https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unaccompanied-minors-smuggling-conspiracy-charges/

Meanwhile, the Administration continues trying to find the unaccompanied illegal children, marked for abuse in sanctuary cities, allowed in and ignored by the Democrat Party and the Autopen Administration.

Quote:

---

Markwayne Mullin, the secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, alleged that the Biden administration was derelict in its duty by failing to vet the sponsors of the children and to conduct wellness checks to ensure their safety.

"The Biden administration, under true neglect at best and criminal at worst," allowed 450,000 kids to go missing, he alleged, adding that the Trump administration has so far located 146,000.

The remaining 300,000 remain missing, he added.

---

Among those responsible for allowing abuse of children in pursuit of open borders immigration? Xavier Becerra, now running for Governor in California and Biden's Secretary of Health and Human Services while these kids were being trafficked.

Big win yesterday for Trump administration on the 10 percent tariffs.

As you may recall earlier this year, SCOTUS struck down President Trump’s tariffs under IEEPA. The decision is complicated but it ultimately boils down to the statute the administration utilized for this authority did not authorize the tariffs.

— Abhi Kambli (@AbhiKambli1984) June 11, 2026

Read the opinion here: https://t.co/QGisZaa1Mp

— Eric W. (@EWess92) June 11, 2026

nortex97 said:

---

Judge Dudek has no jurisdiction, as an article 3 judge in immigration matters is the issue.

Even if the district judge COULD force the immigration judge to give a hearing, he has no power over the result. The immigration judge could just reject the claim anyway.

Congress didn't give district judges any role in immigration, and it's way past time they accept that.

— Tom Henderson (@tom__henderson) June 12, 2026

BREAKING: In a landmark new legal opinion, DOJ has effectively repealed a race-based Obama-era expansion of "disparate impact" liability that ordered EEOC to punish employers who conduct criminal background checks of black job applicants by declaring the EEOC rule "unlawful and…

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 12, 2026

Good, outlandish that criminal background checks were forbidden by Biden DoJ.

---

The death of disparate impact is the best thing to happen to race relations in this country in decades.

I have a bit of a different take. Disparate impact has been used to reduce employment decisions to the lowest common denominator (ever since Griggs v. Duke Power), but the result of DI being eliminated now makes it more difficult for white employees/applicants to prove discriminatory DEI resulted in their loss of job or opportunity.

So much of DEI is now ingrained in employment that it will take decades to undo (and it will never happen b/c as soon as there is a D in the White House all that has been undone by this Administration will be re-done).

The Biden admin didn't outlaw BG checks, but EEOC guidance required employers to come up with a way for persons with criminal convictions to plead their case before their prospective employers.

It was ludicrous of course b/c the prospective employer only got to hear from the convict - "I didn't mean to do it, I'm a good person just got hung up with the wrong crowd." BS. This process slowed down the b/g process such that many employers just stopped using them.

I had to design a b/g process for an employer that processed 4 million applications a year. The added costs were insane.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

I have a bit of a different take. Disparate impact has been used to reduce employment decisions to the lowest common denominator (ever since Griggs v. Duke Power), but the result of DI being eliminated now makes it more difficult for white employees/applicants to prove discriminatory DEI resulted in their loss of job or opportunity.

So much of DEI is now ingrained in employment that it will take decades to undo (and it will never happen b/c as soon as there is a D in the White House all that has been undone by this Administration will be re-done).

---

1) I am okay with a few months to a few years of healing when it comes to reversing DEI hiring decisions. I trust the market more than the government on this topic. Firms that make DEI hiring decisions will lose out to firms that don't. AI will make these impacts happen quicker, as lower overhead costs will make entrepreneurship more accessible, and good hires more important as AI acts primarily as a force multiplier, making good employees even more valuable relatively compared to mediocre employees than before AI.

2) The death of disparate impact is HUGE when it comes to the HOR. That alone is worth tolerating some time for the market to sort out #1.

3) The only group of people that lose out on number 1 is the lawyers. Too bad, so sad.

Quote:

---

3) The only group of people that lose out on number 1 is the lawyers. Too bad, so sad.

---

If only that were true.

The prospect of being hit with a DI case related to DEI programs is a powerful incentive for large employers to eradicate DEI programs. Individual discrimination cases are much harder to prove and much easier for employers to absorb.

To be clear, I'm not in favor of DI either way - it has turned discrimination law on its head, but there are too many executives (many placed where they are b/c of DEI) who want to continue programs that materially disfavor white employees/applicants.

Jeb Boasberg isn't even trying to hide his escalating level of contempt for the president--and for Jeanine Pirro--and it's just indefensible that Republican leadership refuses to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

After taking the extraordinary move of quashing 2… pic.twitter.com/o1mhZeP7SD

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 12, 2026

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

3) The only group of people that lose out on number 1 is the lawyers. Too bad, so sad.

---

If only that were true.

The prospect of being hit with a DI case related to DEI programs is a powerful incentive for large employers to eradicate DEI programs. Individual discrimination cases are much harder to prove and much easier for employers to absorb.

To be clear, I'm not in favor of DI either way - it has turned discrimination law on its head, but there are too many executives (many placed where they are b/c of DEI) who want to continue programs that materially disfavor white employees/applicants.

---

The prospect of being hit with a Civil Rights Act case related to DEI programs is also a powerful incentive for large employers to eradicate DEI programs.

The Civil Rights Act, 14th Amendment, and SCOTUS jurisprudence can provide plenty of cover for a lawsuit against DEI practices. You don't need disparate impact. Disparate impact in hiring are hiring rules that, although are not specifically related to race, when followed, have different impact on different races, and are therefore defacto illegal. That is different from having hiring practices that specifically sort based on race, even if race is white. What little work disparate impact might have on anti-DEI cases is an acceptable casualty for the good of DI's death. DI's demise is good because DI ,as I have defined it, is morally repugnant, racist, and will be short lived once market forces get involved.

Quote:

---

The prospect of being hit with a Civil Rights Act case related to DEI programs is also a powerful incentive for large employers to eradicate DEI programs.

The Civil Rights Act, 14th Amendment, and SCOTUS jurisprudence can provide plenty of cover for a lawsuit against DEI practices. You don't need disparate impact. Disparate impact in hiring are hiring rules that, although are not specifically related to race, when followed, have different impact on different races, and are therefore defacto illegal. That is different from having hiring practices that specifically sort based on race, even if race is white. What little work disparate impact might have on anti-DEI cases is an acceptable casualty for the good of DI's death. DI's demise is good because DI ,as I have defined it, is morally repugnant, racist, and will be short lived once market forces get involved.

---

You make the point for me in the 3rd sentence of your 2nd paragraph. And let me just say, being "hit" with a Title VII case related to DEI isn't the disincentive you think it is. You still have to prove damage and individual cases are very difficult to win.

I'm on the defense side of these things. Those employers (particularly public employers) who are led by those who want to continue DEI practices are not concerned with individual cases - they keep charging on.

Judge Mehta has denied a temporary restraining order blocking either the UFC cage-fighting event on the South Lawn or its face-offs near the Lincoln Memorial.https://t.co/Wimdkr3GyQ pic.twitter.com/WUtmVbpNiu

— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) June 12, 2026

will25u said:

---

Judge Mehta has denied a temporary restraining order blocking either the UFC cage-fighting event on the South Lawn or its face-offs near the Lincoln Memorial.https://t.co/Wimdkr3GyQ pic.twitter.com/WUtmVbpNiu

— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) June 12, 2026

---

In before judge in Hawaii overrules.

LOL, this was the judge Norm Eisen was praising just yesterday for being assigned to this case. Yet another L for the little wannabe dictator with a bar card.

Black, female, Biden judge has assumed control of the National Park Service.

Quote:

---

A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to restore sites changed under an executive order calling for the nation's museums, parks and landmarks to not display elements that "inappropriately disparage Americans past or living."

The preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Massachusetts also orders a pause on any additional changes, writing that the plaintiffs have shown that these efforts are meant "to rewrite the Nation's history with a white-out pen."

"History cannot be faithfully told while excluding the experiences of communities whose contributions, struggles, and achievements form an important part of our Nation's story," the judge wrote.

The Trump administration must also provide a status report every week describing the progress they've made with these changes, the judge wrote.

"Under the guise of promoting American dignity, this Administration seeks to share a limited history by ordering the removal of all signs, displays, and interpretive exhibits at National Parks that do not align with its preferred narrative, thereby telling half-truths," Kelley wrote.

The order comes in response to a February lawsuit filed by conservation and historical organizations over National Park Service policies that the groups say have forced park service staff to remove or censor dozens of exhibits that share factually accurate and relevant U.S. history and scientific knowledge, including about slavery and climate change.

---

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-restore-national-park-changes/4036095/

Basically Trump ordered a bunch of anti-American stuff put in by Obama and Biden removed from national parks. The activist judge (she's one of the top anti-Trump judges since Trump took office in 2025) has decided the NPS must put back all of the stuff calling the US a racist country who is destroying the world via "climate change."

Aggie Jurist said:

---

The damage done by the Ds to the legitimacy of the federal judiciary will not be undone in my lifetime (if ever).

---

It really is sad what they've done with it.

The key to being a 1st world country is knowing that you have a solid "rule of law". And the left is doing their best to eliminate that...

Rule of law doesn't mean following your "feelz". It actually means following the LAW as written, not how you wish it had been written.

A decent chance the NLRB will be confirmed as unconstitutional based on a case from north Texas. I think this is good precedent and could have an impact elsewhere, but the currently-pending SCOTUS case(s) about federal reserve governors etc. might also have an impact;

Quote:

---

The NLRB is led by up to five board members. While these officials are appointed by the president of the United States, the law prevents the president from firing them over policy disagreements. Yet the Constitution vests all executive power in the presidency, which includes the NLRB's rulemaking ability. If a president can't fire board members because he disagrees with their decisions, his constitutional power has been weakened, which in turn weakens the public's ability to control their own government by electing a different president. The board members are unaccountable no matter who the American people vote into the White House.

The district court ruled that a president whether Republican or Democrat must have the full authority to get rid of NLRB board members. And the court said the same must be true of the NLRB's administrative law judges, who are at the center of the second constitutional violation.

Most Americans have never heard of administrative law judges, but these bureaucrats exert enormous power over workers and businesses. Essentially, they have the authority to decide when unions or businesses have violated federal labor law. But like the NLRB's board members, they can't be fired for policy reasons. They're insulated by multiple levels of bureaucracy. Once again, the basic democratic and constitutional principle of political accountability is nowhere to be found.

But the third constitutional violation is surely the biggest, and it centers on the administrative law judges, too. The district court found that the board's enforcement process, overseen by these quasi-judges, violates the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial, which is plainly true. When these bureaucrats hear cases involving a union or a business, they act as jury, judge, and executioner. But when someone is accused of violating federal law, they have a constitutional right to a trial by jury.

Thanks to the district court's ruling, the NLRB can no longer bring charges against unions or businesses in central-north Texas and northwest Texas. The NLRB may appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which has a history of protecting workers from NLRB overreach. That could extend the ruling across all of Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama. And if this case reaches the Supreme Court which is hyper-focused on restoring constitutional boundaries the NLRB could soon be effectively unable to act nationwide.

---

Personally, I think the executive should be able to fire anyone who has such rule-making authority working ostensibly for him/her. The underlying issue is fairly simple.

nortex97 said:

---

A decent chance the NLRB will be confirmed as unconstitutional based on a case from north Texas. I think this is good precedent and could have an impact elsewhere, but the currently-pending SCOTUS case(s) about federal reserve governors etc. might also have an impact;

Quote:

---

The NLRB is led by up to five board members. While these officials are appointed by the president of the United States, the law prevents the president from firing them over policy disagreements. Yet the Constitution vests all executive power in the presidency, which includes the NLRB's rulemaking ability. If a president can't fire board members because he disagrees with their decisions, his constitutional power has been weakened, which in turn weakens the public's ability to control their own government by electing a different president. The board members are unaccountable no matter who the American people vote into the White House.

The district court ruled that a president whether Republican or Democrat must have the full authority to get rid of NLRB board members. And the court said the same must be true of the NLRB's administrative law judges, who are at the center of the second constitutional violation.

Most Americans have never heard of administrative law judges, but these bureaucrats exert enormous power over workers and businesses. Essentially, they have the authority to decide when unions or businesses have violated federal labor law. But like the NLRB's board members, they can't be fired for policy reasons. They're insulated by multiple levels of bureaucracy. Once again, the basic democratic and constitutional principle of political accountability is nowhere to be found.

But the third constitutional violation is surely the biggest, and it centers on the administrative law judges, too. The district court found that the board's enforcement process, overseen by these quasi-judges, violates the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial, which is plainly true. When these bureaucrats hear cases involving a union or a business, they act as jury, judge, and executioner. But when someone is accused of violating federal law, they have a constitutional right to a trial by jury.

Thanks to the district court's ruling, the NLRB can no longer bring charges against unions or businesses in central-north Texas and northwest Texas. The NLRB may appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which has a history of protecting workers from NLRB overreach. That could extend the ruling across all of Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama. And if this case reaches the Supreme Court which is hyper-focused on restoring constitutional boundaries the NLRB could soon be effectively unable to act nationwide.

---

Personally, I think the executive should be able to fire anyone who has such rule-making authority working ostensibly for him/her. The underlying issue is fairly simple.

---

I wonder how the bolded relates to the Article II immigration judges?

nortex97 said:

---

A decent chance the NLRB will be confirmed as unconstitutional based on a case from north Texas. I think this is good precedent and could have an impact elsewhere, but the currently-pending SCOTUS case(s) about federal reserve governors etc. might also have an impact;

Quote:

---

The NLRB is led by up to five board members. While these officials are appointed by the president of the United States, the law prevents the president from firing them over policy disagreements. Yet the Constitution vests all executive power in the presidency, which includes the NLRB's rulemaking ability. If a president can't fire board members because he disagrees with their decisions, his constitutional power has been weakened, which in turn weakens the public's ability to control their own government by electing a different president. The board members are unaccountable no matter who the American people vote into the White House.

The district court ruled that a president whether Republican or Democrat must have the full authority to get rid of NLRB board members. And the court said the same must be true of the NLRB's administrative law judges, who are at the center of the second constitutional violation.

Most Americans have never heard of administrative law judges, but these bureaucrats exert enormous power over workers and businesses. Essentially, they have the authority to decide when unions or businesses have violated federal labor law. But like the NLRB's board members, they can't be fired for policy reasons. They're insulated by multiple levels of bureaucracy. Once again, the basic democratic and constitutional principle of political accountability is nowhere to be found.

But the third constitutional violation is surely the biggest, and it centers on the administrative law judges, too. The district court found that the board's enforcement process, overseen by these quasi-judges, violates the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial, which is plainly true. When these bureaucrats hear cases involving a union or a business, they act as jury, judge, and executioner. But when someone is accused of violating federal law, they have a constitutional right to a trial by jury.

Thanks to the district court's ruling, the NLRB can no longer bring charges against unions or businesses in central-north Texas and northwest Texas. The NLRB may appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which has a history of protecting workers from NLRB overreach. That could extend the ruling across all of Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama. And if this case reaches the Supreme Court which is hyper-focused on restoring constitutional boundaries the NLRB could soon be effectively unable to act nationwide.

---

Personally, I think the executive should be able to fire anyone who has such rule-making authority working ostensibly for him/her. The underlying issue is fairly simple.

---

1) The third issue is not only blatantly obvious, but it involves the power of the courts over the power of the executive. I find it improbable that this SCOTUS is going to come out with a ruling that is detrimental to the power of the courts. I think that Loper Bright is a good example.

2) If congress wants to dictate the behavior of a business related to Unions, they should pass a law. That is well within their constitutional authority.

He can fire those, and has done so for over a hundred I think (not the best link). I think the folks he 'can't' fire for cause/or not are in other positions (where congress tried to hamstring the executive, per Aggie Jurist's post above yours, which I fully agree with), though some of those terminated immigration judges sued him of course.

Immigration judges are specialists in immigration law, and it drives Article 3 Obama-Biden judges crazy that Trump's team there has ramped up deportation hearings/results so much. Immigration law is sort of like patent law where most article 3 judges just have limited expertise, and even less jurisdiction thankfully, though the rabid partisans try to over-play their hands often of course (Kilmar Abrego Garcia etc).

Ag with kids said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

A decent chance the NLRB will be confirmed as unconstitutional based on a case from north Texas. I think this is good precedent and could have an impact elsewhere, but the currently-pending SCOTUS case(s) about federal reserve governors etc. might also have an impact;

Quote:

---

The NLRB is led by up to five board members. While these officials are appointed by the president of the United States, the law prevents the president from firing them over policy disagreements. Yet the Constitution vests all executive power in the presidency, which includes the NLRB's rulemaking ability. If a president can't fire board members because he disagrees with their decisions, his constitutional power has been weakened, which in turn weakens the public's ability to control their own government by electing a different president. The board members are unaccountable no matter who the American people vote into the White House.

The district court ruled that a president whether Republican or Democrat must have the full authority to get rid of NLRB board members. And the court said the same must be true of the NLRB's administrative law judges, who are at the center of the second constitutional violation.

Most Americans have never heard of administrative law judges, but these bureaucrats exert enormous power over workers and businesses. Essentially, they have the authority to decide when unions or businesses have violated federal labor law. But like the NLRB's board members, they can't be fired for policy reasons. They're insulated by multiple levels of bureaucracy. Once again, the basic democratic and constitutional principle of political accountability is nowhere to be found.

But the third constitutional violation is surely the biggest, and it centers on the administrative law judges, too. The district court found that the board's enforcement process, overseen by these quasi-judges, violates the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial, which is plainly true. When these bureaucrats hear cases involving a union or a business, they act as jury, judge, and executioner. But when someone is accused of violating federal law, they have a constitutional right to a trial by jury.

Thanks to the district court's ruling, the NLRB can no longer bring charges against unions or businesses in central-north Texas and northwest Texas. The NLRB may appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which has a history of protecting workers from NLRB overreach. That could extend the ruling across all of Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama. And if this case reaches the Supreme Court which is hyper-focused on restoring constitutional boundaries the NLRB could soon be effectively unable to act nationwide.

---

Personally, I think the executive should be able to fire anyone who has such rule-making authority working ostensibly for him/her. The underlying issue is fairly simple.

---

I wonder how the bolded relates to the Article II immigration judges?

---

SCOTUS has spoken pretty forcefully on that issue. Details on previous pages of this thread.

nortex97 said:

---

He can fire those, and has done so for over a hundred I think (not the best link). I think the folks he 'can't' fire for cause/or not are in other positions (where congress tried to hamstring the executive, per Aggie Jurist's post above yours, which I fully agree with), though some of those terminated immigration judges sued him of course.

Immigration judges are specialists in immigration law, and it drives Article 3 Obama-Biden judges crazy that Trump's team there has ramped up deportation hearings/results so much. Immigration law is sort of like patent law where most article 3 judges just have limited expertise, and even less jurisdiction thankfully, though the rabid partisans try to over-play their hands often of course (Kilmar Abrego Garcia etc).

---

One cool thing about patent law is that the basis of the patent system is expressly addressed in the US constitution. One of the enumerated powers of Congress (in Article I), not SCOTUS (not in article III):

Quote:

---

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

---

BusterAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

A decent chance the NLRB will be confirmed as unconstitutional based on a case from north Texas. I think this is good precedent and could have an impact elsewhere, but the currently-pending SCOTUS case(s) about federal reserve governors etc. might also have an impact;

Quote:

---

The NLRB is led by up to five board members. While these officials are appointed by the president of the United States, the law prevents the president from firing them over policy disagreements. Yet the Constitution vests all executive power in the presidency, which includes the NLRB's rulemaking ability. If a president can't fire board members because he disagrees with their decisions, his constitutional power has been weakened, which in turn weakens the public's ability to control their own government by electing a different president. The board members are unaccountable no matter who the American people vote into the White House.

The district court ruled that a president whether Republican or Democrat must have the full authority to get rid of NLRB board members. And the court said the same must be true of the NLRB's administrative law judges, who are at the center of the second constitutional violation.

Most Americans have never heard of administrative law judges, but these bureaucrats exert enormous power over workers and businesses. Essentially, they have the authority to decide when unions or businesses have violated federal labor law. But like the NLRB's board members, they can't be fired for policy reasons. They're insulated by multiple levels of bureaucracy. Once again, the basic democratic and constitutional principle of political accountability is nowhere to be found.

But the third constitutional violation is surely the biggest, and it centers on the administrative law judges, too. The district court found that the board's enforcement process, overseen by these quasi-judges, violates the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial, which is plainly true. When these bureaucrats hear cases involving a union or a business, they act as jury, judge, and executioner. But when someone is accused of violating federal law, they have a constitutional right to a trial by jury.

Thanks to the district court's ruling, the NLRB can no longer bring charges against unions or businesses in central-north Texas and northwest Texas. The NLRB may appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which has a history of protecting workers from NLRB overreach. That could extend the ruling across all of Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama. And if this case reaches the Supreme Court which is hyper-focused on restoring constitutional boundaries the NLRB could soon be effectively unable to act nationwide.

---

Personally, I think the executive should be able to fire anyone who has such rule-making authority working ostensibly for him/her. The underlying issue is fairly simple.

---

I wonder how the bolded relates to the Article II immigration judges?

---

SCOTUS has spoken pretty forcefully on that issue. Details on previous pages of this thread.

---

There's 105 pages. Could you give me a better hint.

BREAKING: Supreme Court to hear case (Genalo v. Black) next term on whether the government can indefinitely hold illegal aliens in detention w/o a bond hearing based on pending criminal charges. pic.twitter.com/vwM7zNwv3m

— Shawn Fleetwood (@ShawnFleetwood) June 15, 2026

Justice Alito penned a solo dissent from the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a case involving a Students for Life club whose school blocked flyers featuring "Defund Planned Parenthood" signs, arguing the Court should clarify when schools may restrict student speech. pic.twitter.com/x9sTW7V4Ie

— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) June 15, 2026

"This case involves the President’s imposition of economic sanctions on a non-resident alien based on her speech outside the United States." Judge Katsas, concurring in a unanimous D.C. Circuit panel. He is excellent. Notably, Judge Childs (Biden) joins pic.twitter.com/GEfU9Fi5DE

— Eric W. (@EWess92) June 15, 2026

Win for President Trump at the Ninth Circuit! Can President Trump exclude several federal agencies from collective bargaining based on his national security concerns? Yes, explains Judge Bress. The district court's order entering an injunction was improper and is vacated. pic.twitter.com/SoHHkMkizC

— Eric W. (@EWess92) June 17, 2026

Read the amended opinion here: https://t.co/cNNtyaWViY

— Eric W. (@EWess92) June 17, 2026

Idiot judge who ordered signage reversed at national parks is reversed.

Given the thorough rebuke of the improper order entered by the district court, it's worth looking through the sections of the superb opinion. Start with standing. The City "does not own the President's house." Its only standing rights are thus contractual, based on residuum pic.twitter.com/ODGpKqNg9v

— Eric W. (@EWess92) June 18, 2026

In the end, not only is the preliminary injunction vacated, but much of the complaint must be dismissed. The right result. Another example of how even simple actions by the President are stymied and tied up in meritless litigation. Nice job disposing of this case. pic.twitter.com/lSEMFYmdCf

— Eric W. (@EWess92) June 18, 2026

I laughed, a few times.

nortex97 said:

---

Judicial complaint filed against Biden judge by Doj

Need a lot more of that.

---

This fat ***** should be arrested for harming children. Sick freak.

Things are looking up this Juneteenth. Republicans freed the slaves in 1865 and are still doing God's work.