NEW YORK (March 21, 2024) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced the filing of an important brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Plaintiff-Appellee Joseph Srour in Srour v. New York City, which challenges New York City’s shotgun and rifle licensing requirements. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.
“There is no historical tradition of requiring a license to possess a firearm,” argues the brief. “The only historical laws requiring a license to possess a firearm applied to persons without recognized rights at the time, namely African Americans and American Indians. These repugnant laws cannot form the historical tradition necessary for the government to satisfy its burden for several reasons.”
“New York City continues the existing trend of authoritarian governments relying on blatantly racist and discriminatory laws in an attempt to justify their modern gun control efforts,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s Vice President and General Counsel, and counsel for FPC. “In reality, there is no historical basis for New York City’s modern requirement that individuals acquire a license merely to possess firearms. As such, its law is blatantly unconstitutional.”
The question is not how the LT did that.
The question is how do you keep the LT from doing that.
Ep. 83 The Biden administration is trying to send an 82-year veteran to prison for life for the crime of repeating ‘Russian misinformation.’ The scariest, most important criminal case you’ve probably never heard of. pic.twitter.com/r9v9RDZt62
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer wants America to know that today’s high court isn’t pragmatic. For good measure, he declares that he is, especially when it comes to interpretating law.
That’s not just conjecture. That’s laid out in the title to his new 250-page book, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism.” It’s a gaslighting of the U.S. Constitution, an attempt to sway opinion that rights protected by the founding document aren’t applicable today, since society and technology have changed since 1791. Justice Breyer argues that the words written don’t mean what the Founders meant because reading them over 200 years later changes the meaning.
The liberal justice retired under pressure from Democrats to ensure President Joe Biden would appoint at least one younger liberal justice to the Supreme Court. In 2022, Justice Breyer was succeeded by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Breyer clerk.
Dueling Jurisprudence
The Washington Post offered a glowing review of Justice Breyer’s book, which rejects the legal doctrines of originalism and textualism that have been the favored approaches by several sitting Supreme Court justices, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. That was also the legal philosophy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Originalism is the theory that constitutional text should be given the original public meaning at the time in which a law was enacted. Textualism is the legal interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of a text of laws, emphasizing how the Constitution was understood at the time of ratification in 1788 and the subsequent Bill of Rights’ ratification in 1791.
That contrasts sharply with Justice Breyer’s constitutional pragmatist approach, which instead of focusing on what lawmakers meant with the words they chose to include in the Constitution and laws, considers what is the likely consequence of interpretations. Justice Breyer believes in a “living Constitution” or one that isn’t anchored by words lawmakers chose. Rather those meanings are reapplied by modern interpretations of those meanings. This judicial philosophy is an excuse to allow judges to act like kings (or queens) make law instead of interpreting and apply the law as enacted by the “people’s” elected representatives or the Founding Fathers.
A trans nonbinary teen in Rankin County, Miss. has been charged as an adult in the murder of her mother & attempted murder of her stepfather. The teen allegedly shot them. Trans activists regularly urge trans people to carry out violent revenge. Read: https://t.co/XIIzA5Jd1Z
A terrorist attack on the Crocus City concert hall and mall in Moscow, Russia, on Friday night that has reportedly not concluded at press time has left “over 100 casualties,” the Russian outlet RT reported.
Update 4:08PM ET: The Russian FSB security service announced it had documented at least 40 killed and over 100 injured in the attack.
Multiple reports in Russian media have reported the presence of at least three gunmen participating in the attack. The terrorists, reportedly dressed in camouflage, stormed the venue and opened fire at the audience inside the concert hall with what some reports indicate were automatic weapons. The terrorists also reportedly detonated a grenade, setting the Crocus City complex on fire.
The fire is so large that the Russian government has deployed a water-discharging helicopter to end it and has prepared two more to fly in, according to RIA Novosti.
Videos on social media shared by Russian news outlets – such as RT, Ria Novosti, Sputnik, and others – show panicked concertgoers attempting to hide under seats and the sound of gunfire. Reports indicated that one of the assailants detonated a grenade, causing the ongoing fire.
“They’re shooting from a machine gun, they’re shooting in the crowd!”
Creepy footage from Crocus City Hall in Moscow, where the shooting took place. Preliminarily, there are dead and wounded. pic.twitter.com/oyStGMDtbL
On the streets of a Bogota neighborhood where a businessman was killed for refusing to pay protection money, retired soldiers sporting weapons and camouflage gear keep a watchful eye on every movement.
Similar “self-defense” groups have sprung up all over Colombia’s capital, a city of some eight million people that has experienced a surge in robberies and killings since the beginning of the year.
As fear has risen in step with crime, residents and business owners are taking matters into their own hands in a country with low levels of trust in the authorities.
“We are taking care of security. There are armed people here, but within the law. We are not illegal, we are military pensioners and the traders are paying us,” one of the sentinels told AFP in Bogota’s 7 de Agosto neighborhood, a bustle of autoparts shops.
Wearing ski masks and military-style boots, the men refused to give their names. Some said they were paid by shop owners — several of whom confirmed to AFP they were relying on hired guns to protect their lives and possessions.
Other patrolling guards claimed they work with the “Gaula” — official law enforcement divisions created in the police and military to combat kidnapping and extortion — a still all-too prevalent crime in Colombia as in other countries with a presence of drug gangs.
But Gaula officials told AFP the non-uniformed sentries have nothing to do with them.
“Civilians have no place” in the fight against extortion, insisted Colonel Cristian Caballero, commander of the Military Gaula in Bogota.
Following his discovery of DNA contamination in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, genomic researcher Kevin McKernan has recently found that the DNA in these vaccines can potentially integrate into human DNA.
The COVID-19 vaccine spike sequence was detected in two types of chromosomes in cancer cell lines following exposure to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Mr. McKernan’s findings, which he presents on his Substack blog, haven’t been peer-reviewed.
These are expected to be “rare events,” but they can happen, Mr. McKernan told The Epoch Times.
DNA Integration
Since the introduction of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, some members of the public have been concerned that the vaccines may modify human DNA by combining their sequences with the human genome.
Fact-checkers” refuted this, saying mRNA cannot be changed into DNA. Yet Mr. McKernan’s earlier work shows that DNA in the vaccine vials may be capable of changing human DNA.
Ulrike Kämmerer, a professor of human biology at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, conducted earlier stages of this research.
Exposing breast and ovarian human cancer cells to Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, Ms. Kämmerer found that about half of the cells expressed the COVID-19 spike protein on their cellular surface, indicating that they had absorbed the vaccines.
Mr. McKernan then performed gene sequencing and found that these cells and their descendant cells contained vaccine DNA.
The order came down today; it noted that no judge called for a vote on the en banc rehearing petition. Here’s my post on the panel decision, from September.
[* * *]
California Restriction on Gun Ads That “Reasonably Appear[] to Be Attractive to Minors” Likely Unconstitutional
From Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. v. Bonta, decided today [Sept, 13, 2023] by Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, joined by Judges Randy Smith and Lawrence VanDyke:
This case is not about whether children can buy firearms. (They cannot under California law.) Nor is this case about whether minors can legally use firearms. (California allows minors under adult supervision to possess and use firearms for hunting, target practice, and other activities.) And this case is not about whether California has tools to combat the scourge of youth gun violence. (It does.)
Rather, this case is about whether California can ban a truthful ad about firearms used legally by adults and minors—just because the ad “reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” So, for example, an ad showcasing a safer hunting rifle with less recoil for minors would likely be unlawful in California. Under our First Amendment jurisprudence, states can ban truthful and lawful advertising only if it “materially” and “directly” advances a substantial government interest and is no more extensive than necessary. California likely cannot meet this high bar.
While California has a substantial interest in reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors, its law does not “directly” and “materially” further either goal. California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms.
There is no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad. Nor has the state produced any evidence that truthful ads about lawful uses of guns—like an ad about hunting rifles in Junior Sports Magazines’ Junior Shooters—encourage illegal or violent gun use among minors. Simply put, California cannot lean on gossamers of speculation to weave an evidence-free narrative that its law curbing the First Amendment “significantly” decreases unlawful gun use among minors. The First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government’s muzzling of speech.
California’s law is also more extensive than necessary, as it sweeps in truthful ads about lawful use of firearms for adults and minors alike. For instance, an advertisement directed at adults featuring a camouflage skin on a firearm might be illegal because minors may be attracted to it….
Judge VanDyke concurred, adding:
California wants to legislate views about firearms. The record for recently enacted California Assembly Bill 2751 (AB 2751) indicates a legislative concern that marketing firearms to minors would “seek[] to attract future legal gun owners,” and that that’s a negative thing. No doubt at least some of California’s citizens share that view. They may dream that someday everyone will be repulsed by the thought of using a firearm for lawful purposes such as hunting and recreation. But just as surely some of California’s citizens disagree with that view.
Many hope their sons and daughters will learn to responsibly use firearms for lawful purposes. Firearms are controversial products, and don’t cease to be so when used by minors. But as the majority opinion explains well, there are a variety of ways a minor can lawfully use firearms in California. And the State of California may not attempt to reduce the demand for lawful conduct by suppressing speech favoring that conduct while permitting speech in opposition. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination.
That is precisely what California did in Assembly Bill 2751. Under this law, those who want to discourage minors from lawfully using firearms (such as for hunting or shooting competitions) are free to communicate their messages. Certain speakers (“firearm industry members”) who want to promote the sale of firearms to minors, however, are silenced.
I agree with the majority opinion that, even assuming intermediate scrutiny applies, California’s nascent speech code cannot withstand it. I write separately to emphasize that laws like AB 2751, which attempt to use the coercive power of the state to eliminate a viewpoint from public discourse, deserve strict scrutiny. Our circuit’s precedent is ambiguous about whether viewpoint- discriminatory laws that regulate commercial speech are subject to strict scrutiny. In the appropriate case, we should make clear they are…
Anna M. Barvir (Michel & Associates PC) argued for plaintiffs; Chuck Michel (Michel & Associates) and Donald Kilmer also represent plaintiffs. Thanks to Don Kilmer for the pointer on the denial of en banc rehearing.
WATCH:@SenJohnKennedy: “You said, ‘assault weapons may be banned because they’re extraordinarily dangerous and are not appropriate for legitimate self-defense purposes.’ Tell me what you meant by assault weapons?”
In the name of safety, politicians did many things that diminished our lives—without making us safer.
Four years ago, government officials told us, “Stay home!” We have “15 days to slow the spread.”
Days turned into months and then years, while officials chipped away at our freedoms.
I have long been wary of politicians, but even I was surprised at how authoritarian many were eager to be.
Some demanded police to go after people surfing. They took down the rims of basketball hoops. Children’s playgrounds were taped up like crime scenes. They told people in rural Utah and Wyoming to stay in their homes.
In the name of safety, politicians did many things that diminished our lives, without making us safer.
They complied with teachers unions’ demand to keep schools closed. Kids’ learning has been set back by years.
Politicians destroyed jobs by closing businesses. Some shutdown orders were ridiculous. Landscaping businesses and private campgrounds were forced to shut down.
Both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden sharply increased government spending. Trump’s $2.2 trillion “stimulus” package, followed by Biden’s $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan,” led to so much money printing that inflation doubled and then tripled.
This week, the fourth-year anniversary of “15 days to stop the spread,” my new video looks back at politicians’ incompetence.
First, government probably killed people with its endless red tape.
At least the Trump administration broke Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules to speed vaccine approvals. But FDA rules kept perfectly good American COVID-19 test kits off the market because they hadn’t gone through its multiyear approval process.
Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer banned “public and private gatherings of any size.” Residents were told they could not see friends or relatives.
Many of her rules seemed random. She banned motorboats and jet skis, but allowed kayaks and canoes. She closed small businesses, but exempted big-box stores if they blocked off aisles offering plant nurseries and paint. Why?
Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) “six-foot rule” under Trump was arbitrary, says former FDA commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb. COVID travels in aerosols that flow much farther than six feet.
When some Americans became fed up and protested, they were vilified for “threatening the public.” Some were fined. A few were arrested.
It’s clear now that restrictive rules were not the best way to protect people.
Sweden took a near opposite approach. They mostly left people alone.
Swedish officials encouraged the elderly and other at-risk people to stay home.
But beyond that, they let life carry on as normal. Sweden didn’t impose lockdowns, school closures, or mask mandates.
They followed standard pre-COVID wisdom that the best protection is what epidemiologists call “herd” or “collective” immunity. Once a critical mass of people are infected and recover, collective immunity will reduce the total number of infections.
Arrogant American politicians and media “experts” sneered at Sweden’s approach.
NBC “reported” on what it called, “Sweden’s failed experiment. How their dangerous Covid gamble went wrong.”
CBS confidently stated, “Sweden becomes an example of how not to handle COVID.”
Time magazine headlined: “Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster.”
But the media’s experts were just wrong. Swedish health officials were right.
Yes, at the beginning of the pandemic, Sweden suffered high numbers of COVID deaths, but as predicted, over time, herd immunity protected people. Sweden’s excess death rate was the lowest in Europe.
Sweden’s economy got through the pandemic much healthier than other countries. Because Swedish schools never closed, Swedish students didn’t suffer the learning losses that American kids did.
Four years later, have media blowhards who were wrong apologized? Corrected their stories? No.
Have American politicians apologized and begged forgiveness for their arrogance, for destroying jobs, restricting our freedom, and needlessly pushing us around? No.
FBI figures reported by NBC News on March 19, 2024, show that crime fell during 2023, a year in which there were over one million background checks a month for gun purchases.
On July 4, 2023, the Washington Examinernoted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) checks for gun purchases have been over a million a month for 47 straight months.
On March 19, 2024, Breitbart News spoke with National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Mark Oliva and he said it has now been 55 consecutive months of one million-plus NICS checks.
This means, leading up to 2023 and throughout 2023, Americans were pouring into gun stores to acquire firearms, yet “fourth-quarter numbers” reported by NBC News showed “a 13% decline in murder in 2023 from 2022, a 6% decline in reported violent crime and a 4% decline in reported property crime.”
Former CIA analyst Jeff Asher commented on the lower crime figures, saying, “It suggests that when we get the final data in October, we will have seen likely the largest one-year decline in murder that has ever been recorded.”
There was a similar situation after gun sales surged in 2013. Breitbart News pointed out that private gun sales skyrocketed during 2013 with 21,093,273 background checks, and, according to the FBI, “offenses” in the categories of violent crimes and property crimes decreased during the first six months of 2014.
On a broader scale, Breitbart News observed a 2012 Congressional Research Service study showing gun ownership jumped from 192 million privately owned guns in 1994 to 309 million in 2009. At the same time, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” of 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993 fell to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 and as far as 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.
Three Shots in Three Seconds
There are good reasons why this is an oft-quoted statistic in the firearms training world.
“Three shots in three seconds at three yards.” That was Lt. Frank McGee’s iconic summation (aka “McGee’s Paradigm”) of the typical gunfight of New York City police officers during the 1970s. Lt. McGee was the head of the NYPD Firearms and Tactics Section at that time. His analysis came from the Department’s SOP-9 report, which began compiling statistics about the gunfights of its officers in 1969. Although the scope and name of the report has evolved over time, it is still published by the NYPD and is available online. McGee’s Paradigm hasn’t changed much over the past 50 years.
Three shots in three seconds is an example of a par time. Par time means a given amount of time to perform a task or event. The concept is used in a variety of sporting and other contexts. Most Police firearms qualifications are shot as par time sequences.
Learning to shoot a given number of rounds in a given period of time is an important aspect of developing defensive marksmanship skills. It emphasizes the concept that once an attack indicator is given, the defender will have a limited amount of time in which to repel the attack. In addition, learning to make good hits in a given amount of time increases the probability of a successful defense and reduces the probability of errant rounds that can endanger innocent members of the surrounding community.
Since most gunowners are limited to shooting at indoor ranges, learning to shoot against a time standard has always been an issue. Shot timers usually work by tracking the noise from each shot and are therefore not always useful in the indoor-range environment because of adjacent shooters. Besides this, casual shooters are generally unwilling to spend over $100 for a shot timer.
The widespread nature of smartphones and Bluetooth earbuds have given us a solution to this problem. There are several timing apps for Smartphones available online. Used in conjunction with Bluetooth earbuds underneath earmuff-based hearing protection, practicing marksmanship with a par time is now easily accomplished.
The Nevada Concealed Firearms Permit Qualification Course can be easily adapted as a practice regimen for McGee’s Paradigm. The course consists of six shots at 3 yards, 12 shots at 5 yards, and 12 shots at 7 yards, for a total of 30 shots. As a test for Nevada’s Permit, it is untimed, but we can break it into a series of 3-second sequences for practice. Six shots can be divided into three sequences; one shot, two shots, and three shots. The 12-shot stages can be broken into two series of six shots, each beginning with a different starting position. Those two series can be further divided into the 1-2-3 shot sequences.
By subdividing the series at each distance, incorporating the timing element becomes less difficult and intimidating for shooters who have never been introduced to shooting against a time standard. For instance, one shot in three seconds at 3 yards on a silhouette target is not a particularly difficult task. Following that, we can introduce more shots into the same time period by making the sequence two shots and then three shots but keeping the same three second standard. Incrementally increasing the number of shots increases the difficulty in a less intimidating way. As the number of shots increases, the hits will probably spread out, but as a learning experience, that’s okay.
When the distance increases, the number of shots initially returns to one, but the par time remains same, then the number of shots gradually increases again. When a slightly more difficult starting position is used, the number of shots returns to one and then gradually increases.
Here’s one way the Nevada CFP Qualification could be shot using a par timer app, ear buds, and two different starting positions.
Low Ready
Set the target at 3 yards
Use a par timer app with ear buds.
Start from low ready, pointed below the base of the target.
Fire one shot in 3 seconds
Fire two shots in 3 seconds
Fire three shots in 3 seconds
Set the target at 5 yards
Use a par timer app with ear buds.
Start from low ready, pointed below the base of the target.
Fire one shot in 3 seconds
Fire two shots in 3 seconds
Fire three shots in 3 seconds
Start from the mid-point of the drawstroke, bore parallel to the ground.
Fire one shot in 3 seconds
Fire two shots in 3 seconds
Fire three shots in 3 seconds
Mid-point of the draw
Set the target at 7 yards
Use a par timer app with ear buds.
Start from low ready, pointed below the base of the target.
Fire one shot in 3 seconds
Fire two shots in 3 seconds
Fire three shots in 3 seconds
Start from the mid-point of the drawstroke, bore parallel to the ground.
Fire one shot in 3 seconds
Fire two shots in 3 seconds
Fire three shots in 3 seconds
Upon finishing, the shooter will have fired 30 timed rounds at increasing distances using two different starting positions, which serves a good introduction to timed shooting for defensive purposes.
To finish up a 50-round box of ammo and improve marksmanship basics, shoot a series of untimed groups. The NRA Basics of Pistol Shooting https://www.nrainstructors.org/CatalogInfo.aspx?cid=56 Level I test is perfect for this task.
The test consists of a total of 20 shots on four targets. The target is a 4-inch circle at 10 feet. To shoot the test, place your target and shoot five shots at it. The NRA standard is that all five shots must be in or touching the circle. Tape or replace your target and repeat three more times for a total of 20 shots.
This 50 round practice regimen introduces shooters to two important practice principles. First, an introduction to timed shooting using different starting positions and then refining their marksmanship skills by shooting groups; these are useful and challenging tasks.
PICTURE THE SCENE: You’re about four minutes into your worst waking nightmare. You had to pull your gun and use it; that’s the bad news. The good news is, you’re still alive. You know that because you can still smell the gun smoke and feel your heart pounding with adrenaline. The would-be offender is dead, or at least isn’t moving. It was him or you, no doubt about that. And because you’re confident you’re justified in your actions, it’s time to fulfill your obligation as a responsible and law-abiding person and notify the police.
But not so fast. You may have protected yourself against a deadly threat, but now it’s time to protect yourself against potential recrimination. Everything will be scrutinized by police, prosecutors and maybe a jury, starting with the call you’re about to make. For you, and almost every other defensive shooter, 911 is the first point of contact with the justice system. What you say matters. Get this one wrong, and your 911 call could play out on broadcast news , turn your community against you and feature prominently for some enterprising prosecutor who might have crowed in the last election that getting guns off the street is a priority, but doesn’t distinguish between criminals and law-abiding gun owners.
You can’t panic. It’s just the rest of your life that could change based on the words you pick…at exactly the time when your nervous system is still trying to claw itself back down to normal from almost dying.
Don’t blow it.
HISTORY
The use of a three-digit emergency number got its start in the United Kingdom with the advent of the 999 call system. Under the Johnson Administration, the Federal Communications Commission hatched a plan for the 911 call system with AT&T in the late 1960s. Soon after, states began building their own networks. While only half of residents in the United States had access to 911 by the end of the Reagan Administration, most of the U.S. is served by some form of the system today.
And yes, despite what you may read on the windows of pickup truck cabs or at gun-friendly thrift shops, most people do call 911. (Those stickers can potentially create trouble for you by the way in the event of a defensive shooting, but that’s another story for later.) According to the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) there are more than 3,000 911 call centers in the United States, fielding some 240 million emergency calls each year.
If your scene is safe and the threat is contained, it’s time to make an important call.
911 Fact: When Does the Recording Begin?
Everything you say on the 911 call will be recorded and submitted as evidence. To the surprise of many, though, that recording begins the second you push that last 1. Before the operator even picks up the call, the recording has begun. It’s important to know this because you may be having a private conversation with someone about the event and potentially say something that can be caught in a recording and be used against you in court.
The Supreme Court has acted. Texas is free to deal with illegal migrants in violation of immigration law by arresting them.
The Biden administration failed in its attempt to block a Texas law that allows the state to arrest those suspected of violating U.S. Immigration law. The Biden administration argued that the federal government may enforce or ignore immigration law as it sees fit. It said states like Texas have no say in the matter and no recourse to defend themselves.
The court majority said no to this overreaching, and some justices were not happy.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote, “Today, the Court invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.” The court may still reopen the issue as a constitutional matter later, but for now, the Biden administration may not interfere with Texas.
Biden had wanted an administrative stay to halt any action by Texas as a way of shortcutting the process of appeals.
The Texas migration law makes unauthorized entry into the state, except at a port of entry, a state felony. While such entry is already a federal crime, the Biden administration has turned a blind eye to the law. Texas now has a free hand to defend its state borders.
A federal judge attempted to stay the law’s implementation, but the 5th Circuit overturned that ruling. The Biden administration hoped the Supreme Court would overrule the 5th Circuit. It did not.
The state argued, “Plaintiffs urge the Court to rush straight to the merits of their claims. But these cases do not belong in federal court at all—even apart from the fact that no state court has yet had an opportunity to construe any provision of S.B.4.”
The Supreme Court majority agreed.
“So far as I know, this Court has never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter—or not enter—an administrative stay,” wrote Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh in ruling against the federal government. “I would not get into the business. When entered, an administrative stay is supposed to be a short-lived prelude to the main event: a ruling on the motion for a stay pending appeal. I think it unwise to invite emergency litigation in this Court about whether a court of appeals abused its discretion at this preliminary step.”
Further legal action is expected, but in the meantime, the state of Texas has been given the green light to proceed with enforcing its border.
