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
Federal judges in both New York and Texas have blocked the deportations of Venezuelan men likely to be deported under the Trump administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act ... read more
The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a pair of orders by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had barred the government from removing noncitizens who are designated as members of a Venezuelan gang under a March 15 executive order issued by President Donald Trump. read more
... 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.
Seems apropos here. The Situation: They Just Can't Help Themselves
Why does the administration keep picking First Amendment fights it can't possibly win?
This is nothing new. I dropped my membership in the 90's due to their social and political rhetoric.
It's really strange to see what you think is legit. Google of the URL you posted at 95. It has zero to do with Crown Land which is a legal fiction. www.google.com
You still ain't figured out the linking thingy. Dumba**.
Are you done? Or, do you care to demonstrate more of your stupid?
I hope this helps[sic]
There is nothing you can help me with. But let me help you.
intimate
verb [ T ] formal
us /n.t'.met/ uk /n.t.met/
to make clear what you think or want without saying it directly:
[ + (that) ] She has intimated that she will resign if she loses the vote.
dictionary.cambridge.org
And you didn't cite s**t, original source of otherwise. You simply posted a random paragraph from who know where.
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.