The Supreme Court is currently dealing with peak clown world as the justices clash over whether the Trump administration is allowed to enforce basic immigration laws, or if doing so is “illegal” because the president made some spicy comments. The entire legal battle over terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian nationals has devolved into a glorified crying session over Trump’s loose, provocative, and sometimes ugly remarks. The left is literally trying to argue that sovereign nations can’t deport anyone if the president posts something they find offensive, mirroring the terminal stage of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has divided the country for years.

At its core, this judicial split shows how deeply the establishment has been broken by a president who refuses to speak in the sanitized, teleprompter-approved dialect of the DC swamp. For years, ordinary Americans have understood that Trump’s unfiltered rhetoric is just how he communicates—it’s populist political theater. But progressives and activist lawyers are treating these off-hand remarks as if they are binding constitutional declarations. They want the Supreme Court to act as a national safety space, striking down lawful, common-sense immigration enforcement because their feelings were hurt by a blunt assessment of developing countries.

Let’s look at the actual facts of the program, which the crying crowd conveniently ignores. It is called Temporary Protected Status for a reason. The keyword is “temporary.” It was granted back in 2010 after Haiti got hit by an earthquake. That was over a decade ago. At some point, “temporary” has to mean temporary, or else the word has no meaning. The Department of Homeland Security did its job, looked at the data, and decided it was time to wrap things up and enforce the law. But because Trump talked about it in his signature, raw style, the activist class ran to the courts claiming “racial animus” to keep the endless migration loop open.

The legal arguments being pushed by the plaintiffs are absolutely unhinged. They are trying to use a 1977 case, Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., to argue that because the president said mean things, the entire Department of Homeland Security’s administrative decision-making process is somehow a secret white supremacist conspiracy. Under this logic, any time a president speaks bluntly about national security or foreign nations, the courts should step in and paralyze the executive branch. It is a pathetic attempt to run a backdoor veto on policies the left simply doesn’t like.