It’s Time For SCOTUS To Hold Rogue Judges Accountable
'[The ruling] was a warning shot across the bows of judges making basically policy decisions in all of these cases,' said Hans von Spakovsky.'[The ruling] was a warning shot across the bows of judges making basically policy decisions in all of these cases,' said Hans von Spakovsky.Over 98% of Americans ignore No Kings' tired tantrum
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!
District judge throws up major roadblocks for Border Patrol agents in California
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!
ACLU fights to restore woke books Trump banned to protect military kids from gender ideology
The American Civil Liberties Union announced Tuesday that it filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense's school system for removing books that reference "race and gender" from its libraries.
President Donald Trump previously signed executive actions banning diversity, equity, and inclusion from the federal government, resulting in the removal of woke gender ideology books from the Department of Defense Education Activity's schools.
'I assume the ACLU will now support school choice for military families, so the federal government won't get to dictate what is or is not in military kids' education.'
A presidential action titled "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling" argued that the American school system has "indoctrinate[d]" students with "radical, anti-American ideologies while deliberately blocking parental oversight."
In February, the DOD distributed a memo to parents of children within the school system explaining that the agency was reevaluating library books "potentially related to gender ideology or discriminatory equity ideology topics."
The DOD and the Department of Education released a joint statement earlier this month announcing the creation of the Title IX Special Investigations Team, tasked with protecting students "from the pernicious effects of gender ideology in school programs and activities."
The ACLU's lawsuit, filed on behalf of a dozen students, accuses the DODEA of violating students' First Amendment rights by removing the materials.
"Since January, their schools have systemically removed books, altered curricula, and canceled events that the government has accused of promoting 'gender ideology' or 'divisive equity ideology,'" the ACLU claimed. "This has included materials about slavery, Native American history, LGBTQ identities and history, and preventing sexual harassment and abuse, as well as portions of the Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology curriculum."
Natalie Tolley, a parent with three children in DODEA schools, stated that Trump's executive orders were "a violation of our children's right to access information that prevents them from learning about their own histories, bodies, and identities."
"I have three daughters, and they, like all children, deserve access to books that both mirror their own life experiences and that act as windows that expose them to greater diversity," she continued. "The administration has now made that verboten in DODEA schools."
Neal McCluskey, the director of the Cato Institute's Center for Education Freedom, reacted to the lawsuit, stating, "I assume the ACLU will now support school choice for military families, so the federal government won't get to dictate what is or is not in military kids' education."
A spokesperson for the DODEA told the Associated Press that the school system does not comment on ongoing litigation.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Protecting Terrorists Is Just The Latest Of Judge Boasberg’s Partisan Activism
An activist judge in Washington, D.C. tried to prevent Trump from deporting designated terrorists from U.S.Trump admin axes first student visa over pro-Hamas protest crimes: State Department
The Trump administration's State Department confirmed that it revoked its first student visa over alleged criminal activity tied to a pro-Hamas protest.
The State Department told Fox News the foreign student was involved in a disruptive college campus demonstration. However, it did not reveal the student's identity or which school he or she attended, citing "legal constraints."
'Zero tolerance for foreign visitors who support terrorists.'
"Yesterday evening, we revoked the first visa of an alien who was previously cited for criminal behavior in connection with Hamas-supporting disruptions," the department said. "This individual was a university student. [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] will proceed with removing this person from the country."
The State Department's move comes on the heels of President Donald Trump stating that foreign students participating in pro-Hamas protests should have their visas pulled for supporting the terrorist group.
In January, Trump vowed to "deport Hamas sympathizers and revoke student visas" to combat anti-Semitism.
"To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: Come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before," he stated.
Despite many disruptive pro-Hamas protests on college campuses under the previous administration, President Joe Biden's State Department did not revoke any of the 100,000 student visas it reviewed, an official told Axios.
The Trump administration accused Biden of "turn[ing] a blind eye to this coordinated assault on public order" and "refus[ing] to protect the civil rights of Jewish Americans, especially students."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced this week that the department will launch an AI-powered "Catch and Revoke" system to yank the visas of those supporting terrorist organizations, such as Hamas.
On Thursday, Rubio wrote in a post on X, "Those who support designated terrorist organizations, including Hamas, threaten our national security. The United States has zero tolerance for foreign visitors who support terrorists. Violators of U.S. law — including international students — face visa denial or revocation, and deportation."
The State Department told Axios, "It would be negligent for the department that takes national security seriously to ignore publicly available information about [visa] applicants in terms of AI tools. ... AI is one of the resources available to the government that's very different from where we were technologically decades ago."
Earlier this week, the American Civil Liberties Union wrote an open letter to colleges and universities claiming that the Trump administration is attempting to pressure school officials into "censoring and punishing non-citizen scholars and students for their speech and scholarship." The ACLU urged American colleges "to protect campus speech."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
ACLU misleads on illegal aliens at GITMO, ignoring ‘high-threat’ status
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit this week against the Trump administration, misleading and downplaying the "high-threat" status of illegal aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
On Wednesday, the ACLU issued a press release announcing that it filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on behalf of several immigrant advocacy groups. Eucaris Carolina Gomez Lugo, the sister of one detainee, also joined in the lawsuit. Her brother is accused of being a member of the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Other family members of the detainees are also part of the legal action.
'They should change their name.'
The ACLU stated that the lawsuit aimed to allow the immigrant advocacy groups "to meet with the people being detained in order to provide them with legal assistance." It claimed that the Trump administration had "hurr[ied] immigrants off to a remote island cut off from lawyers, family, and the rest of the world."
The lawsuit estimated that the administration has detained more than 50 illegal aliens at GITMO since February 4. It accused the administration of attempting to "thwart access to counsel for immigrant detainees."
"For the first time in U.S. history, the federal government has moved noncitizens apprehended and detained in the United States on civil immigration charges to the Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba," it read. "And it is holding them incommunicado, without access to attorneys, family, or the outside world."
However, according to a press release from the Department of Defense, those recently detained at GITMO are “high-priority criminal aliens.” The DOD referred to the individuals as “high-threat,” noting that they are “currently being housed in vacant detention facilities.”
Further, the lawsuit’s use of the phrase "for the first time in U.S. history" is similarly misleading. Former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton also authorized detaining illegal aliens at GITMO.
In response to the lawsuit, Trump's Department of Homeland Security not only denied the ACLU's claims but also sharply criticized the organization.
A DHS official told the New York Post, "There is a system for phone utilization to reach lawyers."
According to the DHS, detainees do have the ability to contact legal representation.
"If the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union cares more about highly dangerous criminal aliens including murderers & vicious gang members than they do about American citizens — they should change their name," the DHS official remarked.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump admin stands firm on ending birthright citizenship amid left's legal challenges
President Donald Trump kicked off his second term on Monday by signing several executive actions aimed at addressing the nation's ongoing illegal immigration crisis, including an order to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.
The executive order, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," argued that "the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States" if those individuals' parents were illegally in the country or not lawful permanent residents at the time of their birth.
'These lawsuits are nothing more than an extension of the left's resistance.'
Shortly after Trump signed the executive order, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the administration, arguing that the action was unconstitutional.
The ACLU stated that birthright citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The organization further cited that the amendment, ratified in 1868, was confirmed in 1898 by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The ACLU noted that according to the court's ruling, children born in the U.S. are citizens regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said, "Denying citizenship to U.S.-born children is not only unconstitutional — it's also a reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values."
"Birthright citizenship is part of what makes the United States the strong and dynamic nation that it is," Romero continued. "This order seeks to repeat one of the gravest errors in American history, by creating a permanent subclass of people born in the U.S. who are denied full rights as Americans. We will not let this attack on newborns and future generations of Americans go unchallenged. The Trump administration's overreach is so egregious that we are confident we will ultimately prevail."
The New York Times reported Tuesday that attorneys general from 18 states sued Trump to block the executive order. San Francisco and Washington, D.C., also joined the legal action against the president.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin called the action "a flagrant violation of our Constitution."
Trump's order seeks to clarify the 14th Amendment, stating that it "has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." Instead, the action asserts that children with noncitizen parents are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
The Trump administration anticipated legal challenges concerning the executive order.
Harrison Fields, White House principal deputy press secretary, told Fox News Digital, "Radical leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump to advance his wildly popular agenda."
"These lawsuits are nothing more than an extension of the left's resistance — and the Trump administration is ready to face them in court," Fields said.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com