Democratic strategist James Carville said he wants nothing to do with the growing socialist wing of the party, insisting that “these people are not Democrats.” Carville’s comments follow three candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani winning their U.S. House Democratic primaries. Former NYC Comptroller Brad Lander defeated Rep. Dan Goldman in New York’s 10th Congressional District, Darializa Avila Chevalier upset Rep. Adriano Espaillat in the 13th district, and state Rep. Claire Valdez defeated Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso in the 7th district. In particular, Carville took aim at Avila Chevalier. “She has attacked interracial relationships and the American flag. Lady, I ain’t in the same party as you,” Carville said. “I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk the S word, schism,” he continued. “There’s just some s*** that I can’t be in the same tent with,” Carville said. “These people do not like Democrats. Not only are they not Democrats, they wish Democrats poorly,” he continued. “I’m done. I’m not in that f***ing political party,” he said. “I am totally comfortable in a political party that spends time questioning the policies of the government of Israel. I’m, in fact, I’m enthusiastic about that. I don’t want to be in a political party that denies the right of the State of Israel to exist,” Carville explained. Watch below (EXPLICIT LANGUAGE): NEW: James Carville: “I actually do think it's time for Democrats to talk the S word: ‘Schism’ … there's just some sh*t that I can't be in the same tent with … I'm done … I don't want to be in a political party that denies the right of the state of Israel to exist.” pic.twitter.com/O5ATLyvXwV — Jason Cohen (@JasonJournoDC) June 25, 2026 NewsNation has more: Three candidates gaining the most attention are Democratic socialists Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier, and progressive Democrat Brad Lander. All of them were backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in what was considered a major test of his political influence and the strength of the city’s progressive movement overall. “We are showing there is a new path for politics in our city and in our country,” Mamdani said. “We are showing that last June, a year ago tomorrow, was not an anomaly. It was not the end. It was the beginning.” However, some in the Democratic Party believe success of the left could bring the party down. Democratic strategist James Carville thinks some critics of Tuesday’s results are being overly dramatic, calling their reactions “90% hysterical.” But he told NewsNation’s Elizabeth Vargas on Wednesday that he doesn’t understand or appreciate these candidates’ efforts to use the Democratic Party to advance their socialist ideals. “All of these people hate Democrats,” Carville told Vargas. “Why do you want to run as a Democrat? Start your own movement. If it’s such a powerful, sweeping movement that’s got momentum everywhere, then go ahead and be at the head of it. Don’t use the Democratic Party to advance it.” “They should not seat her in the caucus. Her views are totally against anything that any Democrat has. We believe in pluralism,” Carville said regarding Avila Chevalier. Carville says he wouldn’t seat Mamdani-backed Avila Chevalier in caucus: ‘She’s not a Democrat’https://t.co/J7QYjld3Kd — The Hill (@thehill) June 25, 2026 CNN shared further: Top Democrats insist that they’re unfazed by the party’s forming a “Zohran Mamdani wing,” after the New York City mayor’s stunningly successful primary night. But there is growing angst among many sitting congressional Democrats after Mamdani allies won three primaries, including defeats of incumbent Reps. Adriano Espaillat and Dan Goldman. And, most immediately, they worry it will make it tougher to flip the House this year, with Republicans eager to tee up the Mamdani slate’s most controversial positions for attack ads in battlegrounds across the country. “Obviously, the socialists had a big win last night. The question is, are we going to let them take over the party? Or are we going to stand up and fight back?” said Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, a moderate Democrat who has criticized Mamdani’s politics and how he’s addressed allies of Israel. “Many of us believe, as I do, that if you’re a socialist, you’re not a Democrat.” Gottheimer and others worry that Republicans will try to yoke their most vulnerable members to what they see as far-left ultra-progressives — and they worry that it will only highlight Democratic divisions in a must-win election year. “If you ask me, it was not a good night for New York,” Rep. Greg Meeks, a powerful New York Democrat who is close with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, told CNN when asked about deleted posts from Darializa Avila Chevalier, who defeated Espaillat, expressing support for abolishing police, prisons and borders. Asked about the fraught relationship between the Democratic Socialists of America and the Democratic Party, Meeks added: “Instead of us making sure we put all of our resources to fight Republicans and to fight Donald Trump, we’re using it to fight each other. It just doesn’t make common sense to me.” Watch more below: The post “I Ain’t In The Same Party As You” – Prominent Democratic Strategist Wants “Schism” In Party After Mamdani-Backed Candidates Dominate NYC Primaries appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

France has confirmed its first Ebola case linked to the outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). French officials said a doctor who had traveled to the country tested positive for the pathogen. The doctor recently returned from the DRC and has been transferred to a specialist hospital. “The confirmation of an Ebola case in France linked to response work in the DRC is a reminder that strong surveillance, rapid reporting, and international cooperation save lives. The health worker left the DRC without symptoms, met all travel requirements, and was diagnosed quickly after symptoms appeared. Public health systems worked as they should,” the Africa CDC wrote. “Africa CDC commends the rapid response of authorities in France and the DRC and calls on partners to continue supporting frontline teams, strengthening surveillance, and avoiding measures not based on science, including unnecessary travel and trade restrictions. Stopping Ebola at its source remains the best way to protect communities everywhere,” it continued. The confirmation of an Ebola case in France linked to response work in the DRC is a reminder that strong surveillance, rapid reporting, and international cooperation save lives. The health worker left the DRC without symptoms, met all travel requirements, and was diagnosed… pic.twitter.com/E9iFQ3b4Mc — Africa CDC (@AfricaCDC) June 25, 2026 More from The New York Times: French health workers were racing to trace anyone who may have come in contact with the doctor. Contacts will have to be isolated for 21 days and will be closely monitored, the ministry said. Congo is at the center of an outbreak in central Africa that was declared on May 15, with most cases in the northeastern Ituri Province. At least 260 people have died, and there have been more than 1,000 confirmed cases in the country, according to the World Health Organization. The doctor works for the Alliance for International Medical Action, an aid organization known as ALIMA that has been part of the emergency response to the outbreak, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director general of the W.H.O., said in a news conference. The nonprofit has helped in setting up treatment centers, he said. “This case is a reminder of the risks faced by frontline responders,” Dr. Tedros said, adding that 82 health care workers have become ill during the outbreak. Meanwhile, the DRC has tightened travel restrictions for anyone returning from an Ebola-impacted area. “The confirmation of an #Ebola case in France can understandably attract attention, but the risk to the wider public remains low. Over the past 50 years, only a limited number of Ebola cases have been detected outside Africa. Well-developed and accessible health services, effective surveillance and public health measures are critical to identify, isolate and manage cases safely,” WHO Regional Director Hans Kluge said. “France has the capacity to test for and safely manage Ebola virus disease, including the Bundibugyo virus involved in the current outbreak. Specialised laboratories can quickly and accurately confirm cases and analyse the virus when needed, while specialised isolation units are safe places to provide quality care to people with Ebola virus disease. This work takes place in high-security facilities designed to protect laboratory staff and the public,” he continued. The confirmation of an #Ebola case in France can understandably attract attention, but the risk to the wider public remains low. Over the past 50 years, only a limited number of Ebola cases have been detected outside Africa. Well-developed and accessible health services,… pic.twitter.com/KbiFIAa6zE — Hans Kluge (@hans_kluge) June 24, 2026 Reuters shared further: The Democratic Republic of Congo has imposed a 21-day quarantine for anyone returning from Ebola-affected areas ​before they can travel abroad, tightening controls after ‌France confirmed its first imported case linked to the outbreak. A June 24 decree signed by health minister Samuel-Roger Kamba requires anyone ​identified as a contact of a confirmed or ​suspected Ebola case to undergo 21 days of ⁠active health monitoring from their last exposure. During that ​period, all travel, domestic or international, is banned unless expressly ​authorized by health authorities. The same monitoring rules apply to health workers, laboratory staff and response teams returning from affected areas, who ​must also obtain prior approval before travelling internationally. More broadly, ​anyone who has stayed in an Ebola-affected province may only travel abroad ‌after ⁠spending at least 21 days outside the area. All outbound international passengers are now required to complete a health declaration form issued by border health authorities, with airlines ​responsible for verifying ​compliance as ⁠an additional screening measure. The post European Country Reports First Ebola Case appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

The Supreme Court just handed President Trump one of the biggest immigration wins of his second term. And it was not close. In a 6-3 decision released June 25, 2026, the Court ruled that the administration’s move to terminate Temporary Protected Status for Haiti and Syria can go forward, reversing the lower-court orders that had been freezing those terminations in place. The three liberal justices dissented. The conservative majority cleared the way for the administration to do what voters elected it to do. IT'S OFFICIAL: The Supreme Court rules that Democrats COULD NOT challenge President Trump and DHS ending TPS legal status for Haitian and Syrian migrants The court SMACKED DOWN Democrats' claim that ending TPS was "racially-based" Huge!!! The Supreme Court is stacking Ws!… pic.twitter.com/aWL51ncKbY — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 25, 2026 Here is what actually happened. The cases are Mullin v. Doe, docket 25-1083, decided together with Trump v. Miot, docket 25-1084. The Court’s 49-page opinion holds that the TPS statute bars judicial review of the non-constitutional claims the challengers brought. The majority also held that the equal-protection claim alleging Haiti’s designation was ended because of race was unlikely to succeed. That matters because the lower-court orders had kept the protections frozen while litigation dragged on. The justices reversed and remanded, taking away the courtroom roadblock that had slowed the administration’s termination notices. That reset is the practical victory: the administration no longer has to leave those TPS terminations on ice while challengers pursue the same claims. The opinion walks through the history. Congress created TPS in 1990 as short-term humanitarian relief for aliens who cannot safely return home. Syria got TPS in 2012. Haiti got it in 2010 after an earthquake. The Court notes these supposedly temporary designations have often stretched on for decades, which is exactly the kind of mission creep President Trump’s team has been trying to unwind. The opinion also ties the ruling to the DHS termination notices issued in 2025: Syria in September and Haiti in November. That is the key timeline, because those notices are now free to move forward without the same lower-court freeze. Justice Samuel Alito announced the judgment and wrote the opinion of the Court except for one part. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined in full. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined except for Part III-A. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Translate that out of court-speak: the liberal wing wanted to keep blocking the administration. They lost. MASSIVE WIN Supreme Court rules the Trump admin can END Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrians and Haitians Roughly 330,000 Haitians and 3,800 Syrians now face deportation. The three liberal justices dissented. pic.twitter.com/cslgA2zaX1 — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 25, 2026 The numbers here are real. The New York Post reports the ruling lets the administration strip deportation protections from more than 350,000 Haitians and more than 6,000 Syrians, making them eligible for removal. The Post notes that lower courts had been keeping those protections alive while the lawsuits played out. The report also tracks the key legal line: the high court said judges cannot review these TPS termination decisions on the non-constitutional grounds the challengers used. The plaintiffs claimed racial bias over the Haiti decision, but the majority said that equal-protection claim was unlikely to succeed. This is the Trump enforcement agenda working exactly as designed. DHS gave public notice in September 2025 that Syria’s designation would end, and in November 2025 that Haiti’s would end. The opinion explains the administration objects to dragging out these temporary programs for decades, and that the Secretary of Homeland Security has terminated every single TPS designation that has come up for renewal under President Trump’s second term, 13 in all. Every one. A little legal background helps. The pre-decision framing from Cornell Legal Information Institute laid out the core fight clearly. The government argued that the TPS statute’s Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) bars judicial review of these decisions. The challengers argued courts could still review whether DHS followed required procedures, and the Haiti challengers pressed the racial-animus claim. Cornell’s framing showed why the case carried stakes beyond these two countries: TPS policy, national security judgments, and the power of judges to second-guess immigration enforcement decisions were all on the table. The majority sided with the government on the question that decided the case. To be precise about what the ruling does: it does not instantly deport every TPS holder. It clears the lower-court roadblocks, limits the kinds of claims judges can use to freeze these decisions, and lets the administration’s terminations move forward. That is exactly the relief the administration needed. And it was not the only win that day. BREAKING: The Supreme Court handed President Trump two major immigration victories in separate 6-3 rulings, allowing his administration to revive a policy turning away certain asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. In a second ruling, the court backed the administration’s… pic.twitter.com/o0ZPxUzVVX — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 25, 2026 As the Court showed in a separate 6-3 immigration ruling the same day, the justices also backed the administration’s revival of a border metering policy that turns away certain asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. That companion case was Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25-5, also decided June 25, 2026. The Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit, holding that an alien standing in Mexico does not “arrive in the United States” for the relevant asylum and inspection statutes until he crosses the border. The opinion said the case was still live because the lower-court declaration continued to block the government from using metering during border surges in the Ninth Circuit. The government told the Court metering remains an important tool when border conditions warrant it. That is why the two-win point matters: TPS authority and border-processing authority both moved toward President Trump’s administration on the same morning. Two major immigration victories. One day. Same 6-3 split. The pattern is clear, and it favors enforcement. For years the playbook was simple: pass a temporary humanitarian program, then let it run forever, then dare anyone to end it. The Trump administration finally said no, and now the Supreme Court has said the courts cannot keep tying the administration’s hands on non-constitutional grounds. The American people voted for a President who would secure the border and enforce immigration law. This ruling lets him do exactly that. The protections that were supposed to be temporary will finally be treated as temporary, and the law gets to mean what it says again. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. What are your thoughts? TAP HERE TO ADD YOUR VOTE The post SEND THEM ALL HOME: In Landmark 6-3 Ruling, Supreme Court Hands President Trump A Huge Immigration Win! appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

President Trump just got the kind of Supreme Court morning that changes the entire immigration fight. Two separate immigration cases. Two separate 6-3 rulings. Two major wins for the administration on the same day. The first cleared the way to end Temporary Protected Status for Haiti and Syria. The second, the one that may matter most at the border, is the focus here. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the justices rejected the Ninth Circuit’s expansive asylum theory and ruled that an alien standing in Mexico has not “arrived in the United States” under federal law. That means DHS is not forced to inspect and process every would-be asylum applicant standing outside the country before they cross. The administration can revive its metering policy when conditions warrant. NOW: US Supreme Court 6-3 STRIKES DOWN activist judges and upholds President Trump's policy to turn away "asylum seeker" invaders before they enter the United States at the border GOOD! LOOPHOLE CLOSED! SCOTUS deals another blow to the Democrat invasion! Leftists tried… pic.twitter.com/kHliCjMpXX — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 25, 2026 Eric Daugherty caught the mood immediately. The Supreme Court struck down the activist judges and upheld President Trump’s authority to turn away certain asylum seekers before they ever set foot on American soil. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented. The Supreme Court opinion in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado came down June 25, 2026. The question was whether a person standing in Mexico and trying to cross has “arrived in the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court said no. Arrival happens after crossing the border, not before. The justices treated this as a straightforward question of statutory text. The INA does not entitle an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum, and it does not require the government to inspect that person before they cross. The opinion notes that DHS adopted metering in 2016 after a surge at the San Diego and Tijuana crossing, with officials preventing aliens from entering beyond processing capacity. The lower-court declaratory judgment had kept blocking metering across the Ninth Circuit while DHS wanted the ability to resume it. That obstacle is now gone. BREAKING: Supreme Court clears way for Trump administration to revive immigration policy that limited how many people could apply for asylum. https://t.co/TL93VNEeVg — The Associated Press (@AP) June 25, 2026 The Associated Press confirmed the practical effect in plainer terms. The decision clears the way for the administration to revive the border policy that limited how many people could apply for asylum each day. AP reports the practice, often called metering, started under Obama, expanded during President Trump’s first term, ended in 2020, and was rescinded by Biden in 2021. The outlet also noted that federal law expressly protects asylum claims for migrants who arrive inside the United States, while the administration argued metering was a critical tool for managing border flows. That is the key line: the fight was not whether asylum exists, but whether people outside the country can force processing before entry. Advocates argued the opposite and said the policy created humanitarian problems near the border. The majority sided with the text of the law. And remember, this landed on top of the day’s other win. The Court also handed the administration a separate 6-3 victory on Temporary Protected Status. BREAKING: The Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration can end TPS for Haitians and Syrians. Temporary does in fact mean Temporary. pic.twitter.com/chRX8Fs67V — Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 25, 2026 Greg Price flagged that piece of the story. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the administration can move to end TPS for Haitians and Syrians. The Supreme Court opinion in Mullin v. Doe held that the challengers were not entitled to orders postponing the TPS terminations while litigation continues. The Court pointed to the TPS statute, which bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims, and found the Haiti equal-protection argument unlikely to succeed. Alito again wrote the controlling opinion, with the three liberal justices in dissent. The opinion also walked through the TPS timeline. Syria received the designation in 2012, Haiti received it after the 2010 earthquake, and DHS issued public termination notices for both countries in 2025. That matters because the majority treated the lower-court orders as an attempt to postpone executive branch TPS termination decisions that Congress largely shielded from ordinary court review. The Associated Press put numbers on it. The ruling blocks the lower-court orders and lets DHS swiftly end TPS for Haiti and Syria, affecting roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. AP notes the broader TPS program covers around 1.3 million people from 17 countries, and the administration argued that courts cannot second-guess immigration officials on these calls. BREAKING: The Supreme Court handed President Trump two major immigration victories in separate 6-3 rulings, allowing his administration to revive a policy turning away certain asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. In a second ruling, the court backed the administration’s… pic.twitter.com/o0ZPxUzVVX — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 25, 2026 Breaking911 tied both together. Two major immigration victories for President Trump in separate 6-3 rulings on the same day. The border ruling is the one that reshapes the daily fight at the line. DHS no longer has to treat someone standing in Mexico as if they already crossed, and that restores a real lever for managing the flow. Two wins, same 6-3 margin, same morning. The Court read the law as written, and the administration gets the tools it has been fighting to restore. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post BREAKING: Supreme Court Hands President Trump SECOND 6-3 Ruling With Another Major Immigration Win! appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

The Supreme Court just handed law-abiding gun owners a massive win. In a 6-3 decision issued June 25, 2026, the Court struck down Hawaii’s rule that banned concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns onto private property open to the public unless the owner gave express permission. The case is Wolford v. Lopez, docket 24-1046. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court held that Hawaii’s law violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. This is a clean, decisive victory for the post-Bruen framework, and it slams the door on one of the slickest workarounds blue states cooked up after they lost in 2022. In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii’s rule that banned carrying guns on most private property that is open to the public unless the owner gave explicit permission, holding that it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. pic.twitter.com/yz7303UybD — SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) June 25, 2026 Here is the heart of it. The Supreme Court opinion in Wolford v. Lopez reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit. The case was argued January 20, 2026, decided June 25, 2026, and centered on Hawaii’s attempt to make lawful carry on public-facing private property illegal unless the owner gave express permission. The holding is the whole ballgame: Hawaii’s rule violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments as applied to licensed concealed-carry permit holders carrying handguns on private property open to the public. Alito’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Barrett filed a concurrence, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch as to Part II-B. Justice Kagan dissented, and Justice Jackson dissented too, joined by Sotomayor. The Court explained that the petitioners are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment and that they seek to “bear” “Arms” for self-defense. That puts them squarely inside the plain text of the Amendment, which makes Hawaii’s law presumptively unconstitutional unless the state can show a real historical tradition behind it. Then the burden shifts to Hawaii to find a real historical tradition that fits. It couldn’t. The Court zeroed in on how Hawaii flipped the standard common-law default. Under the traditional rule, people may enter property held open to the public unless the owner withdraws consent. Hawaii reversed that. Under its scheme, nobody carrying a firearm could enter unless the owner affirmatively authorized it first. Alito noted how badly that burdens everyday life for permit holders who simply want to stop at a gas station, grab dinner at a restaurant, or run into a store. The opinion also exposed how hostile Hawaii had been to carry rights in the first place. Before Bruen, carry permits were nearly impossible to get, and from 2000 to 2018 the state apparently issued only four such licenses. Then, after Bruen forced these states to actually issue permits, Hawaii and four of the five other states the Court called out turned around and adopted these “default rule” restrictions on public-facing private property. The workaround was obvious. The Court wasn’t buying Hawaii’s history lesson either. The state leaned heavily on old anti-poaching and hunting-related laws, and Alito rejected those analogues as far too different from a modern blanket default ban. The opinion also shot down the idea that local attitudes can shrink the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment applies the same way in every single state. Justice Alito delivers the opinion of the Court. Justice Kagan dissents. Justice Jackson dissents, joined by Sotomayor. Read the ruling here: https://t.co/0MGHfS8xQP — SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) June 25, 2026 One important point, so nobody gets this twisted. The ruling does not say private businesses cannot ban guns on their own property. Property owners can still exclude firearms if they choose. What Hawaii cannot do is make “no carry” the government-imposed default for public-facing private property and force lawful permit holders to assume they’re banned everywhere unless told otherwise. That’s the whole game. The state tried to make a constitutional right the exception instead of the rule. CBS News reported that critics nicknamed Hawaii’s restriction the “vampire rule,” because law-abiding carriers had to be invited in before entering many stores, restaurants, gas stations, and other private places open to the public. CBS also noted that violating the rule was a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison. That is why this was not some minor paperwork dispute. A person who had already cleared Hawaii’s concealed-carry process could still risk criminal exposure just by carrying while running everyday errands unless the property owner had affirmatively given permission first. CBS also noted Hawaii was one of five states with these presumptive restrictions. Similar measures in New York, California, and Maryland have already been blocked, and President Trump’s administration backed the gun owners in this fight. The report also put the ruling in the post-Bruen chain of gun cases, where courts are still working through what the right to carry outside the home means in practice. This decision lands squarely on the side of ordinary lawful carry. The legal background lines up with all of it. The Constitution Annotated summary from the Library of Congress laid out the core question before the decision: whether Hawaii violated the Second Amendment by barring permit holders from carrying on private property open to the public absent express consent. That framed the fight as a direct test of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The background also walked through the post-Bruen standard. Once a gun restriction burdens conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s text, the government must point to a national historical tradition that supports the modern restriction. That was the problem for Hawaii. The Ninth Circuit had upheld Hawaii’s default rule, but the petitioners argued the appeals court misapplied Bruen and split from other courts confronting similar laws. The high court just settled that fight the right way. A state cannot turn the right to carry into something citizens may exercise only after getting an affirmative green light at the door. This was also a busy day at One First Street. The official Supreme Court opinions list shows four opinions released June 25, 2026, including Wolford v. Lopez, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, Mullin v. Doe, and Monsanto v. Durnell. That same release list is what made this gun-rights ruling part of a remarkable day at the Court. By the time Wolford landed, the justices had already sent major signals on immigration, federal power, and other high-profile constitutional fights. For Second Amendment supporters, though, Wolford is the one to frame. It takes a practical, everyday question and answers it in favor of the constitutional right. Gun owners will be celebrating this one for a long time. The message from this Court could not be clearer. The Second Amendment is a real right, and it travels with law-abiding Americans into ordinary daily life. States do not get to neuter it with clever defaults and creative paperwork. Hawaii tried, and it lost 6-3. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post Supreme Court Delivers HUGE 2nd Amendment Win In Third 6-3 Decision Issued Today. appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.