The Supreme Court just delivered a massive win for border security and the Second Amendment, leaving the open-border lobby in absolute shambles. In a decisive 6–3 ruling, the Court gave the Trump administration the green light to bring back the highly effective "metering" policy. This means federal border agents can legally stop migrants before they ever set foot on American soil, preventing them from abusing the asylum system.

The entire legal battle came down to basic English, which apparently requires a Supreme Court ruling to explain to the left. The dispute rested on what "arrives in" actually means. Justice Samuel Alito had to spell it out in the majority opinion: "In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person 'arrives in' a place… before the person enters that place." It turns out you actually have to be in the country to claim you arrived in it.

Predictably, the liberal justices did not take this well. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a massive 35-page essay of pure cope, which was practically twice as long as Alito's majority opinion. She complained that "The court’s illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: 'in'." Sotomayor and her allies wanted the court to ignore literal definitions in favor of standard activist legal theories.

Human rights groups are already crying about the ruling, claiming it essentially deletes international and domestic asylum laws. But for normal citizens who value national sovereignty, it’s a common-sense victory that stops the southern border from being treated as a free-for-all port of entry.

And the winning did not stop there. In another 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that the administration can officially end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians. Despite these programs being designed as temporary, the open-borders crowd wanted them to last forever, but the Supreme Court backed the administration's crackdown on long-term temporary residents.

Meanwhile, the White House is asking Congress for $87.6 billion in defense funding, with a huge chunk of that going toward the conflict with Iran. Naturally, a top Democrat has already signaled that the party plans to block the funding, calling the conflict unauthorized and unpopular. It looks like the standard DC funding wars are heating up once again.

Over in Hawaii, the Second Amendment got a major boost. The Supreme Court completely shredded a restrictive state law that banned citizens from carrying firearms in public and on private property without the owner's permission. Gun control advocates are calling the ruling "deeply dangerous," which is exactly what they say every time the Constitution is actually upheld.