"🔥 LEGAL EARTHQUAKE! — SUPREME COURT STUNS THE NATION WITH A 6-3 DECISION!"
The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major interim immigration victory Tuesday involving deportations to countries other than migrants’ homelands.
The justices allowed federal authorities to continue rapid third-country removals while preparing to decide whether the administration’s policy is lawful.
The high court granted the administration’s emergency request to stay a February ruling from Massachusetts federal Judge Brian Murphy.
Murphy’s ruling imposed procedural protections before migrants could be removed to countries not specifically identified in their original deportation orders.
The Supreme Court simultaneously agreed to hear the administration’s appeal, setting oral arguments during its December 2026 argument session.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have denied the administration’s request for a stay.
The court’s conservative majority provided no detailed explanation for allowing the disputed deportation policy to continue during the litigation.
The case, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., represents another consequential legal battle over President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda.
The administration argues third-country removals provide an essential mechanism when migrants cannot be returned directly to their countries of origin.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer described third-country removals as “an essential tool to remove certain aliens” in the government’s application.
Sauer added that the policy can involve “some of the worst criminal aliens” whom federal authorities are seeking to remove.
More than 25,000 migrants have reportedly been deported to 29 countries under the policy implemented during Trump’s second administration.
The overwhelming majority of those third-country deportations have involved Mexico, according to figures cited by immigrant-rights organizations and Reuters.
Other destinations have included South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Central African Republic and additional nations accepting deportees.
The State Department advises Americans against traveling to South Sudan because of dangers including armed conflict, kidnapping and violent crime.
Administration officials maintain diplomatic agreements and safeguards can permit lawful removals while preventing migrants from remaining indefinitely inside the United States.
Current DHS guidance establishes different procedures depending upon whether destination countries provide credible assurances against persecution or torture.
Migrants can be removed without additional procedures when credible diplomatic assurances establish they will not face persecution or torture there.
The State Department must determine those assurances are credible before Immigration and Customs Enforcement proceeds under that portion of the policy.
Without those assurances, ICE generally provides notice identifying the intended third country before carrying out the migrant’s removal.
ICE generally waits at least 24 hours after providing that notice, according to government guidance issued following previous Supreme Court litigation.
Under exigent circumstances, removals can occur after six hours when migrants receive reasonable opportunities to speak with an attorney beforehand.
Critics argue those procedures remain insufficient for migrants who could face persecution, torture, imprisonment or other serious dangers after deportation.
Trina Realmuto, representing the plaintiffs, criticized Tuesday’s Supreme Court action while emphasizing that the underlying legality remains undecided.
The order allows removals where migrants “may face persecution, torture, imprisonment, or other grave danger,” Realmuto said.
“But today’s order does not decide that the government’s policy is lawful,” she emphasized following the Supreme Court action.
“The Court will hear that question on an expedited schedule,” Realmuto added while discussing the next stage of litigation.
Murphy concluded in February that the administration’s policy violated immigration procedures and constitutional protections under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The Boston-based First Circuit subsequently upheld most of Murphy’s decision, creating another legal obstacle for the administration’s deportation strategy.
That appeals court concluded federal law required stronger protections before migrants could be transported to unfamiliar third countries.
The administration quickly turned to the Supreme Court, arguing those requirements created serious logistical problems and disrupted planned deportation operations.
A scheduled flight carrying approximately 70 migrants was disrupted after the appeals court acted shortly before the planned departure.
The flight reportedly involved migrants scheduled for removal to Burundi, Rwanda and Central African Republic before the legal intervention.
Administration lawyers said canceling that operation required renewed diplomatic discussions with the foreign governments involved in receiving those deportees.
Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the lower court of eliminating “an entirely legal and valuable tool” for immigration enforcement.
The Supreme Court has previously intervened in this same litigation and temporarily permitted third-country deportations to continue during earlier proceedings.
In June 2025, the justices stayed Murphy’s preliminary injunction requiring additional protections before migrants could face third-country removal.
Sotomayor strongly dissented then, arguing federal and international law protected migrants against removal where torture or death could occur.
Tuesday’s order now places the broader dispute directly before the Supreme Court rather than resolving another temporary procedural disagreement.
The justices specifically identified several major legal questions that attorneys must address when the case reaches arguments this December.
One question concerns whether Murphy’s district court possessed jurisdiction to consider the migrants’ claims challenging the administration’s removal procedures.
Another concerns whether the court possessed authority to grant classwide declaratory relief and invalidate the administration’s policy under federal law.
The justices will also examine whether third-country removal guidance violates federal immigration law, constitutional due process or anti-torture protections.
Those questions mean Tuesday’s decision should not be interpreted as a final Supreme Court determination that Trump’s policy is lawful.
Instead, the order temporarily removes Murphy’s restrictions while the justices undertake their full review of the administration’s arguments.
For Trump, however, the immediate practical consequence is significant because federal officials can resume using their preferred third-country removal procedures.
The administration has made expanded deportations a central component of Trump’s second-term immigration agenda and broader border enforcement strategy.
Supporters argue aggressive enforcement prevents migrants with final removal orders from exploiting diplomatic obstacles to remain indefinitely inside America.
Opponents contend expedited third-country removals can endanger migrants without providing sufficient time to establish legitimate fears of persecution.
Those competing arguments will now receive full Supreme Court consideration during oral arguments expected during the December 2026 session.
Until the justices issue their eventual decision, the administration can continue conducting third-country deportations under its existing DHS guidance.
The Supreme Court’s final ruling could ultimately determine how much process Washington must provide before deporting migrants to unfamiliar countries.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
"🔥 FEDERAL INVESTIGATION EARTHQUAKE! — THE DNA TEST THAT COULD PROVE OMAR MARRIED HER BROTHER!"
VIA BILL MELUGIN ON X:
BREAKING: The feds are in possession of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) DNA and personal passport as part of the federal investigation into her US citizenship, colleague @davidspunt reports. It’s unclear how her DNA was obtained, but sources tell David it was NOT from a trash can or dumpster.
@FoxNews is told that reports of agents dumpster diving are incorrect. Additionally, David is told the feds have her personal passport as evidence. Her official passport (via her office) has not been retrieved, and authorities aren’t concerned that she fled the country. They believe she in the U.S., and feel that if she were to flee the country, it would create problems for her down the line as her husband and family members are in the US. DHS and DOJ continue to decline comment to FOX on the investigation.
VIA NEW YORK POST:
WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors are planning to use DNA evidence to try to prove Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) committed immigration fraud, as part of the sprawling investigation into the congresswoman, sources told The Post.
People familiar with the years-long criminal probe said the feds have made use of whistleblowers, government records and now obtained DNA in an effort to substantiate decade-old allegations that Omar — and possibly members of her family like her father — defrauded immigration authorities.
One source said the DNA evidence was critical to proving an allegation that Omar married her brother when she wed Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009 because she was trying to help him get a green card — which never came to fruition.
It’s unclear whether the DNA was taken before or after Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) searched the congresswoman’s home in Washington, DC, last Monday, when federal agents were seen exiting the bungalow with boxes marked “Seized Property Evidence.”
Another source pushed back on initial reports that investigators had gone “dumpster diving” in order to get DNA swabs of Omar, Elmi, who is currently residing in the UK, or family members.
Two more indicated that the execution of the search warrant on Oct. 12, coupled with the DNA and additional evidence, has provided a solid basis to bring charges of conspiracy to commit some form of immigration fraud before a grand jury, stemming from the probe initiated by the Minnesota US Attorney’s Office.
Given the case is being pursued as a general conspiracy, the evidence will prove useful even if some of the acts fall outside of the statute of limitations.
“If you argue a conspiracy, you can allege overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that are outside the statute of limitations,” said Neama Rahmini, a former federal prosecutor.
DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro is also investigating issues related to the congresswoman’s finances — including entries in House disclosures that resulted in Omar deflating her net worth by tens of millions of dollars in the last year due to an unexplained accounting “discrepancy.”
“That judge would not have signed that warrant unless there was probable cause,” Pirro told Fox News. “If there was a crime committed, it will be prosecuted.”
The DNA evidence could finally prove an allegation that has percolated in Minnesota and DC political circles for more than a decade. Omar has repeatedly denied any accusations of the rumored sibling marriage since 2016, when she was first running for office as a state representative.
Elmi, who divorced from Omar in 2017, reportedly applied and then withdrew his application for a marriage-based green card in 2019, when US Citizenship and Immigration Services asked for additional evidence about his marriage to her, according to The Washington Post.
President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan said over the weekend that the feds have built “a strong case” that could result in the Trump administration seeking to denaturalize Omar, who has lived in the US since her family emigrated from war-torn Somalia in 1995.
Previously, sources said that the immigration fraud pertained to either Omar or her father, Nur Omar Mohamed, allegedly misrepresenting the future congresswoman’s birth date so that she could become a US citizen when her dad naturalized in 2000.
Legal experts have noted the statute of limitations is lengthier for providing false information on immigration paperwork than for fraudulently marrying someone.
A marriage fraud conviction also wouldn’t jeopardize Omar’s own citizenship in the same way as a case involving false statements, a stated goal of some administration officials and one that could be proven if the alleged inaccuracies were repeated on passport renewal forms or other official government paperwork.
Rahmani said that prosecutors could attempt to prove a conspiracy to commit immigration fraud that will likely fall within a 10-year statute of limitations — or else pursue a civil case that would have no statute of limitations. Pirro has also suggested either criminal or civil counts could result from the ongoing probes.
“There’s two reasons why I think the conspiracy will be charged,” Rahmani said. “First, you have an unindicted co-conspirator in her dad, who died. … [Second,] you get some of this older conduct that’s outside the statute of limitations as well.”
The ex-prosecutor added that the search warrant would not have been executed unless it had “come from the highest levels of the DOJ” and wouldn’t have been pursued unless prosecutors thought they could indict Omar.
Eventually, though, moving to strip a sitting member of Congress of their citizenship and deporting them would be an unprecedented move by the DOJ.
Her defense lawyers have said there’s “no legitimate basis for any suggestion that she has violated any law concerning her citizenship status.”
Additionally, a former immigration official told The Washington Post that Omar purportedly marrying her brother had been investigated during the first Trump administration but yielded insufficient evidence.
Omar has been married three times and divorced twice. Her first marriage to Ahmed Hirsi wasn’t legally entered into until after her divorce from Elmi was finalized — despite the two having a Muslim wedding ceremony in 2002.
She gave birth to three children, the last of whom was born when she was legally married to Elmi. Omar, Elmi and Hirsi also appear to have shared the same residence at one point, per documents previously reviewed by The Post.
Further complicating the overlapping marriages, Omar filed joint taxes with Hirsi in 2014 and 2015 while still legally married to Elmi, from whom she had separated in 2011.
Omar’s father is associated with different surnames, including Nur Said Elmi Mohamed.
In 2019, the congresswoman divorced Hirsi to marry Tim Mynett, a political consultant who did work for her own campaign, following an alleged affair.
Asked last week about the seizure of evidence in his wife’s case, Mynett told Fox News: “My wife came here when she was 12 years old as a child war refugee.”
As of last week, Omar also retained attorneys, who fired off a scathing letter to the Department of Justice citing “grave concerns” with the Trump administration’s investigation and demanding the “immediate return” of all seized property to the Minnesota Democrat.
The defense attorneys Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz, who did not respond to requests for comment, wrote that the feds didn’t comply with a magistrate judge’s “special requests” for executing the search warrant at Omar’s home and flouted longstanding DOJ policy by conducting it close to an election.
“President Trump has made no secret of his desire to target Representative Omar for criminal investigation and deportation as retribution for her political advocacy,” they said.
A DOJ spokesperson replied that the letter was “riddled with false allegations and inaccuracies.”
“Our attorneys and law enforcement partners complied with all court orders and legal obligations, as they always do,” the rep added. “Leaking a letter to the press right after sending it is not good faith. It is a publicity play.”
