On June 6, 2025, the federal government initiated immigration raids across the City of Los Angeles. Protests swiftly followed, and some individuals involved in those protests were unruly and even violent. State and local law enforcement responded. The following day, President Trump ordered that members of the California National Guard be federalized, and thereupon assumed control of those forces.
At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not. His actions were illegal"both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.
A federal jury and judge acquitted a 21-year-old woman from Peru on Thursday of illegally entering a national defense area and military reservation after she crossed the Rio Grande from Mexico into Texas last month, in what lawyers say is the first trial of an immigrant since the Trump administration declared parts of the New Mexico and Texas border as a military zone. read more
This afternoon, the Supreme Court granted an application for an injunction against the federal government barring the summary removal of Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA) under the Alien Enemies Act. read more
#7
You really should cite your source. www.lawfaremedia.org
Btw, the "report" and this "investigation" are but another example of the Buffoon Buffooning. www.lawfaremedia.org
#65 | Posted by BillJohnson
Your ignorance of the law is no excuse. Officially, i.e legally, finding that the Buffoon engaged in insurrection does not require a criminal court. The USSC ruling was about who decides qualification not who decides the predicate facts.
The court did not reach some of the other issues that Trump had urged them to decide in his brief on the merits " such as whether Trump "engaged in insurrection" on Jan. 6.www.scotusblog.com
Unlike your nonfactual personal opinions about mail ballots, to which you are entitled, that does not work with matters of law. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.
#28 It was not officially declared that Trump "staged a coup."
In the case of Anderson v. Griswold a Colorado state trial court, following a 5 cay trial in which the Buffoon participated, "found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection ..." on J6. (pdf p.8) As a result the Colorado Supreme Court declared the Buffoon ineligible to run for the Presidency pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment section 3. law.justia.com The USSC reversed holding only Congress can disqualify. The factual finding of "insurrection" was not challenged and remains valid.
Insurrection synonym coup. www.merriam-webster.com
There's a docuseries out there that I watched ... Yeah, there seems to be. www.google.com
I generally don't watch those. I'm more interested in what is presented on appeal. Docuseries sensationalism ain't my thang.
... universities were doing this in Texas, and it was halted immediately after the DOJ filed suit.
Yeah, in like six hours. Can you say "collusion?" www.texastribune.org
#3 | Posted by ScottS
The search was about safety not a killer.
Anti-abortion voices love to argue that they're not trying to control women, they're trying to protect women. Funnily enough this same talking point came up in this case. Sheriff Adam King of Johnson county, Texas, told 404 Media that the woman had self-administered the abortion "and her family was worried that she was going to bleed to death, and we were trying to find her to get her to a hospital." He added: "We weren't trying to block her from leaving the state or whatever to get an abortion. It was about her safety." (emphasis added)drudge.com
This is the second injunction against the order. Another court entered one is April. www.votebeat.org Other challenges are pending.
#1
Where do you get this cockamamie s**t? Fetal person-hood only exists as a fiction created by statute in a few states. I'm not aware of any court upholding the standing of a fetus to sue.