Latest news with #AlienEnemiesAct
CNN
7 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Takeaways from the Supreme Court's ruling on power of judges and birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court delivered a major win to President Donald Trump on Friday in his ongoing war with the federal judiciary, limiting the power of courts to step in and block policies on a nationwide basis in the short term while judges review their legality. Though the case was intertwined with Trump's executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship, the ruling does not settle the issue of whether the president can enforce that order. And there were signs that lower courts could move swiftly to block the policy. But the high court's decision does mean that Americans seeking to challenge Trump's future policies may have to jump through additional hoops to succeed. Exactly how that will work remains to be seen and will be hashed out by lower courts in coming days. Here's what to know about the court's decision: The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling could have far-reaching consequences for Trump's second term, even if his birthright citizenship order is never enforced. That's because it will limit the power of courts to strike down other policies in the future. Presidents of both parties have complained about nationwide injunctions for years and Trump has noted, correctly, that there have been far more issued against him than presidents in the past. Lower courts, for instance, have used the orders to temporarily block his efforts to deport migrants under the Alien Enemies Act and prohibit transgender service members in the military. 'This was a big decision,' Trump said from the White House shortly after the ruling was issued. The president described the outcome as an 'amazing decision, one that we're very happy about.' But exactly how future litigation shakes out remains to be seen. Private parties – in the birthright citizenship case, a group of pregnant women who sued – may still be able to get a court to shut down a policy temporarily through a class-action lawsuit. And states may still be able to secure a hold on an administration's policies in the short term as well. By siding with Trump, the conservative Supreme Court ended a term with a second blockbuster decision in his favor for the second time in as many years. Last year, a 6-3 majority ruled that Trump – and other presidents – are at least presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office. The decision allowed Trump to avoid a trial on federal election subversion charges that were pending against him. And since taking office again in January, Trump has won case after case on the Supreme Court's emergency docket. A decision earlier in the week allowing Trump to deport certain migrants to countries other than their homeland marked the 10th time the court has granted a request from Trump on the emergency docket, though a few of those cases amounted to a mixed win for the administration. The court has allowed Trump to fire board members at independent agencies, remove transgender Americans from military service and end other protections for migrants, even those in the country legally. Friday's ruling, from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump has disparaged behind closed doors, is his biggest win yet. The court's three liberals split from their conservative colleagues' blockbuster ruling in blistering dissents, ringing the alarm on how the decision will permit Trump or future presidents to enforce unlawful policies even as legal challenges to them play out. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal wing, said the majority had 'shamefully' played along with the administration's 'gamesmanship' in the case, which she described as an attempt to enforce a 'patently unconstitutional' policy by not asking the justices to bless the policy, but instead to limit the power of federal judges around the country. 'The court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The executive branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals' constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully,' she wrote. The court's senior liberal member took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent from the bench on Friday for around 20 minutes. In doing so, she added in a line not included in her written dissent to invoke the court's landmark ruling last year that granted Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution. 'The other shoe has dropped on executive immunity,' Sotomayor declared from the bench. Separately, in a scathing solo dissent on Friday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to raise the stakes of the injunction case even more, accusing her conservative colleagues of creating 'an existential threat to the rule of law' by allowing Trump to 'violate the Constitution.' 'I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' she wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.' Though the court significantly curtailed the ability of Trump's legal foes to get the type of court orders that block or slow down his enforcement of various policies nationwide, the conservative justices left on the table one key legal avenue: class-action lawsuits in which a litigant sues on behalf of a larger group of similarly situated individuals to get relief for all people who could be potentially be affected by a policy. Several groups moved quickly Friday to do just that. The immigrant rights groups and pregnant women challenging Trump's order in Maryland pressed the federal judge who previously blocked the policy to do so again through a class action lawsuit. Such class-action litigation could potentially lead to the same outcome as nationwide injunctions – and during arguments in the case, several justices questioned the significance of shifting the emphasis to class-action suits. One difference is that a judge generally must take the extra step of thinking about who should be covered by an injunction. During arguments in the case in May, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the difference may be nothing more than 'technicality.' 'We care about technicalities,' he said at the time. 'And this may all be a technicality.' Lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs asked US District Judge Deborah Boardman to certify a nationwide class that would include any children who have been born or would be born after February 19, 2025, and would be affected by Trump's order. They filed an updated lawsuit that would challenge Trump's order on behalf of all of those potential class members. They also asked Boardman, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, for an emergency order that would temporarily block Trump's executive order from applying to members of a 'putative class' of individuals that would be impacted by the policy. 'Consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict,' the lawsuit states The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing challengers in another case over Trump's order, on Friday filed a new class action lawsuit targeting Trump's order. 'That's one of the ways in which people who are harmed around the country by President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship will be able to go and get protection from the courts for this fundamental American right,' ACLU national legal director Cecillia Wang told CNN. Barrett was careful to say that parties could still seek nationwide relief to pause a policy if that was required to address their harm. That is precisely the argument nearly two dozen Democratic states made challenging the birthright policy and while the court didn't directly address it, it left wide room for states to make that claim again. The states had argued they needed a nationwide block on Trump's birthright citizenship policy because it was too easy for people to cross state borders to have a baby in New Jersey – where that child would be a citizen – rather than staying in Pennsylvania, where it might not. Now, the states will likely return to a lower court and argue that the birthright policy should remain on hold while courts decide its constitutionality. 'We believe that we will prevail and that we've made the case already, and when the lower courts, under the instruction of the US Supreme Court, do that review, we will secure a nationwide injunction to provide relief to the plaintiff states,' California Attorney General of California Rob Bonta, a Democrat, told reporters. 'It's now up to the lower courts to reconsider if the nationwide injunction is appropriate and necessary to provide complete relief to the states whose AG's sued to challenge this order,' he said. That litigation could eventually work its way back to the Supreme Court. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration was 'very confident' the Supreme Court would eventually rule in its favor on the merits of Trump's executive order. 'Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court,' Bondi predicted at the White House. While Bondi's predicted timing might be optimistic, given the court's usual pace, there is a good chance the issue will eventually wind up before the justices.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Coney Barrett Gives Trump Sweeping Boost to Federal Powers
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has led a conservative push to help Donald Trump curtail judges who have hampered his agenda, in a major victory for the U.S. president. In a highly anticipated ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court has limited the ability of federal lower courts to temporarily pause Trump's executive orders using nationwide injunctions. The 6-3 ruling, written by Coney Barrett, stemmed from Trump's push to end birthright citizenship, which dictates that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. But the decision could have much broader implications, as Trump has long claimed that the courts are overstepping their authority by handing down nationwide orders that have temporarily blocked some of his policies. 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.' The ruling did not go so far as to make a decision on the constitutionality of Trump's push to end birthright citizenship. But is has nonetheless thrilled Trump, who has privately lashed out at conservative Supreme Court justices for not consistently backing his agenda, taking particular aim at Coney Barrett, his most recent appointee. In her opinion, Coney Barrett wrote: 'Some say that the universal injunction 'give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.' ... But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The three liberal justices on the court - Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented and have hit out at the ruling. Describing the decision as 'a travesty for the rule of law,' Sotomayor suggested that Trump knew his birthright citizenship order was unconstitutional, and therefore pursued the issue of universal injunctions instead. 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent, and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along,' she said. The ruling comes after lower courts have repeatedly rejected Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship, citing the 14th Amendment and over a century of legal precedent. Other parts of Trump's agenda have also been blocked in the courts, such as his deportation plans, including the use of the Alien Enemies Act to get rid of undocumented migrants. This had led to the White House and MAGA Republicans accusing the judges involved of political bias and judicial overreach. 'We cannot allow a handful of communist radical-left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States,' Trump told supporters late last month. Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump in 2020, has also faced criticism from MAGA world. In March, for example, Barrett voted to reject Trump's attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, prompting legal commentator Mike Davis to declare on Steve Bannon's podcast: 'She's a rattled law professor with her head up her ass.' And earlier in January, she sided with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, and the liberal justices of the court to allow Trump to be sentenced in his so-called 'hush money' trial. However, Trump allies praised her opinion on Friday. 'This is a massive win for the Trump administration, the rule of law, and the will of American voters,' wrote conservative activist Charlie Kirk. 'This speeds EVERYTHING up.'
The Hill
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling
The Supreme Court handed President Trump a clear victory Friday, stopping judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block his executive order narrowing birthright citizenship. But the cases aren't over yet, as a new phase of the battle commences in the lower courts. Here are five takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling. Friday's opinion came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's third appointee to the court who has recently faced a barrage of criticism from the president's own supporters. The heat grew as Barrett this spring ruled against the administration in several emergency cases, including Trump's bid to freeze foreign aid payments and efforts to swiftly deport alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. By tradition, the most senior member of the majority decides who authors the opinion. So, Chief Justice John Roberts would've assigned Barrett as the author soon after the May 15 oral arguments. On Friday, Barrett ultimately wrote for all five of her fellow Republican-appointed justices, being the face of the Trump administration's major win. Barrett rejected the challengers' notion that nationwide injunctions were needed as a powerful tool to check the executive branch. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,' she wrote. Though the court curtailed nationwide injunctions, the decision leaves the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by pursuing class action lawsuits. Within hours, one group of plaintiffs quickly took the hint. A coalition of expectant mothers and immigration organizations suing asked a district judge in Maryland to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order — the same practical effect as a nationwide injunction. The Democratic-led states suing are also vowing to press ahead. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement. And the American Civil Liberties Union brought an entirely new lawsuit Friday seeking to do the same. The efforts could quickly bring the birthright citizenship battle back to the Supreme Court. 'In cases where classwide or set-aside relief has been awarded, the losing side in the lower courts will likewise regularly come to this Court if the matter is sufficiently important,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a solo concurring opinion. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court's leading conservatives, cautioned lower courts against creating a 'significant loophole' to Friday's decision by stretching when plaintiffs can file class action lawsuits. 'Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools,' Alito wrote, joined by Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the chief dissent, arguing that the rule of law is 'not a given' in America and the high court gave up its 'vital role' in preserving it with Friday's opinion. Joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she claimed that the Trump administration sought to tear down nationwide injunctions because it can't prove the president's order narrowing birthright citizenship is likely constitutional. Trump's order made a 'solemn mockery' of the Constitution, she said, and his request to instead curtail nationwide injunctions is obvious 'gamesmanship.' 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.' Going further than her liberal peers, Jackson wrote in a solo dissent that the court's decision was an 'existential threat to the rule of law' — drawing a harsh rebuke from Barrett, a dramatic exchange between the two most junior justices. Jackson argued that the majority uses legalese to obscure a more basic question at the heart of the case: 'May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' At another point, she said that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' suggesting that the Trump administration's efforts to 'vanquish' universal injunctions amounts to a request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior' — and that the majority gave the president just that. The rhetoric in Jackson's opinion amounts to a 'startling line of attack,' Barrett said, condemning her argument as 'extreme.' 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.' She urged Jackson to 'heed her own admonition' that everyone, from the president down, is bound by law. 'That goes for judges too,' Barrett said. Trump and his allies hailed the ruling as a decisive victory for his administration, promising to move his sweeping second term agenda forward with judges' power significantly curtailed. 'It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said at a press conference Friday afternoon. He specifically slammed 'radical left judges' he said used nationwide injunctions as a tool to 'overrule the rightful powers of the president' to stop illegal immigration. The decision means his administration can now move forward on a 'whole list' of policy priorities that were frozen nationwide by federal judges, he argued, from birthright citizenship to freezing federal funding. 'We have so many of them,' Trump said.
Atlantic
a day ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
Trump's Deportation Goals Are Unrealistic
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In March, President Donald Trump was preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens. This use of the law, which was passed in 1798 and previously used to intern Japanese Americans during World War II, was unprecedented, and Emil Bove III, a top Justice Department official, was concerned that it was illegal. To be clear, Bove wasn't troubled that the administration might be breaking the law; rather, according to a new whistleblower complaint, he was concerned that the courts might try to block removals. In that case, 'DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such court order,' Bove said, according to the document. The complaint was made by Erez Reuveni, a fired DOJ lawyer, and first reported by The New York Times this week. The administration says that his allegations are falsehoods from a disgruntled former employee, but this is difficult to credit. A career lawyer, he was promoted by the Trump DOJ but says he was fired after he acknowledged in court that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was an administrative error and refused to accuse him of being a terrorist. The complaint details Reuveni's 'attempts over the course of three weeks and affecting three separate cases to secure the government's compliance with court orders, and his resistance to the internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy them.' It also suggests that Reuveni has emails and texts to back up many of his claims. A top Justice Department official allegedly conspiring to defy court orders would be very dangerous; what makes it darkly amusing, too, is that senators are this week considering Bove's nomination to the federal bench that, according to Reuveni, he wanted to ignore. This led to a sharp exchange in a committee hearing yesterday between Bove and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, two veteran federal prosecutors, in which Bove repeatedly insisted that he did not 'recall' making the comments that Reuveni alleged. 'Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?' Schiff asked. 'Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind,' Bove said. 'Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Bove, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling the court, 'Fuck you'?' Schiff replied. 'It seems to me that would be something you'd remember—unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently.' Because no Republicans have yet come out against Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he's likely to win confirmation. (By way of reminder, Bove got here by serving as one of Trump's personal lawyers in some of his many criminal cases.) This presents the grim parlor question of whether it's better to have Bove in a lifetime appointment on the bench, where his opinions can be appealed, or at the Justice Department, where he's reportedly been a one-man wrecking crew. The allegations against Bove are what my former colleague James Fallows took to describing during the first Trump administration as shocking but not surprising. Trump himself has said repeatedly that he will abide by court orders, but his deputies have been less circumspect, especially Vice President J. D. Vance, who is a lawyer, and the former DOGE leader and current Trump frenemy Elon Musk. Outside observers, including me, have fretted over what will happen if the White House actually crosses the rubicon of defiance. This is arguably beside the point. Even though the Trump administration continues to deny that it has refused to obey court orders, the reality is that it has already done so. Judge James Boasberg said in April that he'd concluded that probable cause existed to find the administration in contempt of court for removing certain Venezuelan immigrants. (An appeals court has temporarily stayed proceedings on the contempt charge.) In another instance, last month, the administration deported a Salvadoran man despite a court order forbidding it, then blamed 'a confluence of administrative errors.' (These errors seem to be a consistent issue for this presidency!) The administration also insisted in a court filing that Abrego Garcia simply could not be returned as ordered, because the United States 'does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation.' The DOJ proved that false not long afterward, when it brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. to face charges. In a bizarre move this week, the administration sued every federal judge in Maryland—an attempt to evade an order that bans the government from immediately deporting migrants who are challenging their removal. The fights with courts are ironic, because although Trump has fared poorly in lower courts, the Supreme Court has been willing to let him expand his powers once cases reach it. As Reuters reported earlier this month, the justices, using what's known as the ' shadow docket,' have repeatedly granted emergency requests to proceed, pending full consideration. This week, the Court temporarily lifted an order preventing the executive branch from quickly deporting migrants to countries to which they have no ties. The White House has been seeking to send people—including Laotian, Vietnamese, and Filipino nationals—to extremely perilous countries such as Libya and South Sudan. This would be callous and morally abhorrent under any circumstances, but given the notable cases of the Trump administration deporting people who are legally protected, including Abrego Garcia, it is especially terrifying. The desperation to sidestep court restrictions on deportations is evidence of the shortcomings of the White House's plans. Trump aims to remove 1 million people this year, but as my colleague Nick Miroff reported yesterday, ICE statistics show that the agency has carried out only about 125,000 deportations since Trump took office, with roughly half the year gone. But as Reuveni's story suggests, in this administration, to be honest is to risk being fired. Attacking the courts is much easier than admitting that the president's signature promise is unrealistic. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News The Senate parliamentarian advised rejecting some Medicaid changes that would offset the costs of other key policies in President Donald Trump's tax bill. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran's strike on a U.S. base in Qatar was a 'slap to America's face'; he also warned against further U.S. attacks on Iran. A new Supreme Court decision allows states to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Dispatches Time-Travel Thursdays: Isabel Fattal on how sleeping less became an American value. Evening Read The Blockbuster That Captured a Growing American Rift By Tyler Austin Harper In a cramped, $50-a-month room above a New Jersey furnace-supply company, Peter Benchley set to work on what he once said, half-jokingly, might be 'a Ulysses for the 1970s.' A novel resulted from these efforts, one Benchley considered titling The Edge of Gloom or Infinite Evil before deciding on the less dramatic but more fitting Jaws. Its plot is exquisite in its simplicity. A shark menaces Amity, a fictional, gentrifying East Coast fishing village. Chaos ensues: People are eaten … In June 1975, 50 years ago this month, the movie version of Jaws was released in theaters and became the first-ever summer blockbuster. Though the film retains Benchley's basic storyline—shark eats people; shark dies a bloody death—it turns the book's politics upside down. Watch. Thank God for The Bear. Season 4 of the show (streaming on Hulu) is exactly what it—and we—needed, Sophie Gilbert writes. Lean on me. In everyday life, many people are reluctant to ask for and offer help. But milestones such as weddings lower the barriers to relying on other people, Julie Beck writes. Play our daily crossword.
New York Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
MSNBC's Nicole Wallace claims she's ‘gutted' over Trump deporting alleged gang members to El Salvador
MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace expressed sorrow on Tuesday over the Trump administration deporting alleged Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador. During a recent episode of 'The Bulwark' podcast, Wallace mentioned the deportations as the thing that scared her most about President Donald Trump's second term, saying she was 'gutted' when seeing a photo of alleged gang members being housed in a prison in El Salvador. 'I saw the paid ads that Homeland Security was doing in front of the deportees who were now prisoners at CECOT [Terrorism Confinement Center] and I was gutted,' she told host Tim Miller. President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March to expedite deportations of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members, invoking anger from critics who have said there is insufficient evidence to determine their ties to the gang. The Department of Homeland Security has defended the deportations, with DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin saying that the migrants sent to CECOT in El Salvador are 'actually terrorists, human rights abusers, gangsters, and more' and that the administration is abiding by due process. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in March, 'I trust our intelligence agencies and the intelligence individuals that are within the Department of Homeland Security, that the individuals who are there are members and a part of this organization and have worked with them.' The deportation approach has faced legal challenges. The US Supreme Court barred the Trump administration from deporting migrants without them being given a chance to challenge their designations as criminal gang members in April, and extended that order in May. During the interview, Wallace denied there was any evidence whether the people Trump had been trying to deport were gang members. 3 Nicolle Wallace said she was 'gutted' after seeing a photo of alleged gang members inside of a prison in El Salvador. The Bulwark / YouTube 3 Thousands of inmates waited to be taken to their cells at the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador. via REUTERS 'I remember the first day I read about the deportations to El Salvador of the alleged Tren de Aragua members — for whom no evidence was ever presented that they had anything to do with Tren de Aragua,' she said. 'And I remember saying… like 'I wish I didn't feel so gutted. And I wish I could stop thinking about these guys being scared in El Salvador.'' After mentioning feeling terrible about seeing the photos that DHS posted of suspected gang members being held at CECOT, the MSNBC host accused the administration of mistreating human beings. 3 Salvadoran police officers escorted an alleged member of the Tren de Aragua gang to the Terrorism Confinement Center after he was deported from the US. via REUTERS 'And I think I'm sometimes scared by how much anguish I feel over how they're treating human beings. But I think that if you abandon the anguish, then you carry out horrible things against human beings,' Wallace said, adding, 'I'm scared about how much it bothers me — that so many people are suffering.' When asked for comment, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital, 'Cry more, Nicole Wallace. Only a TDS [Trump Derangement Syndrome] whack job would be 'gutted' that illegal criminal terrorists are being removed from the country but fail to mention the American victims of these heinous criminals.'
