BREAKING: Supreme Court Hands Down Ruling In MS-13 Deportation Case
The Supreme Court intervened on Monday evening to block what the Trump administration labeled an unprecedented judicial power grab by temporarily halting a federal judge’s order demanding that the government return deported MS-13 gang member Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from a high-security prison in El Salvador. Chief Justice John Roberts granted an emergency administrative stay, providing the administration with additional time to contest the lower court’s ruling, which required that the Salvadoran national with verified gang ties be brought back to the United States by midnight Monday, according to Axios.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the administration’s lead legal representative, filed the appeal early Monday, contending that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had exceeded her authority and interfered with the president’s power to manage foreign policy and national security. At the heart of the legal dispute is Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native who was previously deported by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to the Department of Justice, he is “a verified member of MS-13,” citing an immigration judge’s determination that a “past, proven, and reliable source of information” confirmed his gang affiliation.
Although Abrego Garcia was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador in 2019, the Trump administration argued that this relief was nullified after MS-13 was designated as a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year. Sauer stressed that “members of MS-13 are no longer eligible for withholding of removal.” The emergency application submitted to the Supreme Court by Sauer described the lower court’s injunction as “remarkable,” saying the ruling “requires the United States to persuade El Salvador to release Abrego Garcia—a native of El Salvador detained in El Salvador—on a judicially mandated clock.”
“The Constitution charges the President, not federal district courts, with the conduct of foreign diplomacy and protecting the Nation against foreign terrorists,” Sauer wrote. “This order sets the United States up for failure.” She further argued that the U.S. government “does not control the sovereign nation of El Salvador, nor can it compel El Salvador to follow a federal judge’s bidding.”
The underlying order from Xinis directed the Trump administration to “facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025.” But the administration blasted the ruling as an unconstitutional overreach into foreign policy, noting that “district courts would effectively have extraterritorial jurisdiction over the United States’ diplomatic relations with the whole world” if this precedent were allowed to stand.
SEE MORE
Obama Angers Everyone With Horrendous Move Against Trump
Former President Barack Obama slammed major law firms for bowing to the Trump administration to safeguard their careers and bankroll their lavish lifestyles.
Speaking at a private fundraiser in New Jersey on Friday, Obama voiced frustration that some of the nation’s top legal institutions had “set aside the law” in response to President Donald Trump’s actions, Business Insider reported.
Obama said some lawyers were giving way to Trump not because they were “going to be thrown in jail, but because they might lose a few clients and might not be able to finish that kitchen rehab at their Hampton house
“I’m not impressed,” Obama added, per MSNBC.
Obama’s connections to Big Law date back to his time at Harvard Law School, where he spent a summer as an associate at Sidley & Austin after his first year.
Before launching his political career, he practiced civil rights law at the Chicago-based litigation firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, Business Insider noted.
Since February, Trump has signed executive orders targeting major law firms such as Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling. The orders accused these firms of weaponizing the judicial system, revoked their security clearances, and triggered reviews of their government contracts.
Some firms, including Paul Weiss and Kirkland & Ellis, opted to cooperate, agreeing to provide pro bono legal work for conservative causes. Others, like Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, pushed back and filed lawsuits challenging the administration’s actions, the outlet said.
In his remarks, Obama criticized universities that opted to strike compromises with the Trump administration.
Obama’s alma mater, Columbia University, ultimately yielded to the Trump administration’s demands after facing a $400 million cut in federal funding. The administration said the funding was slashed due to the university’s failure to address anti-Semitism amid campus protests over Israel’s war in Gaza.
“If your core mission, if your core value is to teach, you may teach without compromising values of academic independence. Yeah, you may lose some grant money temporarily. That’s why you have those big endowments,” Obama said last week.
Meanwhile, Obama has continued his criticism of President Trump and his administration.
Speaking at The Connecticut Forum on June 17, Obama warned that the United States was on the brink of sliding into autocracy under Trump. “We’re not there yet completely, but I think that we are dangerously close to normalizing behavior like that,” Obama claimed.
Former President Joe Biden, meanwhile, is defending his decision to use an autopen for signing his final pardons, explaining the administration’s rationale for employing the device in a recently published interview.
The conversation with The New York Times focused specifically on his use of the autopen to execute the last round of clemency measures at the close of his term. In those final weeks, Biden granted pardons and clemency to over 1,500 individuals, what the White House described at the time as the largest single-day act of clemency by any U.S. president.
In his interview, Biden told the Times he “made every decision” on his own. “We’re talking about [granting clemency to] a whole lot of people,” Biden told the paper.
But that said, the Times reported that the then-president “did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people,” according to Biden himself and his aides.
“Rather, after extensive discussion of different possible criteria, [Biden] signed off on the standards he wanted to be used to determine which convicts would qualify for a reduction in sentence,” the Times’s report said.
Instead of repeatedly requesting that the president sign updated versions of official documents, his staff employed an autopen to affix Biden’s signature to the final drafts.
His explanation came amid Republican criticism of his extensive use of the autopen on a large volume of formal paperwork.
Cut It! Get Him Off My Set!” — Whoopi Goldberg’s Meltdown Can’t Stop Tyrus From Torching ‘The View’ On Live TV Whoopi screamed, but Tyrus didn’t back down. “YOU DON’T GET TO SILENCE ME — I’M NOT PART OF YOUR SCRIPTED CIRCUS!” he fired back, eyes locked on the stunned panel. Joy tried to mock him. Mistake. “FAKE LAUGHS WON’T HIDE YOUR LIES. I’M HERE TO BURN THE MASK OFF!” Before walking off, he left one final blow: “YOU WANTED A CLOWN — YOU GOT A TRUTH BOMB. DEAL WITH IT.” And with that, the studio fell silent. Social media? Exploded

What was supposed to be a typical day on The View spiraled into an unprecedented meltdown that’s now the talk of the entire media world. Conservative commentator Tyrus, known for his unapologetically blunt views, was invited onto the show for a discussion on generational politics and the current state of media and free speech. What happened next wasn’t just a fiery debate—it was an explosive showdown that shook the studio and sent shockwaves through the public.
From the moment Tyrus took his seat on the set, the tension was palpable. The typical pleasantries of The View hosts—Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin, and Ana Navarro—felt forced. The usual relaxed atmosphere of daytime television had given way to something much darker, and it wasn’t long before the conflict escalated from disagreement to all-out verbal warfare.
The First Shot: Sunny Hostin’s Accusation
The segment began innocently enough, with Tyrus and the hosts discussing voter trends and media manipulation. But things quickly took a sharp turn. Sunny Hostin, a former federal prosecutor known for her fiery, no-nonsense approach, was the first to take aim at Tyrus. “You’re using performative outrage dressed as truth,” she fired back at him, calling into question the validity of his arguments and his credibility.
The words hung in the air, and Tyrus didn’t flinch. Instead, he leaned forward, his voice growing deeper and more menacing. “You people don’t debate,” he shot back, his eyes scanning the faces of the co-hosts. “You ambush.”
What followed wasn’t just a disagreement over politics—it was a clash of ideologies. Tyrus accused the panel of creating an echo chamber, using “wokeness” as a shield to silence any opinion that didn’t fit their worldview. He boldly claimed that the hosts weren’t interested in dialogue—they were simply out to “enforce ideological conformity.”
Joy Behar’s Scorn: The Breaking Point
Tensions boiled over when Joy Behar, never one to back down from a confrontation, scoffed at Tyrus’s remarks. “You’re not here for a conversation,” she sneered. “You’re here to perform for your base. You’re a walking Fox News meme, and frankly, we’re tired of it.”
In that moment, the studio went silent. The audience gasped, and a thick tension settled in the air. It was clear that this wasn’t just a heated debate anymore—it was personal. Tyrus, visibly enraged, leaned in further, his gaze fixed on Behar. “You don’t want diversity of opinion,” he thundered. “You want obedience. And when you don’t get it, you call it hate.”
The verbal shots kept coming, and the discussion devolved into a shouting match. Ana Navarro, who had stayed mostly quiet up until this point, entered the fray with a sharp jab of her own. “You’re not brave,” she said coldly, her tone dripping with disdain. “You’re just a bully with a thesaurus who thinks shouting equals insight.”
The insult hit its mark. Tyrus, unable to contain his fury, shoved his chair back violently. The screech of metal against the floor echoed in the studio. He rose to his feet, towering over the panel, his presence dominating the room. “You invited me here to be a punching bag,” he bellowed, his voice booming across the set. “I came to speak truth, not take lectures from champagne liberals pretending to be oppressed.”
Whoopi Goldberg’s Command: The Moment It All Went Too Far
As the situation spiraled out of control, Whoopi Goldberg, usually the calm moderator, had no choice but to step in. Sources reported that she was visibly frustrated and shifted from moderator to enforcer, signaling off-camera for the segment to end. “Cut it,” she ordered firmly. But when the cameras kept rolling, her patience ran thin. “I said CUT IT. Get him off my set!”
Despite her command, Tyrus wasn’t finished. In a final act of defiance, he ripped the microphone off his shirt and tossed it onto the table. “Enjoy your echo chamber,” he sneered. “I’m done performing for people who don’t listen.”
With that, Tyrus stormed off the stage, leaving the stunned hosts and the live audience in shocked silence. What was supposed to be a spirited political debate had turned into a full-blown media spectacle.
Backstage Chaos and Public Backlash
Behind the scenes, the fallout was just as intense. Sources claim that Navarro was furious, shouting that the segment had devolved into a “clown show.” Hostin, allegedly shaken by the altercation, was seen in tears. Meanwhile, Tyrus wasted no time in taking to social media to frame the narrative in his favor, arguing that the hosts had “wanted fireworks,” and he had simply given them a reality check.
The confrontation quickly went viral, with clips flooding YouTube, Rumble, and other platforms, racking up millions of views in a matter of hours. Conservative influencers, in particular, seized on the moment, calling it a “victory for truth” and “a smackdown of leftist hypocrisy.” Headlines on social media read, “Joy Behar Finally Gets Sued — And It’s GLORIOUS” and “Leavitt Levels The View in Cold, Calculated Mic Drop.”
The divide was clear: to some, Tyrus was a hero, standing up against an ideological echo chamber; to others, he was simply a man pushing rage and divisiveness. But for many viewers, this was more than just a TV moment. It was a reflection of the deep polarization that has come to define modern-day politics.
Was It a Breakdown or a Setup?
The larger question on everyone’s mind: Was this an authentic, unscripted implosion, or was it a cleverly engineered piece of television?
Some insiders hinted that Tyrus had been strategically booked as “bait,” brought onto The View to create the exact spectacle that unfolded. One anonymous staffer speculated that the producers, fully aware of Tyrus’s tendency to stir controversy, were hoping for a viral moment that would boost ratings. If that was the goal, they certainly succeeded.
However, critics argue that the incident crossed a line. The View has always prided itself on its fierce debates, but the moment with Tyrus was more than just a clash of ideas—it was a personal, aggressive attack. The hosts weren’t merely challenging his views; they were attacking him as a person.
The Political Fallout: A New Media War?
The aftermath has sparked fierce political reactions. Senator Josh Hawley took to Twitter to express his support for Tyrus, calling it a “defining moment for media accountability.” Representative Elise Stefanik also chimed in, calling the incident a “victory for conservative voices” and a “moment for media reform.”
In the wake of the confrontation, Tyrus has become something of a rallying figure for young conservatives, and his political clout is now stronger than ever. Fox News and other right-wing outlets have reportedly reached out for exclusive interviews, further elevating his platform.
But the impact on The View could be far-reaching. For a show that has spent decades building its brand on strong, opinionated voices, this incident has forced many to question whether it has gone too far in pushing boundaries. Will the show face backlash for its role in provoking the confrontation, or will it continue to thrive on controversy?
The Future of Debate on TV: Confrontation or Conversation?
The question now is what this means for future debates on television. In an era of heightened polarization, is there a place for respectful, civil dialogue on shows like The View? Or have we entered an age where clash and chaos reign supreme?
The incident has exposed a much broader issue within American media: the unrelenting hunger for ratings, and the lengths networks will go to in order to capture attention. Tyrus’s clash with the hosts of The View was undeniably gripping television, but it raises the uncomfortable question: are we losing the ability to engage in meaningful, respectful discourse?
As Tyrus walks off the stage and the aftermath continues to unfold, the media world is left to pick up the pieces. Was this a breakdown of civility, or the start of a new era in televised debates? Whatever happens next, one thing is clear—this explosive confrontation will be remembered for years to come as a turning point in how we consume news.
Tyrus may have left the stage in anger, but the firestorm he ignited will burn for much longer.