In a landmark 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on so-called gender-affirming care for minors. Wednesday’s ruling in United States v. Skrmetti affirms the state’s authority to protect children from irreversible medical interventions, declaring that such laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 prohibits medical providers from prescribing puberty blockers, administering cross-sex hormones, or performing surgeries on minors for the purpose of treating gender dysphoria. With this ruling, the court established a powerful precedent, strengthening similar laws in more than two dozen states and shielding them from federal interference.
The Supreme Court now affirms what parents, pastors, and pediatricians have known for years: Children deserve protection — not ideological exploitation.
This is more than a legal or political victory. It’s a profoundly spiritual one.
The timing of the court’s decision — handed down in the middle of Pride Month — is impossible to ignore. For years, the month of June has been co-opted to celebrate sexual perversion and radical gender ideology. Parades, corporate campaigns, and cultural rituals now elevate confusion and self-expression above truth and morality.
But God’s timing often intersects with the idols of a wayward culture.
Just as He once shattered the authority of Egypt’s gods through plagues and humiliated the pagan deities of Canaan through Israel’s victories, He now confronts the false gods of modern America. The gods of Pride Month have names: self-worship, mutilation, and moral relativism.
This ruling, like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization before it, arrived in a season when the world celebrates rebellion. But God never abdicates. He acts — often decisively.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in concurrence, emphasized the state’s legitimate interest in protecting children from unproven and dangerous procedures. “States could reasonably conclude,” he wrote, “that the level of young children's cognitive and emotional development inhibits their ability to consent to sex-transition treatments.”
Thomas reminded the nation that legislatures — not courts — are charged with protecting the vulnerable. The Constitution allows states to say no to radical experiments on children. That’s common sense. That’s moral responsibility.
RELATED: Matt Walsh’s crusade pays off: SCOTUS protects Tennessee kids from gender mutilation
The court’s ruling also reinforces policies advanced by the Trump administration, which has taken steps to push back against transgender mandates. The court now affirms what parents, pastors, and pediatricians have known for years: Children deserve protection — not ideological exploitation.
At its core, this decision defends “the least of these" (Matthew 25:40). In Matthew 10:42, Jesus declares, “And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones ... truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”
Advocates of transgender medicine call their approach “compassionate.” But compassion doesn’t mutilate. It doesn’t sterilize. It doesn’t tell children they were born in the wrong body.
Real compassion tells children the truth: They are fearfully and wonderfully made. God knit them together in their mother’s wombs (Psalm 139:13-14). He doesn’t make mistakes.
The lie that “God got your body wrong” devastates young minds. Puberty blockers, double mastectomies, and genital surgeries don’t bring peace. They usher in trauma, regret, and permanent damage.
By upholding these bans, the Supreme Court gives children the gift of time — time to grow, to mature, and to embrace their God-given identities without the pressure of irreversible decisions.
Now comes the charge to the church. This moment demands courage.
American culture has erected new high places. Gender ideology sits at the top. It demands worship, conformity, and silence. But like King Josiah, who tore down the altars of Baal, or Gideon, who smashed the Asherah poles, Christians must act.
Now is not the time for retreat. Now is not the time for timidity. The culture may roar, but the God of heaven still rules.
The Supreme Court’s ruling reminds believers that God still moves. He has not abandoned America. He still defends the innocent. He still topples idols.
Galatians 6:9 tells us not to grow weary in doing good. This ruling is the harvest of those who prayed, labored, and stood firm when the world called them hateful. Their perseverance bore fruit — in law, in policy, and in culture.
Let this be a turning point.
Let this be the moment when the nation remembers who created it. Let this be the moment when the church reclaims its voice. Let this be the moment when truth reasserts itself — and children are protected from those who would harm them in the name of progress.
America is not forsaken. God is still at work, and His purposes will prevail.Backed by nearly 200 groups with billions of dollars in collective resources, the No Kings protests on June 14 aimed to reignite defeated Democrats by mobilizing them against President Donald Trump. Yet, the rallies fell flat, with over 98% of Americans staying home, revealing a discouraged progressive base struggling to find footing.
No Kings' organizers touted the nationwide rallies as a triumph, celebrating a turnout of about five million, according to the unconfirmed best estimates of the American Civil Liberties Union.
'Today's protests are a resounding message that people across the nation will not be intimidated by President Trump's fear tactics.'
However, against the backdrop of such immense investments, the attendance revealed the left's widespread protest fatigue and lack of direction, with most Americans paying little attention to the gatherings.
No Kings aims to mobilize 3.5% of the U.S. population. However, its well-funded and meticulously organized Saturday protests reached just under 1.5% by its own estimates.
RELATED: Soros-tied No Kings protesters plot to sabotage US Army's 250th anniversary parade
"We're inspired by the 3.5% principle: It only takes 3.5% of the population engaging in sustained, strategic protest against authoritarianism to achieve significant political change. Everything we do from here on out is grounded in three core commitments: staying in the fight, taking concrete action today, and investing in the long-term," the No Kings website reads.
The ACLU, one of the No Kings' many sponsors, hailed the rallies as a success, noting that it was the "largest mass mobilization since President Trump's return to office," with 2,100 rallies held across the nation.
ACLU Chief Political & Advocacy Officer Deirdre Schifeling stated, "Today's protests are a resounding message that people across the nation will not be intimidated by President Trump's fear tactics."
RELATED: Leftist No Kings event in Arizona draws older crowd with patriotic symbols
Ahead of the scheduled protests on Saturday, Blaze News senior politics editor Christopher Bedford highlighted the No Kings' broader effort to once again inspire and mobilize the rudderless Democratic Party.
"Everything you're seeing now — from the senator from California lunging through agents at the Secretary of Homeland Security, the rioting in Los Angeles, or the congresswoman allegedly assaulting a police officer in New Jersey — all of these things are intentional provocations in the hopes of setting something off and triggering an overreaction because they can't get their own grassroots motivated," Bedford stated.
No Kings plans to host a virtual meeting Monday evening to discuss the next steps for "building a movement" as it seeks to create sustained, nationwide momentum.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
As President Donald Trump's administration prepares a grand and patriotic 250th anniversary celebration for the U.S. Army, George Soros-funded progressive activists are plotting a meticulously organized counterprotest to politicize the military milestone.
The White House has stated that the Grand Military Parade scheduled for June 14 in Washington, D.C., aims to "celebrate the legacy of the Army and express our deepest gratitude to those who have served and continue to serve in its ranks."
'That AFL-CIO is openly involved in sponsoring the No Kings rally should raise extreme concerns as to the rally's true purpose.'
"For 250 years, the U.S. Army has defended our nation, upheld the ideals of freedom and democracy, and served with courage at home and abroad. From the Revolutionary War to today, the Army's soldiers have embodied duty, honor, and sacrifice, ensuring the security of the United States and its people," the administration's America 250 website reads.
Despite this tribute to military service and national unity, progressive activists backed by wealthy donors and taxpayer-funded groups are orchestrating a nationwide protest to overshadow the Army's milestone with an anti-Trump agenda.
The Indivisible Project, a progressive organization formed in 2016 to counter Trump, and its "pro-democracy partner organizations" announced in early May a nationwide effort to protest the Army's parade.
With thousands of events registered across the U.S., the demonstration, dubbed the "No Kings Nationwide Day of Defiance," aims to steal the spotlight from the historic celebration by mobilizing against "corrupt, authoritarian politics."
The No Kings movement has framed the patriotic event as Trump's "self-aggrandizing $100 million birthday celebration," claiming the president is attempting to use the parade to flex his authoritarian power on the world stage.
However, that framing is misleading, as the parade's date coincides with multiple events: Trump's 79th birthday, the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, and Flag Day.
When asked about the No Kings protests, Trump responded, “I don't feel like a king. I have to go through hell to get stuff approved.”
The No Kings movement has used alarmism to rally progressives against Trump, spreading unsubstantiated allegations that his administration is guilty of grave abuses, including suppressing free speech, detaining political opponents, threatening to deport American citizens, defying the court, and "disappear[ing] people off the streets."
"President Trump has already indicated that he's aiming for at least a third term," a No Kings host toolkit reads.
The No Kings movement is mobilizing its base with an exaggerated narrative that casts Trump as a menacing authoritarian dictator wielding unchecked power, painting him as a threat that demands urgent action to halt his perceived tyranny.
'All people who show up with guns are not going to be our enemies, and everybody who shows up with one is not going to be at an elevated risk for using their weapon.'
Beyond portraying the military parade as Trump's personal birthday celebration, No Kings is strategically avoiding staging protests in the D.C. area, instead hoping to draw attention away from the parade's venue.
Reclaiming the American flag is key for the movement to succeed in counterprogramming the Army's anniversary event. Those participating in the protests were encouraged to bring the American flag to "reclaim this symbol and remind the world that the freedom we stand for is freedom for all."
RELATED: 250 years after the British invaded my hometown
The massive coordinated effort further fuels concerns that the recent protests, including those that led to destructive and violent riots in Los Angeles, are funded by activist organizations and left-wing groups with deep pockets.
While Indivisible Project claims it is a "grassroots" movement, advertising the No Kings protests as a "march against authoritarian politics and billionaire takeover," it relies on vast sums from left-leaning tycoons notorious for manipulating elections and movements. These considerable grants and donations enable it to organize the large-scale and synchronized rally while disguising its elite-driven agenda as a people-powered revolt.
Indivisible Project's most recent tax filings reveal that the group reported $12.6 million in revenue in 2023. Indivisible Civics, another 501(c)(3) under Indivisible's mission, reported $5.1 million in revenue in 2023. Combined, the two organizations have over $11 million in assets.
Further shattering Indivisible's "grassroots" claims, George Soros' Open Society Foundations has heavily funded the group, providing $7.2 million in grants since 2018, including $3 million in 2023.
DataRepublican has also linked No Kings' funding to the ACLU and its various local chapters.
Likewise, several local branches of the AFL-CIO, a massive labor union, sponsored the No Kings rallies, including in Minnesota, where Governor Tim Walz is slated to speak, and Kentucky. The AFL-CIO has received millions of dollars in taxpayer funds yearly. The AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center reported receiving $69 million in federal grants in 2023 and another $59 million in 2022.
"AFL-CIO is one of the key taxpayer-funded organizations in effecting regime change all over the world," DataRepublican warned. "That AFL-CIO is openly involved in sponsoring the No Kings rally should raise extreme concerns as to the rally's true purpose."
No Kings' reliance on billionaire backers exposes its hypocrisy, crusading against elite control while embodying the wealth-driven influence it claims to oppose.
RELATED: Billionaire Walmart heiress funds anti-Trump chaos, backs radical 'No Kings' protests
Since announcing the protests on May 6, in just over one month, the Indivisible Project and its partners have put together a highly structured plan for the demonstrations, including hosting regularly scheduled virtual meetings with volunteer protesters leading up to the rallies, assigning individuals to take on specific roles during the demonstrations, and providing numerous training and media assets.
Those who signed up to partake in the protests, particularly those volunteering to lead in any capacity, are provided with links to "Know Your Rights Training" hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union, "Safety and Deescalation Training," "Media and Messaging Training," and a 32-page "Peacekeeper Training Workbook."
Protest "hosts" are also provided with an 18-page "toolkit" and a help hotline available 12 hours a day from June 11 through June 14.
A No Kings team reviews and approves each scheduled event within 48 to 72 hours of the initial request. The group anticipates over 2,000 protests across the nation with millions of attendees.
Protesters are assigned to detailed roles for the demonstrations — acting as hosts, safety leads, police liaisons, peacekeepers, and media speakers — and provided coaching on how to show up to the event and respond to various situations.
No Kings' virtual training meetings revealed a sophisticated level of organization.
During a No Kings' "Host Update Call + Marshals Training" meeting on Wednesday evening, organizers provided de-escalation role-play scenarios to teach protesters how to handle hecklers, counterprotesters, and even "somebody on our side" who may try to "incite violent action" by bringing "paint balloons or rocks so that they can encourage other people to throw things."
The presenters also discussed the possibility of protesters and counterprotesters bringing firearms to the demonstrations in open-carry states.
"In an open carry state, you're going to have to really watch how people are showing up. Are they aggravated? Are they wearing a T-shirt that says 'Indivisible' on it? It's going to be subjective," Nadine Bloch, an executive training conductor with Beautiful Trouble, stated on the training call. "All people who show up with guns are not going to be our enemies, and everybody who shows up with one is not going to be at an elevated risk for using their weapon."
'Peaceful protests are part of the fabric of our nation, but Texas will not tolerate the lawlessness we have seen in Los Angeles in response to President Donald Trump's enforcement of immigration law.'
Also during the training call, Stephen Piggott with Princeton University's Bridging Divides Initiative addressed the potential for the presence of counterprotesters.
"We want to emphasize that recent anti-administration protests have remained peaceful, with only isolated incidents of conflict and minimal counterprotester activity. We looked at data from the two most recent nationwide protest days, May Day and the April 5 Hands Off protests. And we found that 99% of these protests — so 1,029 out of the 1,031 — saw no reports of violence or destruction," Piggott stated.
"Only about 4% of those protests — so about 36 of them — actually involved counterdemonstrations or counterprotests," he continued.
He claimed this year's protests have been "very peaceful" with "really not a whole lot of counterdemonstration activity."
Piggott further noted that "actors of concern," such as the Proud Boys and militia groups, have had decreased "offline activity" compared to last year. However, he noted such actors are "paying a bit more attention to the No Kings protest" following the "events in L.A. over the past week."
"What we are not seeing at all is widespread calls from actors of concern to mobilize in response to this weekend," he added.
Although the No Kings movement condemns violence, their training on managing “instigators” reveals organizers’ concerns about disruptions from their own supporters, not conservative "actors of concern," who, as Piggott noted, are less likely to mobilize.
RELATED: Florida sheriff makes clear to radicals that riots won't go their way: 'We will kill you'
Legacy media outlets have bolstered No Kings' narrative, depicting the Army's 250th anniversary parade as Trump's authoritarian birthday spectacle and sidelining its patriotic ties to military history and Flag Day.
Following destructive anti-immigration enforcement riots in Los Angeles last week, which saw widespread property damage and arrests, No Kings' timing and the media's amplification of the movement's narrative raise fears of similar escalation.
'If any person assaults a federal law enforcement officer, they risk being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.'
While the No Kings organizers have repeatedly condemned violence and rioting, others are convinced the gathering, particularly given the large scale of demonstrations, will devolve into lawlessness, raising questions about how Indivisible and its partner organizations plan to prevent such chaos at all of their events.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) is one of the many who believe the demonstrations could result in destruction and violence similar to that which occurred in Los Angeles.
In preparation for the mass gatherings, Abbott announced earlier this week that he would deploy Texas National Guard troops to specific locations in the state to "ensure peace and order."
On Thursday, Abbott deployed over 5,000 Texas National Guard troops and 2,000 state police to prevent potential unrest, following clashes between protesters and law enforcement in Austin and Dallas earlier this week that led to roughly a dozen arrests.
"Peaceful protests are part of the fabric of our nation, but Texas will not tolerate the lawlessness we have seen in Los Angeles in response to President Donald Trump's enforcement of immigration law," Abbott declared. "Anyone engaging in acts of violence or damaging property will be arrested and held accountable to the full extent of the law."
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson told Blaze News, "ICE respects the constitutional right of people to peacefully protest; however, assaulting, resisting, impeding, or harassing ICE officers and special agents or interfering in any way as they are executing their official duty is against the law. If any person assaults a federal law enforcement officer, they risk being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Blaze News senior politics editor Christopher Bedford revealed the broader progressive tactic.
"Everything you're seeing now — from the senator from California lunging through agents at the Secretary of Homeland Security, the rioting in Los Angeles, or the congresswoman assaulting a police officer in New Jersey — all of these things are intentional provocations in the hopes of setting something off and triggering an overreaction because they can't get their own grassroots motivated," Bedford stated.
No Kings, the Indivisible Project, the AFL-CIO, and the ACLU did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Ten illegal aliens facing transfer from Texas to a holding facility at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on March 1. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, claimed that the "arbitrary and capricious" transfers violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment's due process clause, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, and requested a stay.
In the time since, seven of the plaintiffs have been sent packing, including Maiker Espinoza Escalona, who was identified by the Department of Homeland Security as a lieutenant of the Venezuelan terrorist gang Tren de Aragua. The remaining plaintiffs threw in the towel on Thursday, indicating they "no longer wish to continue litigating this case."
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, chief among the defendants named in the lawsuit, had a two-word response to the voluntary dismissal of the action: "Suck it."
— (@)
While some online responded positively to the taunt, calling it "based," others, particularly critics on the left, characterized the Homeland Security secretary's message — which appeared on her official government account on X — as "cruel," "classless," and "disgraceful."
'How evil and depraved.'
Former Biden DHS spokesman Alex Howard wrote, "If we're lucky, it'll only take years to undo the damage Kristi Noem has inflicted on DHS, its workforce, and its reputation in just four months. This behavior is beneath the office and an embarrassment to the institution."
RELATED: Trump's truth about 'due process' has the left melting down
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, was among those who expressed disbelief, writing, "This is the official account of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security of the United States."
"This is real," whined Ron Filipkowski, the editor in chief of the anti-Trump publication MeidasTouch News.
One user concluded, "They are the worst of us."
"This is DHS Secretary Kristi Noem saying 'suck it' in celebration over deporting people to El Salvador without due process," tweeted Democratic propagandist Harry Sisson. "She's celebrating constitutional rights being ignored. How evil and depraved."
Blaze News has reached out to a spokesman for Noem for comment.
As the plaintiffs taunted by Noem voluntarily dismissed the case "without prejudice," they could refile in the future; however, the government doesn't appear to think they have legs to stand on.
Attorneys for the government argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit; the court lacked jurisdiction to stay the government's exercise of discretion to send an illegal alien to "an appropriate place of detention"; the plaintiffs' claims were improperly venued in the District Court for the District of Columbia as they had never been held in the district; and Noem has the statutory authority to send immigration detainees to Guantánamo.
'Very thankful that they are off the streets of the United States and that we have safer communities.'
President Donald Trump issued a memorandum on Jan. 29 directing Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth "to take all appropriate actions to expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay to full capacity to provide additional detention space for high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States."
RELATED: Vance defends use of Alien Enemies Act, calls out meddlesome judges
The stated aim of this initiative was "to halt the border invasion, dismantle criminal cartels, and restore national sovereignty."
The Pentagon established Joint Task Force Southern Guard to work with the DHS to fulfill Trump's order.
A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Reuters there were roughly 70 illegal aliens presently detained at Guantánamo.
Noem told CNN talking head Dana Bash during a February interview at Guantánamo Bay that the individuals transported to the base "are the worst of the worst that we pulled off of our streets. ... Murderers, rapists."
"When I was there, I was able to watch one of the flights landing and them unload about 15 different of these criminals. Those were mainly child pedophiles, those that were out there trafficking children, trafficking drugs, and were pulled off of our streets and put at this facility," continued Noem. "Very thankful that they are off the streets of the United States and that we have safer communities."
The secretary noted further that efforts were underway to accommodate 30,000 detainees.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
We thought the Supreme Court had finally purged anti-religious discrimination from Establishment Clause jurisprudence. After years of confusion — conflating the ban on state-sponsored religion with an invented mandate to scrub faith from public life — the Court, through a series of rulings on religious schools and public funding, had restored sanity. It returned the law to its pre-Warren era understanding: Equal treatment of religion does not violate the Constitution.
Yet, here we are again.
Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.
In a move that stunned observers, Oklahoma’s own Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond and the state supreme court now argue that states cannot recognize religious charter schools.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. The case centers on St. Isidore, a Catholic online school seeking to join Oklahoma’s charter school system. Drummond contends the school’s religious affiliation disqualifies it. He sued the state charter board — a move usually made by the ACLU or militant secularist groups.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with him. The court claimed that granting charter status to a Catholic school would violate the First Amendment by effectively establishing Catholicism as a state religion. Justices labeled charter schools “state actors” and argued that any religious affiliation disqualifies a school from public recognition.
This logic turns the First Amendment on its head. The Constitution does not require hostility toward religion. It requires neutrality. Denying a religious school access to a public benefit — simply because it is religious — violates precedent.
Oklahoma’s Charter Schools Act permits any “private college or university, private person, or private organization” to apply for state funding to open a charter school. Excluding religious applicants contradicts not one but three major Supreme Court rulings.
In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc v. Comer (2017), the court ruled that excluding a religious school from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified “solely because it is a church” is “odious to our Constitution.” That case involved a grant for playground resurfacing. If states can’t deny rubber mulch, they can’t deny full charter status.
In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), a 5-4 majority held that state constitutions barring aid to religious institutions over secular ones violates the Free Exercise Clause. Public benefits, the Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized, cannot be denied “solely because of the religious character of the schools.”
Then came Carson v. Makin (2022), where Maine tried to distinguish between religious status and religious use, barring religious schools from voucher funds. The court rejected the distinction. Roberts, writing again for the majority, ruled that the program “operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.” He warned that attempts to judge how a religious school carries out its mission invite unconstitutional state entanglement.
So how, after such ironclad precedent, do we find a Republican state attorney general and a court in a state Trump carried in every county ruling that religious schools can’t even apply for public funding?
The answer lies in years of lukewarm Republican control. These are Republicans in name only, who blocked judicial reform and refused to challenge activist courts. Now, Drummond wants a promotion. He’s announced his run for governor after already overruling the state education superintendent’s decision to ban pornography in public libraries.
This case reveals a larger pattern. Courts act as a one-way ratchet. Even after strong Supreme Court rulings, liberal lower courts defy precedent. They delay, split hairs, and distinguish without merit. The high court may reverse Oklahoma, but its rulings rarely secure lasting victories.
And the irony? Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.
During the House debate on the First Amendment in 1789, James Madison explained: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”
That principle — freedom of conscience without coercion — shaped the American experiment. Far from excluding religion, the founders assumed its influence. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” He added that politics and religion formed an “alliance which has never been dissolved.”
It’s time for the Supreme Court to reaffirm that alliance — clearly, decisively, and without leaving room for lower courts to ignore. And in Oklahoma, it’s time to elect Republicans who still believe the Bible belongs in the Bible Belt.
A California federal judge on Tuesday threw up major roadblocks for Border Patrol agents seeking to deport illegal aliens.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Customs and Border Protection officers from arresting suspected illegal aliens without a warrant unless agents have reason to believe the suspect might flee before a warrant can be issued.
'Not on our watch.'
The judge also ruled that officers cannot stop suspected illegal immigrants without reasonable suspicion. Additionally, Border Patrol is barred from deporting an individual via "voluntary departure" unless the suspect is first informed of his or her rights and agrees to leave the country.
Thurston's orders apply only to federal agents in the Eastern District of California.
She wrote that the Border Patrol officers "engaged in conduct that violated well-established constitutional rights."
Thurston demanded that the agency provide reports detailing who has been detained or arrested without warrants and why. Under her direction, the Border Patrol is required to submit these reports every 60 days until the lawsuit concludes.
The judge's ruling follows the Border Patrol's January "Operation Return to Sender," which resulted in the arrest of dozens of suspected illegal aliens. The operation aimed to target individuals with serious criminal records.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in response to the operation, arguing that federal immigration agents violated individuals' constitutional rights with its "stop-and-arrest practices."
According to the nonprofit, federal immigration agents rounded up day laborers and farm workers, regardless of their immigration status.
The ACLU issued a press release Tuesday celebrating the preliminary injunction victory.
Bree Bernwanger, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, stated, "Today's order affirms the dignity and constitutional rights of all people."
"Border Patrol must end their illegal stop and arrest practices now," Bernwanger added.
Teresa Romero, president of United Farm Workers, said, "This order rightfully upholds the law. Border Patrol can't just wade into communities snatching up hardworking people without due process, just for being brown and working class."
"We will continue to fight together for the civil rights of every farm worker and every immigrant community," Romero continued. "This agency and this administration will not keep terrorizing our union members, our coworkers or our neighbors unchecked. Not on our watch."
Meanwhile, the Border Patrol claims that Thurston lacks the jurisdiction to oversee the case. Additionally, the agency stated that it has already issued new guidance and training "detailing exactly when people may be stopped or arrested without warrants, and what rights detainees have after their arrest."
The Department of Homeland Security and CBP did not respond to the New York Times' request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Days after Justice Samuel Alito warned that a recent Supreme Court ruling had two glaring holes that could be exploited, an Obama-appointed judge appears to have done just that. U.S. District Judge Randolph Daniel Moss sided with the left-wing ACLU and several other activists organizations when he ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority […]
One of the ACLU lawyers representing the petitioners attempted to call Judge Hendrix at 7:34 p.m., then left a voicemail.
Most people are opposed to teen sex trafficking, wholeheartedly, and they act like it. It’s a pathetic disgrace that Democrats in California can’t be bothered to do the same.
The Supreme Court’s double standard suggests it is not prudence dictating the outcome. It is also not the Constitution.
www.theblaze.com