June 19, 2026

02 U.S. Politics

Blurb:

A California jury found ⁠Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $3m in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit that accused the companies of being legally responsible for the addictive design of their platforms.

The decision was handed down by a Los Angeles-based jury on Wednesday after more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, and more than a month after jurors heard opening statements in the trial.

Blurb:

A landmark jury verdict holding Meta Platforms Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google liable for harming a young user with products designed to be addictive threatens to put the social networking companies in the same category as Big Tobacco and opioid makers — a potential crack in their shield from legal responsibility for what happens on their platforms.

 While the $6 million in damages a jury in Los Angeles awarded to the 20-year-old plaintiff — which the companies vowed to appeal — will barely register on their balance sheets, the impact of the verdict will likely be more damaging and harder to quantify. The loss, in the first of thousands of product-liability lawsuits against Meta, Google and other social networks, is the kind of black eye that often leads to an increase in government regulations.

Blurb:

 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rolled out an energy and climate change agenda Wednesday as a preview of what Democrats have in store if they take the chamber’s majority in November’s elections.

Schumer’s five-point plan seeks to ride the national momentum on affordability, framing Democrats as the party not just of clean energy and fighting climate change, but of lower electricity bills and more jobs.

Blurb:

 

In midterm elections in which control of all or part of Congress flips away from the president’s party, a common pattern emerges.

The party out of power grows stronger on the hypothetical midterm-election ballot as the year moves toward Election Day.

A president isn’t on the midterm ballot, but his/her popularity and the perception of how the country is doing factor in to how voters vote in a midterm election.

The perception of both Donald Trump’s performance and the country’s current situation is not good.

Blurb:

US deploying 1,500 troops from 82nd Airborne

Iran could significantly increase U.S. casualties if its elite military and proxy forces shift to guerrilla-style hit-and-run attacks in the region, a leading military analyst has warned.

Blurb:

Ha Nguyen McNeill, the top official at the TSA, is testifying about the dire air travel situation before the House Homeland Security Committee, where she is calling on Congress to fund DHS and “ensure this never happens again.”

McNeill said the TSA has already lost more than 480 transportation security officers during this shutdown, while callout rates have accelerated. At some airports, 40 to 50% of their workforce is calling out of work on certain days, she said.

“This has led to the highest wait times in TSA history, with some wait times greater than four and a half hours,” McNeill said. “We are being forced to consolidate lanes and may have to close smaller airports if we do not have enough officers. It is a fluid, challenging and unpredictable situation.”

Blurb:

The Vatican has issued a new directive discouraging investment in mining, framed as a matter of environmental responsibility. But the Faith and Reason panel sees something else: a Church that blessed Pachamama idols in 2019, whose current Pope knelt to Pachamama in 1995, now imposing an anti-human ecology that prioritizes the earth over the people who live on it.

The hosts defend their reporting on the newly surfaced photographs of Pope Leo XIV participating in a Pachamama ritual, not to scandalize, but to demand clarity. If cardinals condemned Pachamama as “demonic” and “apostasy” under Francis, what do they say now that the man in the photo sits on the Throne of Peter? The silence, they argue, is gaslighting: pretending the obvious is not happening.

Originally published March 20, 2026 for our weekly Issue of Mindful Intelligence Advisor.  Subscribe to get weekly issues.

By Paul Gordon Collier, Editor

“For those of us who are not black men, imagine watching the news and seeing how people who look like you are portrayed. Imagine seeing men who look like you executed by police, arrested in impossibly high numbers and seeing the entire political system of our nation fighting to keep it that way.

“Think about really what effect that would have on you and how you felt about this country and your participation in its institutions. It’s a centuries-old problem, but we can’t be centuries-old in the solution. We need to fix it now. We need to stop the efforts to make it harder for people of color to vote. We need to fix what’s broken in America.”Alysa Milano, white millionaire Progmerican actress

“Imagine being a black man and being told by some white lady with a microphone that you and the criminal on TV are one and the same because you look alike. Imagine being told by society that white people can be all they can be, but you as a black man, the content of your character is completely irrelevant, you are the color of your skin, and that is all you’ll ever be.

“Imagine being told that you can’t figure out how to vote because of the color of your skin. Socioeconomics affects everybody, but apparently you’re not as smart as the poorest white person.”Savanah Edwards, black middle-class American woman

In past reports, we’ve talked about the concept of “language wars,” of using “language games” to create unwinnable outcomes for your opponent. It is the use of language wars that has largely led to the rise of a host of ideological constructs we will simply refer to as “woke.”

What all these ideological constructs have in common is this; the white heterosexual cis-gendered male created a whole host of institutions to assert and preserve his superiority over all other classes of people. This underlying assumption is implicit in some (they’ll even deny it) and explicit in others.

Systemic “whiteness” prevails, even when the standards are changed to no longer favor the white man, even when the institution’s leaders are replaced by “woke” leaders, even when the new standards now openly discriminate against the white heterosexual cis-gendered male.

This means the only way to end “whiteness” is to end the institutions altogether. Progmerica’s Harvard is gone altogether in Progtopia.

The language game they create for America is based on America’s sins. The “woke” serve as Absolom (2nd Samuel 15) outside the gates of Jerusalem, whose beauty and hair were the pride of Jerusalem.

The woke equip themselves in outfits and hair that appeal to children, their main source for recruitment. The schools, the kids’ shows, the news sources for their favorite influencers, are all spaces for wokeness to tell children there is injustice, but with them in power, there will be justice.

They tell the children enough truths, that America was born with slavery written into her constitution, to tell the children a whole series of lies. They whisper, shout, and subliminally imply, “Were we the new power, we would judge rightly with ‘social justice.’”

The root of all their lies that enables what follows (overt violations of American standards) is the lie that the white heterosexual cis-gendered male invented slavery. After they sell the lie that the white devil invented slavery, they then continue with the lie that the white devil invented Christianity. After that, the American republic itself falls under their flames.

These flames are created by the real fear of the white devil, who invented evil and intends on murdering all hope. These flames also create opportunities to pillage the white man, which gains them more recruits, recruits they desperately need to recruit the children, white middle-class women.

It is this class of woman, the Progmerican white woman, who is the primary enabler and driver of the lies being told to our children in public schools every day. They account for 62% of all public-school teachers, a 24-point majority built into the system, a system that is aggressively Progmerican in its teaching. I would argue they have also been the biggest benefactor of the new wokeness.

Their intended “allies’” benefits weren’t nearly as enriching to the communities as a whole as they have been to the white middle class Progmerican women’s community (this is in large part why transgenderism has gotten the check it has, for it began to threaten white Progmerican woman power).

Our public schools are leading children to believe they are either the victim of a white devil that is built into their very school desks or they’re born of a white devil whose skin covers their own bones, their own flesh, leaving them naked and exposed as an unredeemable sinner. Like the black man that could not hide in a white man’s crowd, the white child cannot hide in a “person of color’s” crowd.

The Progmerican language game began by feeding on America’s rightly earned guilt for having a couple of centuries of real white supremacist history that was only broken in the 1980s (the 50s-70s were the transition away from a fundamentally white supremacist culture).

The stewards of American power, the leaders of the institutions that train our teachers, were not able to keep the woke out of their institutions.

They had no mechanism to filter them with because they operated under largely Americanist standards. They also had no mechanism COMPELLING them to filter such anti-Americanists from their institutions. Dissenting views should be welcome in academia, so cutting out American citizens who happen to have some unamerican views would be antithetical to Americanism.

This is what let the woke in, but the woke do not share our views; the woke are NOT American.

When they entered our institutions, they quickly set about slowly freezing Americans out of their own institutions. Then the process of exaptation began, of repurposing a design to serve a decidedly different end.

Every American institution was converted to what we are calling a Progmerican one, which represents the scaffolding underneath, the bones of the American institutions, with their new head, Progressivism.

I chose the term progressive because it has been the most consistently used term by leftists who knew from the start that their project was about exapting America-making institutions so they become Progressive-making institutions. Neo-liberals and neo-cons alike have been variably comfortable with that term.

It is only the rise of disruptive decentralizing technologies that have prevented the project, Progmericanism, from reaching its fulfilment, its ability to shed the bones of America altogether.

It wants to openly be what it always was, Progtopia. This project will officially jettison the U.S. constitution and replace it with something radically different, something that allows central planners to move on the fly to dramatically alter human action, with violence, if necessary, for the good of the whole.

Progmericans are like the Iranian Islamists, who believe it is proper to lie, cheat, steal, and murder to usher in the age of Utopia. This makes it easy for them to use the language of Americanism, but with radically different definitions. This is pre-emptive deception.

They know they are attempting to alter your heuristics, without your consent, using de facto threats of social ostracism and market death to cement that heuristic conditioning in you. Now, without realizing it, you are already becoming a Progmerican in uncritical habits of being.

This ethical duplicity allows them to appeal to free speech in the American sense when the courts have an American judge, and THEY are the defendants.

Yet as prosecutors and judges in that same court, they will implicitly use the woke standard of “free speech.” The woke standard holds that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, and the consequences they are describing involves mob threats of gatekeepers to economically assassinate you. Any effort by an American to find relief in a Progmerican-controlled court is already doomed to fail before the case is ever heard.

When they say freedom of speech among themselves, they understand it means speech that aligns with the woke orthodoxy as mostly defined by academia (as I believe it still mostly is). That “freedom of speech” also includes the compulsion to speak when others violate the woke orthodoxy as defined by academia.

It also includes the compulsion to not call abortion murder or homosexuality sinful because that affects “marginalized” groups (meaning higher castes in the woke hierarchy of caste value).

Their language game allows them to chastise you ONLY if one of these conditions is true; 1. You seek to be justified according to their standards; 2. They have the power to compel gatekeepers to cut you out of public space.

For the former, if you are an Americanist, you understand what they’re demanding is a violation of the spirit of America, our bravery. We ARE the home of the brave so long as we have a people that are NOT AFRAID of losing fairly in the public square and are NOT AFRAID of others being wrong in public space.

Their standards require a denial of both. They require a gaming of the system by gatekeepers, from the top down, to assure only their kind gets through to the public space where the world might see them. They empower the mob and/or the gatekeepers to be the arbiters of “right” and “wrong” thought that should be tolerated in public space.

From a governance standards perspective, they are not Americans, right from the start. They refute the individual in favor of the social. This is why they say, “social justice” and not “American justice,” for “social justice” is based on caste-system justice, where the punishments and mercies are based primarily on your caste position, not the merits of the situation being adjudicated.

At this point, their only effectiveness over you is their ability to end your public face. Yet that isn’t going as well as it has in the past, but that doesn’t mean the future might not restore that power for them, or even increase it.

America had no defense against the wolf coming into the sheep pen. And now the wolf is just about out of his sheep costume altogether, ready to devour America from within and declare the sheep pen a den of wolves, Progtopia.

In future issues, I hope to expand on my thoughts for what we as Americans can do to at least create an invitation for the people of this land to choose Americanism over the competing new civilizations, which include Progtopia and what I am calling, for now, Trumpmerica (the liminal state between Progmerica and America that, if chosen, will collapse into Progmerica soon after).

I wanted to plant a seed, one that illustrates the critical fail problem of America, its inability to keep the wolves out. Our openness is our strength, but it is also our weakness.

We want to sustain and restore as much openness as possible without allowing closed system thinkers to enter into our institutions and shut the door behind them.

What I propose, in general is the creation of a Bill of Rights coalition of people willing to plumbline their local, state, and national leaders with a questionnaire on whether or not they support the Bill of Rights. From this, we begin to identify Americans, not just among the leaders (there are still a few) but also among ourselves.

The leaders we will target will be market, social, civic, and sacred leaders. We will make their views known, and their refusal to participate in the survey known.

Our purpose is to find Americans among our leaders and make it visible to everyone who is in defiance of these standards. Our secondary purpose is to find enough Americans to form two political parties, both of which agree to run in a special primary open to the general public. The losing party will support the winning party in the general election.

One party will be the Americanist Right. It will support conservative ideas, limited government, strong military, etc., but all within the boundaries of the Bill of Rights.

One party will be the Americanist Left. It will support leftist ideas, like taxing the rich more, having more government social welfare programs, but ALL within the boundaries of the Bill of Rights.

BOTH parties should be pro-self-defense.

The state’s position on abortion, within the Americanist framework, is ambiguous, therefore abortion should be settled by the states, preferably through direct voting by the people, not the legislatures.

This writer holds that states that legalize abortion undermine the fundamental Americanist presumption, that ALL individuals have self-stewardship “rights” given to them by someone/something outside of creation itself. Let the states bear the fruit of allowing or preventing abortions. Let the states that thrive lead the other states to follow their lead.

BOTH parties would be committed to rallying support to pass two amendments, one which would make citizenship a consensual contract the resident must decide to enter into. There would be no more birthright citizenships, not even for children born to American citizens.

The resident would have to go through a form of Americanist “catechism” of sorts and demonstrate in some form a profound understanding of what it means to be citizen in the land of the free, the home of the brave.

This amendment would take effect 6 months after final ratification. It would not be retroactively applied.

Residents would have all the basic rights of citizens other than facing limitations on free speech, having the right to bear arms, and voting in most elections. Residents can vote in any election in which a tax rate that affects them is being voted on.

Residents would pay less taxes than citizens, they couldn’t serve in the military (or be drafted, if we preserve that anti-American standard), nor could they be compelled to serve on juries.

The second amendment would make it a citizenship violation to express gatekeeping standards in the civic, market, sacred, or social public space that would fundamentally impede the ability of Americans to participate in these public spaces or practice their own standards in private spaces.

If you call for gun control laws outside of calling for an Amendment to change our 2nd Amendment standards, then you have committed a citizen violation. There would be levels of punishment based on the severity of the offense and the frequency of offenses. Most offenses would require a fine and some form of remote training in citizenship standards.

One basic requirement for a charge would be having an audience of a certain number (whatever that might be) to protect citizens from private secret-police-type machinations. The speech in homes, for instance, is not intended to be monitored, nor is public speech to a handful of people (other than the limits that are already there, like making death threats).

Above all else, the mechanism must have a path for restoration for all but the most egregious and repetitive offenses.

Any creation of any tool risks exaptation, meaning this tool in the hands of progressives would be used to eliminate Americans from the citizen roles PERMANENTLY. Such a tool has built-in risks.

But what we can see today is that having NO MEANS of filtering out from citizenship privilege the truly anti-American subversive is absolutely unsustainable.

What I propose here might not be the optimal solution (if there is one). The challenge is significant. It is to sustain as broad a coalition of people without becoming so indistinct it collapses into nothing. With no real barrier to natural-born citizenship, and no real standard for excluding citizenship, our enemies have no need for Trojan Horses.

All they have to do is wave the American flag coming in, saying “equality,” not liberty, and once they are in, wave their Progtopian flags (they have many, including the flag of Hamas).

But with these two amendments, they now must publicly CHOOSE American standards and CHOOSE to be held accountable by them, else they lose the privilege of being an American citizen, the “right” to be a self-stewarded individual (for they demonstrated no respect for the self-stewardship capacity of their neighbors).

I have a domain name, Americanist.Party, which could be used for this project should it gain enough traction. If you have your own thoughts on what we can do to restore, fulfill, and preserve Americanism in these lands, write to us at MIAMailroom@gmail.com

The Florida state house district President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate resides in will now have a Democrat representing it after a special election saw Democrat Emily Gregory narrowly beat Trump-endorsed Republican John Maples. Trump won in this same region by 11 points in 2024. The special election was needed to replace retired Republican Mike Caruso, who won his last election by 19 points in 2024.

Blurb:

Democrats flip Florida state seat in Trump’s backyard

OpenAI is facing existential pressure after having to cancel a $1 billion Disney deal that would have allowed the media company to use their video AI app Sora to develop content. The app was ended due to an inability to prevent it from creating dangerous deepfake videos, including pornographic ones.

Disney said of the severed deal, “We appreciate the constructive collaboration between our teams and what we learned from it, and we will continue to engage with AI platforms to find new ways to meet fans where they are while responsibly embracing new technologies that respect IP and the rights of creators.”

Blurb:

OpenAI shuts down Sora app amid rising concerns about deepfakes and consent – www.cbc.ca

OpenAI is shutting down its social media app Sora, which went viral last year as a place to share short-form videos generated by artificial intelligence but also raised alarms in Hollywood and elsewhere.

OpenAI said in a brief social media message Tuesday that it was “saying goodbye to the Sora app” and that it would share more soon about how to preserve what users had already created on the app.

“What you made with Sora mattered, and we know this news is disappointing,” it said.

The company behind chatbot ChatGPT released Sora in September as an attempt to capture the attention — and potentially advertising dollars — claimed by short-form videos on TikTok, YouTube or Meta-owned Instagram and Facebook.

MIT Data reveals the Democrat Party saw a 23 million vote drop in mail-in ballot votes from 2020 to 2024. Meanwhile, it’s other voting data mostly held steady from 2020 to 2024. The spike in Democrat votes in 2020 has never been explained. This recent finding suggests the answer may be where many thought it was the whole time, in the post-election-day ballot “counting” behind windows covered with pizza boxes.

Blurb:

STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE”: MIT Data Shows 23 MILLION Democrat Mail-In Voters Vanished From 2020 to 2024 – gellerreport.com

ELECTION INTEGRITY: MIT data shows Democrat mail-in voting dropped 23 points from 2020 to 2024 with zero drop in Democrat in-person voting. Republican voting was relatively static. The 23-point surge in Democrat mail-in ballots in 2020 has no explanation. Did these voters ever exist?

The U.S. government has made a deal with state governments to no longer pressure social media companies to censor Americans. Senator Eric Schmitt, who as Missouri’s Attorney General, sued the Biden administration, alleging the administration was strong-arming social media companies to remove posts and users that didn’t conform to the progressive agenda.

Schmitt declared, “Today, after years of unrelenting litigation, we deep state into a historic 10-year, court-enforceable Consent Decree. It directly binds the Surgeon General, the CDC, and CISA: no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions to remove, suppress, deplatform, or algorithmically bury protected speech…

This is the first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine. It locks in the First Amendment principle we fought for: modern technology doesn’t erase your rights, and government labels don’t strip speech of protection. The deep state just got checked.”

Blurb:

Settlement Stops Government From Silencing Online Speech – thefederalist.com

The government censorship machine took a huge hit Tuesday in a historic win for First Amendment rights.

What is being billed as an “unprecedented” agreement will bar the three government agencies central to killing speech the Biden administration didn’t like from pressuring social media platforms from doing so in the future.

“This case began with a suspicion, that blossomed into fact, that led to Congressional hearings and an Executive Order that government censorship of Americans’ social media posts should end,” said John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), the nonprofit civil rights group that has battled in courts for years to bring justice to victims of government-led speech suppression.

Also celebrating, Sen. Eric Schmitt, who, as Missouri’s attorney general, sued the Biden administration for “brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missourians.”

“This is a massive win for the First Amendment and for every American who believes in free speech,” the Missouri Republican said in a press release, adding that President Biden’s tenure in office brought “the most aggressively liberal and antiliberty excesses of government that America has ever seen.”

 

The Federalist and its staff were among the many victims of a concerted campaign to stifle conservative speech in particular.

“From COVID to Hunter Biden’s laptop to the border, Biden officials at the highest levels of government tried to use Facebook, X, and YouTube as their speech police,” Schmitt said.

‘From the Highest Levels of Government’

The settlement agreement and Consent Decree that ties up the remaining pieces of the landmark Missouri v. Biden lawsuit years in the making prohibits Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the U.S. Surgeon General from strong-arming social media companies into blocking or disappearing speech the agencies deem as “misinformation”, “disinformation,” or the Big Brother doozy of the Covid era, “malinformation.” And federal officials will be prohibited from interfering with social media providers’ decisions on content moderation.

As investigations into the Twitter Files (thanks to Elon Musk’s purchase of the leftist-run platform) and several congressional hearings exposed, the social media giants at times didn’t need much arm-twisting to do the speech suppression-bidding of the Biden administration.

The case — then known as Murthy v. Missouri went to the U.S. Supreme Court after Biden’s Department of Justice appealed the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ preliminary injunction against the government. In a 2024 majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court sided with Biden in ruling that NCLA’s clients didn’t have standing. SCOTUS kicked the case back to the district court.

 

It was in the lower court that NCLA attorneys via discovery “uncovered a vast operation emanating from the highest levels of government.”

“NCLA revealed how agencies and the White House directed social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflicted with federal government messaging on topics ranging from Covid-19 to elections,” the organization’s press release states. “These egregious First Amendment violations silenced NCLA’s clients and many other Americans.”

‘Victims of This Censorship Scheme’

The New Civil Liberties Alliance’s clients included Aaron Kheriaty, a psychiatrist who opposed lockdowns and vaccine mandates as the health and media establishment worked to shame and shut down such historically-vindicated views. According to his sworn declaration, Kheriaty said that his following on Twitter — now X — was “artificially suppressed” and his posts “shadow bann[ed]”. He said that his posts didn’t show up on his followers’ feeds, and that YouTube took down a video of one of his interviews about vaccine mandates.

Jill Hines, an activist who spearheaded “Reopen Louisiana” movement during the government-directed Covid lockdowns, told the court that her “personal Facebook account was suspended and the Facebook posts of her organization, Health Freedom Louisiana, were censored and removed for their views on vaccine and mask mandates.”

The Federalist, which last fall won the prestigious Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism for its investigations into the Russia Collusion Hoax, was among the conservative news organizations that experienced the heavy hand of government-driven suppression.

“My colleague [Federalist CEO] Sean Davis and I were victims of this censorship scheme, as was The Federalist. One of the censored items was a story about a TV appearance in which I said of the media, ‘They lie, they lie, they lie, and then they lie,’” Federalist Editor-in-Chef Mollie Hemingway said a year ago today in testimony before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution hearing.

The NCLA represented The Federalist and The Daily Wire in a lawsuit against the Biden State Department, which used its Global Engagement Center “to finance the development and promotion of censorship technology and enterprises, including NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index.” The censorship technologies sought to defund and suppress conservative news, according to the ongoing lawsuit.

Infringe No More

President Donald Trump condemned the censorship scheme through an Executive Order on the first day of his second term. The order asserts that “government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.” That included suppressing the speech of the Democratic Party’s No. 1 enemy, Donald Trump, and his supporters.

In the settlement, the Department of Justice agrees that the administrative state’s justifications for speech suppression, even during pandemics, don’t negate the First Amendment.

Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana still must sign off on the agreement, and the accompanying attorneys’ fees.

“The United States government cannot abridge speech directly, nor by inducing intermediaries to do so at its bidding,” Zhonette Brown, NCLA General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel said in the press release. “As recognized by last year’s Executive Order, that is exactly what happened, sometimes driven by a prior administration, sometimes driven by bureaucrats, but always unlawful.”


Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.


from thefederalist.com

The Trump administration received another rare win in a week of judicial defeats, this time from a panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel ruled 2-1 to reverse a lower court order that would have essentially forced the DHS to have a catch and release policy for illegal immigrants. The ruling now generally allows illegals to be detained without bond until their removal case is resolved by the court. Read more about the progressive judiciary versus the conservative executive in our Bellwether Deepdive on pg. 2.

Blurb:

Circuit Court Delivers Major Victory For Trump, Mass Deportations – trendingpoliticsnews.com

A divided panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Trump administration a major win for immigration enforcement, backing ICE’s ability to detain certain illegal immigrants without bond while their removal cases move through the system.

The ruling, decided 2-1, reverses a lower-court decision that critics said was pushing the Department of Homeland Security toward catch-and-release by forcing broad bond access for detainees already living inside the United States.

“This is a MASSIVE victory for the deportation mission 🇺🇸”

The case centers on the government’s authority to hold illegal immigrants in custody during removal proceedings under federal immigration law, and whether judges can require bond hearings as a default. The majority said the statute allows detention without bond for covered categories, rejecting the idea that immigration authorities must routinely offer release conditions while deportation cases are pending.

Blurb:

Top Republican in North Carolina Senate concedes race decided by 23 votes  Fox News
from news.google.com

Top Republican in the North Carolina Senate Phil Berger conceded his GOP primary race Tuesday after a second recount left him behind by a mere 23 votes, ending Berger’s long hold on the Triad-area seat and setting up a leadership shake-up in a key battleground state.

“While this was a close race, the voters have spoken, and I congratulate Sheriff Page on his victory,” Berger wrote in a statement Tuesday after the results of the second recount confirmed Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page won the District 26 race.

“Over the past 15 years, Republicans in the General Assembly have fundamentally redefined our state’s outlook and reputation. It has been an honor to play a role in that transformation.”

Blurb:

The Supreme Court handed internet providers a major win Wednesday, unanimously ruling that Sony can’t hold Cox Communications liable for failing to boot users accused of pirating music.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said a lower court went too far in seeking to impose copyright damages on Cox for its customers’ actions. While the ruling itself was unanimous, two liberal justices declined to sign onto Thomas’ broader reasoning.

“Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights,” Thomas wrote.

The court‘s decision raises the bar for suing internet providers. Thomas said companies must actually intend for their services to be used for piracy or design them for illegal activity before they can be held liable.