The Democrat-run state capitulated after the Supreme Court’s Chiles v. Salazar ruling made clear that viewpoint-based speech bans violate the Constitution.

“This is a major victory for children, counselors, and common sense. Kids who are hurting deserve compassion, not a one-way ticket to harmful drugs, hormones, and surgery. Now counselors can offer compassionate counseling without fearing that state bureaucrats will come knocking.”

Luke Goodrich, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the counselors, said Michigan’s surrender confirms that “the Constitution and the best available science are on the side of counselors who help children find peace with their bodies.”

The case, known as Catholic Charities v. Whitmer, dealt with several Michigan-based counselors’ challenge to state laws barring them from engaging in talk therapy with minor clients facing discomfort with their biological sex. The challengers argued that such a prohibition violated their First Amendment rights.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals handed plaintiffs a favorable ruling late last year, which was followed by the Supreme Court’s Chiles decision in March. In that case, the high court ruled 8-1 that a similar Colorado law “regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

“[T]he First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”

In Thursday’s stipulated order, Biden-appointed Judge Jane Beckering noted that, in light of the 6th Circuit and Supreme Court’s rulings, the Catholic Charities plaintiffs have “demonstrated success on the merits” of their claim that Michigan’s laws represent an unlawful viewpoint-based restriction on speech.

She further observed that the plaintiffs have “established irreparable injury and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

Both parties agreed to the stipulated order and final judgement, which prohibits Michigan from enforcing the talk therapy ban against counselors in the state.

The court’s permanent injunction took effect immediately, according to the order.

“Michigan is now admitting its law is unconstitutional,” Goodrich said. “Its surrender confirms that the Constitution and the best available science are on the side of counselors who help children find peace with their bodies. States still trying to censor that care should take note.“

Michigan’s agreement to end enforcement of the contested laws is a noticeably different path than that of neighboring Wisconsin.

Months after the Supreme Court handed down its Chiles ruling, Democrat Gov. Tony Evers doubled down on seemingly defying the decision.

“I have no intention of repealing the ban on … conversion therapy on kids. Period. End of story. And no question,” Evers said during a June “Pride Flag Raising” event.

The contrast is clear: Michigan folded when faced with constitutional reality. Wisconsin’s Democrat governor is still fighting.

The appellate panel overturned administrative pauses issued by Judges Patti Saris and Brian Murphy that sought to stop the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for foreign nationals from South Sudan and Ethiopia, respectively.

Saris and Murphy — both with a track record of defying higher courts — had issued stays to give challengers time to repackage their failed lawsuits after the Supreme Court shut the door on them last month.

“MULLIN HELD THAT ‘THE TPS STATUTE’S JUDICIAL-REVIEW BAR APPLIES TO ALL NON-CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS’ CHALLENGING THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY’S DETERMINATION.”

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Doe that federal courts can’t review non-constitutional challenges to the government’s TPS decisions. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion, which also rejected a constitutional claim that Trump’s termination of TPS for Haitians was racially motivated.

CNN reported this week that challengers have been scrambling to repackage their prior procedural arguments “into new constitutional claims” — an apparent attempt to runaround the Supreme Court’s ruling. Saris and Murphy gave them time to do exactly that.

The 1st Circuit panel — comprised of two Biden appointees and one Trump appointee — said its reversal is “in light of” the Mullin v. Doe ruling.

“Claims of that nature were the only basis for the postponement order on appeal,” the court ruled. “Accordingly, the government’s request for summary reversal is allowed.”

The panel remanded the cases back to the district courts “for further proceedings in light of and consistent with Mullin.”

But the Department of Homeland Security is warning that Wednesday’s ruling likely won’t stop the rogue-judge problem.

DHS General Counsel James Percival noted on X that while overturning the district judges’ stays is a “great win to be sure,” Judge Saris “already indicated that she would enter a new order postponing the termination on remand.”

“That is the absurdity we are facing,” Percival added.

I’m suspicious about these two orders. They go out of their way to quote the passage from the SCOTUS decision saying the statute’s jurisdictional bar applies to all “non-constitutional” claims, and remanding for further consideration in light of that language.

Murphy already… https://t.co/fppVxFN1Ji

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 29, 2026

Murphy, the Massachusetts-based judge, has a documented history of defying Supreme Court rulings. Both judges appeared to be signaling they’d simply issue new orders once the cases returned to their courtrooms — exactly what DHS General Counsel predicted.

The appellate court’s language emphasized that the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional bar applies to “all non-constitutional claims,” which legal observers worry could give the district judges an opening to entertain newly-repackaged constitutional arguments.

Patriots know how this game works: lower-court judges who disagree with the Supreme Court find creative ways to keep cases alive and delay Trump administration enforcement — even when the high court has spoken.

A great win to be sure. But remember, the district judge already indicated that she would enter a new order postponing the termination on remand. That is the absurdity we are facing. https://t.co/IwVq0iFxE0

— James Percival (@DHSGenCounsel) July 29, 2026

At a Capitol Hill event following the ruling, John Eastman — Director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence — said the fight is far from over.

“I don’t think it was a loss at all. Yes, we lost 5-4 on the constitutional question, but if you think about where we were just a few years ago, I mean, almost uniformly everybody said, ‘This is settled by the Constitution — the only way you can change this is a constitutional amendment.'”

Eastman noted that many expected the Court to rule 9-0 against Trump’s executive order challenging birthright citizenship. The 5-4 split shows how far the debate has shifted in just a few years.

The case began when President Trump issued an executive order interpreting the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause to exclude children born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants. Early legal challenges saw judges threaten Trump’s lawyers with sanctions.

Now, conservatives are rallying around legislative paths the Court left open.

Three Paths Forward

Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan identified three areas where Congress and the White House can act without Supreme Court interference.

First: declaring an invasion. Gov. Greg Abbott and Trump have both declared an invasion at the southern border. Under that framework, children of invaders would have no citizenship claim — even under the Barbara majority’s logic.

Sen. Jim Banks introduced the Citizenship Act of 2026, which would legally define millions of illegal border crossers as an “invasion,” block their children from obtaining citizenship, and assert that Congress — not the Supreme Court — controls naturalization rules.

Elle Rogers Bernstein, general counsel for Banks, explained the strategy during the panel.

“An ‘invasion’ is not a lawyer’s term. It’s not a term that has a precise definition that’s for the courts to adjudicate. It’s for the political branches to decide. The operative question is not, ‘Do we think a court would agree there’s been an invasion?’ The operative question is, ‘Does Congress have the courage to say that our country has been invaded by 15 million illegal aliens and counting?'”

Second: statutory redefinition. Multiple bills in Congress would redefine citizenship eligibility in ways that force the Supreme Court to overturn explicit legislation — a much tougher political fight than striking down an executive order.

Third: ending birth tourism. Foreigners currently fly to the U.S. to give birth, securing citizenship for their child before returning home. Once that child turns 21, they can petition to bring their parents to America as citizens.

Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation noted that the Northern Mariana Islands — a U.S. territory — has become a massive hub for Chinese birth tourists. There are now more birth-tourist Chinese born on the islands than actual Americans.

Legislative Arsenal

Sen. Eric Schmitt introduced the American Citizenship Act, which limits birthplace citizenship to those born to at least one American parent. It also revokes citizenship improperly issued to children of diplomats — a practice even the Barbara majority rejected but which still occurs.

Ethan Harper, chief counsel to Schmitt, said Korean newspapers are criticizing their diplomats for dual loyalty after 139 Korean diplomat children received U.S. citizenship.

Other proposals include removing noncitizens from congressional apportionment, prohibiting dual citizens from holding public office, ending work authorization and temporary protected status programs, and aggressive worksite enforcement — including arresting CEOs who hire illegals.

Harper suggested one particularly potent lever: debanking all illegals and temporary-status foreigners. That would stop their ability to earn money in the U.S. and block remittances to their home countries.

Banks has also introduced the Nuclear Family Priority Act, which would end chain migration by removing parents from the category of relatives immigrants can sponsor.

Schmitt is pushing to end the H-1B visa program entirely.

The Filibuster Question

Harper acknowledged the Senate may need a broader filibuster conversation to pass some bills. Bernstein said other fixes can pass with a simple majority — and that some Republican senators need to “respond to incentives” like primary challenges.

With 30 states electing Republican senators, the 60-vote threshold is theoretically reachable. The question is political will.

Harper framed the fight in generational terms.

“We’re having a conversation about citizenship in this country for the first time in a generation, if not more. America 250 really puts things into perspective. The question of what is an American, as we have 15 percent of the country being foreign-born, a very large illegal immigrant population here, a very large legal immigrant population here, and trying to figure out what does an American look like in the 21st century.”

Bernstein invoked Abraham Lincoln’s warning: “As a nation of free men, we must live for all time or die by suicide.”

Her advice to conservatives: “Let 1,000 flowers bloom.” Attack birthplace citizenship from every angle — legislation, litigation, constitutional amendment, and executive action.

The charges remain allegations. The case has not been proven in court.

With fewer than 100 days until November 5, the GOP is defying every historical pattern that should spell disaster.

Only twice in modern history has the president’s party picked up House seats in a midterm — 1998 and 2002. When a sitting president polls below 50 percent approval, his party has always lost House seats. And in every midterm since 1946, at least five House seats have flipped from one party to the other.

The GOP currently holds just a 220–215 majority. They can only afford to lose a net two seats.

Despite all this, the GOP still has a credible chance to keep control of the House in 2026.

The boom-and-bust cycle is working in Republicans’ favor. After the Democrats’ 41-seat “blue wave” in 2018 brought them to 235 seats, Republicans clawed back 14 seats in 2020 and another 9 in 2022. In 2024, they lost just two seats — leaving them at a historic low-water mark with nowhere to go but up.

Republicans crushed Democrats in the 2026 redistricting battles. Thanks to GOP state-level dominance and the Supreme Court’s decision in Callais, new congressional maps heavily favor the party. The GOP is positioned to pick up House seats in Alabama, Florida, Missouri, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas, with additional potential gains in North Carolina and Ohio.

Meanwhile, Democrats managed to gerrymander only California in their favor — after botching their chance in Virginia.

According to recent political forecasts, Republicans now lead in three of the four major House projection models. Political observers say Democrats need to win the generic ballot by 5 percent just to have a shot at the majority.

The money gap is staggering. The three main GOP committees and their two caucus-aligned super PACs reported $657 million cash on hand at the end of June — nearly double the $334 million held by Democrats.

The DNC was recently forced to put its physical headquarters up as collateral for a $15 million line of credit.

MAGA Inc., the super PAC set up by President Trump, is sitting on a political war chest of over $400 million. A recent Supreme Court decision loosening coordination rules between candidates and political parties will allow party committees to spend freely — disproportionately benefiting Republicans.

The Democrats are not helping their situation by their continuing adherence to unpopular left-wing positions.

Republicans are hammering Democrats on the “trans” issue — the same wedge that devastated Kamala Harris in the final weeks of the 2024 campaign. Democrats are also on defense over “defunding the police,” opposition to border control, and refusal to crack down on illegal immigration.

The Democrat civil war between the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and moderate Democrats has pushed the party further left. Thanks to decades of leftist college indoctrination, white Democrats have embraced socialism, painted America as a racist colonialist power, and demonized Israel and Jewish Americans.

Moderate Democrats — including black, Hispanic, and Jewish voters — find the DSA positions insane. The extremism is harming the party’s electoral prospects in competitive districts and suppressing fundraising.

Democrat Sen. John Fetterman recently admitted that Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) “governs” the party. Whenever Donald Trump promotes a cause or issue, the Democrat base reflexively opposes it — allowing Trump to dictate their positions.

Republicans are also deploying new tactics. President Trump is planning a September 2026 Republican midterm convention in Dallas, Texas — designed to promote the GOP and Trump brands far more effectively than earlier Democrat midterm conventions ever did.

Those Democrat conventions only exposed the party’s infighting and extreme left-wing positions to the nation in the 70s and 80s.

What Democrats have going for them is the unpopularity of the Iran war and the resulting rise in gas prices. That’s enough to make Democrats the favorites to win control of the House.

But the campaign hasn’t really begun yet — post-Labor Day is its traditional start.

Republicans still have a chance to upset the conventional wisdom.

We’ll just have to see what happens.

2026 House Election Forecasts

Crystal Ball:
Republicans: 213
Democrats: 206
Tossup: 16

Cook Political Report:
Republicans: 212
Democrats: 205
Tossup: 18

Inside Elections:
Republicans: 215
Democrats: 206
Tossup: 14 pic.twitter.com/SjDjdzf1lb

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) July 16, 2026

Fox News debuts US House forecast for 2026

Democrats: 211
Republicans: 208
Toss-up: 16 https://t.co/9Dx6t4ISLv pic.twitter.com/FOxawjei3a

— Politics & Poll Tracker (@PollTracker2024) July 21, 2026

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to deny the Justice Department’s request to pause a lower court injunction, leaving in place a ruling that stripped federal agencies of the power to enforce several provisions of President Donald Trump’s order in those states through the Nov. 3 elections.

The administration is now expected to take the fight to the Supreme Court.

Trump signed Executive Order 14399 in March, directing the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed citizens eligible to vote and hand them to states, ordering the U.S. Postal Service to set new handling standards for mail-in ballots, and instructing the Justice Department to prioritize investigations of state and local officials who send federal ballots to people who should not receive them.

The measures represent one of the most significant pushes yet from the administration to shore up confidence in an election system Republicans have long argued is vulnerable to fraud and error, particularly through loosely regulated mail voting.

“The (executive order) lays out a clear set of rapidly approaching deadlines by which states must coordinate with federal officials and comply with new voting procedures. The Plaintiff States have no practical choice but to respond to the (order) now.”

The lawsuit, led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington, was joined by 19 other states and the District of Columbia, all governed by Democrats who have resisted the administration’s election security efforts from the start.

The states claim the Constitution gives them, not the president, primary authority over administering federal elections, an argument U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani accepted in June when she ruled several provisions likely exceeded Trump’s authority.

Saturday’s decision does not settle the underlying dispute over presidential power but keeps Talwani’s injunction intact while the case winds through the courts, a delay that could push final resolution dangerously close to the midterms.

Critics of the ruling argue that leaving basic safeguards — like verifying citizenship and tightening mail-ballot standards — in legal limbo only benefits officials in blue states with a history of loose election administration.

The Justice Department has signaled it may now turn to the Supreme Court for emergency relief, a path the administration flagged earlier in the litigation should it fail to prevail at the appellate level.

According to Politico reporting, black lawmakers and activists say the Democratic Party has shifted resources entirely to battleground states, leaving red Southern states to fend for themselves after a Supreme Court ruling reshaped congressional maps nationwide.

“Folks who lead our party go to swing states like North Carolina and Georgia, but states like Mississippi and Tennessee and Alabama and South Carolina are really neglected and are really forgotten and are really treated as if it is inevitable that we’ll always stay in such systems of what I call apartheid type of politics.”

Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones made that statement to Politico, framing the party’s strategy as systemic neglect.

The frustration stems from a Supreme Court decision that struck down a Louisiana congressional map favoring Democrats and significantly limited how states may use race in drawing districts. Since then, Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee have redrawn their maps — building on Republican gains in Texas, North Carolina, and Missouri.

Florida House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell told Politico she sees a coordinated effort at work.

“Republicans in the Legislature and the Supreme Court have said that it’s okay to turn back the clock and reverse civil rights progress in this country,” Driskell said. “They’re basically giving these Southern states what they have consistently and persistently wanted, which is to suppress Black voices.”

Some black Democrats are pointing the finger at their own leadership for failing to act when they had the chance.

Yolanda Renee King, the granddaughter of Martin Luther King Jr., said the party missed a critical window under President Joe Biden to strengthen the Voting Rights Act.

“The Democrats sort of allowed for this behavior to regularly happen,” King said. “I think that there could have been an opportunity before this second surge in MAGA. As of right now, I’m not sure if we necessarily have the infrastructure for that.”

The geographic split inside the Democratic Party has been on full display in recent months. While party leaders scramble to contain a growing socialist movement that has unseated longtime incumbents in New York and Colorado, Southern black Democrats say they’re being left behind.

In June, leftist candidates backed by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani ended the careers of three NYC Congressional Democrats. In July, another DSA-aligned candidate ousted a nearly 30-year incumbent in Colorado.

The tension exploded into public view over the weekend in Texas, where state Rep. James Talarico is running against Attorney General Ken Paxton in a high-stakes Senate race.

At a Houston town hall on black voter outreach, one attendee confronted Talarico directly.

“So you stay here, you answer our questions, or you suffer the consequences,” the woman said.

Talarico replied, “I’m happy to engage. I appreciate you being here, and I appreciate you traveling in.”

“I did it for my people, not for you,” she fired back.

#TexasSenate

James Talarico is pressed by attendee at Houston town hall on Black voter outreach.

Attendee received some applause among the crowd. pic.twitter.com/UMlGTyM22N

— Politics & Poll Tracker (@PollTracker2024) July 20, 2026

Another black attendee pressed Talarico to condemn white progressive Democratic insiders whom they said had harassed and threatened black political organizers.

For many black Democrats, the message is clear: the party is focused on making blue districts bluer and managing socialist challengers — while losing sight of its most loyal voting bloc.

BLACK VOTERS ARE FED UP — NO MORE TAKING US FOR GRANTED!

Black voters are DONE.
“You answer our questions, or you suffer the consequences.”
Texas voters just confronted U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico at a packed town hall — and the frustration was boiling over.… pic.twitter.com/HcKxGO8RtT

— Reverend Jordan Wells (@WellsJorda89710) July 20, 2026

The White House sacked Election Assistance Commission Democrats Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland with a short, direct email: “On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as Commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission is terminated, effective immediately.”

The remaining Republican commissioner, Christy McCormick, resigned shortly after. She’d served since 2014 when Barack Obama nominated her.

Now the four-member commission has no quorum. Leftist media outlets are predicting doomsday and crying “election interference.”

The Supreme Court already settled this.

“The court decision found presidents can remove these officials if they want to. It will be very hard for agencies to get around [the ruling].” — William Messenger, National Right to Work Foundation

The high court’s June ruling in Trump v. Slaughter — a 6-3 decision — agreed that members of federal commissions serve at the pleasure of the president. The ruling ended 91 years of so-called protections for “independent” bureaucrats who claimed presidents couldn’t fire them without cause.

Last year Trump fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. She sued, citing a 1935 case that said Franklin D. Roosevelt was wrong to fire a conservative FTC commissioner over policy disagreements.

The Supreme Court threw out that precedent.

“I don’t think it left a whole lot of wiggle room there,” William Messenger, vice president at the National Right to Work Foundation, told The Federalist.

Ousted commissioner Hicks told PBS he’s weighing his options — meaning a lawsuit. Not advisable, said Rachel Bovard of the Conservative Partnership Institute.

“Yes, he can try to sue, but he’ll be enjoined immediately based on the fact that Humphrey’s Executor is no longer in place,” Bovard said.

The White House issued a statement noting the president “reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted.”

Republicans have wanted the EAC gone for years.

The Election Assistance Commission was created in 2002 after the Florida election debacle. It’s supposed to provide guidance to states, certify election equipment, and hand out federal cash for election offices.

But the Democrat-appointed commissioners have shown little interest in election integrity reforms. They’ve opposed voter ID and proof of citizenship at registration. Even when the commission has a quorum, any policy requires a 3-1 vote — gridlock by design.

Election integrity warrior Cleta Mitchell has long pointed out the Democratic commissioners are rank partisans.

“They’re rank partisans,” Bovard confirmed.

“[Trump] has the ability to appoint commissioners who care about election integrity. He’s got to have confidence in the people overseeing our elections, that they are not rank partisans but committed to the carriage of their duty.” — Rachel Bovard

Trump delivered a national address on election integrity Thursday, releasing reams of declassified documents exposing vulnerabilities in the election system. He discussed Communist China’s infiltration of U.S. elections and the rigged 2020 presidential contest.

Declassified documents show China grabbed 220 million U.S. voter files filled with sensitive information.

A Reuters report claims the Trump administration spent more than a year scrutinizing the EAC, raising concerns about the commission’s handling of 2020 and its ability to secure voting systems.

Given the EAC’s track record of gridlock, institutional weakness, and willful disregard of election threats, scrutinizing its operations isn’t just understandable — it’s overdue.

“Why wouldn’t it be in his interest to get this right?” Bovard said. “It’s not just a priority for him, it’s a priority for his base. People feeling disenfranchised in some states is a big problem.”

Trump has the Supreme Court’s backing. He has the constitutional authority. And he has 220 million reasons to clean house.

The 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 is set to expire at 12:01 a.m. EDT on July 24, the maximum 150 days allowed under the law without an act of Congress. The tariff took effect Feb. 24 and has generated $31.06 billion in revenue since then, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

That’s a fraction of the roughly $166 billion the government is separately refunding after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a related tariff program in February.

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 on May 7 that President Trump exceeded his authority under Section 122. The court found that the administration’s stated justification — a “large and serious balance-of-payments deficit” — did not meet the legal definition Congress intended when it passed the law in 1974.

“President Trump has lawfully used the tariff authorities granted to him by Congress to address our balance of payments crisis. The Trump administration is reviewing legal options and maintains confidence in ultimately prevailing.”

White House spokesman Kush Desai told The Center Square in May the administration is confident in the legal basis. A federal appeals court reinstated the tariff on June 11, granting the Trump administration’s request for a stay pending appeal.

The stay leaves the Section 122 tariff in effect through its scheduled expiration. Even if the case is ultimately decided against the administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is not expected to rule on the merits before the tariff lapses Thursday.

Trump has already moved to the next legal authority.

On July 15, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office imposed a 25% tariff on nearly all imports from Brazil under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a different statute with no built-in expiration date. That tariff followed a yearlong investigation into Brazilian trade practices including digital payment regulations, intellectual property enforcement, and deforestation.

Section 301 carries its own legal risk, but analysts say it will likely hold up better in court than the authorities struck down under IEEPA and Section 122 — mostly because those earlier legal grounds were especially weak, not because Section 301 is bulletproof.

Caleb Petitt, a research associate at the Independent Institute, said the administration is racing to find new legal justifications for tariffs faster than courts can strike them down.

“The persistent search for new tariff justifications is a reasonable strategy if the Trump administration is hoping to create hype and draw media attention, but will not be effective at raising revenue, prompting trade deals, or restoring domestic manufacturing,” Petitt told The Center Square.

Alfredo Carrillo Obregon, a trade-policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said in May that Section 122 was “always meant to be a bridge” to a more durable tariff authority.

Unlike Section 122, Section 301 has no expiration date — giving it more staying power regardless of how the legal arguments shake out.

USTR’s separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies — including Canada, Mexico, Japan, and the European Union — over failures to adequately block imports made with forced labor concluded in June, according to the Congressional Research Service. USTR has proposed tariffs of 10% for countries that lack a ban on forced-labor imports and 12.5% for those that have one but do not enforce it, and is now seeking public comment.

The nonpartisan research service noted USTR “might aim to finalize those tariff actions by late July 2026” — just as Section 122 expires.

CBP has processed more than 24.4 million entries through its refund system since the program began April 20. The agency has collected about $166 billion under the IEEPA tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court. As of July 10, CBP had accepted about $121.75 billion of that in refunds — both already certified and still pending review — for processing, according to a CBP spokesperson.

Petitt cautioned that any unfunded refunds ultimately add to the national debt, regardless of their size relative to total federal spending. He added that foreign governments and domestic manufacturers have little reason to expect the tariffs to last unless they survive legal challenges.

Federal outlays totaled $5.52 trillion through the first nine months of the fiscal year, with a $1.37 trillion deficit, according to the Treasury Department. Based on those figures, roughly 24.8% of federal spending this fiscal year has been financed by borrowing.

Section 122 expires July 24. The Section 301 tariffs on Brazil take effect July 22. The forced-labor tariffs on 60 economies could be finalized around the same time.

Barrett and Justice Elena Kagan made a rare joint appearance before Congress on Tuesday, the first time sitting justices have testified on Capitol Hill since 2019. They appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee to defend the Supreme Court’s 2027 fiscal year budget request of $228.3 million — a 10% increase that includes $14.6 illion dedicated solely to securing justices’ homes and protecting their families.

“My security detail sent me home with a bulletproof vest. I carried it into my house, put it into my bedroom, dropped it down on the table, turned around, and my 12-year-old son was standing in the middle of my bedroom. He wanted to know what it was and why I had it … I didn’t know how to respond. They have required me [and] my children to think about and see things that children should not have to see or think about.”

Both justices stressed that the threats have impacted them on a personal level — specifically their day-to-day lives and families.

Kagan told the subcommittee that the Supreme Court police expect a 38% annual increase in threats this year, following a 25% increase last year.

“For some of us, those threats have come very close indeed. And all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize.”

About six weeks before her testimony, Barrett disclosed that her family had been the target of a swatting incident — a false report claiming there was gunfire and yelling inside her home — which prompted a large police response at her doorstep.

She recounted that one of her teenage sons opened their front door to meet friends, only to be met by a street filled with squad cars. Fortunately, Supreme Court police officers stationed at the residence intercepted the arriving local authorities, convincing them the report was a hoax before anyone tried to enter the home.

Several other justices have similarly demanded heightened security. These judicial safety concerns have escalated alongside a rise in online harassment, doxxing, and physical threats. Perpetrators are increasingly turning to tactics like swatting as well as weaponized, unsolicited food deliveries, officials say.

Barrett noted that these targeted unsolicited deliveries are sometimes placed under the name of Daniel Anderl — the late son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas. Daniel was fatally wounded in 2020 by a lawyer posing as a FedEx delivery driver at the family’s New Jersey home.

The tragedy led to the passage of New Jersey’s “Daniel’s Law” and the federal Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act in December 2022, both of which shield judges’ and lawmakers’ personal data from the public.

Despite the escalating intimidation tactics, Kagan vowed that the bench remains unshaken, pledging that the justices will continue deciding cases “without fear or favor.”

A major Supreme Court ruling just exposed the surveillance state hiding inside America’s K-12 schools, and parents need to know what’s at stake.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Chatrie v. United States focused on whether law enforcement accessing Google Location History data constituted a Fourth Amendment search. The court ruled it does.

“An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information from a third-party tech company.”

The court explained that Location History “tracks and tracks and tracks” the device and the user carrying it. The location data collected provides the government “a virtual panopticon with which to scrutinize its citizens’ activities” — and thus qualifies for Fourth Amendment protections.

Fourth Amendment searches require probable cause. Law enforcement must detail that probable cause in a warrant application, get approval from the correct judicial authority, and conduct the search within the parameters outlined in the warrant.

But schools are doing this without warrants.

Schools collect location data on students through education technology programs and apps. Most parents have no idea the extent to which their own location data is collected and used.

One example: the Thomson Reuters CLEAR software, which allows designated school district personnel to “access license plate data and develop pattern of life information” on students and families.

The software markets itself as a solution to help school personnel save time verifying student addresses. But the capabilities go far beyond address verification, with features such as alert functions to allow district personnel to “get notified immediately when any relevant information changes with a student.”

These expansive surveillance functions are not surprising, given the company’s own description of the product as a “powerful online investigation software” with applications in law enforcement and investigative financial services.

Parents are not informed of the intense level of location surveillance being conducted on them, their student, and their family members.

The CLEAR searches are not being conducted by law enforcement personnel, but by school administrators. No warrants are needed. No uniform compliance protections are in place.

Programs such as Google Workspace for Education and many other education tech applications collect student location data based on tracking and storing school-issued device locations. These devices are often carried by students outside the classroom — to sports practices, work, coffee dates, and ultimately to their private homes.

This essentially mimics the “virtual panopticon” referenced in Chatrie as it captures the student’s pattern of life via their location history — which is fully accessible to designated school administrators at all times.

Even as students have reduced Fourth Amendment protections at school, they still have them — and they certainly have them outside the school premises.

The tension between these K-12 education programs and Chatrie is bound to create a stir as parents and their students begin questioning these surveillance practices and asserting their Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court just handed parents the legal ammunition to fight back against school surveillance overreach.

Truth in Education offers an opt-out form covering a variety of sensitive subjects along with instructions on how to file it with your child’s school. Parents can visit the organization’s website or contact info@truthineducation.org for help enforcing opt-outs or with questions about school district data collection capabilities.

The charges remain allegations. The case has not been proven in court.