The nation’s top court is acting to preserve our Constitution and, ultimately, the American people in the face of a grave and debilitating crisis caused by a guy who rarely understands where he is, what he’s doing, or what he’s saying.

In a recent series of key rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently issued a new judgment that is more important than ever. This one follows an unparalleled catastrophe at the border, with millions of undocumented immigrants flooding into the country uncontrolled and unaccounted for. As of December 21, 2022, Title 42′ is scheduled to expire, and mass border infiltration is likely to become much worse, the delivery of this decision could not be more critical.

According to VOA, Title 42 is “a pandemic-era restriction that blocked migrants from seeking asylum in the U.S. — the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently outlined steps it will take at the U.S.-Mexico border if the order is lifted.”

“A federal judge in Washington ordered enforcement of Title 42 to end on December 21. Republican-led states filed an appeal asking the court to keep it in place. The Biden administration also has challenged parts of the ruling ending the Trump-era asylum restrictions.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has now determined that illegal aliens jailed for six months do not have the legal right to a bail hearing for release, with only a few days remaining before this policy expires.

“The decision addressed two separate cases involving three illegal aliens, two of which were Mexican nationals that entered the U.S. illegally after being previously deported. After they were detained, they filed a putative class action for a bond hearing after six months of detention. The third illegal alien was from El Salvador and also reentered the country illegally after being previously deported. He also sued in Washington federal court for a bond hearing. The case was brought to the high court under the Trump administration and was inherited by the Biden administration, which continued to pursue the previous administration’s fight,”

According to Conservative Brief, in an 8-1 verdict that united the court’s conservative and liberal wings, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the law is silent on the issue.

“Respondents sought withholding of removal under the INA based on their fear that, if returned to their countries of origin, they would face persecution or torture,” Sotomayer stated in her opinion.

After the Trump administration brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was inherited by the Biden administration, which continued to pursue what the previous administration had initiated.

A number of people criticized Biden’s decision, with the American Civil Liberties Union claiming the administration was “decidedly on the wrong side of this fight.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion in which the court held that the statute prohibits class-wide injunctive relief against a corporation, but left open the possibility of injunctive relief being granted to multiple named plaintiffs in the same case.

Alito wrote, “It generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions.” CONTINUE READING…