A full pardon from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has ended a Supreme Court immigration-detention case just weeks before the justices were scheduled to hear arguments. The Court dismissed Genalo v. G.M. on Friday after President Trump’s administration and attorneys for the respondent filed a joint stipulation saying the dispute was moot. The case could have produced a major ruling on whether the government must provide a bond hearing when mandatory immigration detention becomes unreasonably prolonged. HOCHUL PARDON: The Supreme Court tossed an immigration detention case after New York Gov. Kathy Hochul pardoned a convicted felon — a Dominican national who pleaded guilty to second-degree assault — effectively killing the Trump administration's appeal before the justices could… pic.twitter.com/H90yAEcvEc — Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) September 12, 2026 Fox News reported that Hochul granted the respondent a full pardon on August 28, three days before his merits brief was due at the Supreme Court. The timing put the pardon directly into the parties’ final preparations for October arguments. The respondent is a Dominican national who became a lawful permanent resident in 2011. He later pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in New York and received a two-year prison sentence. Federal immigration authorities began removal proceedings against G.M. in October 2020 on the ground that the assault qualified as an aggravated felony. He was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), a federal law that requires detention of certain noncitizens with criminal convictions while their removal cases are pending. The same conviction supplied the legal basis for both the removal proceeding and the mandatory detention at issue before the Court. Fox’s report placed the pardon against an unusually advanced Supreme Court timeline. The justices had already agreed to hear the government’s appeal and set the case for October arguments. The pardon changed G.M.’s immigration status before the Court could decide the broader detention question. Both sides then agreed that his individual case no longer presented a live dispute. A September 11 letter from Solicitor General D. John Sauer said Hochul’s pardon was “full and unconditional.” The government told the Court that the pardon removed the aggravated-felony conviction that supported the pending removal case. The conviction had been the government’s stated ground for both removal and mandatory detention. Without that predicate conviction, the letter said, the respondent would no longer be subject to mandatory detention under the disputed provision. That eliminated the live controversy the justices had agreed to hear. The Justice Department therefore agreed with G.M.’s attorneys that his habeas case had become moot. It also said it would not ask the Supreme Court to erase the Second Circuit’s decision. Instead, the government plans to look for another case that would allow the justices to decide the same constitutional questions during the Court’s 2026 term. That leaves the national issue unresolved even though this particular case has ended. Sauer’s letter said the government learned about the pardon when G.M. filed his merits brief. The Justice Department then concluded that there was no longer a basis to remove him because of the assault conviction. The letter also explained why the government would join a dismissal rather than continue litigating the merits. It said officials still intend to seek Supreme Court review of the prolonged-detention questions in a different case. Wow. The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about whether a person who could be deported due to an aggravated felony could be held without bail pending deportation. Three days before the brief was due, Governor @GovKathyHochul *pardoned* the felon to end the case. Case dismissed pic.twitter.com/YN6aeXmBur — Eric W. (@EWess92) September 11, 2026 The underlying detention lasted 21 months. According to the government’s merits brief, G.M. entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2011. The brief framed the dispute as a challenge to mandatory detention during ongoing removal proceedings. It asked the justices to decide whether the Fifth Amendment requires a bond hearing once detention under § 1226(c) becomes prolonged. A second question concerned the burden of proof at any required hearing. The Second Circuit placed that burden on the government and required clear and convincing evidence of danger or flight risk. He was arrested in the Bronx the following year after an attack and robbery involving a belt. He pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and received a two-year prison sentence. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took him into custody in October 2020. An immigration judge later found him removable, and G.M. pursued protection against removal to the Dominican Republic. While those proceedings continued, G.M. filed a federal habeas petition. He argued that continued detention without a bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due-process rights. The Second Circuit agreed that detention can become so prolonged that due process requires an individualized bond hearing. It also held that the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified by danger to the community or risk of flight. The government asked the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling. Its brief argued that Congress required detention under § 1226(c) and that the Constitution does not create a right to the bond hearing ordered by the appeals court. The government also argued that the Second Circuit had not identified a fixed constitutional limit on the length of detention. Its position was that the statute’s mandatory-detention rule remained controlling while removal proceedings continued. The dispute therefore reached beyond G.M.’s release. It raised questions about when lengthy detention becomes constitutionally different from the detention Congress expressly required at the start of a removal case. G.M.’s attorneys defended the Second Circuit’s rule. An ACLU case summary says due process requires an individualized hearing once detention becomes unreasonably prolonged. At that hearing, an immigration judge would consider whether the person presents a danger to the community or a risk of flight. The appeals court placed the burden on the government to prove continued detention was necessary by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court agreed in June to hear the case and placed it on the calendar for October 13. The parties filed merits briefs addressing both the constitutional questions and whether G.M.’s case remained live. Advocacy groups, former officials and coalitions of states then submitted friend-of-the-court briefs on both sides. Those filings reflected the broader stakes for immigration detention cases beyond G.M.’s individual circumstances. Update: the government now agrees with G.M.’s counsel that because governor Hochul pardoned him in late August, the basis for his removal and 1226(c) detention is gone and the case is moot. The Second Circuit’s ruling stands, and victory is ours. https://t.co/Qq10zSYCX6 — Stan Veuger (@stanveuger) September 10, 2026 The pardon changed the case before the justices could address the merits. Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts decide live disputes rather than abstract legal questions. Once both sides agreed that the conviction no longer supported G.M.’s detention, there was no remaining controversy for the Court to resolve in his case. The official Supreme Court docket shows how quickly the case came to an end after months of briefing. It records the certiorari grant, the merits schedule, the October argument date and the formal dismissal filings that arrived after the pardon changed the respondent’s legal position. The justices granted review on June 15 and scheduled arguments for October 13. G.M. filed his merits brief on August 31, and multiple amicus briefs followed on September 8 and September 10. The docket also records the government’s July 30 merits brief and the later filings from outside groups and state coalitions. Those submissions addressed statutory interpretation, due process and the practical effects of prolonged immigration detention. No oral argument took place, and the Court issued no merits opinion. The dismissal therefore ended only this case and did not create a nationwide Supreme Court rule on when a bond hearing is constitutionally required. On September 11, the Solicitor General notified the Court that a dismissal was coming. The parties then filed a two-page joint stipulation under Supreme Court Rule 46.1, agreeing that each side would bear its own costs. The docket marked the case dismissed that same day. The Second Circuit’s bond-hearing rule remains in place within New York, Connecticut and Vermont, but the Supreme Court has not settled the question for the rest of the country. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post Kathy Hochul Pardon Ends Supreme Court Immigration Detention Case Before Arguments appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

The Indiana Supreme Court has reversed a recount result that briefly made President Trump-endorsed challenger Paula Copenhaver the winner of one of the closest Republican primaries in the country. The court ordered election officials to certify incumbent state Sen. Spencer Deery as the Republican nominee in Indiana Senate District 23, with Deery leading Copenhaver by just three votes. The ruling ends a months-long fight in which the reported winner changed twice — first after the May primary, then after an August recount, and now again under the state’s highest court. The Washington Post summarized the result and the political context surrounding the race: A Republican state senator in Indiana who crossed President Trump is advancing to the general election after the state Supreme Court found he’d won his primary by three votes. https://t.co/p4UTTQTYIm — The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) September 12, 2026 The dispute centered on six ballots cast for Deery that were rejected during the recount because election workers had failed to add required signatures or seals. The Indiana Supreme Court said Indiana Code section 3-12-1-12 makes an otherwise qualifying ballot legally countable when the defect was caused by an election officer. After written submissions and oral arguments, a majority voted to set aside the Recount Commission’s determination that Copenhaver had received more votes. The court ordered the commission to recertify the totals as 6,335 for Deery and 6,332 for Copenhaver. It also vacated a September 3 stay and directed election preparations to resume with Deery listed as the Republican candidate for Senate District 23. The one-page order took effect immediately. Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote that the court would issue a fuller opinion explaining its reasoning later, so the order resolved the ballot question before publication of the justices’ complete legal analysis. Local television coverage reported the immediate effect on the November ballot: The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that State Sen. Spencer Deery will appear on the ballot as the Republican candidate in the Senate District 23 race. https://t.co/fcFtOn75CZ pic.twitter.com/LjqMwG7Drh — FOX59 News (@FOX59) September 11, 2026 The razor-thin contest began with Deery leading the May 5 primary by three votes, 6,337 to 6,334. An August recount then rejected eight Deery ballots and two Copenhaver ballots. That changed the certified totals to 6,332 for Copenhaver and 6,329 for Deery, giving the challenger the same three-vote edge Deery had held before the recount. Indiana Public Media reported that four of the disputed Deery ballots were absentee-by-mail votes and two were early in-person votes. All six lacked a county clerk’s required stamp or signature, but Deery argued that the omissions were made by election workers rather than voters. The outlet reported that the justices issued their order about three hours after oral arguments. That compressed timetable mattered because absentee ballots had to be mailed to voters who requested them by September 19, while early voting was scheduled to begin October 6. The case also moved directly from the Indiana Recount Commission to the state Supreme Court after the justices granted an emergency transfer. With the stay lifted, county election officials can proceed using Deery’s name instead of Copenhaver’s. NBC News also reported the final result after the months-long recount dispute: Indiana’s Supreme Court rules after a months-long recount that a Republican incumbent state senator narrowly defeated his Trump-backed challenger in the GOP primary for the state Senate seat. https://t.co/03sZTG2uz0 — NBC News (@NBCNews) September 11, 2026 The race carried a larger political backdrop because Copenhaver received President Trump’s endorsement after Deery opposed a push to redraw Indiana’s congressional map before the 2026 midterm elections. Trump backed several challengers against Republican state senators who resisted the redistricting plan. That made the District 23 primary part of a broader intraparty fight, even though the court’s order turned on how Indiana law treats ballot defects caused by election officials. Deery welcomed the decision and said the dispute was larger than his own campaign. In a statement released after the ruling, he argued that voters who follow the rules should not lose their ballots because of government error. Copenhaver said she disagreed with the court’s decision but respected its authority. She wished Deery well and said she planned to remain involved in election-integrity issues. The immediate consequence is that Copenhaver’s recount victory has been set aside, and Deery will appear as the Republican candidate for Senate District 23 in November. He is scheduled to face Democrat David Sanders in the general election. Featured image: Indiana State Senator Spencer Deery. Official public-domain photograph by the office of Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb. The image has been reframed and color-enhanced. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post BREAKING: State Supreme Court Flips Three-Vote Recount, Reverses Trump-Backed Candidate’s Win appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

A new documentary alleging Israel used powerful AI tools to kill thousands in Gaza has stunned the Venice Film Festival — earning the longest standing ovation in the event’s history. The 80-minute film, NAZA, is [...] The post ‘Insanely Fun Video Game’: Israeli Soldiers Describe Slaughtering Thousands of Palestinians Using AI Tools appeared first on The People's Voice.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) appeared on ESPN’s “College GameDay” in Austin, Texas, on Saturday to push for Senate passage of the Protect College Sports Act — but was met with sustained boos and “Ted, you suck” chants from the crowd at the University of Texas, Austin campus. Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, spoke with Rece Davis for roughly eight minutes — longer than the six minutes given to Texas head coach Steve Sarkisian — arguing that college athletics have descended into disorder since federal courts struck down NCAA compensation limits. “What we have right now is chaos. There are no rules,” Cruz said, pointing to disputes over bringing professional players into college competition and litigation involving athletes gambling on their own games. ESPN had Ted Cruz on ‘College GameDay’ in a conversation with Rece Davis for nearly 10 minutes. Cruz was heavily booed by the crowd — and heard “Ted, you suck!” chants — in Austin. pic.twitter.com/npQesiYMsG — Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) September 12, 2026 The bipartisan bill, coauthored with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), would establish a national framework for athlete name, imagine and likeness compensation, cap revenue-sharing payments to players with an annual inflation adjustment, and restrict boosters and third parties from funneling pay-for-play money through NIL deals. It cleared the Senate Commerce Committee in June with bipartisan support and has since won backing from the Southeastern Conference and Big Ten, more than 260 universities, and President Donald Trump, who said he hopes to sign it before the college football season ends. The measure needs 60 votes to clear the Senate before heading to the House. The bill missed a floor vote before the Senate August recess despite Trump urging lawmakers to stay in session, and the Congressional Black Caucus has said Senate Democrats should withhold support until concerns from black athletes, coaches and HBCUs are addressed. Cruz told Davis on Saturday he remains confident the bill will secure the votes needed to pass this week, marking the second consecutive week “GameDay” has featured a segment on the legislation, following an appearance by Nick Saban and Pat McAfee. Cruz also renewed criticism of the transfer portal, calling it “terrible for the game” and blaming Congress-triggered antitrust rulings for the current landscape.

America Is Slamming The Brakes On The Camera Network Tracking Your Every Move

In late July 2021, an amateur photographer exploring a trail near Rock Cut State Park in Winnebago County, Illinois, reported an evening outing that abruptly turned frightening. After reaching a secluded waterfall, the witness described unusual laughter and darkness that seemed incompatible with the...

Control of Congress will be decided over the next seven weeks. Starting today, the Daily Signal is introducing a new show—“Midterm Report”—all about the 2026 elections. Each week from now through Election Day, I’ll take you inside the races that will decide the majority, alongside the pollsters, strategists, reporters, and candidates who know what’s really happening. New episodes publish Saturdays on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and our Daily Signal website. Our debut episode covers the first Republican National Committee Midterm Convention, held this week in Dallas, and features two guests who arrived at the same uncomfortable conclusion: Republicans need better messaging heading into November. The GOP’s Enthusiasm Gap Pollster Brent Buchanan, founder and CEO of Cygnal, opened our first show with a finding that should worry every Republican candidate. “It’s important to realize that the Republican coalition is two coalitions,” Buchanan said. “You have Trump Republicans who identify with the president, and then you have traditional Republicans who more so identify with the party’s values and the Republican brand itself.” In Cygnal’s data, roughly 45% of Republicans identify as Trump Republicans. A majority call themselves traditional Republicans. That distinction matters because the two groups are not showing up at the same rate. Buchanan said his polling found 77% of Trump Republicans are excited about the election, compared with 51% of traditional Republicans. “That’s a 26-point gap within the party,” he said. Those voters want to hear how Republicans are addressing affordability, Buchanan said. He cited the high cost of health insurance, auto and homeowners insurance, property taxes, and gas prices, and noted that his own company is absorbing a 12.6% increase in health coverage this year. “They’re just getting pounded from every angle,” he said. On the president’s proposed $5,000 dividend, he was blunt about why it may not land: “Americans are actually focused on the money going out the door, not the money coming in the door.” An Opportunity for Republicans Buchanan also shared Cygnal’s new polling data on socialism. Among the roughly one-third of Americans who say socialism is an acceptable economic or political identity, 61% cannot name what socialism actually entails, according to his data. Most describe it as an expanded welfare state or a right to housing and health care rather than government ownership of industry. “The label alone is not going to carry the weight,” Buchanan said. “You have to define the horrible things of socialism.” He pointed to Michigan’s 7th District, where Rep. Tom Barrett faces a self-described socialist, as a test case. Running on the word won’t work, Buchanan argued. Running on what the candidate has actually said—open the borders, defund the police—will. “We don’t have to persuade independents to win this election,” he said. “We just have to get our people back off the sidelines and in the game. And when I say our people, I mean traditional Republicans, not Trump Republicans.” Victor Davis Hanson: ‘They’re Not Getting the Message Out’ Victor Davis Hanson joined me in the second half of the show to discuss his new book, “The Counterrevolution: The Fall and Rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA Movement.” Not surprisingly, the renowned historian offered a history lesson. In 39 of the last 41 midterm elections, Hanson noted, the party in power loses ground. He argued the current polling numbers reflect a failure to communicate rather than a failure to govern. Inflation averaged 5.2% during the Biden administration, he said, and is substantially lower now. Voters are angry anyway, because they expected the cumulative price increases of the last four years to reverse, and no one told them that wasn’t possible. He made a similar argument about Iran, where critics on both ends of the ideological spectrum are attacking the administration. “We lost 17 people, not 7,000 in Afghanistan and Iraq. We’ve spent $70 billion, not $4 trillion. And this has been six months, not 20 years,” he said. “But I don’t hear anybody saying that.” He pointed to other issues: deregulation, record foreign investment, energy production, a border that has been closed, the lowest crime rate in decades, and the latest jobs report. “It’s a pretty good message,” Hanson said, “except for inflation at about 4% and the price of gas and especially diesel fuel. But they’re not getting the message out.” His forecast is sober. Hanson put the House at a 70-30 proposition against Republicans and called the Senate a coin flip. He sees two things that could move those odds: relentless communication of what the administration has accomplished and drawing a sharp contrast with the socialist turn of Democrats. “A lot of things [Trump] did were long-term investments,” Hanson said, “but they weren’t ever communicated.” What’s Ahead Over the next two months, the “Midterm Report” will bring you Daily Signal reporters from battleground states, new polling, political pundits explaining their party’s prospects, and candidates in the races that will determine the majority. Subscribe wherever you listen, and sign up for the Daily Signal’s email newsletters, which arrives every day with the latest election coverage from across our team.