Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Swiftly Deport Migrants to Third Countries
The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the Trump administration to swiftly deport migrants, including a group of men bound for South Sudan, to countries they aren't from.
The court's conservative majority stayed a lower court order that said individuals set to be deported to third countries must be given meaningful notice of their intended destination, allowing them time to raise objections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines fired teacher's free speech challenge over anti-transgender TikToks
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a Massachusetts teacher's First Amendment challenge concerning her termination for making and reposting antitransgender TikToks. Former Hanover Public Schools teacher Kari MacRae stressed the TikToks were made before she applied to the job and urged the court to take up her case to protect public employees' free speech rights. One post condemned Rachel Levine, the highest-ranking transgender official in the Biden administration. Another boasted a panda bear photo alongside text that read, 'Dude, racism is stupid. I am black, white, and Asian. But everyone loves me.' 'I feel bad for parents nowadays,' another post read. 'You have to be able to explain the birds & the bees . . . The bees & the bees . . . The birds & the birds . . . The birds that used to be bees . . . The bees that used to be birds . . . The birds that look like bees . . . Plus bees that look like birds but still got a stinger!!!' No justice publicly dissented from the decision to turn away her appeal. But in a seven-page statement, Justice Clarence Thomas said he had 'serious concerns' about the lower court's approach that sided against the teacher. 'It undermines core First Amendment values to allow a government employer to adopt an institutional viewpoint on the issues of the day and then, when faced with a dissenting employee, portray this disagreement as evidence of disruption,' Thomas wrote. 'And, the problem is exacerbated in the case of an employee such as MacRae, who expressed her views only outside the workplace and before her employment.' However, Thomas indicated he agreed with the court's decision to turn away MacRae's petition, saying it didn't squarely challenge those broader issues. The justice signaled he would take up a future case to make clear public employers can not use 'unsupported claims of disruption in particular to target employees who express disfavored political views.' After her firing, MacRae unsuccessfully ran for Massachusetts state Senate in both 2022 and 2024. She's running again for election next year. MacRae was represented by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group. 'This case could not be a more perfect vehicle for the Court to determine the rights of the tens-of-millions aspiring teachers who are participating in public affairs and the four million public-school teachers who spoke on matters of public concern before they were employed,' the group wrote in its petition. The school district insisted the lower ruling rejecting MacRae's appeal was in harmony with Supreme Court precedents on public school teachers' free speech rights. 'There is no question that the TikTok memes violated the District's core values and mission statement, as found by both the District Court and First Circuit,' the school district wrote in court filings. The order comes weeks after the Supreme Court declined to hear a student's challenge to his school district blocking him from wearing a T-shirt to class that reads, 'There are only two genders.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
NATO Launches Global Arms Race As Defense Spending Set To Explode
Unidentified NATO soldiers Readers of a certain age will recall President Ronald Reagan launching one of the most ambitious military buildups in American history. In a bid to overwhelm the Soviet Union, Reagan doubled the U.S. military's budget from under $150 billion in 1980 to over $300 billion by 1985. The government invested heavily in B-1 bombers, MX missiles and an expanded Navy fleet. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), dubbed 'Star Wars' by critics, aimed to create a space-based missile defense system. The 40th president believed that peace could only be achieved through strength, and history proved him right. The Americans outspent and out-innovated the Soviets… and ultimately outlasted them. NATO Agrees to Increase Defense Spending Today, we're seeing Regan's strategy play out on the international stage. At the NATO summit in The Hague last week, the 32-member alliance agreed to boost defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, with a floor of 3.5% earmarked for 'core military needs.' That's more than double the previous 2% target set back in 2014. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte credited President Donald Trump with pushing allies to commit to a higher spending level. 'This would not have happened' without Trump, Rutte said. Trump echoed Reagan's 'peace through strength' energy in his own remarks: 'It's vital that this additional money be spent on very serious military hardware... and hopefully that hardware is going to be made in America because we have the best hardware in the world.' Growing Number of Conflicts Across the Globe It's not difficult to see why this spending spree is happening now. The world is getting more dangerous. According to the 2025 Global Peace Index, there are 59 active state-based conflicts globally, the highest number since World War II. Number of state-based conflicts is now higher than at any point since WWII Ranked as this year's least peaceful country, Russia remains an active military threat, with its war in Ukraine extending into a third year and showing few signs of resolution. China is executing a 'massive' military expansion, according to NATO, including advanced missile systems and naval expansion in the South China Sea. And as you know, Iran recently retaliated against U.S. airstrikes with missile attacks on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, raising tensions in the Middle East. NATO Allies Moving Fast Some NATO countries aren't waiting until 2035 to act. Poland is already spending over 4% of its GDP on defense, the highest rate among all other and bottom five military spenders in NATO Germany has pledged to reach 3.5% by 2029, even changing its constitutional debt rules to make it possible. The UK just ordered a dozen nuclear-capable F-35A fighter jets, marking its biggest nuclear deterrent upgrade since the Cold War. Here in the U.S., President Trump has proposed an $893 billion defense budget for 2026 that favors drones and smart missiles, while reducing some legacy investments such as warships and fighter jets. He appears to be focused on high-tech, cost-effective equipment, modeled in part after Ukraine's recent successes with drones on the battlefield. Defense a 'Dynamic Growth Industry'? Defense has long been considered a 'value sector'—slow and steady, backed by government contracts. That narrative could be changing. According to analysts at Stifel, we're entering a new cycle where defense is a 'dynamic growth industry.' We're now in an arms race driven not just by tanks and jets, but also AI, cyber, space and next-gen missiles. Consider that U.S. defense budgets remain near record highs. Defense spending in Europe rose 17% year-over-year to $693 billion in 2024, before the new 5% NATO target became a reality. Despite this, Europe is still overly reliant on American hardware and production capacity, according to findings by the Kiel Institute. That, too, could spell opportunity. American defense companies—especially those focused on drones, missile systems, cybersecurity and space-based tech—stand to benefit the most from this multi-decade rearmament cycle. For investors, I believe this marks the beginning of a long-term secular shift.
Fox News
25 minutes ago
- Fox News
Mamdani called out by MSNBC guest for refusing to condemn 'globalize the intifada' phrase
Podcast host Donny Deutsch called out Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic New York City mayoral candidate, on Monday for refusing to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada" during an appearance on MSNBC. "I'm outraged that we have a candidate for mayor of New York, Mr. Mamdani, that cannot walk back or cannot condemn the words 'globalize the intifada' and his nuance of, 'well, it means different things for different people.' Well, let me tell you what it means to a Jew — it means violence," Deutsch said, citing the October 7 terrorist attacks, as well as the Boulder, Colorado attacks. Mamdani, a democratic socialist, defeated establishment candidate and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary last week. "That's the connotation, that's the essence of it, and that's what it means to Jewish people. And if any other group came forward and said 'you know these words are offense to us, it means violence, it frightens us,' I think there would be a response, but for some reason, if Jewish people find it offensive, it's not offensive," Deutsch continued. The podcast host said it was offensive to him and accused Mandami of running a "campaign of divisiveness." "He also came out in the last two days and said, 'we're going to tax rich, White neighborhoods.' Why do you have to put White in there? Just say, we're going to tax the wealthy. I just find that offensive. I find it offensive that in the past he's talked about defunding the police. I think he's walked that back," Deutsch said. Mamdani had several opportunities to condemn the "globalize the intifada" phrase during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "That's not language that I use. The language that I use, the language that I will continue to use to lead this city, is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights," Mamdani told NBC's Kristen Welker. "And ultimately, that's what is the foundation of so much of my politics, the belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that, to have meaning, have to be applied to all people and that includes Israelis and Palestinians alike." Welker asked two more times about why he wouldn't condemn the phrase if it concerned Jewish New Yorkers. Mamdani argued, "I don't believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech." "My concern is, to start to walk down the line of language and making clear what language I believe is permissible or impermissible, takes me into a place similar to that of the president, who is looking to do those very kinds of things, putting people in jail for writing an op-ed, putting them in jail for protesting. Ultimately, it is not language that I use. It is language I understand there are concerns about, and what I will do is showcase my vision for the city through my words and my actions," Mamdani added. Mamdani's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
