The Supreme Court handed down an opinion on Friday in a case regarding President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, ruling that lower courts do not have the unilateral authority to block Trump’s agenda. The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines, allowing Trump to try to end birthright citizenship in some parts of the country while legal challenges against his order proceed in others. The ruling did not address the question of birthright citizenship itself. Birthright citizenship is the practice of granting automatic citizenship rights for babies born on United States soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status. Previously, lower courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state had issued nationwide injunctions that blocked Trump’s order from taking effect. Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned the opinion for the majority. JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free She wrote that “federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.” “When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Barrett said. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion saying, “For good reason, the Court today puts an end to the “increasingly common” practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Jackson also wrote her own dissent, which stated that “the Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.” Barrett blistered Jackson’s dissent in the court’s opinion. “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” Very sharp rebuke of Jackson's dissent.Last sentence ends: "law against anyone, anywhere." ACB majority opinion concludes: "JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary." pic.twitter.com/CU9Ryss8rq — Philip Wallach (@PhilipWallach) June 27, 2025 Barrett went on to say that Jackson “skips over” the “limits on judicial authority.” “Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese,’ …  she seeks to answer ‘a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?'” Barrett wrote. “In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too.” Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated Friday’s ruling. “Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,” Bondi posted on X. “This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS’s policies and his authority to implement them.” Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer. This… — Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) June 27, 2025  

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Friday announced the Pentagon would rename a Navy ship from a gay icon to a World War II hero who gave his life to keep his ship operational during a major battle. “I’m pleased to officially announce that the Department of the Navy is renaming the replenishment oil formally known as the USNS Harvey Milk to the USNS Oscar V. Peterson,” Hegseth said. “We are taking the politics out of ship-naming; we’re not renaming the ship to anything political; this is not about political activists, unlike the previous administration.” “Instead, we’re renaming the ship after a United States Navy Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, as it should be,” he continued. “People want to be proud of the ship they’re sailing in, and so we’re renaming it after a chief, a navy chief, that during the battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942, Chief Watertender Peterson led a repair party on the U.S.S. Neosho. The ship was severely damaged by Japanese dive-bombers and the entire repair party was either killed or severely wounded. Peterson himself was gravely wounded, yet he managed to single-handedly close the bulkhead stop valves, thereby helping to keep the ship operational.” JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free Peterson suffered third-degree burns to his face, shoulders, arms, and hands after his actions on May 7, 1942; he died on May 13 at the age of 42 and was buried at sea. Peterson and his wife had two sons. “In performing his historic actions and heroic actions, Peterson received additional injuries, and burns, which tragically resulted in his death, but his spirit of self-sacrifice and concern for his crewmates was in keeping with the finest traditions of the Navy. And for his heroic actions, Oscar Peterson was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. So I would like to officially welcome the USNS Oscar V. Peterson to the Navy’s Vessel Register,” Hegseth concluded. I am pleased to announce that the United States Navy is renaming the USNS Harvey Milk to the USNS Oscar V. Peterson. We are taking the politics out of ship naming. pic.twitter.com/2ypwAQGdAl — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (@SecDef) June 27, 2025 In July 2016, during the Obama administration, U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced he would name John Lewis-class fleet replenishment oilers after prominent civil rights leaders, then named one after Harvey Milk, a gay San Francisco city supervisor who was assassinated along with San Francisco Democratic Mayor George Moscone in November 1978. “Milk’s naval service was utterly unremarkable,” National Review has noted.

Hollywood stars have taken a knee on the “Trump is Hitler” meme, pivoting to the men and women of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). A gaggle of notable names have ridiculed ICE for daring to enforce the nation’s immigration laws — laws supported by a majority of U.S. voters. The agents, to date, have mostly focused on the worst offenders. Think illegal immigrants accused of heinous crimes who managed to remain free during the Biden administration. Now, they’re being targeted by President Trump’s no-nonsense border czar Tom Homan. And progressive stars are raging everywhere they can against Team Homan. Late-night TV. Social media. Interviews. Olivia Wong/Getty Images Stephen King played the Nazi card against ICE officials from the progressive Utopia known as BlueSky, including a misspell of “Gestapo.” ICE looking more and more like the American Gestpo [sic]. Comedian Patton Oswalt used less incendiary rhetoric, by comparison, to light up ICE during a recent “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” appearance. Oswalt called them “Pillsbury Stormtroopers,” comparing their alleged physiques to his own lumpy form. Your knees are hurting, your hips are screaming, and your back is aching … And you’re thinking, ‘Why didn’t I just stay home and play Red Dead Redemption and eat Sun Chips instead of coming out here in the heat where everyone’s booing me and I’m realizing that I’m the biggest douchebag on the planet?’ Oswalt’s rhetoric grew uglier when it came to Trump’s border czar. The “Ratatouille” star, after hearing about death threats tied to Homan, weighed in via BlueSky. good. i hope it gets so much worse for this rancid pile of polenta. The far-Left hosts at “The View” couldn’t let the ICE raids go unnoticed. The ABC squad saw the chaos encircling Los Angeles earlier this month during the open borders protests and found the source of the problem. They pointed to the ICE agents, not the protesters burning cars and hurling bricks at law enforcement officers. Co-host Whoopi Goldberg says the city’s pro-illegal immigration rallies were “mostly peaceful” until ICE agents arrived on the scene. She leaned on impeccable sources for her wisdom. …suddenly these guys showed up and flipped everybody out. So, that’s what my family is saying. Sunny Hostin chimed in, playing the “mostly peaceful” card and backing up Goldberg’s anti-ICE assessment. Credit pop superstar Lizzo with the most deranged take on the matter. She claimed “illegal” immigrants aren’t real because no one actually owns land. When people finally understand that these terms and ideas are tools for racism and capitalism we can truly be free. We can finally see the oppressors for who they are. Sometimes, profanity is a celebrity’s best friend. Take Puerto Rican rapper Bad Bunny. He blasted ICE agents as “motherf****rs” in a Spanish screed on Instagram, tied to a video of agents interrogating unnamed people. “Look, those motherf——s are in these cars, RAV-4s. They’re here in Pontezuela,” he posted in Spanish. Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images Not to be outdone, “The Late Show” host Stephen Colbert didn’t step in when one of his guests promoted extreme rhetoric from the show’s signature CBS couch. Instead, he piled on. Congressman Maxwell Frost (D-FL) told the far-Left host ICE agents are “kidnapping people.” We have ICE federal agents pulling up, terrorizing our communities, hopping out of unmarked vans, stealing and yes, kidnapping people, not giving them their day in court and yes, human trafficking them to other nations. Colbert nodded along, doubling down on the kidnapping verbiage. Pop superstar and “Wicked” alum Ariana Grande conflated illegal immigration with lawfare attacks against President Trump to her 270+ million Instagram followers. Could someone explain which crimes get you deported and which ones get you elected president? It’s so confusing. Veteran singer Shakira leaned into the fear-mongering part of the celebrity playbook, also conflating legal and illegal immigration during a BBC interview. She described the immigrant experience as “living in constant fear.” Now, more than ever, we have to remain united. Now, more than ever, we have to raise our voices and make it very clear that a country can change its immigration policies, but the treatment of all people must always be humane. Mark Ruffalo, one of the most outspoken stars in the Hollywood galaxy, railed against ICE efforts during California’s “No Kings” June 14 protest. We see a president who has made himself a king and dictator, and we don’t see an opposition that’s powerful enough to stand up against the trampling of our rights and the trampling of the Constitution that’s happening every single day with executive orders, with the refusal to obey court orders, kidnapping of immigrants, people who are here legally, people who their children are being taken from them. Roy Rochlin/Getty Images for Tribeca Festival Celebrity Nation decried the January 6 riot and demanded protesters pay a stiff price for battling beleaguered Capitol Police officers. Things are different now, apparently. They could have objected to ICE raids on different grounds, suggesting that hard-working illegals should find a path to citizenship, not a one-way ticket out of the U.S. Instead, in the grand “Spinal Tap” tradition, they turned the incendiary rhetoric up to 11. Worst of all, none of this is happening in a vacuum. The Department of Homeland Security says attacks on ICE agents have shot up 500% in recent weeks. ICE agents are routinely doxxed, forcing them to mask up to protect their loved ones. The stars won’t stop their incendiary rhetoric, apparently, even if it gets someone hurt. Or worse. * * * Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at HollywoodInToto.com. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that schools violate religious liberty when they bar parents from opting their children out of classroom instruction involving LGBT-themed books, a major win for religious conservatives. Justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines to back a group of religious parents affiliated with Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland who argued they should be able to opt their children out of lessons with LGBT themes. Justice Samuel Alito penned the opinion, writing that the school district burdened the parents’ First Amendment rights. JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free “Today, we hold that the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” Alito wrote. Parental rights advocates celebrated Friday’s decision. “Storybooks like those at issue in Mahmoud convey normative messages on sex and gender, and those messages can and often do conflict with the beliefs of parents and their children,” said Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education. “Today’s ruling should act as a directive to every American school district: notify parents of controversial material, and provide them the opportunity to opt their children out–especially if you provide opt-outs for other curriculum or other reasons,” Perry said.

Trump won 48% of Hispanic voters in 2024

'Not tolerate violence against any law enforcement'

'Limits district court judges to stop them'

Republican Reps. Randy Fine of Florida and Brandon Gill of Texas are introducing a bill on Friday, aiming to heighten criminal penalties for those who interfere with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, the Daily Caller News Foundation has learned. The Initiating Criminal Enforcement Act (ICE Act) seeks to amend Section 274 of the Immigration […]

'Sexual material harmful to minors'