Supreme Court Strikes Down President Trump’s Executive Order On Birthright Citizenship in 5-4 Decision – Roberts and Amy Coney Barret Side with Liberals

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship in a 5-4 decision.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

“Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause,” Roberts wrote.

Roberts was joined by Amy Coney Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson.

In September, President Trump asked the US Supreme Court to end birthright citizenship.

Several federal judges have blocked President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.

According to President Trump’s order, the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted by the left to give citizenship to ‘anchor babies.’

“It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth,” Trump’s order stated.

Trump’s order argued the 14th Amendment has always excluded babies born to people in the US illegally.

“[The] Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text,” the order stated.

BREAKING… please check back for updates.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/06/breaking-supreme-court-strikes-down-president-trumps-executive/

The Supreme Court Just Issued a New Ruling on Campaign Finance

How much money can a national party spend in coordination with a candidate? There are limits, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. This isn’t the most exciting of all cases, but campaign finance riles up Democrats for some reason. How many ads and fundraising materials did we see following Citizens United? It was overkill. The difference is that the GOP has the upper hand regarding campaign cash for the 2026 cycle; Democrats are virtually broke. 

The area of campaign finance now has greater clarity, as the Court ruled 6-3 to strike down its 2001 ruling in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. Political parties can now spend whatever in coordination with their own candidates, a win for the First Amendment. 

Admittedly, even SCOTUS experts and reporters had no clue where this decision would land. Oral arguments were held last December. At the same time, when this case was brought before the appeals court, they noted the plaintiffs had good arguments, but were bound by the 2001 ruling, per Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog (via SCOTUSblog):

Nearly a quarter-century ago, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Federal Republican Campaign Committee to the constitutionality of limits on the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for office. On Tuesday, Dec. 9, the justices will hear oral arguments in a case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, asking them to strike down the coordinated party expenditure limits and, if necessary, overrule that 2001 decision.

Defending the limits, the Democratic National Committee argued that a ruling in favor of the challengers “will fundamentally reshape the campaign finance regime.” The group cautioned that a decision holding that a constitutional right to “engage in unlimited coordinated expenditures” would likely also lead to the elimination of any limits on their contributions to a candidate.

The challengers countered that the real negative impact would come if the Supreme Court were to leave its 2001 decision in place. Doing so, it said, “would work a sea change in this Court’s jurisprudence, calling its recent campaign-finance precedents into doubt.”

The dispute dates back to 2022, when four challengers – the National Republican Senatorial Committee (a group focused on electing Republicans to the Senate), the National Republican Congressional Committee (which focuses on electing Republicans to the House), then-Sen. J.D. Vance, and Steve Chabot, then a member of Congress from Ohio – went to federal court. They contended that the coordinated party expenditure limits, imposed by a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act, violate the First Amendment because the limits prevent the committees from working with the candidates they support to ensure that their advertisements have the same political message. Vance and Chabot also told the court that they wanted to be able to accept funds from the Republican Party and discuss the use of those funds in their campaigns.

[…]

The challengers came to the Supreme Court exactly one year ago, asking the justices to weigh in. In a relatively rare move, the Trump administration agreed that the justices should take up the case and reverse. “The Department of Justice has a longstanding policy of defending challenged federal statutes but has determined that this is the rare case that warrants an exception to that general approach,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.

With the FEC no longer defending the 6th Circuit’s decision, the justices in July appointed Roman Martinez, a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts and then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to do so.

In their brief on the merits, the challengers argued that it is “common ground” that the coordinated expenditure limits “impose at least ‘some burden’ on political parties’ speech and associational rights.” “The point of a political party,” they reasoned, “as opposed to a debating society, is to get its candidates elected,” but the limits make it harder for the party to do so. Therefore, they continued, the limits will pass constitutional muster only if they are intended to advance a “legitimate objective” and they are narrowly tailored – that is, they are specifically designed to achieve only that objective, without being too broad.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2026/06/30/the-supreme-court-just-issued-a-new-ruling-on-campaign-finance-n2678550

Afghan refugee jailed in France for violently raping five goats and a lamb

This article is thanks to LadyMoonlight!

An Afghan refugee has been jailed for 30 months and banned from France for raping five goats and a lamb so brutally that one of them died.

The 19-year-old appeared in court in Aix-en-Provence on Monday where he was identified as Massoud S, convicted of “abuse resulting in death”, and put on a sex offenders register.

But although Massoud was caught in the act, his DNA matched semen found in the six animals, and his phone pinged at the farm, he told the court via an English translator he was innocent and insisted he was a “normal person”.

The court heard Massoud made partial admissions in a psychiatric evaluation where he said “they’re making a huge fuss about it when they’re just animals”, 20 Minutes reported.

He also told the psychiatrist that he thought the man who committed the crimes did so to avoid “raping a woman”, because a goat wouldn’t recognise him.

Massoud, who arrived in France just months earlier and said his family was killed in a bombing in Afghanistan, also claimed he was only at the farm because he had missed the train back to the asylum seeker centre in Marseille where he lived, and needed somewhere to sleep.

The refugee was arrested in April after the owners of educational farm Le Refuge D’un Moment in Les Pennes-Mirabeau began finding their animals in distress and showing signs of sexual abuse in February and March.

Some of the animals were found with their legs bound and with genital injuries and lacerations, and when the owners set up cameras they were shocked to see Massoud carrying out violent sex acts.

A police BAC (Anti-Crime Brigade) unit then caught Massoud with his pants down raping a goat while wearing latex gloves, and he was arrested, charged and jailed while awaiting trial.

Cassandra Sortino, the owner of the non-profit educational farm, which is home to 250 abandoned or mistreated animals including horses, cows, llamas, sheep, goats and chickens for children to visit, said she was traumatised by Massoud’s crimes.

“We created this association to do good, and the animals were endangered within our own facility. We can’t explain it morally,” she told the court.

“We feel like we’ve failed.”

https://www.noticer.news/afghan-refugee-jailed-france-goats-lamb/

DOJ Rolls Out Up to $3.5 Billion for Immigration Enforcement Under Program Named BIDEN

The Justice Department is putting real money behind President Trump’s immigration agenda, and it is moving fast.

On June 29, 2026, the official DOJ account announced up to $3.5 billion in new grants aimed squarely at immigration enforcement, detention facilities, and prosecutorial support.

The money traces back to the One Big Beautiful Bill, signed last year. This is what enforcement looks like once the funding catches up to the policy.

The stated goal is simple. Get resources to the frontline partners doing the work.

The program has an official name, and it is hard to read with a straight face.

According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the opportunity is formally the DOJ FY 2026 Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide program, issued through DOJ’s grant system.

The official page places it under the department’s law enforcement funding category, which is the point: this is grant money for agencies doing criminal-justice work, not a generic border slogan.

The acronym spells BIDEN, and the listing carries Assistance Listing 16.076, Law Enforcement Support for Combatting Criminal Aliens, Drug, and Human Trafficking.

The official sources do not say DOJ picked the acronym as a jab at the last administration. The irony is still sitting right there in a program built around criminal aliens, trafficking, and local enforcement deficits.

The real substance is in the official funding notice, a 21-page DOJ document that lays out the legal authority, funding rounds, deadlines, eligible applicants, award period, and permitted uses.

The program is authorized under the BIDEN Reimbursement Fund established by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, codified at 34 U.S.C. section 61101.

The notice lists expected total funding of $3 billion, while the DOJ post cites up to $3.5 billion in available grants for frontline enforcement partners.

Awards are expected to run 36 to 60 months starting August 1, 2026. Applications are being accepted in rolling rounds until the money runs out, with awards made on a rolling basis.

That gives agencies more than a short-term patch. It gives them a multi-year runway to hire, build, and support enforcement capacity.

Round 1 opened June 15 with a Grants.gov deadline of July 15. Round 2 opens July 20, and Round 3 opens August 24, each with its own deadlines into late September.

The notice spells out what the money can do. Locating and apprehending criminal illegal aliens, analyzing investigative information to counter gangs, prosecuting crimes by aliens along with drug and human trafficking, supporting court operations, temporary detention, transportation, and the vehicles and logistics behind all of it.

Funding categories cover hiring sworn and non-sworn law enforcement personnel, training critical criminal-justice staff, technology and equipment, and construction or renovation of temporary detention facilities for criminal illegal aliens.

The eligibility rules tell you who this is built for.

Only government entities with direct criminal justice responsibilities can apply, covering investigation, prosecution, detention, corrections, transportation, and support. Applicants must already hold a 287(g) partnership or commit to entering one.

They also must participate in Homeland Security Task Force operations or other major DOJ enforcement efforts, or commit to doing so. That ties local capacity directly to the federal enforcement push.

The Grants.gov listing confirms the same lane through the public grants portal, opening it to state agencies with law enforcement responsibilities and units of local government applying for federal support.

It identifies the assistance listing as law enforcement support for combatting criminal aliens, drug trafficking, and human trafficking inside the United States.

Programs are out of scope if they violate or promote violations of federal immigration law, impede enforcement, fail to comply with 8 U.S.C. section 1373, deny access to DHS agents, or refuse to honor DHS requests and notice.

In plain terms, sanctuary policies and the agencies that protect them do not get a check from this enforcement fund or its public-safety mission.

The listing is not vague about the mission. It is about criminal aliens, trafficking, and the law enforcement agencies willing to cooperate.

This is the operational side of enforcement: more officers, more detention beds, more prosecutors, and more transportation to move criminal aliens out of communities.

The rhetoric has been there for a while. Now the funding is on the table, and the partners willing to do the work can go get it.

https://wltreport.com/2026/06/29/doj-rolls-out-up-to-3-5-billion-for-immigration-enforcement-under-program-named-biden/

UNHINGED VIDEO: Transgender Former Prostitute Running for Mayor in Canada Uses Sock Puppet During Campaign Speech

A transgender biological male former prostitute is running for mayor of Hamilton, Ontario, and if that wasn’t crazy enough, recent campaign footage shows him giving his speeches using a sock puppet with googly eyes.

“Scarlett Gillespie,” who previously went by the name “Jelena Vermilion,” currently serves as the executive director of the Sex Workers’ Action Program (SWAP) Hamilton and has long advocated for sex workers’ rights, housing issues, and trans-related causes.Gillespie’s campaign platform focuses on affordable housing, tenant protections, climate justice, greater transparency at City Hall, community-led safety initiatives, and strengthening the local arts sector, according to his website.

The candidate has described himself as a “community organizer” and “activist with lived experience” working directly with “marginalized groups.”

In a video from a campaign event on Sunday, shared by Libs of TikTok, Gillespie is at a microphone with a sock puppet in one hand.

Gillespie uses the puppet to help deliver portions of his speech, including a story about feeling disrespected.

WATCH:

“Meet Scarlett Gillespie, a candidate for mayor in Hamilton, Ontario. He pretends to be a woman and uses a sock puppet in his speeches. Canada is a circus,” Libs of TikTok wrote in the post with the video.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/06/unhinged-video-transgender-former-prostitute-running-mayor-canada/

The Amy Coney Barrett Problem Reared Its Ugly Head Again

In 2020, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was seen as a cultural victory for conservatives: she was young, conservative, Catholic, and the opposite of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose vacancy she was filling. It was viewed as a return to constitutionalism, or so we thought. Six years later, Barrett’s record has been mixed at best, although some have called it a total disaster. She's not alone: Chief Justice John Roberts also joined the liberal wing, though his record of disappointment is a bit longer than Barrett's. It's the first time Roberts and Barrett have joined the three stooges on the Left here:

The Watson v. RNC ruling was the latest example, where the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Mississippi’s law on mail-in ballots, which allows them to be received and counted up to five days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked on that day, does not violate federal standards on what constitutes Election Day. Challengers argued that these ballots must be received by Election Day; Coney joined the liberal wing on this issue (via SCOTUSBlog):

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett concluded that “the election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote—as it is in Mississippi. But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito argued that “from this Nation’s founding until the last few decades of the 20th century—a period that spans the enactment of all three election-day statutes—having an ‘election’ on a particular day meant completing ballot collection on that day.”

Mississippi passed the law at the center of the dispute in 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Four years later, the Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party, along with a Mississippi voter and a county election official, went to federal court in Gulfport, Mississippi, to challenge the post-election ballot deadline; the Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a similar lawsuit a few weeks later, which was combined with the first suit. They argued that Mississippi’s law clashes with a federal law, first passed by Congress in 1845, that designates the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the “election day.”

[…]

The challengers appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which reversed, holding that federal law requires all ballots to be received by Election Day. Over a dissent by five judges, the full court of appeals turned down Mississippi’s plea to rehear the case, and the Supreme Court agreed in November to weigh in.

In 2025, there were rumblings that we might have an ACB problem: when liberal law professors start heaping praise for you, that’s the red flag. Jack Posobiec listed three other issues that were disconcerting in 2025:

March 5, 2025. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Trump’s admin can’t block nearly $2 billion in USAID payments to foreign aid contractors—funds for work already done, sure, but cash Trump aimed to redirect under his America First agenda. Barrett joined Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s three liberals, forcing the money out the door despite Trump’s efforts to gut a bloated agency. The dissent—Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh—saw it for what it was: a judicial overreach trampling executive power. Barrett’s vote didn’t just defy Trump, who gave her the robe; it propped up a globalist system conservatives have long despised. That’s not a one-off—it’s a pattern. 

Look at the smoking gun from January 2025. The Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump’s bid to delay sentencing in his New York felony case—34 counts tied to hush money and business records brought by openly Trump-hating Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. The 5-4 ruling forced the president-elect to face the music before Inauguration Day. Who sided with the court’s three liberals to make it happen? Barrett, alongside Chief Justice John Roberts. The conservative bloc—Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch—dissented, seeing the move for what it was: a partisan jab at Trump. Barrett’s vote didn’t just green-light a political hit job; it undermined the man who put her on the bench. That’s not loyalty to the Constitution—that’s a nod to the left’s lawfare playbook. 

Then there’s the January 6 cases. In Fischer v. United States (2024), the court narrowed the scope of an obstruction law used against Capitol riot defendants. Barrett dissented again, siding with the liberals to keep prosecutors’ tools intact.

On immigration, she again sided with the liberal wing on whether the Trump administration had the right to deport illegal aliens under the Alien Enemies Act. Luckily, the decision was 5-4 in favor. 

It’s a gut punch that Watson was handed down this way, and especially disappointing that ACB would betray us like this before our 250th birthday. If you can’t get your act together to mail in your ballot before Election Day, it shouldn’t count. There’s plenty of time. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2026/06/29/amy-coney-barrett-and-john-roberts-betrayed-us-on-mail-in-ballot-ruling-n2678496