Supreme Court Blockbuster as Former President Barack Obama Investigation Takes WILD Turn as SCOTUS Likely To Revive Obama...
WASHINGTON, D.C. — May 1, 2026
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a longstanding immigration policy known as “metering,” which allowed border agents to limit the number of asylum seekers permitted to enter at official ports of entry along the southern border.
The case stems from a Ninth Circuit ruling that deemed the policy unlawful. The Trump administration had asked the justices to examine the decision, arguing that the Constitution assigns border regulation authority to the political branches rather than the judiciary. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer stated that the lower court’s ruling improperly undermines Congress’s authority to establish asylum policy and encroaches on the executive branch’s power to regulate the nation’s borders.
The policy was first implemented by the Obama administration in 2016 in response to a surge of Haitian asylum seekers at the San Ysidro port of entry in Southern California. Border agents were instructed to turn away newly arriving migrants without prior appointments. The Department of Homeland Security formalized the guidance in 2018, applying it to all southern border ports.
The Biden administration terminated the practice. The Trump administration now seeks to maintain flexibility as part of its broader immigration enforcement efforts. The nonprofit immigrant rights organization Al Otro Lado, along with 13 asylum seekers who filed the original 2017 lawsuit, defended the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and plan to uphold it before the Supreme Court. Their attorneys argued that the policy unlawfully blocked asylum seekers at ports of entry, leaving families, children, and adults in dangerous conditions where they faced violence, abduction, or death.
Sauer countered that, under the lower court’s logic, Customs and Border Protection would be prohibited from turning away any individual who arrives at the border without an appointment. He noted that an alien could claim arrival “in the United States,” triggering mandatory inspection and processing of an asylum application, effectively allowing the person to bypass the queue.
The asylum seekers’ attorneys responded that the appellate court’s decision applied only to a specific group of migrants and that the current administration’s border policies are subject to separate legal challenges that do not hinge on the issue raised in this petition. They described any ruling on the matter as potentially amounting to an advisory opinion.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal. The White House directed inquiries about the potential reinstatement of the metering policy to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not respond.
The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that any individual in the United States, regardless of location, has the right to apply for asylum if they can establish a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.
A lower court certified a class for asylum seekers who arrived before the Trump-era transit rule and issued an injunction reinstating claims previously denied under the 2019 policy. The class advanced after the Biden administration ended metering in 2021 and ultimately rescinded the transit rule in 2023. In 2022, the lower court issued a permanent injunction barring the government from enforcing the asylum prohibitions against that group.
The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling, arguing that alternative tools, such as the Biden-era CBP One app for scheduling asylum appointments, could be placed at risk. The case is expected to be argued in the coming term, with a decision likely by the end of the current Supreme Court session.
The outcome could have significant implications for how the United States manages asylum claims at the southern border and the balance of authority between the executive branch and the courts in immigration enforcement. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have faced legal challenges over border policies, reflecting the ongoing partisan and legal debates surrounding immigration.
Top Democrat SHREDDED After Backing Graham Platner - His Career Is Over
Washington, D.C. - June 7, 2026
Rep. Ro Khanna Endorses Graham Platner for Maine Senate Despite Allegations of Past Misconduct
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has publicly endorsed Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, even as Platner faces allegations of abusive behavior in past relationships. A New York Times report this week detailed claims from an ex-girlfriend alleging volatile and abusive conduct.
Platner has denied the allegations of physical abuse. In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, he stated that the ex-girlfriend was lying about the abuse claims. He also criticized the media coverage as “journalistic malpractice” and accused the whistleblower of political motivation.
Platner has additionally addressed a Nazi-themed tattoo he received, stating that he did not know the design at the time it was applied. He described allegations that he knew the tattoo’s meaning as politically motivated.
Khanna’s Defense of Platner
Khanna acknowledged the New York Times report and described some of Platner’s past relationships as “toxic and volatile.” He stated that no one should make excuses for the past conduct or attack the women who came forward. Khanna added that Platner has “sought redemption,” “took accountability,” and has “worked to be a better man, a better human being.”
During a rally for Platner in Maine, Khanna attributed some of the candidate’s past difficulties to his service in the War on Terror, suggesting that the experience “broke” him and thousands of other veterans. He stated that sometimes the country itself feels “broken.”
Platner previously made public comments blaming women for being raped, which have also drawn criticism during the campaign.
Campaign Context
Platner is seeking the Democratic nomination for the open Senate seat in Maine. The race has drawn national attention as Democrats work to retain or expand their presence in the chamber. Khanna, often described in media reports as a progressive voice within the party, has positioned his support for Platner around themes of personal growth and accountability.
The allegations and Khanna’s response have generated discussion within Democratic circles about candidate vetting and standards for elected officials. Platner has maintained that he is committed to moving forward and representing Maine in the Senate.
The Democratic primary in Maine remains competitive, with vote counting and candidate positioning continuing in the weeks ahead of the general election.
Judge Delivers Ruling on Mail-In Ballots as Election is Too Close To Call
Washington, D.C. - June 7, 2026
Federal Judge Denies Immediate Injunction Against Trump Executive Order on Mail-In Voting
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled on May 28 that a request by Democrats for a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s March 31 executive order on mail-in voting was premature. The judge concluded that federal agencies had not yet taken concrete steps to implement the order, so no immediate harm had been demonstrated.
Trump’s executive order directs federal agencies to compile a list of confirmed U.S. citizens and requires the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters appearing on approved state mail-in voting lists.
Democrats challenged the order in court, arguing that it exceeds presidential authority and could affect voting access for millions of Americans. Nichols did not issue a ruling on the legality of the executive order itself. He determined only that the plaintiffs had not shown sufficient grounds for immediate judicial intervention at this stage.
The decision leaves existing voting procedures unchanged for now. No alterations to how Americans currently cast ballots have taken effect as a result of the ruling.
Appeal and Ongoing Litigation
The Democratic Party has formally appealed the May 28 decision. Legal challenges to the executive order are proceeding on multiple fronts. A separate lawsuit filed in Massachusetts by several voting rights organizations seeks to block portions of the order. A federal judge in Boston is scheduled to hear arguments in that case.
On May 29, the U.S. Postal Service proposed a rule that would require states to provide lists of voters who receive mail-in ballots. The proposal is undergoing a 30-day public comment period before any final action.
The Massachusetts lawsuit was brought by groups including the League of Women Voters, the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, the U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. The plaintiffs are represented by organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the Constitution reserves authority over election rules to the states and Congress, not the president. They expressed concern that the order could affect organizations assisting voters who rely on mail-in ballots, including overseas voters, military families, seniors, voters with disabilities, students, and rural residents.
Administration Position
The administration has defended the executive order as a measure to strengthen election security and improve verification processes. The Justice Department has not yet commented on the appeal of the May 28 ruling.
The executive order remains in effect while litigation continues. Federal courts are expected to play a significant role in determining the scope of presidential authority over election procedures in the coming months. Multiple lawsuits are advancing simultaneously, and additional rulings are anticipated before future federal elections.
BREAKING: Winner of California Governor Race Announced - This is INSANE
Sacramento, California - June 7, 2026
Xavier Becerra Advances to November General Election in California Governor’s Race
Former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra has secured a place in California’s November gubernatorial election under the state’s top-two primary system. CNN’s Decision Desk projected on Friday that Becerra would advance after building a lead over other candidates competing for one of the top two spots.
The projection ensures that a Democratic candidate will appear on the November ballot. Becerra posted a video on X stating, “I’m so humbled and honored to be moving on to the general election to become your next governor. Let’s go win this thing.”
While Becerra’s advancement is confirmed, the contest for the second position remains open. Former Fox News host Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate endorsed by President Donald Trump, continues to compete for that spot along with Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer. Election officials have not yet projected a final outcome for second place.
Since Election Day, Becerra has expanded his lead over both Hilton and Steyer in updated vote counts.
Primary Campaign Context
California’s top-two primary system allows the two highest vote-getters to advance regardless of party. Democrats had expressed concern that a crowded field could result in two Republicans advancing. Becerra’s strong performance has prevented that outcome.
Several prominent Democrats declined to enter the race, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla. Early in the campaign, former Rep. Katie Porter briefly led in some polls before her campaign ended following the circulation of controversial videos. Later, then-Rep. Eric Swalwell entered the race in late 2025 but withdrew after reports of alleged sexual misconduct, which he denied. Swalwell also resigned from Congress.
Becerra, a former California attorney general and U.S. representative, centered his campaign on his government experience and record managing complex issues. Critics during the primary raised questions about his handling of the child migrant crisis, the federal response to the mpox outbreak, and a case in which a former chief of staff pleaded guilty to fraud involving campaign funds. Becerra has not been accused of wrongdoing in that matter.
Former Biden White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain previously told CNN that Becerra inherited difficult situations and worked to address them.
Broader Election Landscape
California has approximately 4.6 million more registered Democrats than Republicans. The last Republican elected governor was Arnold Schwarzenegger, who won reelection in 2006.
In the Los Angeles mayoral race, incumbent Democrat Karen Bass has already advanced to the November ballot. Independent candidate Spencer Pratt currently holds second place, though Democratic City Councilwoman Nithya Raman has gained ground as additional ballots are counted.
Vote counting continues in several California races, with final results in some contests expected to take additional time.
