SCTOUS Gives Trump Massive 8-1 Win - But the Lone Holdout Leaves Everyone Stunned
Washington, D.C. - June 4, 2026
Supreme Court Lifts Injunction Blocking Termination of TPS for Venezuelan Migrants in 8-1 Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to lift a lower court injunction that had prevented the Trump administration from terminating Temporary Protected Status for approximately 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. The decision allows the Department of Homeland Security to proceed with ending the protections and implementing removal plans.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter. The majority included several justices who have previously been part of the court’s liberal wing on immigration matters.
The ruling clears the way for the administration to end TPS protections that originated from designations made during the previous administration. Temporary Protected Status provides temporary relief from deportation and work authorization for nationals of designated countries when conditions in those countries are deemed unsafe for return.
Background on the TPS Designations
Venezuela received TPS designation in 2021 under then-Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas based on extraordinary and temporary conditions. The designation was extended multiple times. In 2023, a new designation was added, creating overlapping protections that were later consolidated with an expiration date in 2026.
In February, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued a memo terminating the 2023 TPS designation for Venezuela. The memo stated that after reviewing current country conditions and consulting with other agencies, Venezuela no longer meets the criteria for the designation. It concluded that permitting the covered nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest.
The memo detailed the history of the designations and extensions under the prior administration, including actions taken in January 2025 that consolidated filing processes.
Lower Court Proceedings and Arguments
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California had issued an injunction halting the termination in March. The administration appealed, arguing that the district court had improperly interfered with executive branch discretion in immigration and foreign policy matters.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court that the lower court’s reasoning was untenable because the program involves discretionary and sensitive judgments by the Executive Branch.
The Supreme Court’s order lifts the injunction, permitting the administration to move forward with termination of the TPS protections and associated removal proceedings.
Separate Florida Immigration Case
In a separate order issued the same day, the Supreme Court declined to reinstate a Florida law that would have allowed state officials to prosecute certain migrants who entered the state after illegally entering the United States. The court provided no explanation for the decision and noted no dissenting opinions. A similar Texas law had previously been allowed to take effect by the court.
The Florida law, SB 4-C, had been blocked by a federal district judge who found it likely preempted by federal immigration law. A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit upheld the injunction before the emergency application reached the Supreme Court.
The TPS decision represents a significant development in the administration’s efforts to adjust immigration policies established under the prior administration. The ruling permits DHS to implement the termination of protections for the affected Venezuelan nationals while legal proceedings continue on other related matters.
6-3 RULING - Supreme Court Deals Brutal Blow to Hakeem Jeffries
Washington, D.C. - June 5, 2026
Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Proceed with New Congressional Map for 2026 Midterms
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned 6-3 order on Tuesday permitting Alabama to use a newly enacted congressional district map in the 2026 midterm elections. The decision lifts a lower court injunction and is expected to result in a congressional delegation of six Republicans and one Democrat.
The ruling came after Alabama had already held its congressional primary elections in May. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation authorizing special elections in August for affected districts, contingent on final court approval of the map.
The order relied in part on the Purcell principle, which generally discourages federal courts from altering election rules close to an election. The majority stated that the district court had improperly intervened in Alabama’s efforts to conduct its elections under maps selected by the state’s elected representatives. The court noted that while federal courts should avoid last-minute changes, states retain authority to determine whether such adjustments serve their interests.
Connection to Voting Rights Act Precedent
The decision follows a 6-3 ruling issued by the Supreme Court on April 29 regarding the Voting Rights Act. That earlier decision established that claims alleging racial discrimination in districting generally require plaintiffs to demonstrate a strong inference of intentional discrimination before proceeding with litigation.
The current order addresses ongoing redistricting litigation in Alabama. The new map is anticipated to alter the composition of the state’s seven-member congressional delegation. Democratic Representatives Shomari Figures of the 2nd District and Terri Sewell of the 7th District are currently the only Black members of Alabama’s House delegation. The new configuration could affect representation in one of those districts.
Dissenting Opinion
The three liberal justices dissented from the unsigned order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority’s approach had created turmoil and harm. She argued that the court was doubling down on prior decisions that she viewed as undermining protections under the Voting Rights Act.
Broader Redistricting Context
The Alabama case is one of several redistricting disputes before the Supreme Court involving states such as Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and California. With control of the U.S. House expected to be closely contested, these cases have taken on added significance for both parties ahead of the November elections.
The Supreme Court’s recent interventions have already influenced district boundaries in multiple states. Additional litigation remains pending, and further developments could continue to shape the partisan balance of the House in the upcoming midterm cycle.
The Alabama order permits the state to move forward with its chosen map while legal proceedings on related matters continue. The full impact on the composition of Alabama’s congressional delegation will depend on the outcome of the August special elections and any subsequent legal challenges.
GHOST VOTERS' REVEALED — California Elections Rocked After Stunning Discovery
Sacramento, California - June 5, 2026
Lawsuit Filed Against California Secretary of State Alleging Failure to Remove Inactive Voter Registrations
A federal lawsuit has been filed against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber alleging that the state has failed to remove hundreds of thousands of inactive voter registrations from its rolls in violation of federal law. The complaint was brought by Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State, and the American Independent Party of California, with assistance from Judicial Watch.
The lawsuit claims that California has not removed approximately 873,092 inactive voter registrations as required under the National Voter Registration Act. Federal law mandates that states remove certain registrations after voters fail to participate in multiple consecutive federal election cycles and do not respond to address verification notices.
Court filings state that more than 873,000 registrations remained on the rolls despite being inactive through at least three consecutive federal elections. The complaint further alleges that over 151,000 registrations remained active after four consecutive election cycles without voter participation.
California maintains more than 23 million registered voters, the largest voter registration system in the United States. Plaintiffs argue that the state’s practices violate requirements under the National Voter Registration Act for maintaining accurate voter lists.
Previous Actions and Current Allegations
In 2019, Judicial Watch reached a settlement with California and Los Angeles County that resulted in the removal of more than 1.2 million inactive voter registrations. The current lawsuit contends that similar issues persist across much of the state despite those prior efforts.
The complaint notes that 20 California counties removed 50 or fewer inactive registrations over a recent period, even as census data showed substantial population shifts and migration out of the state.
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring California to implement a more aggressive program for removing registrations that no longer meet federal eligibility requirements. It also asks the court to prevent future violations of federal election law.
State Response and Context
California officials have maintained that the state’s election system includes multiple safeguards, including signature matching, voter identification checks where required, and criminal penalties for fraud. State representatives have stated that the system is secure and employs verification procedures designed to prevent illegal voting.
The lawsuit was filed amid ongoing scrutiny of California’s election processes. Recent incidents include damage to a mail ballot drop box that was vandalized and set on fire, as well as a report of an unsecured ballot center in the Bay Area discovered by a voter outside normal operating hours.
The case will proceed in federal court, where judges will evaluate whether California’s voter registration maintenance practices comply with federal requirements. The outcome could affect procedures ahead of future elections, including the November general election.
