Supreme Court Likely To Revive Obama-Era Rule on Asylum-Seekers
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a landmark immigration case that could restore the executive branch’s ability to "meter" or turn back asylum-seekers at the southern border. The justices will review a Ninth Circuit decision that had previously declared the practice unlawful.
The Conflict Over "Metering"
The practice of "metering"—limiting the number of people who can process asylum claims at a port of entry each day—originated in the Obama administration in 2016 during a surge of Haitian migrants. It was later formalized and intensified under the first Trump administration.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued in the government's petition that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling "significantly encroaches upon the executive branch’s authority to regulate the nation’s borders." Sauer contends that under the current ruling, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is essentially prohibited from stopping anyone who arrives at the border without an appointment, allowing them to "circumvent the queue."
Allegations of Human Rights Violations
The lawsuit was brought by the nonprofit Al Otro Lado and 13 individual asylum-seekers. Their attorneys argue that the turnback policy is a deliberate strategy to evade legal obligations. By physically obstructing migrants at ports of entry, they claim the government left "at-risk families, children, and adults" in Mexican border towns where they faced "violent attacks, abduction, and mortality."
The Ninth Circuit previously sided with the migrants, rejecting the government's claim that individuals denied entry at the literal gate were not "in the United States" and therefore had no right to asylum protections.
Implications for Modern Border Tools
The Trump administration warns that if the Ninth Circuit's ruling stands, it could jeopardize other management tools, including the CBP One app. This app, launched during the Biden era and still in use, requires migrants to schedule appointments before arriving. If the court rules that any migrant who reaches the border has an immediate right to processing, the appointment-based system could become legally obsolete.
Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated that the administration anticipates a victory at the High Court, asserting that they have "consistently upheld the explicit interpretation of federal law."
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments, the decision will likely settle the long-standing debate over whether the Immigration and Nationality Act grants a right to asylum processing to individuals before they have officially set foot on U.S. soil.
Shock New Revelations Regarding Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll Drop - This Is Why She's Under Investigation
E. Jean Carroll’s rape allegations against President Donald Trump were never credible, and now she’s under investigation by the Department of Justice for perjury.
Now, Byron York is digging into the case and has uncovered what could be the most elaborate political setup in history.
Critics of Carroll have long argued that major inconsistencies and unanswered questions surrounding her allegations against Trump undermine the credibility of the claims.
Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her sometime in the mid-1990s. Critics frequently point to her inability to identify a precise year. They also argue that aspects of the timeline and surrounding details remain difficult to reconcile.
Skeptics have also questioned why Carroll waited decades before publicly making the accusation. This is especially true given that they came near the height of the “Me Too” movement.
Carroll has offered multiple explanations for remaining silent for years. They include concerns about her Republican mother’s health and fears that going public politically could inadvertently benefit Trump.
Oh. Right. You bet.
She waited until 2019 to ‘disclose’ her allegations. But she didn’t go to police. Didn’t go to a lawyer. She didn’t even go to a journalist. Rather, she made the allegation in a book. And why? Well, that was the only way to generate royalties:
And Carroll had a history of grifting, too. Before the book even dropped, she was charging admission for her “Most Hideous Men in NYC Walking Tour,” a 90-minute #MeToo landmark stroll through Manhattan. The tour started at the Bergdorf Goodman entrance on 58th Street, which just so happens to be exactly where she claims she first encountered Trump the day of the alleged assault. She had been leading paying groups past that spot before she’d told the world what had supposedly happened there.
Now here’s where the origins of these allegations get genuinely interesting. Carroll, by then a certified celebrity of the anti-Trump resistance, attended a party at writer Molly Jong-Fast’s Manhattan home, a gathering the New York Times described as “Resistance Twitter come to life.” The guest list included George Conway, who apparently advised Carroll to sue Trump for defamation.
The case got a critical boost when the New York legislature passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, which allowed sexual assault claims to be filed regardless of expired statutes of limitations. Carroll had helped advocate for the bill. The Act went into effect on November 24, 2022, and within hours, Carroll filed a second suit, this time adding a rape allegation in addition to defamation.
Tech billionaire Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn and a virulent anti-Trump guy, bankrolled all of it. But Carroll testified under oath that no one was paying her legal fees. She described it as a “contingency case.”
It was just before the trial began that her own attorney wrote to Trump’s legal team admitting that Carroll had “recollected additional information” while preparing for testimony.
Trump’s lawyers stated that the “belated disclosure” raised “significant concerns” about Carroll’s “bias and motive.”
Hoffman carries political baggage of his own. In 2018, Hoffman apologized after it was revealed he had funded a group that secretly mimicked Russian disinformation to help a Democrat win an Alabama Senate seat.
Now, York says, investigators are digging deeper into the broader origins of the anti-Trump legal and political apparatus.
This includes the network of activist lawyers, wealthy donors, resistance groups, and strategically timed legal maneuvers that critics argue helped fuel years of coordinated lawfare against Trump.
For conservatives, the emerging scrutiny feels long overdue.
WATCH IT: Trump Shreds 'Fake News' Kristen Welker, Storms Out of Interview
Washington, D.C. - June 8, 2026
President Trump Abruptly Ends Meet the Press Interview During Discussion of California Elections
President Donald Trump walked out of an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press host Kristen Welker on Sunday after a heated exchange over the slow vote-counting process in California’s recent elections. The interview, conducted in Wisconsin, covered topics including negotiations with Iran and the status of several California races that remained unresolved days after Election Day.
Interview Context and Escalation
The discussion turned contentious when the conversation shifted to California, where multiple races continued to see shifts in results as additional ballots were processed. Trump criticized the extended timeline for finalizing vote counts, describing the system as flawed and comparing it unfavorably to processes in other countries. He pointed to changes in leads in certain contests as evidence of problems with how votes are tallied and reported.
Welker responded that the counting method follows standard procedures in California. Trump expressed frustration with what he viewed as inadequate media scrutiny of the delays and vote swings. The exchange ended with Trump stating that he had had enough of the discussion.
“So let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough. Thank you, darling, have a good time.”
Trump then left the interview.
California Election Developments
Several California races, including contests in Los Angeles and state legislative districts, remained too close to call or saw leads narrow in the days following the June 2 primary. In one notable example, a candidate who held a substantial lead on election night saw that margin reduced significantly with the arrival of later ballot batches. Additional ballots are still expected in some areas.
U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli has indicated that his office is examining potential irregularities in the state’s election processes. Officials have attributed the delays to standard procedures for processing mail-in and provisional ballots, while critics argue that the extended timelines undermine public confidence in the results.
Broader Reactions and Statements
Trump has long voiced concerns about election administration in certain states, including questions about 2020. During the interview, he linked the current California situation to wider issues of electoral integrity and media coverage. Welker maintained that the process reflects established state practices.
The abrupt conclusion of the interview drew immediate attention on social media and in news coverage. Supporters of the president praised his decision to end the exchange, while critics described the walkout as an overreaction to routine questioning.
The interview had also touched on U.S. efforts regarding Iran and the path toward any potential agreement to end ongoing conflict. Those portions of the discussion did not appear to trigger the same level of tension as the segment on California elections.
Implications for Public Discourse
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and segments of the national media. Trump has frequently accused major outlets of biased coverage, particularly on election-related matters. Media representatives, including Welker, have defended their role in asking pointed questions of public officials.
California election officials have stated that the current counting timeline is consistent with past practices in the state, which relies heavily on mail voting. However, the extended period before final certification has prompted renewed calls from some quarters for reforms aimed at faster and more transparent tabulation.
As additional ballots continue to be counted in California, several races remain fluid. The U.S. Attorney’s review adds another layer of scrutiny to the process. The full transcript and video of the Trump-Welker exchange are expected to be released by NBC in the coming days.
