Nearly One-Quarter Of U.S. Public School Enrollment Could Be Anchor Babies

Returning noncitizen children and noncitizen parents to their countries could save taxpayers hundreds of billions, especially in state budgets.

Only SCOTUS Can Rein In The Judicial Coup

Nationwide injunctions essentially undo the results of the last election by keeping in place Biden's policies that more than 77 million voters rejected in 2024.

The real labor crisis? Too many visas, not too few workers



After two generations of record-breaking immigration, we’re still flooding the labor market with millions of foreign students and visa workers — gutting entire industries and boxing Americans out of their own economy. On what planet does this country need more foreign labor?

Last week, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it had selected 120,141 H-1B visa applicants in its random annual lottery for fiscal year 2026. While the number is slightly lower than during the Biden years, it reflects the same endless pipeline we’ve seen for decades.

So much for putting American workers first.

A shrinking job market

At any given time, roughly 1.5 million white-collar foreign workers operate in this country on a mix of visa categories — H-1B, H4EAD, L-1, J-1, O-1, TN, OPT, and CPT. That doesn’t even count the more than 1 million foreign students or the birthright citizenship granted to their children, despite many of them being here on “temporary” visas.

The real number of new H-1Bs that should be admitted next year? Zero.

If we truly had a shortage of skilled labor, wouldn’t wages be rising? Shouldn’t entry-level pay be going up?

The only reason we allow India to monopolize graduate programs and entire sectors of the tech and medical industries is to suppress wages. Meanwhile, American companies continue to lay off workers while lobbying to import more foreign labor. That contradiction exposes the lie.

Last September, the Wall Street Journal described what young tech workers now face.

Once heavily wooed and fought over by companies, tech talent is now wrestling for scarcer positions. The stark reversal of fortunes for a group long in the driver’s seat signals more than temporary discomfort. It’s a reset ...

Job postings for software developers are down more than 30% since February 2020, according to Indeed. Layoffs in tech have continued into this year, with around 137,000 jobs eliminated since January, per Layoffs.fyi. Many workers — especially younger ones — are experiencing their first taste of a shrinking job market.

And yet the foreign labor machine rolls on.

If we truly had a shortage of skilled labor, wouldn’t wages be rising? Shouldn’t entry-level pay be going up?

In fact, the opposite is true. The Journal reports that median pay dropped 1% to 2% for software engineers, product designers, and technical managers — precisely the fields dominated by the Indian slave trade, a system of corporate-sponsored indentured labor enabled by the H-1B program.

The wage gap between job-switchers and job-stayers has nearly vanished. Historically, job-changers earned more. Now, thanks to artificially depressed wages and a labor market flooded with visa-bound foreign workers, that advantage has all but disappeared. Wages have nowhere to rise.

Corporations win, workers lose

Federal law technically requires H-1B employers to pay prevailing wages, but enforcement is a joke.

The Center for Immigration Studies found that in 2023, the average salary employers promised new H-1B workers in computer-related fields was 25.2% lower than the average for U.S. software developers.

RELATED: How H-1B visa loopholes are undercutting American wages and jobs

filo via iStock/Getty Images

And what about the claim that these are the “best and brightest” minds from around the world? According to CIS, H-1B workers in tech were paid 41% less than Americans in the 75th percentile and 53% less than those in the 90th percentile.

So much for “high-skilled labor.” The reality is simple: This is about corporate access to cheap, compliant, and easily controlled labor.

Trump can stop this

So why is the Trump administration approving another 120,000 H-1Bs while American tech workers struggle to find jobs?

While courts have limited the administration’s ability to remove those already here, the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has plenary authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to block prospective visa applicants. Section 215(a)(1) gives him similarly broad power to regulate all entries and exits of foreign nationals.

Congress may set the cap — but nothing stops the president from suspending the program entirely in the national interest, as Trump did with the refugee program in his first term.

Here are a few reforms Trump could impose immediately.

  • End the random lottery: Select applicants based on highest salary offers. If this program is truly about skilled labor, prove it.
  • Blacklist diploma mills: Deny visa applications from unaccredited or fraudulent institutions.
  • Reject firms that fire Americans: Companies that lay off U.S. workers shouldn’t receive new batches of foreign replacements.
  • Terminate the OPT program: Created without congressional approval, OPT allows employers to hire foreign students tax-free for entry-level jobs. Trump can end it with a stroke of the pen.
  • Cap foreign workers at 10% per company: No corporation should be allowed to replace Americans en masse with foreign labor.

Trump began cracking down on visa abuse late in his first term, but Biden quickly reversed those gains.

Now Trump is back. So what happened to the promise of putting American workers first?

SCOTUS Oral Argument In Nationwide Injunction Case Illustrates Courts’ Coup Against Trump

By reverse-engineering the cases, the lower courts are ignoring what should be the initial questions of standing, jurisdiction, and in some cases even the merits.

Trump's birthright citizenship order may not fly — but activist judges could soon find themselves grounded



The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in the case Trump v. CASA Inc., along with the related cases Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey, concerning President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.

The court was focused on procedural questions — particularly with regard to federal judges' apparent efforts to direct U.S. policy through the imposition of nationwide injunctions — rather than the constitutionality of the order, although its legality came up on occasion.

The court, which is expected to render its decision by late June or early July, may end up blocking the order but possibly also reining in meddlesome federal judges.

Background

Trump issued the executive order ending birthright citizenship on Jan. 20.

Days later, a Seattle-based U.S. district judge, responding to a lawsuit brought by four Democrat-led states, deemed the order "blatantly unconstitutional," and slapped it with a nationwide injunction — one among the 40 issued in recent months that have prompted accusations of a "judicial coup." A Biden judge and an Obama judge similarly blocked the order before courts ruled on the legal merits.

Denied additional sets of eyes on the matter by federal appeals courts, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court in March for a partial stay but also drew the high court's attention to the efforts of district judges to "govern ... the whole Nation from their courtrooms."

'Enough is enough.'

Attorneys for the government noted in their application for a partial stay that "such universal injunctions, though 'a relatively new phenomenon,' have become ubiquitous, posing 'a question of great significance that has been in need of the Court's attention for some time.'"

The Congressional Research Service indicated there were at least 17 cases of national injunctions between Jan. 20 and March 27. That number has since risen to at least 40 — including 35 from the same five judicial districts. According to the government's application, district courts issued more nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders in the month of February than through the first three years of the Biden administration. Throughout the entirety of Barack Obama's presidency, only 19 were issued.

RELATED: Will the Supreme Court rein in rogue judges — or rubber-stamp them?

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Attorneys for the government argued further that nationwide injunctions, which have "reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration," transgress constitutional limits on courts' powers; are incompatible with foundational limits on equitable jurisdiction; are bad for the rule of law; risk the perception of the federal courts as an apolitical branch; and "compromise the Executive Branch's ability to carry out its functions, as administrations of both parties have explained."

"This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts' burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched," wrote the government's attorneys. "Only this Court's intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable."

The ask: Narrow down injunctions to the actual parties in the case.

Dr. John C. Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, noted in a Blaze News op-ed Thursday that both conservative and liberal justices on the high court have previously criticized the practice of single federal district courts lobbing nationwide injunctions to block policies enacted by the political branches.

Justice Elena Kagan, for instance, reportedly suggested, "It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for ... years."

On Thursday, the government appeared keen to draw out those outstanding concerns.

Showtime

There was some discussion during oral arguments about the legality of the order, what it would look like if partially implemented, and the government's primary contention that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment related to the children of former slaves, not those of illegal aliens who — as U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer put it — "weren't even present as a discrete class at that time."

Sauer assigned more energy, however, to hammering home the point that the nationwide injunctions are a "bipartisan problem" that exceed the judicial power granted in Article III of the Constitution; require judges to make "rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions"; require the "government to win everywhere while the plaintiffs can win anywhere"; and "prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions" in the lower courts.

His efforts were not in vain.

'We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions.'

The justices seriously considered the legal basis for and impact of scrapping universal injunctions as well as alternative tools for expeditious legal action, including class action and certiorari before judgment.

After expressing a desire to temporarily "put out of our minds the merits of this and just look at the abstract question of universal injunctions," Justice Samuel Alito suggested that there are 680 district court judges, and while dedicated and scholarly, "sometimes they're wrong."

"All Article III judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that 'I am right and I can do whatever I want,'" said Alito.

RELATED: The legal case against anchor-baby citizenship revisited

annedehaas via iStock/Getty Images

Whereas colleagues on a multimember appellate court could keep that "occupational disease" at bay, Justice Alito suggested that a trial judge is relatively unbounded and unchecked as "the monarch of that realm."

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represented the states challenging Trump's order, characterized nationwide injunctions as inconvenient, potentially frustrating but necessary — something that should not be "categorically off the table."

Justice Clarence Thomas noted, however, that "we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions."

'At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of the last election.'

Chief Justice John Roberts added that in recent months, the Supreme Court was able to take expeditious action — the suggestion being a nationwide injunction is unnecessary to achieve a similar end.

Justice Neil Gorsuch cast doubt on the relative timeliness of a class action, noting that certifying a class takes time, and the process involves other hurdles, reported SCOTUSBlog.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that if Sauer was right in his assertion that Article III precludes universal injunctions, then class actions would similarly be illegal, a suggestion Sauer disagreed with "profoundly."

While the conservative justices' receptivity Thursday to the government's arguments is no guarantee of a partial win on the matter of nationwide injunctions, it is a hopeful sign for critics such as Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, who asked earlier this year, "Is there no end to this madness?"

Eastman noted, "Whatever the court decides, the consequences will ripple through the hundreds of lawsuits filed against the president’s executive actions. At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of the last election — and whether unelected district judges can override the policies chosen by the American people."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Justice Thomas Exposes The Absurdity Of Nationwide Injunctions With One Simple Question

On Thursday Associate Justice Clarence Thomas injected a healthy dose of reality into Supreme Court oral arguments over the issue of nationwide injunctions on President Trump’s birthright citizenship order. The moment came during an exchange between Thomas and U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer on the history of nationwide injunctions. Such orders seek to prohibit the […]

Will the Supreme Court rein in rogue judges — or rubber-stamp them?



Nationwide injunctions — once unknown in American legal tradition — have exploded in popularity, driven by single federal district court judges eager to block policies enacted by the political branches. Supreme Court justices appointed by presidents of both parties have raised alarms about the trend.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett have criticized these injunctions in written opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan have raised similar concerns in public comments. In the 2018 Trump v. Hawaii decision, Thomas called them “legally and historically dubious.” Speaking at a Ninth Circuit judicial conference, Kagan reportedly remarked, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

The question before the court is fundamental: Do elections matter, or do lower-court judges run the country?

Solicitors general from both parties have also objected. Joe Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, warned last year that nationwide injunctions cause “substantial disruption” to executive functions. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris earlier this year called them an “epidemic.”

The Supreme Court will now decide whether these bipartisan objections reflect genuine constitutional concerns — or partisan convenience. Take Mary McCord, for example. A former Obama White House official and adviser to the January 6 Committee, she co-signed the respondents’ brief defending the nationwide injunctions in this case. But would she have supported them when courts used them against her own administration?

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in Trump v. CASA, Inc., along with the related cases Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey. At issue is the Trump administration’s “modest request” to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state. These injunctions blocked enforcement of the president’s day one executive order on birthright citizenship, even before courts ruled on the legal merits.

(Full disclosure: I submitted a brief in the case on behalf of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, urging the court to restore the original meaning of the 14th Amendment — one that excludes both temporary visitors and illegal immigrants from automatic citizenship.)

The case against universal injunctions follows directly from the Constitution. Article III, Section 2 limits judicial power to “cases or controversies,” designed to resolve disputes between parties, not to dictate national policy. Nationwide injunctions go well beyond the plaintiffs and defendants involved.

Article III, Section 1 vests judicial authority in the Supreme Court and “such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” District courts possess geographically defined jurisdictions. A single federal judge in, say, Maryland or Washington state was never meant to issue rulings that bind the entire country.

Nationwide injunctions routinely disrupt government operations. Different district courts can issue conflicting injunctions, creating legal chaos and making compliance virtually impossible. That’s exactly what happened in 2022 after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction blocking the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a common abortion drug. Just hours later, Judge Thomas Rice in the Eastern District of Washington issued a competing order — this one prohibiting the FDA from altering its approval of the same drug in half the country.

RELATED: Injunction dysfunction or tyrant disruption? Trump-era judicial paralysis explained

designer491 via iStock/Getty Images

These injunctions also fuel rampant forum-shopping. Predictably, left-leaning jurisdictions like Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington state produced most of the nationwide injunctions during the Trump presidency — just as Texas courts served that role under Obama and Biden. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan have both warned about this manipulation. Members of Congress, legal scholars, the American Bar Association, and even the Judicial Conference of the United States have proposed random judge assignments for cases that could result in nationwide injunctions.

Such reforms might reduce forum-shopping, but they do not fix the underlying constitutional defects.

If the court agrees with the Department of Justice and narrows the injunctions to the actual parties in the case, it must still define who counts as a party. Will that include only the named plaintiffs? Or will it extend to entire state populations listed as plaintiffs — or worse, activist groups claiming to represent all their members?

If the court accepts either of the latter definitions, it effectively reauthorizes nationwide injunctions under a different name. That outcome seems unlikely. The court will likely stop short of endorsing such a sweeping expansion of lower-court power and instead point to the existing class-action mechanism already embedded in federal rules.

Whatever the court decides, the consequences will ripple through the hundreds of lawsuits filed against the president’s executive actions. At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of the last election — and whether unelected district judges can override the policies chosen by the American people. The question before the court is fundamental: Do elections matter, or do lower-court judges run the country?

New Solicitor General Prepares To Take On Nationwide Injunctions At SCOTUS

The nationwide injunctions under the APA will likely fail too, but because there is no merit to the APA claims.

Even If SCOTUS Gives Trump A Win On Birthright Citizenship, It Will Not End Partisan Lawfare

It will do little to stop the lower courts from continuing to flood the country with nationwide injunctions interfering with the Trump Administration.