America has immigration laws — just not in these courtrooms



If Donald Trump put on a black robe tomorrow and issued an opinion in an intellectual property dispute between two tech companies, no one would treat it as binding law. So why are we expected to treat judicial policymaking on immigration and national security as untouchable — especially when lower courts now openly defy higher courts?

One of the most damaging misconceptions in American government holds that the Supreme Court is “supreme” over the political branches in all things. At most, its supremacy runs within the judicial hierarchy: It can overrule lower federal courts. The same goes for the courts of appeals, which are supposed to bind district courts within their circuits.

If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?

That system, however, increasingly operates as a one-way ratchet for left-wing political outcomes.

On February 6, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finally reaffirmed a basic legal principle: Illegal aliens seeking admission are not entitled to enter the country, demand release, and then litigate their way into residency while living freely inside the United States. The court upheld long-standing precedent and the plain text of U.S. immigration law, which requires detention of inadmissible aliens pending disposition of their cases.

Congress enacted that provision in 1996 for an obvious reason: to prevent people from entering illegally, receiving a notice to appear, and then disappearing into the interior.

Unlike American criminals who are entitled to bond hearings, illegal aliens are not being prosecuted for a crime. They can always voluntarily depart and live freely in their home countries. Being detained is a consequence of their initial invasion and their desire to litigate their way into our country.

Then came the district courts.

Just three days after the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, Judge Kathleen Cardone, an El Paso-based George W. Bush appointee, ordered the release of aliens in five cases on the theory that they had “established roots” in the United States. What, then, was the point of the Fifth Circuit ruling? Cardone claimed in one case that it “has no bearing on this Court’s determination of whether [the petitioner] is being detained in violation of his constitutional right to procedural due process.”

Likewise, on February 9, Judge David Briones, an El Paso-based Clinton appointee, reached a similar conclusion. “The Court reiterates its original holding that noncitizens who have ‘established connections’ in the United States by virtue of living in the country for a substantial period acquire a liberty interest in being free from government detention without due process of law,” Briones wrote — about an illegal alien who entered the country in 2024.

Pause there.

The Fifth Circuit had just ruled that detention is mandated by statute even in cases involving aliens who entered long ago (including plaintiffs from 2001 and 2009). Yet a district judge somehow concluded that ruling does not apply to someone who crossed illegally in 2024. Worse, how can a district judge claim the Fifth Circuit did not account for the “constitutional” question when the appeals court’s ruling necessarily presumes ICE’s conduct is constitutional?

RELATED: The Fifth Circuit cracks down on the asylum excuse factory

ozgurdonmaz via iStock/Getty Images

These judges are cherry-picking language from select Supreme Court opinions about aliens with “established ties” while ignoring the far stronger body of law recognizing that illegal entrants have no right to remain in the country against the national will. The idea that someone can break into the country, evade enforcement long enough to create “ties,” and then use that evasion as a legal shield makes a mockery of popular sovereignty and of the Declaration’s first principles.

This also demonstrates, again, why the Trump administration cannot comply its way out of judicial supremacism. Even when it wins in higher courts, lower-court judges can repackage the same result in a new case and keep obstructing enforcement. Why should Trump defer reflexively to congressionally created judges who refuse to defer even to their own superiors within the judiciary?

That point came into focus in Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s dissent from his court’s decision to halt the deportation of a Peruvian family while the appeal proceeds. Referring to the Ninth Circuit as a “wackadoo” court, VanDyke described what he said has become an automatic practice: granting stays of removal even when Supreme Court immigration precedent clearly points the other way.

In effect, he argued, the court uses procedural orders and an ever-expanding shadow docket to nullify precedent without formally issuing rulings that openly defy it.

Because of the circuit’s heavy caseload, VanDyke wrote, judges adopted a “convenient, but unwritten, practice” of granting preliminary relief in the form of administrative stays pending review. Those stays often remain in place until the merits are decided. The result, he said, is a system that “disregard[s] Supreme Court precedent and award[s] automatic, extended stays of removal in utterly meritless immigration appeals.”

Defenders of the Ninth Circuit might say the court is overloaded and must rely on lengthy interim stays. VanDyke’s point, however, is that this indulgence appears uniquely generous in deportation cases. As he put it, the Ninth Circuit’s internal dialogue sounds like “a judicial Oprah Winfrey, confused by her own popularity.”

His satirical version of the court’s approach was devastating:

We are… ("You get a stay!")… sincerely shocked… ("You get a stay!")… by the… ("You get a stay!")… number of… ("You get a stay!")… utterly… ("You get a stay!")… meritless… ("You get a stay!")… immigration petitions… ("You get a stay! And you get a stay! And you get a stay!")… that are filed… ("You get a stay!")… in our court. ("Everyone gets a stay!").

That is the point. When it comes to many liberal judges — who still dominate too many panels — law is often just a vehicle for politics. They will reach the result they want by whatever procedural route is available. You cannot simply “out-appeal” a judiciary willing to ignore controlling law while pretending not to.

RELATED: We escaped King George. Why do we bow to King Judge?

Valerii Evlakhov via iStock/Getty Images

A Politico review of thousands of ICE detention cases found that at least 360 judges rejected ICE’s broader detention policies in more than 3,000 cases, while just 27 judges backed those policies in about 130 cases. The overwhelming pattern is plain: Judges are sidelining the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Supreme Court’s plenary power doctrine, which affirms broad executive authority over the detention and removal of illegal aliens.

No Supreme Court ruling, by itself, will stop judges committed to creative procedural sabotage.

Lawlessness begets lawlessness. It is grimly fitting that in an era when invaders are encouraged to dictate terms to citizens, inferior courts now side with them while dictating terms to superior courts.

If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?

A blasphemy-light bill arrives in Virginia — and the ACLU clams up



Zohran Mamdani has wasted no time turning religious language into shocking political branding. This month, he invoked Muhammad while defending Democrats’ mass-migration posture. He also became the first New York City mayor to skip the installation of a Catholic archbishop.

Public officials can practice any faith. They can speak openly about it. The line gets crossed when government starts treating one religion as a protected political category — especially through the criminal code.

To overthrow liberal democracy, the far left needs Islam’s numbers, while Islam needs the far left’s organization.

That line is about to be obliterated in Virginia.

A Bangladesh-born Democrat state senator, Saddam Azlan Salim, introduced SB624, a bill aimed at writing a formal definition of “Islamophobia” into Virginia’s assault and battery laws. The bill would single out Islam for special treatment. No other religion would receive the same statutory carve-out.

The bill defines Islamophobia as “malicious prejudice or hatred directed toward Islam or Muslims.” The definition applies “regardless of whether the victim is actually a practitioner of Islam, provided that the perpetrator targeted such victim based on a perceived adherence to such faith.”

Is it Islamophobic to walk a dog or eat bacon or spread the gospel in the presence of a devout Muslim? If not, why not? And do we really want to test it?

People use Islamophobia as a cudgel to silence legitimate criticism of doctrine, immigration policy, and jihadism at home and abroad. A vague, politically loaded term does not belong in criminal law. It invites selective enforcement. It chills speech. It hands politicians a ready-made pretext to jail dissenters.

Call it what it is: one more step toward a blasphemy-style speech regime, enforced by the state.

In a world in which leftists — and even some conservatives — believe “hate speech isn’t free speech,” Salim’s bill should set off alarm bells for any civil liberties group that claims to defend the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

And yet the American Civil Liberties Union has remained resolutely silent.

The ACLU’s “Religious Liberty” page claims it exists “to safeguard the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty by ensuring that laws and governmental practices neither promote religion nor interfere with its free exercise.”

Given that Islam commands the erasureany kind of secular and sectarian division, you’d think the ACLU’s rabid dogs would be on guard against its encroachment.

Instead, the ACLU maintains a page dedicated to opposing “anti-Muslim discrimination,” while boasting of its opposition to a Jewish charter school in Oklahoma.

RELATED: Free speech in Britain is worse than you think

Photo by Lab Ky Mo/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

The “red-green alliance” between domestic communists and Muslim invaders is the greatest threat currently facing Western countries today.

In a talk at Oxford University’s Student Union, Peter Thiel laid out the stark choice between the West continuing to flounder under the illusion that clean energy policies would drive global prosperity and the Islamic worldview, which prioritizes domination.

To overthrow liberal democracy, the far left needs Islam’s numbers, while Islam needs the far left’s organization. They have a common enemy — conservatives defending the countries their ancestors built for them — but without that enemy, these groups should actually despise each other.

The same day Mamdani invoked the name of the warlord Muhammad in the cause of open borders, the ACLU’s Instagram page shared a post about how hard it is to be “a queer teen in Idaho!” (Strangely enough, no mention about how hard it is to be a queer teen in any of the more than 50 countries that have been enslaved by Islam.)

This year we will mark the 10th anniversary of the Pulse Night Club shooting, when Omar Mateen — a Muslim Democrat — murdered 49 gay people and wounded 50 more. But in the ACLU’s response, the organization refused to mention Mateen’s name and indeed warned that his massacre of sexual minorities fit a “more politically convenient narrative fed by anti-Muslim fear and hate.”

What a reassuring thing to say to all the affected families in Orlando!

The ACLU is not an organization that subscribes to any kind of moral code. At best, it is a drive-by lawsuit factory. At worst, it is a legal arm of terrorists that openly welcomes foreign donations, which undermines American sovereignty. All the ACLU cares about is power — which, come to think of it, is something the group truly has in common with jihadists.

We don’t have to live this way



Last year, I lived for nearly five months in an extended-stay hotel across from a major teaching hospital in Aurora, Colorado.

It was my third extended stay there in three years. In total, I have spent more than 10 months in that community during my wife’s hospitalizations.

Disorder becomes permanent when citizens treat it as background noise.

That is long enough to know the difference between an exception and a pattern.

A sign at the city limits reads, “Welcome to Aurora — America’s City.”

At first, it seemed ironic. By the time I left, it read like an indictment.

Near the hospital, everyday life felt needlessly strained.

The grocery store lines were enormous. Entire banks of self-checkout lanes sat dark. Staffed lanes were closed, allegedly because of staffing shortages. This store belongs to one of the largest grocery chains in the country.

Resources were not the issue. Priorities were.

Basic necessities sat locked behind glass: detergent, deodorant, toothpaste. To buy them, I had to find a manager and request access.

Two armed police officers stood near the checkout lanes.

Then I reached for a bag.

Colorado charges for shopping bags. Fine. Charge for them. But none were available. I stood there with paid-for groceries and no way to carry them, scanning for an employee who could authorize the privilege of buying one.

Charge for the bag if you must. But if you charge for it, make it obtainable.

I speak Spanish well and know a few phrases in several other languages. While useful in Aurora, requesting una bolsa did not make one appear any faster.

Outside, carts sat scattered across the parking lot. Trash gathered along the curbs. Panhandlers approached vehicles at the entrance. Customers moved quickly, eyes down.

The hotel where I stayed was a national chain: key-card entry, corporate standards. The staff were decent, hardworking people. They were not hired to enforce the law. Yet I watched them physically confront individuals who slipped into the building and helped themselves to the breakfast buffet without apology and without fear of consequence.

RELATED: I came to the US legally. What we have now isn’t immigration — it’s chaos.

nzphotonz / Getty Images

When behavior is brazen, it signals confidence that no one will stop it.

Walking across the street to the hospital, I passed men and women sprawled on sidewalks, drug paraphernalia near bus stops, people shouting into empty air. While living there, I heard more gunfire than I hear during hunting season where I live in Montana.

Live somewhere for 10 months, and you start to feel the pulse of a place. It is a community living inside lowered expectations.

Standards rarely collapse in a single moment. They erode when enough people decide they are optional. At what point did we accept that this was simply how modern American cities function?

If Aurora is "America’s City," then we no longer agree on what America means.

Years ago, my wife and I launched a prosthetic limb outreach in Ghana. I have seen clinics there operate with greater cleanliness and clearer systems than the community surrounding one of America’s premier teaching hospitals.

That is not meant to be an insult to Ghana. It is a warning to us.

Compassion and order are not enemies.

A society can care for the vulnerable and still insist on standards. In fact, it must. Compassion without structure becomes chaos, and chaos harms the very people it claims to protect.

Government exists to protect life and property. That is not partisan. It is foundational.

The reflexive answer to visible disorder is often another funding package. But public officials are not spending their own money. They are allocating earnings entrusted to them by citizens who expect order in return. When outcomes deteriorate while budgets expand, the issue is not funding. It is stewardship.

For more than 40 years, I have navigated surgeons, pain specialists, prosthetists, and hospital systems while advocating for someone who cannot afford substandard care. In those settings, standards are measurable, not merely aspirational.

One does not respect what one does not inspect. When professionals know their work will be reviewed, outcomes improve. When oversight weakens, so do results.

When an area becomes known for disorder, the mystery is not the criminals. It is the complying silence surrounding those charged with enforcing law and order. Those entrusted with authority must themselves be examined.

Advocacy is rarely glamorous or lucrative. It is repetitive, exacting, and sometimes unwelcome. But when the advocate steps away, small failures compound, and the vulnerable suffer more.

RELATED: ‘Phase one’ was quality control. ‘Phase two’ needs to be quantity control.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

A healthy society requires the same vigilance from its citizens.

Unenforced borders invite unlawful crossings. Unenforced laws embolden lawlessness. Unenforced standards always open the door to mediocrity and worse.

This is not complicated. It just requires will.

As I walked past those police officers, groceries in the bags I finally managed to buy, I said plainly, “We don’t have to live this way.”

They shrugged. They did not argue.

A deserter was once brought before Alexander the Great for judgment. Asked his name, the soldier nervously replied, “Alexander.”

The general paused.

“Either change your conduct,” he said, “or change your name.”

Names imply standards. So do cities.

If a city claims to be "America’s City," its conduct should reflect it.

We should expect more — of ourselves, of our communities, of our elected officials, and of our courts.

America is not a nation of voiceless citizens. If standards are collapsing, enough of us have abdicated oversight and responsibility.

Disorder becomes permanent when citizens treat it as background noise.

The first act of resolve is refusing to call dysfunction normal.

We do not need another commission. We need resolve.

We don’t have to live this way.

‘Phase one’ was quality control. ‘Phase two’ needs to be quantity control.



Everyone in America has an opinion on what has gone right or wrong at the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. To answer the Talking Heads lyric “Well, how did I get here?” would yield a thousand different answers. I have a pretty good sense of what happened. Even before President Trump returned to the White House, I argued that meeting his bold deportation goals would require very different enforcement tactics than the ones the administration chose.

That debate makes for great fodder for finger-pointing. But a better question is: Where do we go next?

The administration needs to move its attention from sanctuary cities to sanctuary farms, factories, and industrial hubs.

To answer it, some of the nation’s leading immigration policy and legal experts, former senior and rank-and-file law enforcement officials, and advocates are coming together to devise a way forward. Details will be announced in the days to come, but the goal is straightforward: President Trump can and will meet his core campaign promise to “carry out the largest deportation operation in American history.”

Last year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported about 230,000 illegal aliens from the interior of the United States. That is a far cry from the 1 million figure some administration officials floated as a projection — and far below other totals the administration has suggested at various points. Making analysis harder, the Department of Homeland Security stopped releasing enforcement data for the first time in decades.

President Trump promised to exceed the deportation efforts of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who, by the most conservative estimates, removed about one-third of the illegal population in 1954. Any way you cut the data, even using the lowest-end estimates of the total illegal population in 2025, the administration is not on pace.

One reason: In its first year, the Trump administration prioritized a particular subset of illegal aliens — criminals. People can debate whether that was the right call, but that’s what happened. Prioritizing criminals means concentrating resources on fewer targets, and it has produced high-profile standoffs in cities like Minneapolis and Los Angeles. I will refer to that 2025 effort as “worst first,” as Border Czar Tom Homan has sometimes called it — phase one.

RELATED: Federalism cannot be a shield for sanctuary defiance

Photo by Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images

We can credit the Trump administration for highlighting the issue of criminal illegal aliens, removing many, and forcing the hand of radical Democrats, some of whom have taken the absurd position of rioting in defense of rapists and murderers. They are who we thought they were.

Now phase two can begin: widening the aperture of immigration enforcement and placing quantity above the perceived “quality” of deportations. The goal was mass deportations, not the “best” deportations. In short, the public wants commas in the numbers.

The Trump administration can, at minimum, quadruple last year’s totals. It can do it quickly if it shifts priorities — especially by refocusing on worksite enforcement. The administration needs to move its attention from sanctuary cities to sanctuary farms, factories, and industrial hubs.

Deportation is a contact sport — not only between ICE and illegal aliens, but between the Trump administration and special interests that value cheap labor, politicians who need cheap talking points, and activist judges and violent mobs. Those forces can be overcome, and in the coming weeks and months, we will show how.

The goal is to help President Trump deliver on what he promised — and to surpass President Eisenhower’s historic efforts. To do that, President Trump needs support from the base and the right, not a constant drumbeat of consultants, pollsters, and “moderate” Republicans trying to undermine him. Those forces are coming together, and I believe the result will be less drama and more commas.

Americans deserve a road map to move from phase one into a more successful phase two.

I came to the US legally. What we have now isn’t immigration — it’s chaos.



America has always been a nation of immigrants, and that legacy has been one of our greatest strengths. I know this because I lived it.

As a Lebanese-born American who came to this country legally, built a life through hard work, and now thrives as a venture capitalist and innovator in life sciences, I am living proof of what the American dream can deliver when immigration is done right. My family arrived through the proper channels, embraced the values, language, and culture of this country, and assimilated fully into the fabric of American society. That is how it should be.

The American dream is too precious to dilute. Let’s restore order, enforce the law, and keep it alive for generations to come.

For much of our history, controlled immigration brought talent, energy, and new ideas that fueled American growth and innovation. Waves of legal immigrants from Europe, Asia, and elsewhere contributed enormously while integrating into the American way of life. Immigration worked because it was lawful, deliberate, and tied to assimilation.

But something changed in the 2000s, and it has accelerated dramatically in recent years.

What we see today is an unprecedented surge of illegal immigration, arriving at a scale that overwhelms our systems and defies enforcement. This is not the merit-based, assimilable immigration that built America. It is mass unmanaged entry, often without the time, scale, or structure required for successful integration. The result is strain on communities, erosion of social cohesion, and enormous pressure on public resources.

Assimilation is not optional — it’s essential.

Successful immigrants learn English, respect our laws, adopt our civic values, and contribute positively over generations. When inflows are too rapid and lack incentives to assimilate, pockets of parallel societies form, weakening the national unity that has always been our glue. History shows that when we prioritize assimilation — through language requirements, civic education, and limits on scale — we succeed. When we don’t, division follows.

RELATED: Blame bias, not Bezos, for the Washington Post’s downfall

Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

This is not a moral indictment of individuals seeking opportunity. It is a condemnation of a broken system that rewards lawlessness and punishes those who follow the rules.

The economic damage is real, and it falls hardest on working Americans.

Illegal immigration represents a direct economic attack on America’s middle and lower classes. Illegal workers compete directly for jobs in construction, hospitality, agriculture, and service industries, driving down wages and displacing American citizens and legal residents who depend on those opportunities. Housing demand rises. Schools and hospitals become overcrowded. Social services are stretched thin, often while illegal workers pay little or no taxes.

The hardest hit are working-class Americans — the very people who built this country and deserve protection from unfair competition.

We are also told that our economy would collapse without this illegal labor. That claim is insulting hyperbole. Nevada, my home state, is resilient. Businesses can and will adapt by raising wages, investing in automation, or hiring legally through existing visa programs for workers who follow the rules and wait their turn.

RELATED: The taboo conservatives refuse to confront

doomko via iStock/Getty Images

Legal, high-skilled immigration adds tremendous value through innovation, entrepreneurship, and productivity gains. We do not need to sacrifice our sovereignty or our workers to achieve growth.

It is time for bold action.

I support a clearly defined, temporary moratorium on most nonessential immigration categories to secure the border fully, enforce existing law, and remove those here illegally. This pause would give us breathing room to reform the system: prioritize high-skilled talent, enforce strict assimilation requirements, limit family-based chain migration that bypasses merit, and restore a steady, controlled immigration pipeline that benefits America first.

That’s stewardship, not cruelty.

America saved my life and gave me opportunities I could never have imagined. I owe this country everything — and that is why I demand that we fix immigration now, before the damage becomes irreversible.

The American dream is too precious to dilute. Let’s restore order, enforce the law, and keep it alive for generations to come.

The new activism looks a lot like mental illness



Anti-ICE rebels aren’t simply “protesters.” Protest is public dissent: signs, slogans, marches, chants, petitions. It aims to persuade. It does not ram police with cars, swing fists at agents, loot businesses, or try to provoke violence.

When anti-ICE activists get detained or arrested, many shout “First Amendment” as if those two words erase everything that happened before the cuffs went on. The First Amendment protects speech, publication, and peaceful assembly. It does not give anyone a license to threaten people, incite lawless action, commit assault, trespass, vandalize property, or participate in criminal conspiracy and intimidation.

Clinical language can clarify motives, but it should not excuse crimes.

That distinction matters because many of today’s mobs don’t merely “speak.” They physically interfere with law enforcement. They obstruct operations. They harass officers and targets. They try to create fear.

We used to teach children to respect the rule of law and the people tasked with enforcing it. Today, many activists treat authority as the enemy by definition, and they feel entitled — sometimes obligated — to attack it.

Not every person in a crowd acts from the same motive. Still, the behavior patterns repeat often enough that clinical language can help explain what we’re seeing. I have divided these anti-ICE “rebels” into seven categories — not as formal diagnoses for individuals I have not examined, but as recurring profiles that show up in chaotic group behavior.

Trump derangement syndrome

Some rebels treat ICE as an extension of President Trump and react accordingly. In my view, this presents as an irrational, disproportionate fixation that can resemble “quasi-psychotic” hostility toward anything associated with Trump — spilling over to people and institutions that have little to do with him, including federal agents doing their jobs.

Celebrity worship syndrome

Some activists take cues from entertainers and influencers and translate slogans into action. This is an obsessive-addictive disorder more than mere fandom. Celebrity messaging can nudge fans from passive agreement to performative activism, especially when the cultural reward system prizes outrage. Public denunciations from stars can energize followers who want to prove loyalty through escalating conduct.

Mad hatters

Some participants display the impulsivity, defiance, and hostility toward authority that clinicians associate with oppositional-defiant disorder or conduct disorder. In its more destructive form, the behavior resembles conduct-disorder traits: aggression, property destruction, and contempt for basic social rules.

Lost souls

Some people arrive lonely, purposeless, or adrift. A mob offers identity, belonging, and a mission. The cause becomes a substitute for meaning, and the group’s adrenaline becomes a substitute for inner stability.

Regressed rioters

Some adults regress under stress and excitement into adolescent defiance — or younger. Think “terrible twos.” They seek confrontation, throw verbal tantrums, and act on impulse, not reason. They perform outrage as if outrage itself justifies whatever follows.

Mr. and Mrs. Personality

Certain personality disorders show up frequently in chaotic movements: paranoia, grandiosity, emotional volatility, hostility, and disregard for others’ rights. These traits can thrive in crowds because the crowd rewards extremity and dilutes individual accountability.

Substance abusers

Alcohol and drugs lower inhibition and increase risk-taking. For some, a riot becomes a party with a political soundtrack — an excuse to seek thrills while claiming a moral cause.

RELATED: ‘How low can they go?’ Maryland Democrat seeks to punish Trump-era ICE agents for doing their job

Getty Images

These categories help explain how a crowd can form so quickly, swing into panic, and turn predatory. People mirror each other. They feed on fear and moral fervor. They swarm, then strike.

Clinical language can clarify motives, but it should not excuse crimes. Anyone who assaults officers, obstructs enforcement, destroys property, or threatens people should face arrest, prosecution, and due process. Speech receives protection; violence does not.

ICE agents enforce federal law. They face danger, hostility, and organized intimidation. A society that treats mob coercion as “protest” abandons the rule of law — and endangers everyone.

Mobs don’t get a veto over worship



America has always protected lawful protest. It has never protected persecution. Some communities now blur that line on purpose, and anyone who cares about civil rights, religious freedom, or the rule of law should be alarmed.

Most recently, agitators stormed Cities Church in Saint Paul, near Minneapolis, during a worship service to protest U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids around the Twin Cities. Federal authorities, including the Department of Justice, are investigating the incident under civil rights laws that protect religious exercise at places of worship. Several people, including journalists present, have been arrested or charged in connection with the disruption.

You don’t need to agree with the worshippers in Minnesota or California to defend their rights. Civil liberties mean nothing if they apply only to causes we like.

This wasn’t an isolated incident. Peaceful worshippers have faced unlawful harassment before.

Last year, in March and September, Christian and Jewish worshippers in Southern California gathered peacefully to pray, sing, and express deeply held religious beliefs about Israel and the Jewish people. They came to worship. A coordinated campaign of intimidation met them instead: blocked entrances, screaming mobs, bullhorns blaring sirens, graphic signs aimed at children, physical assaults, and targeted harassment designed to make worship impossible.

First Liberty Institute filed a detailed federal complaint describing how the disruptors planned and coordinated these attacks and then celebrated them afterward. They registered for church events under fake names, infiltrated the Mission Church, screamed accusations of “genocide” and “Nazism” at Jewish and Christian worshippers, and resisted removal. Outside, others blocked exits and forced families — including children and seniors — to run a narrow gauntlet just to reach their cars.

At another interfaith service, agitators surrounded vehicles, jumped on worshippers’ hoods, laid dolls in driveways while calling Jewish guests “baby-killers,” and blared sirens for hours to drown out prayer and preaching.

That conduct is flatly illegal. It is also a transparent attempt to cloak intimidation in the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does not authorize people to physically interfere with worship, intimidate attendees, or use force and coercion to silence beliefs they despise. Congress recognized that principle when it passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) made sure the law would protect religious exercise at places of worship from exactly this kind of obstruction. When mobs block entrances, assault worshippers, or deliberately prevent services from being heard, they break the law.

RELATED: When worship is interrupted, neutrality is no longer an option

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

These incidents also reveal something darker: the targets and the motive.

The worshippers were Christians and Jews united by shared religious convictions about Israel. For Jewish attendees, support for Israel is not a political slogan; it is woven into faith, daily prayer, and identity. For Christian congregations, support for the Jewish people flows from sincerely held theological beliefs. Targeting those beliefs through harassment and violence is religious discrimination.

History shows where this road can lead. When officials tolerate intimidation against one disfavored group, it spreads. Our complaint documents a surge in anti-Semitic attacks nationwide since Oct. 7, 2023, along with a widening hostility toward anyone who publicly stands in solidarity with Jews. Persecution works the same way every time: isolate the target, then punish anyone who refuses to abandon the target.

The aftermath should chill every American. The complaint alleges that organizers vowed to continue, posted videos on public Code Pink channels boasting about their actions, and shared images of worshippers online to expose them to further harassment. Churches canceled events. Interfaith groups struggled to find safe venues. Ordinary people began to fear worship in their own communities.

The Free Exercise Clause means little if mobs can intimidate Americans into silence inside their own sanctuaries.

RELATED: A protest doesn’t become lawful because Don Lemon livestreams it

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

On Monday, victims of this harassment will testify before President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission. The commission plans to issue a detailed plan to protect religious liberty in coordination with the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

You don’t need to agree with the worshippers in Minnesota or California to defend their rights. Civil liberties mean nothing if they apply only to causes we like. The moment we excuse intimidation because we sympathize with a protest’s message, we abandon equal freedom under the law.

Courts now have an opportunity — and an obligation — to draw a firm line. Peaceful protest belongs at a respectful distance, not inside sanctuaries. Reasonable debate belongs in the public square, not enforced through threats, coercion, and attempts at injury. If mobs get to decide who may worship freely, no one is safe.

Democrats Are Willing To Die To End Deportations. That Can’t Stop Law Enforcement

Law enforcement loses legitimacy the moment officials indicate they're unwilling to engage in it because of political opposition — even when that opposition is fatalistic.

Today In Republicans Being Useless: GOPers Cower To Anti-ICE Info Ops

If immigration officers can risk their lives for America's sovereignty, the least Republicans can do is have their backs in the left's dishonest information war.

The sanctuary city playbook is spreading in red states



I live in a community that, not long ago, was a quiet town outside Austin — one of many places people fled in search of safety, order, and a better quality of life. Today, that same community is rapidly transforming into the very version of Austin many residents hoped to escape.

Growth isn’t the problem. Ideology is.

My community is changing, not because it is growing, but because it is abandoning the principles that once made it worth building a life here.

A dangerous idea has taken hold in America: that enforcing the law is immoral, that accountability is cruelty, and that penalizing criminal behavior matters less than protecting the feelings of those who violate the law.

This worldview didn’t emerge organically. Institutions taught it, activists repeated it, and public officials normalized it until many Americans came to believe the humane response to disorder is deliberate blindness.

Last week, that ideology went on full display in my town.

Federal immigration authorities conducted targeted enforcement operations in the area. Homeland Security professionals carried out lawful, focused actions while doing the job Congress — and the American people — have repeatedly mandated that they do.

Within hours, local social media erupted. Facebook groups, Instagram accounts, and self-styled “community leaders” posted warnings about ICE. Progressive elected officials piled on, condemning the operation and circulating tips on how to avoid federal law enforcement. Some encouraged demonstrations near ICE activity to “drive them out.” Others urged residents to honk at ICE vehicles to alert everyone nearby to the supposed “danger.”

Many Americans shrug this off as routine political theater. What followed was worse.

RELATED: Why ‘anti-ICE protesters’ are useful, delusional idiots

Tim Evans/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Instead of standing firmly behind the rule of law, our local government and law enforcement agencies rushed to distance themselves — not out of principle, but out of fear. City social media accounts quickly clarified that ICE had merely notified the city of a vehicle parked near City Hall and that the city neither supported nor assisted the operation.

The message was unmistakable: Don’t blame us.

Screenshot/City of Buda/X.com

Even more disheartening, the police department issued its own statement emphasizing that it was not cooperating with ICE enforcement activities, noting only that officers responded alongside an ambulance.

Again, the message was clear: We want no part of this.

Screenshot/Kyle Police Department/X.com

This didn’t happen in Minnesota or Illinois. It happened in Texas — a state known nationwide for being tough on crime and historically supportive of immigration enforcement.

It happened just miles from our state Capitol. Yet even here, local entities openly refuse to cooperate with the mandate Americans have repeatedly voted for: enforcing our immigration laws.

In doing so, these institutions accomplished two things — neither defensible.

First, they publicly disavowed the enforcement of federal law, as though lawful authority were something shameful.

Second, they compromised operational security by broadcasting where law enforcement was present and what it was — or was not — doing. In any other context, that would be recognized as reckless. Here, activists applauded it.

Texas leaders should treat this as a warning.

State government must hold every jurisdiction accountable for never becoming a sanctuary — whether by statute or by practice — for illegal immigration and criminal activity. The Texas legislature took a critical step by passing legislation requiring most county sheriffs’ departments to participate in ICE’s 287(g) program. That built a foundation. We need more.

Texas should require all local law enforcement agencies to enter the 287(g) program that best fits their department and to publicly commit to enforcing the law. Accountability cannot stop at county lines. It cannot become optional based on online outrage and activist pressure.

RELATED: Illegal-alien patients drain Texas hospitals, racking up billion-dollar bill — in less than a year

Photo by: John Lazenby/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Just one year ago, the country was overwhelmed daily by mass illegal border crossings. The effort to restore control through lawful enforcement and deportation has only begun. Texas will never address the scale of the problem if cities — especially in red states — can refuse responsibility and pass the buck.

A society cannot function if enforcing the law is treated as oppression and breaking it is reframed as victimhood. Compassion doesn’t require chaos. Justice can’t survive if the people tasked with upholding it feel compelled to apologize for doing their jobs.

My community is changing, not because it is growing, but because it is abandoning the principles that once made it worth building a life here. If we keep going down this path — where enforcing the law becomes controversial and officials fear activists more than disorder — we should not act surprised when the place we moved to becomes indistinguishable from the place we left.