The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge against an Illinois law that bans citizens from carrying concealed loaded guns on public transit. The state has prohibited firearms on buses and trains for over a decade, the Chicago Sun-Times noted. “Three Illinois residents challenged the ban, arguing it violates the Second and 14th Amendment rights,” The Center Square reports. “There is no historical tradition of banning law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms in crowded public locations where they may be more vulnerable,” lawyers wrote in a petition to the court, according to the outlet. SCOTUS Turns Away Challenge to Carry Ban on Public Transportationhttps://t.co/lckBjkUd4C — Bearing Arms (@BearingArmsCom) April 6, 2026 The Center Square shared further: Illinois requires gun owners to acquire a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card and a concealed carry license in order to carry a firearm in public. However, the state bans individuals from carrying a loaded or unsecured firearm onto buses, trains or any other type of public transportation that is paid for in part or whole by public funds. Kwame Raoul, Illinois’ attorney general, argued the prohibition on guns in public transportation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition limiting firearms in sensitive places, like court rooms, schools and polling places. “Like historical sensitive places, public transit features ‘confined areas with a high density of people,’ making firearms ‘exceptionally dangerous,’” Raoul wrote. “Everyone deserves to feel safe on public transit,” Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke said in a statement, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. “Minimizing the risk from dangerous weapons is crucial to protect members of the public who use this vital public resource. We are pleased the Supreme Court agreed with our arguments, which will allow Illinois’ commonsense law banning firearms on public transportation to stand,” she continued. Raoul, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, and DuPage County state’s attorney had challenged a lower court ruling that overturned the ban. “A federal appeals court backed the law in a September decision,” the outlet wrote. The Cook County State's Attorney’s office, alongside Illinois attorney general Kwame Raoul and DuPage County state’s attorney, had challenged a lower court ruling overturning it in 2022. A federal appeals court backed the law in a September decision. https://t.co/c7vUJ5mkLZ — Chicago Sun-Times (@Suntimes) April 7, 2026 More from the Chicago Sun-Times: David G. Sigale, who represented the plaintiffs, said they were “very disappointed” in the decision. “Law-abiding public transportation riders in Illinois are less safe as a result of the law,” he said in a statement. “We know that groups like the (Illinois State Rifle Association) will continue to fight this prohibition in the legislative and political arenas, as well as the courts, so that Illinoisans’ Second Amendment rights will be respected.” Four concealed carry permit holders sued over the Illinois law in 2022, claiming it prevented them from carrying weapons for self-defense when traveling on the Chicago Transit Authority and Metra. In August 2024, a federal judge in Rockford’s U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled in favor of the four plaintiffs who argued that prohibiting guns on public buses and trains was unconstitutional. That decision relied on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Bruen that said restrictions on carrying guns in public must be “relevantly similar” or consistent with conditions that existed in the late 18th century when the Bill of Rights was composed. It said there were no analogous conditions that justified the transit ban. Then, last September, Judge Joshua Kolar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit wrote in the majority opinion for a three-judge panel that the law “is comfortably situated in a centuries-old practice of limiting firearms in sensitive and crowded, confined places.” The public transit ban was imposed in 2013 when Illinois became the last state in the nation to OK carrying concealed weapons in public. In addition to buses and trains, the law nixed gun possession in places such as public arenas and hospitals.

An Indianapolis city councilor said his home was targeted in what appeared to be a politically-motivated attack after he voted in favor of a controversial data center. Ron Gibson, who is serving his third term on the Indianapolis City-County Council, said someone fired 13 shots at his front door. Gibson also found a note on the doorstep that reportedly said “NO DATA CENTERS.” BREAKING: 13 shots fired into home of Indianapolis councilor; note reading “No data centers” left at scene. pic.twitter.com/jUqhiGKvFC — Resist Wire (@ResistWire) April 6, 2026 CBS News shared further: The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department said officers were called to the home around 9 a.m. Monday. Officers found evidence of gunshots and believe it was “an isolated, targeted incident,” police said. A suspect has not been identified. The FBI is assisting in the investigation, according to police. Data centers used to store, train and operate artificial intelligence models have become controversial in towns across the U.S. in part because they drain power from the shared electric grid, driving up costs for residents, CBS News has previously reported. They have also been shown to use massive amounts of water, sparking concerns over rippling impact on the environment and public health. “My 8-year-old son and I were not physically harmed, but we were awakened by the sound of gunfire. Like any parent, I immediately ran to him and reassured him that he was safe,” Gibson said, according to the outlet. “This was not just an attack on my home, but endangered my child and disrupted the safety of our entire neighborhood,” he added. CBS Evening News shared video coverage: Days after voting in favor of a new data center in Indianapolis, Councilman Ron Gibson says his home was struck by 13 gunshots while he and his family were asleep. He says a handwritten note reading “No data centers” was found under the doormat. pic.twitter.com/RdEPP80oaH — CBS Evening News with Tony Dokoupil (@CBSEveningNews) April 6, 2026 FOX 59 has more: Gibson, who represents District 8, recently voted in favor of constructing a half-billion-dollar data center in Indianapolis’ Martindale-Brightwood neighborhood. He explained his vote in a statement shared on X on April 1. The data center has seen heated pushback from the community, with several public meetings attended by angry residents who urged the city to reject the bid. Even Gibson’s post explaining his vote was met with anger, with a commentator calling him a sellout.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Fox News host Bret Baier during an interview that the Trump administration may consider removing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents from sanctuary cities that have international airports. “In interview w/ colleague @BretBaier, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin floats the idea of stripping CBP/customs officers from airports in large sanctuary cities as retaliation for refusing to cooperate with the federal government. International travelers wouldn’t be able to fly into airports and leave without going through customs,” Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin wrote. “Mullin points out that Democrats are also refusing to fund CBP,” Melugin added. NEW: In interview w/ colleague @BretBaier, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin floats the idea of stripping CBP/customs officers from airports in large sanctuary cities as retaliation for refusing to cooperate with the federal government. International travelers wouldn’t be able to… — Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) April 6, 2026 “I believe sanctuary cities is not lawful,” Mullin commented. “Some of these cities have international airports. If they are a sanctuary city, should they really be processing customs into their city?” Mullin continued. “Seriously, If they’re a sanctuary city, and they’re receiving international flights, and we’re asking them to partner with us at the airport, but once they walk out of the airport they’re not going to enforce immigration policy, maybe we need to have a really hard look at that because we need to focus on cities that want to work with us,” he added. “So you are saying that big cities that are sanctuary cities that have a big airport, they might lose their customs?” Baier questioned. “I’m going to be forced to make hard decisions,” Mullin said. Watch the exchange: Mullin: I believe sanctuary cities is not lawful. Some of these cities have international airports. If they are a sanctuary city, should they really be processing customs into their city? We need to have a really hard look at that. Baier: So you are saying that big cities that… pic.twitter.com/UAJxWFZtZI — Acyn (@Acyn) April 6, 2026 More from the New York Post: US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents operate at more than 300 ports of entry, including international airports, throughout the country. Removing CBP from sanctuary city airports would be in-line with the Trump administration’s policy of terminating federal funding for jurisdictions that prevent local law enforcement and jails from working with federal immigration enforcement agents. Reducing the number of CBP agents at sanctuary city airports would likely create long lines for international travelers seeking to enter or re-enter the US. Federal funding for DHS lapsed on Feb. 14, when Democratic lawmakers voted to shut down the department over concerns about CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policies. ICE and CBP, however, remain funded through President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. “Could be a massive problem for LAX SFO ORD EWR JFK etc,” Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman commented. Could be a massive problem for LAX SFO ORD EWR JFK etc. https://t.co/k9ijk8ofXN — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) April 6, 2026 Fox News shared further: Mullin shared his plans for leading the department that has become embattled with controversy. “My job is to empower them [employees] to do their jobs,” he explained. “How do I make sure that they have the tools and the assets they need and the manpower they need to be able to go out and deliver the mission that Congress and the president has tasked us with?” During his confirmation hearing, Mullin said one goal is that within six months, he hopes DHS will not be in the headlines every day. “Right now, we get more correspondence from media than the White House does,” Mullin revealed. “It’s become such a political hotbed. And really, why is Department of Homeland such a political hotbed? All they’re doing is trying to keep our streets safe, trying to keep our nation secure, trying to keep bad actors from having terrorist attacks on the homeland. It should be something we all get behind,” he added. Mullin also spoke about the ongoing partial government shutdown as Congress fails to agree on a funding plan for DHS. He accused Democrats of putting the country in a vulnerable state amid conflict with Iran. “It’s putting our mission at risk,” he said. “We have some very challenging times right now.” “How we get past this is that we’ve got to put the partisan bickering aside and say, ‘What’s best for America? What’s best for moving forward?'”

Today, Savannah Guthrie made her big comeback to The Today Show — even though her mother is still missing. By all appearances, there are still no suspects or leads in the Nancy Guthrie disappearance investigation. The case has basically gone cold. At the same time, TMZ reported that they have received another ransom note from someone who has been repeatedly messaging them since Nancy went missing. According to TMZ, this anonymous person — who says he/she isn’t the kidnapper, but rather, someone who knows what happened to Nancy — stopped sending them messages for awhile, then all of sudden started back up again. This time, the sender claimed that Nancy Guthrie is dead but that they know where her body is and will reveal it in exchange for half a bitcoin. They also said that Nancy was previously alive with her presumed-kidnappers in Sonora, Mexico. Watch what TMZ had to say about it here: TMZ received yet another ransom note from a repeat sender this morning concerning the abduction of Nancy Guthrie, as viewers watched Savannah make her return to the "Today" show anchor desk. pic.twitter.com/F26OvcvulE — TMZ (@TMZ) April 6, 2026 As TMZ noted in that clip, law enforcement is questioning the credibility of this mystery person’s messages. More from TMZ: We sent the first note to the FBI, but it seems the feds aren’t convinced it’s legit, at least, based on the fact there’s been no deposit into the related bitcoin address … the same account they created back in February. The person who sent the notes clearly senses the FBI’s disbelief … has that same sense, because the first letter says … “It’s unbelievable that millions have been wasted and yet here I am willing to deliver them on a silver platter since the 11th of february for a bitcoin but I am disregarded as a scam … they are free and the case is frozen but the ego’s remain hot when it comes to me. Arrogance at it’s finest.” Bitcoin’s price has been dropping, so it’s interesting Nancy and the FBI aren’t even taking a flier here … the person says they will give up the info for half a bitcoin, and then when there is a public arrest, the other half gets transferred to their bitcoin wallet. They also try to distance themselves from Nancy’s kidnapping, claiming they’ve been out of the U.S. for more than 5 years, and had nothing to do with the “horrific crime.” It’s quite odd that this ransomer isn’t trying to communicate directly with the FBI or any authorities, but rather going through TMZ. But then, the whole Nancy Guthrie disappearance case has been very strange, to say the least. Take this, for example: BIZARRE: Arizona Sheriff BLOCKS FBI From Accessing Key Evidence in Guthrie Case And this: Bizarre Link Between Savannah Guthrie and Silence of the Lambs Finally Explained? And this: Veteran Homicide Investigator Paul Ciolino Says “Key Elements of a True Kidnapping” Not Present In Nancy Guthrie Case Bizarre stuff. And, I’m not sure what to make of it all, frankly. What are your thoughts?

You may remember former Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, the left-wing activist judge who tried to help an illegal alien escape from immigration authorities. Back in December, she was found guilty on felony charges of obstructing federal agents. And today, in another victory for justice, Dugan’s appeal of that conviction was tossed out by a federal court. Here are the details: BREAKING: A court has officially THROWN OUT disgraced leftist Judge Hannah Dugan's appeal of her felony conviction where she tried to help an illegal alien escape DHS agents to avoid deportation GOOD! LOCK UP the traitor She helped an illegal SCURRY out the back door, but… pic.twitter.com/AgpfG5oatQ — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 6, 2026 BREAKING: A court has officially THROWN OUT disgraced leftist Judge Hannah Dugan’s appeal of her felony conviction where she tried to help an illegal alien escape DHS agents to avoid deportation GOOD! LOCK UP the traitor