Supreme Court Stands with Constitution

After only five months in office, President Trump has endured the illegal overreach and abuse of power by several liberal democrat District and Federal Court Judges to stop the President from enforcing the Law, the Constitution and his Administration policies. In every case filed by the liberal socialist democrat party to stop President Trump, a liberal socialist Judge in a blue democrat run state or a socialist federal judge has decided they are above the law, placing universal injunctions on President Trump and his administration. Since the democrats do not have the support of the majority of Americans and could not win at the polls, they have decided to focus all their energy and money to stop President Trump from saving this Country from becoming a communist nation and their socialist agenda.

In every case and argument, the liberal democrats and liberal judges claim that the President’s legal enforcement of the law and his policies are violating the Constitution when in fact their illegal universal injunctions are illegal and in direct violation and opposition to the Constitution. If you want to know what is true and just, simply take what a liberal socialist says and do and say the exact opposite and you will arrive at the absolute truth. The evil and hatred of the democrat party is beyond belief and will stop at nothing in their quest to regain power and control over American citizens.

After fighting for the Constitution and rule of law in several courts, President Trump was repeatedly ruled against in each case and then denied an appeal. Finally, on Friday, June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court put an end to the illegal overreach of these lower courts and federal and district judges who do not have the jurisdiction or authority to stop the Executive Branch from enforcing and protecting the Constitution, Executive orders and the Laws of this Nation.

On Friday, June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160, which sought to redefine birthright citizenship. In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Constitution, the President and the Executive Branch, ruling that district and federal courts exceeded their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions against the executive order. The ruling did not determine the legality of the executive order itself but emphasized the limitations of judicial power by these rogue judges and courts.

This was not only a monumental and important decision for the preservation of the Constitution, the rule of law and even future President’s but for the protection of the American people. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion stating federal courts “do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.”

President Trump said it was an “amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about.” He said the ruling was a “victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,” and that it struck down “the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.” Vice President JD Vance stated on social media that this was a “huge decision” and that “under our system, everyone has to follow the law–including judges.”

Another Supreme Court ruling on June 27, 2025, where the Court ruled in favor of parents who oppose the LGBTQ+ books being taught and read to their children.

According to an article written by Amy Howe and featured on Scotusblog.com “Court allows parents to opt their children out of school lessons involving LGBTQ+ themes. The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a group of Maryland parents have a right to opt their elementary-school-aged children out of instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes. By a vote of 6-3, the justices agreed with the parents – who are Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox – that the Montgomery County school board’s refusal to provide them with that option violates their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion.”

The article went on state: “Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged that “courts are not school boards or legislatures, and are ill-equipped to determine the ‘necessity’ of discrete aspects of a State’s program of compulsory education.” But he emphasized that “what the parents seek here is not the right to micromanage the public school curriculum, but rather to have their children opt out of a particular educational requirement that burdens their well-established right ‘to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children’” under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment”.

Thank God for the return of common sense, freedom and the rule of law.