Ben Shapiro went live on Tuesday (see my earlier post on the SCOTUS ruling) after the US Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship. On Wednesday on his latest podcast he further breaks down the immigration trends in American history. Let's look at what he said.
The episode reacts directly to the Supreme Court’s June 30, 2026 decision striking down President Trump’s executive order that sought to limit birthright citizenship. Shapiro calls the 6-3 ruling a “legal abomination” on constitutional grounds but refuses to treat it as the end of the story. Instead, he walks through the long arc of U.S. immigration policy to show that America has successfully adjusted course before — and can do so again.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that removes long-standing limits on how much national political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates. The decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (No. 24-621) strikes down provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that had capped “coordinated party expenditures.”
How this classic cartoon fits the story (credit: J. Keppler, Puck Magazine — historical/public domain political illustration): The image above is a Gilded Age political cartoon showing wealthy monopolies and big business interests literally overwhelming the U.S. Senate. It perfectly captures the long-running fear that unlimited money from powerful donors can distort democracy and turn elected officials into conduits for special interests. The current U.S. Supreme Court ruling loosens coordinated spending rules between parties and candidates—critics argue this could amplify similar dynamics in 2026 by making it easier for large donors to route influence through party committees, while supporters see it as restoring parties' free speech rights against overly restrictive rules.
On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major decision in Trump v. Barbara. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld broad birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and struck down President Trump’s Executive Order 14160.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. The order, signed on Trump’s first day of his second term, never took effect due to lower court blocks. This ruling reaffirms long-standing precedent like United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) while reigniting debates on immigration, citizenship, and executive power.
Quick Breakdown of the Ruling
Vote: 6-3 (Roberts joined by liberals and Justice Barrett; dissents from Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito).
Key Holding: Children born on U.S. soil to parents unlawfully present or on temporary visas are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and qualify as citizens at birth.
Notable Points: Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but left room for Congress to act legislatively. Dissents argued the majority misreads history and creates incentives for illegal immigration.
Trump’s Response: Acknowledged the loss but called on Congress to pass legislation ending the practice.
Tim Pool came in hot on the Supreme Court’s latest move, calling it a serious blow to election integrity on his Timcast IRL podcast last night.
I watched it, leaned in on his points, and did the homework (with the assistance of A.I.). Here’s the ruling, Tim’s main claims, and a clear-eyed fact check.
The Supreme Court issued its decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee (No. 24-1260) on June 29, 2026. In a 5-4 ruling authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson), the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that federal election-day statutes do not preempt state laws allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted a few days later.
Mississippi’s law (ballots received up to five business days after Election Day) survives. Similar grace periods in roughly a dozen other states, including California’s seven-day window, are now clearly on solid legal ground.
U.S. Supreme Court Source: Georgia Public Broadcasting / public domain news photo
[VIDEO] Yesterday the Supreme Court finally did the unthinkable and overturned Roe v. Wade and it sparked protests and the various meltdowns seen on "progressive" cable news and of course the protestors in the streets. I just wonder how much civil unrest there will be over this. I get the feeling that people really aren't as passionate about this issue as the pro-abortion folks want people to be.
[VIDEO] Today's big news Roe V. Wade is done for. Now we get to see the "progressives" of the United States go crazy over the right to an abortion. There was a leak at the Supreme Court which lets us know what the results would be. There were protests at the homes of Supreme Court Justices which are said to be illegal and yet it seems to be a low priority of this administration.
And now we will hear that women will be forced to give birth which I just think is an over the top talking point and yet there is a medical student who thinks we shouldn't associate pregnancy with women. 😕
Anyway, the Illinois response - Gov. Pritzker wants a special session of the Illinois General Assembly to consider the issue. Illinois is often portrayed as a state friendly towards abortion rights. The Governor himself has asserted his support over abortion rights.
It's very interesting to see how foreign media views our own political/social issues in this case we're looking at Australian media.
[VIDEO] I'm thinking in his statement since the Roe v. Wade leak last week how right SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas is. That one side can't live with an outcome they don't like and as a result the pro-choice side wants to threaten the highest court in the nation to not overturn Roe v. Wade.
Beyond that as discussed in the above Newsmax clip by a former SCOTUS clerk it's against federal law to threaten a Supreme Court Justice. You see how polarizing this issue gets!
[VIDEO] The unthinkable could happen and this is occuring tonite near the SCOTUS building in Washington, DC. There are reports that the court could overturn Roe v. Wade. Abortion rights is one of the single most polarizing issue in this country. You either want to protect the unborn or you want to protect a woman's right to choose. There's hardly much in between between both.
Of course best case scenario if any ruling is coming down on this is that the abortion issue will be left to the states. The states will decide how to handle this issue, perhaps that is best as many mostly conservative states have enacted their own anti-abortion laws which largely don't make them illegal, however, you might hear things about heartbeats or abortions are illegal after a certain point in a pregnancy.
What I find dismaying is that let's partial birth abortions or late term abortions those are controversial to some people. It seems polarizing that we might have laws anywhere to address even that.
[VIDEO] Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asks President Biden's SCOTUS Justice nominee Kentanji Brown Jackson for the definition of a woman. The judge's retort was to state "I'm not a biologist".
The state of politics today that we avoid answering a basic question such as this seems a bit silly. However, this is where we are as a supreme court confirmation hearing of all places.
[VIDEO] To that statement I wholeheartedly agree from Newsmax's Tom Basile who addresses the idea of V.P. Kamala Harris going to the Supreme Court of the United States and resigning her role as Vice President of the United States. I think that her no longer being a heartbeat away from the presidency would be a plus. Regardless she does check off the box of being a Black woman and yes she does have experience as a prosecutor, state attorney general and even a former U.S. Senator.
[VIDEO] Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer who's been on the Supreme Court of the United States since 1994 announced this week that he's retiring. And Bra.....Joe Biden as President has promised to appoint the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. I get the feeling that with some of the legislative defeats he's been getting this gambit isn't going to work, however, we'll have to see about. Here's what Ben Shapiro has to say.
[VIDEO] This is related to the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization. You can read up a bit more about this over at the SCOTUS blog:
It has been nearly 30 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion that the court first recognized in Roe v. Wade. Only one justice who participated in Casey is still on the court now: Clarence Thomas, who joined a dissent in Casey arguing that “Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled.” After nearly two hours of oral argument on Wednesday in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Thomas and the other members of the court’s six-justice conservative majority seemed poised to uphold a Mississippi law that bans almost all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. That decision would further curtail the right to abortion and undermine a key component of Roe and Casey. But the justices were once again deeply divided over whether to formally overturn those precedents.
Enacted by the Mississippi legislature in 2018, the law – known as the Gestational Age Act – has never gone into effect. Both a federal district court and the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit blocked the law, explaining that Roe and Casey bar states from banning abortions before fetal viability – the point around 24 weeks of pregnancy when the fetus can survive outside the womb. Mississippi asked the justices to weigh in and, after the court agreed to take up the case, the state began urging the court to overturn those landmark decisions.
Arguing for the state on Wednesday, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart told the justices that Roe and Casey “haunt our country,” have “poisoned the law,” and have “choked off compromise.” “Abortion is a hard issue,” he said, and it is a question that should be left up to the people to decide.
Meanwhile you can check out the almost 30 minute discussion on Tim Pool's recent IRL podcast discussing this pending US Supreme Court case.
[VIDEO] Well this last ditch hail mary filed by the Texas Attorney General that I've written about on this blog has went up in smoke. The Supreme Court of the U.S. has decided not to take this case and it's not on the merits basically it's on standing. If you want to know more read this piece by the Volokh Conspiracy.
Texas basically has no standing to seek relief of the actions taken by Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as far as their selection of presidential electors and the Volokh Conspiracy even admitted that Attorney General Paxton has some weak arguments.
Well in my mind, I just decided that was the ballgame. What else could be done at this point, though according to the above 40 minute video from Newsmax there are other cases pending in those same states. It's still not over, but as I've been saying the clock is beginning to tick.
Electors are expected to vote formally on December 14th - hey my birthday. And then the US Congress will ultimately certify the results of the electoral college on January 6, 2021. Much weirder things could happen such as faithless electors, a Congressional dispute over the election or even more a longshot perhaps another court ruling.
I think Trump's best bet in reversing the results is somehow getting the US House of Representatives involved and getting a contingent election. Of course that will only happen if somehow Biden fails to win those 270 electoral votes he needs to clinch the presidency. If TX vs. PA had went forward that was likely a possibility as a result.
Either way what I'm seeing on Twitter or Instapundit comments tonight is a tad disheartening. People are talking about taking up arms, and people are talking about the death of the American Republic. Whether or not Trump wins or loses if we don't want the vision of the "progressive liberal" Democrat Party we should do what any American should do and that's continue to fight.
We don't want socialism or defunding the police or just general lawlessness because authorities won't uphold the US Constitution we must continue to fight. Fighting means many things I know, however, if you want to run for office get started. If you want to start a campaign of civil disobedience get started. And if you want to use the tools of the internet - and depending upon your platform that can be an uphill battle especially talking about social media - get started and be that voice in the wilderness.
As I've said, I don't relish a Biden/Harris administration. If it comes to pass four years will be here before we know it!
In the substance of the Brief, first there are the procedural arguments:
PA argues that SCOTUS should not exercise its discretion to accept “original jurisdiction” because core interests of Texas are not at issue, unlike a border or waterway dispute. Rather, the argument goes, Texas is seeking to protect the asserted rights of its citizens, and if SCOTUS expands its jurisdiction in that way, it will open the floodgates to making the rare exercise of SCOTUS original jurisdiction into a trial court for disputes between citizens of states, rather than states themselves.
Next, PA argues that Texas has no standing, because it has suffered no injury in fact; the way in which other states interpret their own laws and own constitutions is not a protected Texas interest. The personal interests of Texas citizens cannot be sued upon by the State of Texas.
PA - Pennsylvania is one of those states cited in the original brief that Texas had filed for the S.C.O.T.U.S. Either they reject this lawsuit and there's hardly anything else to be done at this point and likely Biden will definitely be sworn in as President in January. Or we might have ourselves another Bush v. Gore from 2000. Time will tell.
[VIDEO] Talking about what happened with Texas suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan over the alleged voter fraud. BTW, 17 other states also joined this lawsuit. Whether or not this case goes to the Supreme Court of the U.S. is another question.
What's entirely logical in this is that S.C.O.T.U.S. wouldn't want to be the body to get involved in a presidential election just as that same body had in 2000. I wouldn't blame them on that.
Something interesting I found out in this Liberal Hivemind video and to share the tweet.
[VIDEO] And I'm not just talking about WWE Raw, the confirmation and swearing in of a new Supreme Court Justice, Any Coney Barrett. She went through contentious US Senate Judicial Committee hearing and she got confirmed by the US Senate. Then later sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas. Congrats to newly minted Supreme Court Justice Barrett.
If you did a better job of following this than I did tonite, you might have seen this snippet on C-Span Monday nite.
[VIDEO] You know I can possibly agree that President Trump shouldn't appoint a new justice until after the election, what I think is sad in this situation is how the left isn't really allow the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to rest. They're cursing her for dying while Trump is still President.
Why is everything so political? Why did it have to go there? She dies and people are upset about it.
And it could also be argued President Trump may not have to adhere to Justice Ginsberg's final wish as far as who her replacement will be or when they will be considered. Besides the President whether Trump and hopefully not Biden will make the appointment. They will consider who they want on the bench - well I don't know about Biden he may appoint what the rabid left wants on the bench.
Either way a sad state of affairs in America right now...
BTW, one example of a reaction to Justice Ginsburg's death. Perhaps it's not legit but is it a shame that's it's believable?
ALSO, another thing of note in this monologue by Tucker Carlson. A man killed himself because the mob was successful in forcing a prosecutor in Omaha, Nebraska - of all places - to charge a man who was forced to defend himself with manslaughter. Just remember what happened in St. Louis, Missouri over the course of this past summer a couple was being targeted by authorities because they went outside of their property with their firearms against those who were fighting against racism in America while trespassing...
Strangely enough this was a bit unexpected, although it's known that she was sick for quite a while. She expected to remain a sitting justice on the nation's highest court for sometime. Now we know there will be a fight over who will replace her on the Supreme Court of the U.S.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.
The court, in a statement, said Ginsburg died at her home in Washington, D.C., surrounded by family. She was 87.
"Our nation has lost a justice of historic stature," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her, a tireless and resolute champion of justice."
Architect of the legal fight for women's rights in the 1970s, Ginsburg subsequently served 27 years on the nation's highest court, becoming its most prominent member. Her death will inevitably set in motion what promises to be a nasty and tumultuous political battle over who will succeed her, and it thrusts the Supreme Court vacancy into the spotlight of the presidential campaign.
[VIDEO] Before I go to bed tonight, here's a video of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas who in 1998 spoke to the National Bar Association in Memphis, Tennessee. I found the whole text of his speech and this is what you will see in the video above:
I have come here today not in anger or to anger, though my mere presence has been sufficient, obviously, to anger some. Nor have I come to defend my views, but rather to assert my right to think for myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I’m black. I come to state that I’m a man, free to think for myself and do as I please. I’ve come to assert that I am a judge and I will not be consigned the unquestioned opinions of others.
I've learned of this speech through FOX News' Laura Ingraham on her program tonite. And this is the only video I have found of this provided by the AP. The video she had came from C-Span.
I you click the link within the brackets you will start at the point where Justice Thomas begins to speak and basically that paragraph quoted above. Before that we see the Justice shaking hands with attendees and we see one speaker an Illinois trial judge Shelvin Hall speak of denouncing anyone who "denigrates the aims of the civil rights movement".
I also see from the description to this AP video that Justice Thomas wasn't welcome. This organization didn't want him there. There was an expected walkout and none materialized. Of course Thomas has been over the years suffered attacks as a Black conservative on the nation's highest court.
I just felt as if it was necessary to share this with you. The message from his speech that is a big takeaway for me is always think for yourself. Don't force yourself to conform to the ideas of a group.
