Australia Enforces World-First Social Media Age Limit as Global Regulation Looms 
Colombia’s Clan del Golfo Peace Talks Signal Mandatory Prison Sentences for Top Leaders 
U.S. Homeland Security Ends TSA Union Contract, Prompting Legal Challenge 
U.S.-EU Tensions Rise After $140 Million Fine on Elon Musk’s X Platform 
U.S. State Department Reverts to Times New Roman in Push for “Professionalism” 
Senate Set for Vote on GOP Healthcare Plan as Debate Over ACA Subsidies Intensifies 
US Charges Two Men in Alleged Nvidia Chip Smuggling Scheme to China 
Belarus Pledges to Halt Smuggling Balloons Into Lithuania 
Trump Signals Two Final Candidates for Fed Chair, Calls for Presidential Input on Interest Rates 
Tunisia Protests Grow as Opposition Unites Against President Kais Saied’s Rule 
Southwest Airlines Has $11 Million Fine Waived as USDOT Cites Operational Improvements 
Supreme Court to Weigh Trump’s Power to Remove FTC Commissioner 
International Outcry Grows Over Re-Arrest of Nobel Laureate Narges Mohammadi in Iran 
U.S. Greenlights Nvidia H200 Chip Exports to China With 25% Fee 
Supporters Gather Ahead of Verdict in Jimmy Lai’s Landmark Hong Kong National Security Trial 
Ukraine’s NATO Concession Unlikely to Shift Peace Talks, Experts Say 
Bolsonaro’s Defense Requests Hospital Transfer and Humanitarian House Arrest 
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to back President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies, recently allowing the administration to end temporary legal protections for over 800,000 migrants. In two recent rulings, the Court lifted injunctions blocking the termination of humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua—moves likely to lead to mass deportations.
Despite the broad support, the Court has emphasized constitutional due process. It ruled that migrants must receive adequate notice before removal, rejecting the administration’s attempt to deport Venezuelans under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act without proper legal recourse. Justices also criticized the practice of giving detainees only 24 hours’ notice before deportation, calling it unconstitutional.
Trump's hardline policies have drawn legal scrutiny since he resumed office in January, with the Court already intervening in seven immigration-related disputes. Legal experts argue that while the conservative majority often defers to executive power, it is unwilling to overlook blatant violations of legal rights. In April, the Court ordered the release of a wrongfully deported Salvadoran man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, though he remains in custody in El Salvador.
Controversy also surrounds Trump's order to deport migrants to third countries like war-torn South Sudan. A federal judge halted the practice for violating due process, prompting the administration to seek Supreme Court intervention.
While the justices have allowed many deportations to proceed, legal scholars warn that removing legal protections without judicial explanation may set dangerous precedents. The Court is expected to rule soon on Trump’s bid to restrict birthright citizenship—a move that challenges long-held constitutional interpretations. As legal challenges mount, the Court faces the difficult task of balancing executive authority with constitutional protections.
