Feed aggregator

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a striking and sharply worded dismissal of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in a major case on birthright citizenship, surprising many who closely follow the court’s inner dynamics. In the ruling, which curtailed the ability of lower courts to issue sweeping injunctions, Barrett offered a blunt critique of Jackson’s reasoning.

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote, forcefully rejecting the basis of Jackson’s stance. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion in the decision seen as a significant win for President Trump, limited the authority of federal district courts to halt presidential actions with universal injunctions—a judicial practice that has become increasingly common in recent years.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the primary dissenting opinion on behalf of the liberal justices, joined by Jackson. However, Jackson also issued her own dissent, expanding on the concerns she felt were being overlooked by the court’s conservative majority.

Jackson’s separate opinion focused less on statutory interpretation and more on what she described as dangerous consequences of the ruling. “It is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” she warned in stark language.

Elsewhere, Jackson argued that the case wasn’t just about technicalities but raised core questions about checks and balances: “Quite unlike a rule-of-kings governing system, in a rule of law regime, nearly ‘[e]very act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law,’” she wrote. “At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”

She further dismissed legal debates surrounding the Judiciary Act of 1789 as obfuscating the essential issue. “Legalese” is how she referred to it, adding that it “obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?”

Barrett responded with a tone that verged on sarcastic: “Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese,’ [Jackson] seeks to answer ‘a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?’”

She continued: “In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too.”

Though Barrett acknowledged that Sotomayor stayed within the boundaries of traditional legal reasoning, she had far less patience for Jackson’s approach. “While Justice Sotomayor focuses her dissent on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,” Barrett noted, Jackson veered off in a completely different direction. Barrett described her colleague’s argument as “a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.”

Barrett was especially critical of Jackson’s dismissal of legal limitations on judicial power. “Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query’ … she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,” she wrote.

Adding to the tension, Jackson did not close her opinion with the customary “I dissent” or “Respectfully, I dissent,” an omission that court observers interpreted as a sign of deep discontent.

“It’s not something that we see every day,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird said in an interview with The Post, referring to Barrett’s unusually direct criticism. Bird noted, however, that Barrett’s comments remained focused on legal arguments rather than descending into personal attacks.

Reactions on social media were swift and intense. “Holy …, this is about as brutal as I’ve ever seen SCOTUS be on one of their own,” attorney Kostas Moros posted on X, quoting Barrett’s “imperial Judiciary” line. “Translated: ‘you are so stupid that you aren’t even worth responding to.’”

Others suggested Barrett’s harsh tone might reflect growing frustration within the court. “The FACT that six Justices were OK with signing onto an opinion where Justice Barrett took a personal shot at Justice Jackson is a VERY STRONG indication that Jackson has alienated her colleagues and there is a growing lack of respect for her work,” wrote X user Shipwreckedcrew, who identifies as a former federal prosecutor.

He added that Jackson’s dissent likely followed heated exchanges behind the scenes. “Justices circulate Memos among with their legal views on certain cases in order to bring others around to their thinking. Given what she has written in her dissent, imagine the memos that Jackson must have sent around in this case.”

The legal backdrop to the dispute involved three lower courts that had blocked President Trump’s January 20 executive order, which aimed to redefine birthright citizenship. Those courts determined the order likely violated constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil.

The Supreme Court’s decision did not take a position on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order itself. Instead, it focused solely on the scope of judicial authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

{Matzav.com}

President Trump on Friday urged Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to be honest about his country’s defeat, stating that he was thoroughly overpowered by both the United States and Israel. He also issued a stern warning that if Iran resumes uranium enrichment at troubling levels, American forces would respond with further military action.
“I said, ‘Look, you’re a man of great faith, a man who is highly respected in his country, you have to tell the truth. You got beat to h—,’” Trump told reporters, ridiculing the supreme leader’s assertion of victory in the recent confrontation.

Trump, speaking during an unusual visit to the White House press briefing room, emphasized that Iran’s leadership had far more pressing concerns at the moment than nuclear ambitions.
“The last thing they’re thinking about is nuclear weapons right now,” the president added.

When asked whether he would authorize another strike against Iran if the nuclear threat escalated again, Trump responded with complete certainty, leaving no room for ambiguity.
He said he would “without question, absolutely” consider bombing Iran again if it enriches uranium to an extent that concerns him.

Khamenei, however, had insisted in a Thursday statement that Iran had emerged “victorious” from the twelve-day conflict, even though Israeli forces had seized aerial dominance and American bombers had devastated three of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“The Islamic Republic was victorious and, in retaliation, delivered a hand slap to America’s face,” Khamenei claimed on X, referring to a symbolic launch of 14 rockets at a US base in Qatar Monday.

All of the missiles were intercepted, thanks in part to early warning from Tehran. A cease-fire deal was reached just a few hours after the launch.

{Matzav.com}

In a forceful statement issued today, Israeli Defense Minister Yisroel Katz declared that Israel’s recent military campaign, Operation Am KeLavi, was merely a prelude to a new Israeli security doctrine in the wake of October 7 — and warned the Iranian regime that its perceived immunity is over.

Katz’s message, delivered in a post summarizing the achievements of the 12-day operation, praised the success of the campaign and expressed gratitude for Divine assistance. “We concluded Operation Am KeLavi after 12 days of brilliant action that will be remembered as a glorious chapter in the history of Israel — and in the annals of modern warfare,” Katz wrote.

The defense minister didn’t hold back in his assessment of the regime in Tehran, referring to its leadership as “the toothless serpent’s head in Tehran,” and cautioning that they would do well to understand the implications of this campaign. “Operation Am KeLavi was only the promo for a new Israeli policy. Since October 7, immunity is over,” he warned.

Listing what he called the operation’s strategic accomplishments, Katz outlined the following:

• Israeli Air Force penetrated Tehran’s airspace and eliminated air defense systems.

• The nuclear infrastructure of Iran was dismantled — with thanks to Israel’s American allies for their critical support.

• Missile production systems were destroyed and launch platforms were heavily damaged.

• Senior security officials and top nuclear scientists were eliminated.

• Iran’s decades-long plan to destroy Israel, orchestrated by Khamenei and his proxies, was “shattered.”

• In the framework of “Tornado Program,” key government institutions and regime oppression mechanisms in central Tehran were struck, prompting the evacuation of millions of residents.

Katz also emphasized the Israeli home front’s role in enabling the operation. “The Israeli public showed courage, allowing the IDF to carry out its mission with full force in Iran. Together with the Prime Minister and the IDF, we forged a united iron fist that struck the enemy with lethal force.”

Looking ahead, Katz revealed that he has instructed the IDF to draft an enforcement strategy to address ongoing threats from Iran. This includes maintaining Israeli air superiority, preventing the advancement of nuclear and missile programs, and responding to Iranian-backed terror against Israel. “We will act consistently to thwart threats of this nature,” he wrote.

In closing, Katz delivered an unambiguous threat to Iran’s leadership: “I suggest the toothless serpent’s head in Tehran take heed: Operation Am KeLavi was only the promo for a new Israeli strategy. After October 7, there is no more immunity.”

{Matzav.com}

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yisroel Katz sharply criticized Haaretz for what they called a “blood libel,” responding to a report that claimed IDF soldiers had been instructed to shoot at civilians trying to obtain humanitarian aid.

“These are vicious lies designed to discredit the IDF — the most moral army in the world,” the two declared in a joint statement, rejecting the allegations outright.

Despite the strongly worded condemnation, the IDF has acknowledged that it has launched a senior-level internal investigation into the claims outlined in the article.

“The IDF operates under difficult conditions against a terrorist enemy that operates from within the civilian population… and operates an entire industry of lies to undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel,” the statement continued, defending the army’s conduct in complex combat situations.

“IDF soldiers receive clear orders to avoid harming innocent civilians, and they act accordingly,” the two leaders insisted, emphasizing the ethical standards of the Israeli military.

“Israel calls on all free democratic countries to stand by it in its just and moral struggle against the murderous terrorist organization Hamas,” they concluded, appealing to the international community for support.

{Matzav.com}

Iranian authorities have detained over 700 individuals since the launch of Operation Rising Lion, citing alleged connections to Israel, according to a report released Thursday night by Association Femme Azadi, a women’s rights group made up of Iranian exiles.

“Reports confirm the arrest of rabbis and religious leaders in Tehran and Shiraz, accused, without evidence, of ties to Israel,” the organization posted on its social media platforms.

KAN News, Israel’s public broadcaster, stated that six more people have been put to death in Iran over accusations of working with Mossad.

KAN also noted that, so far in 2025, a total of nine people have been executed in Iran on charges of spying.

In a separate development, members of Tehran’s Jewish population gathered earlier Thursday to publicly align themselves with the Islamic Republic, applauding what they described as the military’s “decisive response” to Israeli strikes, KAN reported.

Those present at the gathering included Jewish soldiers currently enlisted in the Iranian military, who were seen wearing both yarmulkas and standard-issue uniforms, according to KAN.

Dr. Homayoun Sameyah Najafabadi, the lone Jewish member of Iran’s Islamic Consultative Assembly, told attendees that several Jewish institutions suffered physical damage during the Israeli air raids, KAN reported.

{Matzav.com}

A Republican plan to expand private school vouchers nationwide was dealt a major setback Friday when the Senate parliamentarian said the proposal would run afoul of procedural rules. The years-in-the-making plan would have created a federal tax credit supporting scholarships to help families send their children to private schools or other options beyond their local public schools. But in an overnight announcement, the Senate parliamentarian advised against including the proposal in President Donald Trump’s tax cut and spending bill. The school voucher provision was seen as a breakthrough victory for proponents who have been pushing the idea for years. A similar plan failed to gain support from Congress in 2019 when it was championed by Betsy DeVos, the education secretary during Trump’s first term. Campaigning for his second term, Trump again promised to deliver some form of “universal school choice.” Under the reconciliation plan, donors who gave money or stock to K-12 scholarship programs would receive 100% of the contribution back in the form of a discount on their tax bills. It would allow stock holders to avoid paying taxes they would usually face if they donated or transferred their stock. Nearly all families would qualify to receive scholarships except those making more than three times their area’s median income. A House version of the bill allowed up to $5 billion in tax credits a year, running through 2029. The Senate version reduced it to $4 billion but included no end date. Supporters said the proposal would expand education options for families across the country, offering alternatives to students in areas with lower-performing public schools. Similar scholarship and voucher programs have proliferated in Republican-led states such as Texas, which recently passed a $1 billion program. States have increasingly offered vouchers to families beyond only the neediest ones, contributing to budget concerns as expenses rapidly pile up. The Senate’s college endowment proposal sought to raise a tax on schools’ investment income, from 1.4% now to 4% or 8% depending on their wealth. It would apply only to colleges with endowments of at least $500,000 per student, and it excluded all religious institutions. (AP)

The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act’s preventive health care coverage requirements on Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans. The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama’s signature law, often referred to as Obamacare. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court’s majority. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate approved. President Donald Trump’s administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor’s law. The Justice Department said board members don’t need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary. Medications and services that could have been affected include statins to lower cholesterol, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for women. The case came before the Supreme Court after an appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can’t be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings. Well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot, argued the case. The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that ruling would still allow full-coverage requirements for some services, including mammography and cervical cancer screening. (AP)

U.S. intelligence agencies have reportedly determined that Pakistan is in the process of building an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of striking the mainland United States.

This revelation is included in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs, nestled within an in-depth piece that examines today’s most pressing nuclear threats worldwide.

Although Islamabad maintains that its nuclear capabilities are aimed exclusively at deterring its longtime rival India, analysts Vipin Narang and Pranay Vaddi argue in the article that Pakistan may also be attempting to dissuade the United States from stepping in on India’s side in any potential future war—or from launching a preemptive operation to dismantle Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile.

Narang and Vaddi, who are recognized authorities on nuclear policy and currently affiliated with MIT, have both served in recent years in official U.S. defense-related roles.

“If Pakistan acquires an ICBM, Washington will have no choice but to treat the country as a nuclear adversary — no other country with ICBMs that can target the United States is considered a friend,” the report said.

Should these findings be verified, it would signal a major shift in the global strategic landscape, marking Pakistan as the first nation beyond Russia, China, and North Korea to possess missiles capable of reaching American soil.

In light of collapsing arms control agreements and the erosion of traditional deterrence norms, the article underscores that this potential development adds to what the authors describe as a “Category 5 hurricane” of nuclear instability that is rapidly reshaping the global nuclear order.

{Matzav.com}

CNN’s Erin Burnett sits down with Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee for mayor of New York.

WATCH:

During his Senate confirmation hearings, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested he wouldn’t undermine vaccines. “I am not going to go into HHS and impose my preordained opinions on anybody at HHS,” he said. “I’m going to empower the scientists at HHS to do their job and make sure that we have good science that is evidence based.” He also said he wouldn’t halt congressionally mandated funding for vaccination programs, nor impose conditions that would force local, state or global entities to limit access to vaccines or vaccine promotion. “I’m not going to substitute my judgment for science,” he said. Yet the Department of Health and Human Services under Kennedy has taken unprecedented steps to change how vaccines are evaluated, approved and recommended — sometimes in ways that run counter to established scientific consensus. Here’s a look at what Kennedy has said and done since becoming the nation’s top health official on Feb. 13. Kennedy and the childhood vaccine schedule Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician who was unsettled about Kennedy’s antivaccine work, said Kennedy pledged to him that he wouldn’t change existing vaccine recommendations. “I recommend that children follow the CDC schedule. And I will support the CDC schedule when I get in there,” Kennedy said at his Senate confirmation hearing. Kennedy also said he thought the polio vaccine was safe and effective and that he wouldn’t seek to reduce its availability. Feb. 18: Kennedy vows to investigate the childhood vaccine schedule that prevents measles, polio and other dangerous diseases. Early March: The National Institutes of Health cancels studies about ways to improve vaccine trust and access. April 9: Kennedy tells CBS News that “people should get the measles vaccine, but the government should not be mandating those,” before then continuing to raise safety concerns about vaccines. May 22: Kennedy issues a report that, among other things, questioned the necessity of mandates that require children to get vaccinated for school admission and suggested that vaccines should undergo more clinical trials, including with placebos. The report has to be reissued later because the initial version cited studies that don’t exist. May 30: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removes COVID-19 vaccination guidance for pregnant women and says healthy children “may” get the shots. June 25: A group of vaccine advisers picked by Kennedy announce they are establishing a work group to evaluate the “cumulative effect” of the children’s vaccine schedule. June 25: Kennedy announces the U.S. will stop supporting the vaccines alliance Gavi. He accuses the group, along with the World Health Organization, of silencing “dissenting views” and “legitimate questions” about vaccine safety. Kennedy on revising CDC vaccine recommendations At the confirmation hearing, Cassidy asked Kennedy: “Do you commit that you will revise any CDC recommendations only based on peer review, consensus based, widely accepted science?” Kennedy replied, “Absolutely,” adding he would rely on evidence-based science. Feb. 20: HHS postpones a meeting of outside vaccine advisers. April 16: The CDC’s vaccine advisory panel meets and recommends that people 50 to 59 with certain risk factors should be able to get vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus, and endorses a new shot that protects against meningococcal bacteria. As of late June, the CDC and HHS haven’t acted on the recommendations. May 27: Kennedy announces that COVID-19 vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women — a move immediately questioned by several public health experts. No one from the CDC, the agency […]

The Supreme Court delivered a major decision on Friday, declaring that federal judges in lower courts likely go beyond their constitutional limits when they issue injunctions that apply across the entire country. The ruling was seen as a significant victory for the Trump administration and marked one of the most anticipated decisions of the term.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court’s conservative majority, stated, “[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.” She added, “When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

The dispute stemmed from the Trump administration’s legal fight against several broad injunctions that blocked the president’s executive order—issued on his first day in office—to rescind birthright citizenship. The justices did not weigh in on the validity of the policy itself in their ruling.

Barrett clarified the court’s position by writing, “The Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted,” adding, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”

Federal judges in lower courts have increasingly issued nationwide injunctions that halt executive actions entirely, rather than limiting relief to the individuals or groups who brought the case. This case challenged that trend head-on.

There has been bipartisan concern over the years about the scope of lower courts’ powers. However, during the hearings, the justices appeared divided on how or whether to set firm boundaries on that authority. Barrett emphasized that such broad injunctions have no foundation in judicial tradition and were not contemplated under the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered a sharp dissent to the majority’s opinion. But it was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s separate dissent that triggered a pointed response from Barrett. “We observe only this,” Barrett wrote. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

{Matzav.com}

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., discusses the success of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iranian regime change and more on ‘Jesse Watters Primetime.’

WATCH:

A key inflation gauge moved higher in May in the latest sign that prices remain stubbornly elevated while Americans also cut back on their spending last month. Prices rose 2.3% in May compared with a year ago, up from just 2.1% in April, the Commerce Department said Friday. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core prices rose 2.7% from a year earlier, an increase from 2.5% the previous month. Both figures are modestly above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. The Fed tracks core inflation because it typically provides a better guide to where inflation is headed. At the same time, Americans cut back on spending for the first time since January, as overall spending fell 0.1%. Incomes dropped a sharp 0.4%. Both figures were distorted by one-time changes: Spending on cars plunged, pulling down overall spending, because Americans had moved more quickly to buy vehicles in the spring to get ahead of tariffs. And incomes dropped after a one-time adjustment to Social Security benefits had boosted payments in March and April. Social Security payments were raised for some retirees who had worked for state and local governments. The inflation figures suggest that President Donald Trump’s broad-based tariffs are still having only a modest effect on prices. The costs of some goods, such as toys and sporting goods, have risen, but those increases have been partly offset by falling prices for new cars, airline fares, and apartment rentals, among other items. On a monthly basis, in fact, inflation was mostly tame. Prices rose just 0.1% in May from April, according to the Commerce Department, the same as the previous month. Core prices climbed 0.2% in May, more than economists expected and above last month’s 0.1%. Economists point to several reasons for why Trump’s tariffs have yet to accelerate inflation, as many analysts expected. Like American consumers, companies imported billions of dollars of goods in the spring before the duties took full affect, and many items currently on store shelves were imported without paying higher levies. There are early indications that that is beginning to change. Nike announced this week that it expects U.S. tariffs will cost the company $1 billion this year. It will institute “surgical” price increases in the fall. It’s not the first retailer to warn of price hikes when students are heading back to school. Walmart said last month that that its customers will start to see higher prices this month and next as back-to-school shopping goes into high gear. Also, much of what the U.S. imports is made up of raw materials and parts that are used to make goods in the U.S. It can take time for those higher input costs to show up in consumer prices. Economists at JPMorgan have argued that many companies are absorbing the cost of the tariffs, for now. Doing so can reduce their profit margins, which could weigh on hiring. Cooling inflation has put more of a spotlight on the Federal Reserve and its chair, Jerome Powell. The Fed ramped up its short-term interest rate in 2022 and 2023 to slow the economy and combat inflation, which jumped to a four-decade high nearly three years ago. With price increases now nearly back to the Fed’s target, some economists — and some Fed officials — say that the central bank […]

Jack Ciattarelli, the Republican candidate for governor in New Jersey, issued a call this week to New York City residents and entrepreneurs, urging them to consider relocating across the Hudson River in light of Zohran Mamdani’s win in the city’s Democratic primary.

“To all the residents and business owners of New York City who don’t want a socialist, defund the police, antisemitic mayor representing them, I encourage you to move to New Jersey,” Ciattarelli declared in a social media post, as Mamdani’s victory appeared inevitable, according to Politico.

He went on to promise significant policy reforms if he wins the governorship this fall. “When I win the governorship in 4+ months, we’re going to transform NJ into a beacon of commonsense, affordability, economic opportunity, and law and order,” he said, describing Mamdani’s win as “proof that the modern Democratic Party has lost its mind.”

Ciattarelli also warned that should Mamdani eventually secure the governor’s seat in New York, the ripple effects could be felt in neighboring states. He pledged to take a firm approach if elected: “Proactive” measures, he said, would be necessary to prevent “the lawlessness and chaos that will ensue” under Mamdani’s leadership.

Highlighting the contrast between his own agenda and that of progressive Democrats, Ciattarelli criticized the policies he associates with the far left. “While NJ Democrats roll over to their extreme far-left base, I will take action to protect New Jersey,” he wrote. He also slammed Mamdani and his allies, saying, “While Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist, and his far-left allies push socialist handouts paid for with massive tax increases on working people, I will overhaul NJ’s tax system – lowering and capping property taxes, reducing income & biz taxes, and making NJ affordable.”

Addressing foreign policy from a state-level perspective, Ciattarelli drew a sharp line on Israel. “As Mamdani and his allies attack Israel and push the BDS [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions] movement, I will expand NJ’s economic collaboration and partnership with Israel’s government and the business community,” he promised.

Others in the GOP also weighed in following Mamdani’s win. Billy Prempeh, a frequent Republican congressional candidate, even joked that Staten Island should break away from New York and join New Jersey instead.

Meanwhile, the Republican Governors Association issued a statement challenging Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Rep. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey. The group questioned her stance on the rise of Democratic Socialists, stating that she “must decide if she is jumping on board with the Democratic Socialist movement. Voters across the tri-state area are begging to know.”

Sherrill responded by distancing herself from Mamdani while still aligning herself with his supporters’ concerns. “Plenty of disagreements with Mr. Mamdani,” she noted, adding that she does share “his voters’ goals of making life more affordable.”

Refocusing attention on her Republican opponent, Sherrill said, “I’m focused on my race and bringing costs down in New Jersey, while Jack Ciattarelli represents politics as usual: a 100% MAGA lackey who has voted to raise taxes at every level of government, and has been running for office since before my kids were born.”

{Matzav.com}

A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship. The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump’s order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “The court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.” This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called “a priceless and profound gift” in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment’s adoption. Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration. The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump’s plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case. As a further fallback, the administration asked “at a minimum” […]

State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City, should not be labeled antisemitic, said former Mayor Bill de Blasio during an appearance on Newsmax. De Blasio defended Mamdani, stating that the assemblyman had clearly spoken out against the atrocities committed on October 7.

“He disagrees with the government of Israel, and you can debate that all you want, but we’ve got to be clear about the facts,” de Blasio emphasized on the program American Agenda.

“Don’t say someone supported Hamas when they didn’t support Hamas. He has condemned those attacks very, very clearly,” he continued, pushing back on claims made against Mamdani in the political discourse.

De Blasio also pointed out that “many Israelis believe there should be, for example, a two-state solution and that Palestinians have rights, too. There’s nothing shocking about that. I think we have to really get clear,” he said.

Insisting that criticism of Israeli policy does not automatically equate to antisemitism, de Blasio asserted, “He’s not an antisemite. I’m really sick of people throwing antisemitism around so lightly. Look, I was mayor of the city with the largest Jewish population on earth. I am a strong supporter of the state of Israel. I believe that Israel is important in this world.”

He added that his opposition to Israel’s current leadership doesn’t diminish his support for the state itself. “I disagree fundamentally with the Netanyahu government. I’m not an antisemite because I disagree with Benjamin Netanyahu. I think the point is, and there are people who are Zionists, I subscribe to that, but there are also people who have real problems with the Israeli government. That doesn’t make them antisemitic.”

{Matzav.com}

Apple has revamped its app store policies in the European Union with hopes of fending off escalating fines under the 27-nation bloc’s digital competition regulations. It’s a last-minute bid by the iPhone maker to avoid further charges following a 500 million euro ($585 million) penalty in April. The bloc’s executive Commission punished Apple for preventing app makers from pointing users to cheaper options outside its App Store, and gave it a 60-day deadline, which expired Thursday, to avoid additional, periodic fines. The changes made by Apple will make it easier for app makers to point users to better deals on digital products and options to pay for them outside of Apple’s own App Store, including other websites, apps or alternative app stores. The California company is also rolling out a two-tier system of fees to accommodate app developers that want to use alternative payments. “The European Commission is requiring Apple to make a series of additional changes to the App Store,” Apple said in a statement. “We disagree with this outcome and plan to appeal.” The commission noted Apple’s announcement and “will now assess these new business terms for DMA compliance,” referring to the EU’s Digital Markets Act. The rulebook was designed to rein in the power of big tech companies under threat of hefty fines worth up to 10% of a company’s global annual revenue. Among the DMA’s provisions are requirements that developers inform customers of cheaper purchasing options, and direct them to those offers. Apple’s restrictions preventing developers from steering users to outside payment channels had been fiercely opposed by some companies. It’s the reason, for example, Spotify removed the in-app payment option to avoid having to pay a commission of up to 30% on digital subscriptions bought through iOS. (AP)

El Al Israel Airlines Ltd. has announced that it is reopening ticket sales for both inbound and outbound flights to Israel. Over the past few days, the airline has been primarily focused on rescheduling trips for passengers whose flights were canceled during the course of the military campaign against Iran. Full flight operations to all regular destinations are set to restart this Sunday, June 29. Sun D’or, El Al’s low-cost subsidiary, will resume flying again on Tuesday, July 1.

El Al is offering a special fixed pricing structure for travelers booking flights that depart before the end of June. These prices will remain in effect until next Tuesday, providing some certainty for passengers planning immediate travel.

The airline confirmed that any customer holding tickets from either El Al or Sun D’or for flights that were canceled amid the Iran operation can now rebook without paying extra. The new flight must originate from the same region as the original. Travelers can process rebookings by contacting El Al’s service center or through the travel agent they originally used.

In another customer-oriented measure, El Al stated that passengers holding tickets for flights leaving before July 15 who no longer want to fly may cancel their bookings and request a travel voucher instead. This must be done at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled departure. “The vouchers are valid for two years and can be issued independently on the company’s website,” the airline noted.

Arkia also confirmed it will resume its Tel Aviv to New York route this week, gradually reinstating its seasonal summer schedule. This week, Arkia will operate two flights on the route using aircraft leased from the Bulgarian airline GullivAir. Passengers with tickets from previously canceled flights during the Iran conflict will be able to use them on the upcoming flights, provided there is availability and their ticket terms allow it. Departures on June 26 and 28 from Israel will include a technical stop in Larnaca for a crew swap, though passengers will remain onboard. A one-way seat from New York to Tel Aviv next week is priced starting at $1,000.

Several international airlines are also beginning to return to Israel. flyDubai resumed flights last night, while both TUS Airlines and Blue Bird are scheduled to restart service today. Cyprus Airways will relaunch its operations tomorrow, and Hainan Airlines from China is expected to resume flights next week. Air Europa is targeting a mid-July return to Tel Aviv.

Tourism wholesalers are gradually reactivating their travel offerings from Ben Gurion Airport as well. Companies such as Flying Carpet and Aviation Links are resuming trips to Mediterranean and Eastern European destinations in early July by chartering planes from European carriers.

Nevertheless, only a limited number of foreign airlines are anticipated to resume flying to Israel in the short term. Transport Minister Miri Regev acknowledged that “this summer, most of the activity at Ben Gurion Airport will be by Israeli airlines.” She noted that many international carriers have already redirected their aircraft to other destinations and are unlikely to return quickly. This will lead to fewer available flights during the high-demand summer travel season, pushing ticket prices higher.

According to pricing data gathered by Globes, ticket costs for one-way flights to Israel in the coming weeks vary considerably. For example, flyDubai is offering seats from Dubai starting at $374. On TUS Airlines, low-cost fares from Larnaca are available until July 1, after which ticket prices rise to $352. Blue Bird lists flights from Athens beginning at $349.

{Matzav.com Israel}

Amid Israel’s ongoing transition back to routine following its recent war with Iran, the legal and political standoff over the chareidi draft issue remains at the forefront of national debate.

Late Thursday night, the Attorney General’s office submitted a formal request to Israel’s Supreme Court for a 16-day extension to respond to a petition demanding clarity on the government’s position regarding the enlistment of yeshiva students.

The request was submitted in light of an earlier Supreme Court directive requiring the state to explain why the IDF is not currently conscripting chareidi youth, despite the absence of a binding legal framework regulating draft deferments for full-time Torah students.

The Attorney General cited Operation Am KeLavi, Israel’s preemptive military campaign against Iran, as the reason for the delay. According to the government, key decision-makers responsible for addressing the draft issue were occupied with immediate national security concerns throughout the operation.

The draft law crisis has intensified in recent weeks, as no updated legislation has been enacted to formally define the status of yeshiva students in the national service structure. Over a month ago, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi instructed the head of the IDF’s Human Resources Directorate, Maj. Gen. Dudu Bar Kalifa, to prepare a comprehensive plan addressing the future of chareidi enlistment.

Lt. Gen. Halevi reportedly called for a plan that would both expand and accelerate the issuance of draft notices to chareidi men, while simultaneously increasing the army’s capacity to integrate and absorb them. Sources say the IDF is preparing to send out over 60,000 draft orders. Any chareidi male of draft age who has not yet turned 26 and does not respond to the notice could face legal consequences, including arrest.

Military officials emphasized at the time: “In light of operational realities and the evolving conflict, the Chief of Staff directed the Human Resources Directorate to urgently present a strategy to widen and maximize draft orders for the chareidi population, along with preparing the army to accommodate them effectively.”

According to reports from officials close to the IDF’s leadership, plans are underway to promote voluntary enlistment among chareidim while simultaneously enforcing compliance. A separate outline for stricter enforcement measures against draft dodgers is also expected to be released soon, aimed at boosting IDF manpower.

{Matzav.com Israel}

British counter terrorism police said Friday that they have arrested four people in connection with a break-in at a military base last week, during which two planes were vandalised. Counter Terrorism Policing South East said in a statement that two men, 24 and 36, from London were arrested Thursday along with a 29-year-old woman of no fixed address “on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.” A 41-year-old woman, of no fixed address, was also arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender. They remain in police custody. The arrests relate to a break-in at the Royal Air Force base in Brize Norton, during which two planes were damaged with red paint. The pro-Palestinian activist group Palestine Action subsequently released video footage appearing to show one of the two activists who entered the base spraying the paint into a jet’s turbine engines. The group alleged that Britain was continuing to “send military cargo, fly spy planes over Gaza and refuel U.S./Israeli fighter jets,” and condemned the country as “an active participant in the Gaza genocide and war crimes across the Middle East.” Earlier this week, the British government said it will ban Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws. The measure means it will be a criminal offense to belong to or support the group, with a maximum of 14 years in prison. The group has sought to press its point with high-profile direct action, perhaps most notably in March when it targeted one of U.S. President Donald Trump’s golf resorts in Scotland, painting “Gaza is Not For Sale” in giant letters on the lawn in response to his proposal to empty the Gaza Strip of its Palestinian population. The government said a draft order for the ban will be laid in Parliament next week. Lawmakers still need to approve it. Britain’s government has proscribed about 80 organizations, including Hamas and al-Qaida, and far-right groups such as National Action. (AP)