like:

“Most presidents wait until they leave the White House to cash in. President Trump takes a different approach. Crypto deals, hotels, golf courses, 747s, everything is on the table.”

The panel, dominated by left-leaning outlets like The New York Times, which sent six reporters, included only one representative from a non-liberal outlet, The Dispatch, who echoed the harsh anti-Trump sentiment, further skewing the discourse.

Failing the Taxpayer Mandate

PBS’s congressional charter demands “strict adherence to objectivity and balance,” yet the MRC study argues this standard is grossly unmet.

Inflammatory remarks from panelists, such as PBS News Hour’s Laura Barron-Lopez claiming the administration “repeatedly emboldened extremists and used hate speech to talk about their political enemies” and that “normalizing the populace to political violence is a trait of authoritarianism,” underscore the program’s bias.

While Republican topics were heavily scrutinized, Democratic coverage was nearly nonexistent, with only 61 seconds outside a May 23 special episode on the Biden campaign exposé “Original Sin,” which detailed the cover-up of President Biden’s cognitive decline.

This imbalance betrays the trust of American taxpayers, who fund PBS regardless of political affiliation, and calls for greater accountability to ensure fair and balanced reporting.

The times are changing. And it’s happening quicker than you think.

Now the IRS reversed a decades-long rule that changes everything.

Championing Religious Freedom

On Monday, the IRS made a bold move to empower religious institutions by lifting a decades-old restriction, allowing places of worship to endorse political candidates without fear of losing their tax-exempt status.

This historic shift, driven by President Donald Trump’s commitment to religious liberty, settles a lawsuit from two Texas churches and a Christian broadcasters’ association.

The IRS, alongside the plaintiffs, urged a federal judge to ensure that the Trump administration and future administrations refrain from enforcing the outdated ban, as reported by the New York Times.

“Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,” the IRS stated in a joint court filing, framing endorsements as a private expression of faith.

Reforming the Johnson Amendment

The decision reinterprets the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 tax code provision that previously barred tax-exempt organizations, including churches and nonprofits, from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

Violating this rule once risked stripping institutions of their tax-exempt status, though enforcement was rare.

President Trump has long championed overturning this restriction, declaring in 2017 his intent to “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment.

The IRS’s new stance aligns with Trump’s vision, ensuring religious groups can freely express their values without government overreach.

By clarifying that endorsements during religious services are private matters, the IRS strengthens the constitutional protections for faith communities, a move celebrated by supporters of religious freedom.

Balancing Liberty and Concerns

While this change marks a victory for religious liberty, the National Council of Nonprofits, representing 30,000 organizations, raised concerns about potential misuse.

Diane Yentel, the group’s president, warned that the move could allow political operatives to exploit nonprofit status for campaign finance advantages, stating, “not about religion or free speech, but about radically altering campaign finance laws.”

Despite these concerns, the policy shift reflects Trump’s broader agenda to prioritize free speech and religious expression, ensuring faith-based organizations can engage in political discourse without fear of punitive tax consequences.

America and China are gearing up for a showdown. And it isn’t going to be pretty.

Because China sent a list of demands to Trump that isn’t going to end well.

Setting Conditions for a Summit: China’s Taiwan Stance

A potential summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping hinges on delicate diplomatic negotiations, with China emphasizing U.S. policy on Taiwan as a critical factor.

According to Wu Xinbo, a Chinese official and advisor to the Foreign Ministry, any visit by Trump to China would require clarity on the U.S. stance toward Taiwan, highlighting the complexities of U.S.-China relations.

China’s Demands and Diplomatic Preparations

Wu Xinbo, dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, outlined Beijing’s expectations during a Beijing peace forum, stating:

“Trump has to clarify the U.S. position on this very important issue when he comes to China. Without that, I don’t think his visit will be successful.”

He stressed that Trump must affirm the U.S. does not support Taiwan’s formal independence, a position China views as non-negotiable given its claim over the island.

Wu also urged urgency in summit preparations, noting, “If we are going to make this happen, we need to make preparations as soon as possible, and time is running out.”

He proposed advancing discussions on trade, fentanyl, and diplomatic contacts, suggesting a meeting between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a neutral country to lay the groundwork.

Broader Context: Tensions and Opportunities

The prospect of a summit follows Trump’s Truth Social post last month, where he shared, “As Presidents of two Great Nations, this is something that we both look forward to doing,” after Xi invited him and First Lady Melania to China. Trump reciprocated with an invitation to Xi.

However, Taiwan remains a flashpoint, with China’s Foreign Ministry accusing the U.S. of supporting independence after a February 2025 State Department fact sheet revision, prompting large-scale military drills.

Spokesperson Mao Ning called the revision “another egregious example of the [United States’] intention of using Taiwan to contain China,” though the U.S. clarified it opposed unilateral changes to the status quo.

Wu’s call for progress on trade, fentanyl, and diplomatic ties aligns with Trump’s campaign pledges, including enforcing a $50 billion agriculture deal and pressing China on fentanyl trafficking, as he vowed, “President Trump has also said that Communist China will not invade Taiwan on his watch.”

Whether they want to admit it or not, the Left doesn’t care about securing the border. Now it’s not up to them

Because Tom Homan unveiled a massive overhaul at the Southern Border that left Democrats fuming.

Bolstering Border Security: Trump’s Ambitious Deportation Drive

Under President Donald Trump’s steadfast leadership, his administration’s “border czar,” Tom Homan, has unveiled an aggressive plan to ramp up Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, targeting at least 7,000 illegal immigrant arrests daily—a figure more than double the current quota.

This bold initiative, empowered by the passage of the transformative One Big Beautiful Bill, underscores Trump’s unwavering commitment to reversing the open-border policies of the Biden era and restoring law and order to America’s immigration system.

With unprecedented budget increases and a clear mandate, the administration is poised to achieve historic success in securing the nation’s borders.

A Robust Response to Past Failures: Homan’s Call to Action

Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Monday, Homan emphasized the urgency of the expanded deportation campaign, stating:

“And for those that say 3,000 a day is too much, I want to remind them, do the math, we have to arrest 7,000 every single day for the remainder of this administration just to catch the ones Biden released into the nation.”

This resolute stance reflects the administration’s determination to address the surge of illegal immigrants released under the previous administration.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, signed into law by President Trump on July 4, allocates significant funding to hire 10,000 new ICE officers and double detention capacity, equipping the agency to execute this ambitious goal.

The bill’s passage has already “turbocharged” Trump’s deportation efforts, as Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told The Post, building on a remarkable 93% drop in border encounters and an 85% reduction in apprehensions since January 2025.

Empowering Enforcement: Trump’s Vision for a Secure America

The One Big Beautiful Bill, a nearly 900-page legislative triumph, has provided ICE with a massive budget boost, enabling the hiring of 10,000 additional officers and expanding detention facilities to accommodate the increased arrests.

White House adviser Stephen Miller’s push for 3,000 daily arrests has already strained existing capacity, prompting Homan’s call for an even more aggressive target to tackle the backlog left by Biden’s lax policies.

Starting with a quota of 1,800 arrests per day in January 2025, the administration raised expectations in May, and the new 7,000-arrest goal reflects Trump’s unrelenting focus on restoring order.

Coupled with a 93% plunge in border encounters, an 85% reduction in apprehensions, and zero releases under programs like CBP One and CHNV, these efforts highlight the administration’s extraordinary success in curbing illegal immigration and combating drug trafficking, with 1,029 pounds of fentanyl seized since Trump took office.

Trump and Musk have been at each other’s throats. But this is a watershed moment.

Because Elon Musk threw his hat in the ring with a third party announcement.

Shaking Up the System: Musk’s Risky Venture with the America Party

Elon Musk, the controversial tech billionaire and X platform owner, has launched a new political endeavor called the America Party, a move that threatens to fracture the unified Republican front that President Donald Trump has painstakingly built.

Announced on Saturday via X, Musk’s party claims to challenge a “corrupt” two-party system that he argues fails the American people.

However, his timing and approach raise concerns among conservatives who fear this third-party effort could siphon votes from the GOP, inadvertently empowering Democrats and undermining the momentum of Trump’s agenda, which recently culminated in the passage of a landmark legislative package.

A Divisive Poll: Musk’s Questionable Mandate for Change

The genesis of the America Party traces back to a July 4 poll Musk posted on X, asking whether voters sought “independence” from the two-party system, which he derisively labeled a “uniparty.”

Garnering over 1.2 million votes, with 65.4% favoring a new party, Musk proclaimed, “By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it.” He positioned the America Party as a solution to a system he claims is “bankrupting our country with waste & graft,” promising to restore democratic integrity.

Yet, the poll’s informal nature, open to non-American voters and susceptible to bots, casts doubt on its legitimacy as a mandate.

Critics argue that Musk’s initiative, while cloaked in populist rhetoric, risks diluting the conservative vote at a time when Trump’s leadership has galvanized the GOP, securing historic voter support and congressional majorities.

This move could jeopardize the party’s ability to maintain its dominance, especially as it builds on Trump’s recent legislative successes.

A Risky Gambit: Threatening Trump’s Republican Unity

Musk’s announcement follows closely on the heels of President Trump’s signing of a transformative $3.3 trillion bill, encompassing tax cuts, infrastructure investments, and stimulus measures—a legislative victory that has solidified GOP unity but drawn scrutiny from fiscal conservatives worried about rising deficits.

While Musk avoids directly referencing the bill, his critique of government spending suggests a broader dissatisfaction that could resonate with some Trump supporters. However, his decision to launch a third party, rather than work within the GOP to push for reform, has sparked alarm.

Commentators like Shawn Farash warn, “Your third party will disproportionately take votes from the right vs the left and give the left an easier path to power,” while Joey Mannarino advocates for strengthening the GOP from within.

Historical third-party efforts, such as Ross Perot’s 1992 campaign, which garnered 19% of the popular vote but no Electoral College wins, highlight the structural barriers Musk faces.

With Trump’s unprecedented success in unifying Republicans—evidenced by his record-breaking vote share and the GOP’s congressional control—Musk’s America Party risks being a divisive distraction, potentially weakening the conservative movement at a critical juncture.

The country is divided. There’s no telling where we all may end up.

And now US Supreme Court Justice Alito’s dire warning for America came to fruition.

Alito’s Warning Shapes Legal Battles Over Trump Policies

Justice Samuel Alito’s concurring opinion in Trump v. CASA has cast a shadow over ongoing lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s policies, as he highlighted a “potentially significant loophole” in the Supreme Court’s recent decision to limit universal injunctions.

Alito cautioned that class action lawsuits and state-led litigation could effectively bypass the court’s ruling, allowing judges to issue rulings with nationwide impact under different guises. He urged, “Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools.”

This concern comes as district courts issue broad rulings, raising questions about judicial overreach and the balance between legal challenges and Trump’s agenda to strengthen border security and federal authority.

Class Action Loophole in Focus

In a significant ruling on Monday, June 30, 2025, Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee in Washington, D.C., struck down Trump’s proclamation labeling the U.S. border situation an “invasion,” which restricted migrants’ ability to claim asylum.

Moss, citing the Administrative Procedure Act, “set aside” the policy, a decision functionally akin to a nationwide injunction.

The lawsuit, brought by over a dozen potential asylees, was certified as a class action applying to all potential asylees nationwide, prompting immediate pushback from the Trump administration.

Attorney General Pam Bondi called Moss a “rogue district court judge” who was “already trying to circumvent the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against nationwide injunctions.”

Alito’s warning in Trump v. CASA emphasized that such class actions must strictly adhere to Rule 23, stating, “District courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23,” lest they revive universal injunctions as “nationwide class relief.”

State-Led Lawsuits and Judicial Scrutiny

Alito also flagged the potential for state-led lawsuits to undermine the Supreme Court’s ruling, noting that Democrat-led states have filed multiple challenges to Trump’s policies, including his immigration crackdowns.

He warned that granting statewide injunctions could exempt entire state populations from federal policies, giving states “every incentive to bring third-party suits on behalf of their residents to obtain a broader scope of equitable relief than any individual resident could procure in his own suit.”

Alito stressed that “left unchecked, the practice of reflexive state third-party standing will undermine today’s decision as a practical matter.”

As Trump’s administration, which has reduced illegal border crossings by 93.1% in June 2025, faces these legal battles, Alito’s call for rigorous judicial oversight underscores the need to balance policy enforcement with fair legal processes, ensuring courts do not overstep their authority.