Not convicted, not sentenced, charged. The Trump administration argued that under existing immigration law, customs and border protection officers have discretionary authority to turn back lawful permanent residents at the border when those individuals are facing serious criminal accusations. And the Supreme Court agreed.
Now, I want you to understand what that means in practice here. A green card is not a passport. A green card is not citizenship. It’s not it. A green card is a privilege of legal residency extended by the United States government. And that government through its elected executive retains the authority to make judgments about who re-enters this country when there is reason for concern.
You see, the left has spent years arguing that once someone has got a green card, well, that’s it. They’re they are untouchable. they they can pass through that border whenever they want. The Supreme Court just said, “No, that’s not true. That’s not the law.” And the Trump administration was right. But here’s what I really want to focus on because the ruling doesn’t exist in isolation.
This is the latest. This is a part of a long list in a sustained accelerating string of Supreme Court victories for President Trump, particularly when it comes to immigration and border security. So earlier this term, the court ruled that the Trump administration could deploy what’s called the Alien Enemies Act.
That’s a law dating back all the way to 1798. They could deploy that act to deport members of the Trend Ara gang, the Venezuelan criminal organization that had been spreading its operations across American cities. The lower courts, if you could believe it, they tried to block that. the Supreme Court stepped in and said, “No, the executive branch most certainly does have this authority and it certainly may use it.
” And it goes all the way back to the 18th century. And then there was the birthright citizenship. So, we have yet to get the full ruling on that, but President Trump of course signed an executive order challenging the long-standing interpretation uh the wrong interpretation in my view, the 14th Amendment that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in American soil, including astonishingly the children of illegal aliens.
lower court judges, including several several Biden appointees, immediately issued nationwide injunctions blocking that executive order. The Supreme Court, while allowing the underlying legal challenge to continue, signified ca significantly curtailed the scope of those injunctions. So preventing individual district court judges from issuing rulings that block a presidential order everywhere in the country simultaneously.
So that’s a structural shift in how federal courts can resist the executive branch and it’s absolutely enormous. And then there’s the ICE enforcement. Some federal judges had tried to declare schools, churches, other what they called sensitive locations off limits for immigration enforcement, effectively creating sanctuary zones.
Supreme Court overturned all those restrictions, affirming that the executive branch, not a single district judge in a blue state courthouse, that the executive branch sets immigration enforcement policy. Period. So, of course, you know, LA Mayor Karen Bass was fierce. Gavin Newsome was furious. Supreme Court didn’t care, right? Facts don’t care about your feelings.
So, what you’re watching is the Supreme Court systematically dismantling the legal architecture that activist judges in the lower courts has spent years constructing to frustrate federal enforcement of our immigration laws. The left strategy was simple and cynical. shop for a sympathetic judge, get a sweeping nationwide injunction, and tie the administration in legal knots while the border remain open.
Supreme Court has now closed that playbook chapter by chapter, case by case. And let’s be clear about what this means politically. The Democrats and their media allies spent years telling you that Trump’s immigration agenda was unconstitutional, unamerican, would never survive legal scrutiny. They were wrong. They were flat out wrong on alien enemies.
They were wrong on birthright citizenship injunctions. They’re wrong on ICE enforcement locations. Wrong on green card deportations. The Constitution properly read gives the executive branch broad authority over the border and this court is affirming that one ruling at a time. Well, at least most of them are. There is unfortunately one particular justice that continues to demonstrate that she is way out of her league here.
And in this latest round of rulings this week, she didn’t disappoint. We’ve got the latest absurdity from Justice Auto Pen. You are not going to believe this gang. You have all got to go right now to turletalkscrypto.com. I’ll tell you why in a moment. What I’m about to share with you is the single most blatant Wall Street about face of our lifetimes.
In 2017, Black Rockck CEO Larry Frink called Bitcoin, I kid you not, quote, an index of money laundering. Bitcoin was money laundering. Today, Black Rockck holds over 800,000 Bitcoin. We’re $63 billion. That’s more than the United States Treasury has, more than any nation on earth has. So, here’s the question every patriot needs to ask.
The same Wall Street establishment that called Bitcoin a scam for 10 years, that mocked you for asking about it, is now its single largest buyer. Are you watching what they said or are you looking at what they’re doing? Gang, this is the great financial reversal of our lifetime. President Trump put Bitcoin in America’s strategic reserve.
Black Rockck is buying it by the billion. The Bitcoin Act in Congress authorizes a million more for the Treasury. The only people not in the room, the everyday Americans told it was too risky for their retirement. Well, that’s what I want you to know about Block Trust IRA. They built the platform that lets you do inside your retirement account.
Exactly what Black Rockck and the US Treasury are doing on their balance sheets. Institutional cold storage custody through Sfox and AI portfolio management through their amazing Animus AI system. I’ve been a client of Black Trust IRA for months now and gang, I can tell you I love them. Right now for Turley Talks listeners only. Go to turlytalkscrypto.com.
Get up to $2,500 in free crypto when you fund a qualifying account plus a complimentary 30inute call with their team where you get real answers and real solutions. Wall Street laughed at Bitcoin for a decade. Now they’re buying it by the billions. Don’t be the last one in. It’s time to take control of your financial destiny. Go to turly talkscrypto.com.
Justice autopen strikes again. You may have heard about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. Was actually a unanimous ruling 9 to zero. Every single justice including autopen in the case of the United States versus Heman or Hammani. So Ali Hammani was a recreational marijuana user who was prosecuted under a federal law that bans gun ownership for anyone who is a quote unlawful user of a controlled substance.
So the charge carried up to 15 years in federal prison and permanent loss of his second amendment uh rights. Justice Neil Gorsuch writing for the entire court struck that down. He found the law inconsistent with the second amendment, noting that Heman was not a or Hmani was not a drug addict. Uh he had not used his firearms in any threatening manner and that the historical analogies that the government had used like colonial era laws, disarming, habitual drunkenness, it simply didn’t apply.
So nine to zero, everyone agreed. Case closed, right? Good day for the Second Amendment, right? wrong. Justice Kitanji Brown Jackson could not leave it there. She agreed with the rest of the justices, but she used her concurring opinion to launch a sweeping attack on the Breuan decision. That’s the landmark 2022 Supreme Court decision that requires all gun regulations to be grounded in the historical tradition of the founding era.
She even though she agreed with the decision rooted in the Brewan president, she called the Brewan framework quote unworkable. She complained that it imposes on judges quote, I’m not kidding you, the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries old evidence in order to answer contested historical questions. And she called on the court to scrap the entire framework in a future case and replace it with something that liberals call means end scrutiny, which is a technical legal term for let judges decide for themselves what gun restrictions seem reasonable today. I
kid you not. Let a liberal judge figure it out. And whatever that liberal judge wants, they could slap it on there easy. Now, my name’s sake, the constitutional law scholar, Jonathan Turley, he immediately called this out for what it is, and his observation cuts right to the heart of it. Justice Jackson is complaining that judges should not be burdened with studying history and original meaning when it applies to the Second Amendment.
You can study history all you want when it comes to like racism, slavery, bigotry, blah blah blah, but when it comes to the Second Amendment, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, justices should not be burdened with studying history, especially when it comes to issues surrounding the Second Amendment. The work is just too hard.
The evidence is just too old. The questions are just too contested. Now unfortunately for auto pen that burden the burden of actually seeking to understand what the constitution meant when it was written and ratified is not a bug in the const in constitutional interpretation. It is the entire point of constitutional interpretation.
It is precisely what prevents nine unelected judges from simply rewriting the law to reflect their own personal policy preferences. And as Turley notes, to suggest that Jackson’s preferred means scrutiny approach would be less inconsistent and arbitrary is only true if you control the court with justices who already share your political conclusions, which is of course exactly what the Democrats are promising to do if they retake power.
pack the court with four new justices in the image of Justice Jackson and never lose another case again. That’s not a paranoid fantasy. Democrat strategist James Carville said out loud earlier this year, if we get power, we’re adding states and we’re packing the courts. And the attitude in the room he said was basically, you know, f it, just do it. So that’s the stakes.
Jackson’s not some outlier being unfairly criticized by conservatives. Since her confirmation 2022, she has compiled what Jonathan Turley calls one of the most radical judicial records in the court’s history. Her solo dissents, which are many, the opinions where it is literally just her disagreeing with every other justice, including her fellow liberals, they’ve drawn sharp criticism from both conservative and liberal colleagues.
In fact, her fellow liberal justices have publicly called her claims baseless and utterly irresponsible. The old saying is this. If three liberal justices descent to a decision, yeah, then you could make a reasonable argument on their behalf. If only two liberal justices descent, that would be Sonomayor and autopen. Well, then the descent is more or less likely silly.
But if only one desents, the usual one, then it’s outright batshit crazy. But here’s where Turley lands in all this. And again, I think he’s exactly right. What Justice Otto Pen is proposing, what the Democrat left is promising to instill in the pack court. It’s not merely a different legal philosophy. It’s actually the end of constitutionalism as a constraint on power.
It’s the replacement of fixed law with the living, breathing preferences of whoever sits on the bench. Preferences that by remarkable coincidence always seem to reach the same progressive Marxist conclusions, protecting the same progressive constituencies and expanding the power of the same progressive administrative state.
The Trump administration keeps winning at the Supreme Court precisely because the Constitution keeps winning. A law grounded in text, history, and the original understanding of the American founding is, as it turns out, a remarkably durable thing, even after decades of activist erosion. The border is being enforced. The Second Amendment is being upheld.
And on the other side, Justice OPen is writing concurrences that even her own liberal colleagues find ridiculous. It’s our job to make sure that Justice Auto Pen’s constitutionally illiterate opinions remain completely and permanently alone.
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
