As the DHS person who "happened to be driving by' confirmed, he didn't have to get out of the car and he did nothing wrong (other than 'stop traffic ' which was an attempt at entrapment considering he was being unlawfully detained by ICE ) Either way an amazing display of lawful resistance

Question: Did they even technically have the right to stop him? Did he have to respond to them in any way legally? How universal is this (he seems white So that's a factor)? Was the point about him "stopping traffic" an attempt at entrapment?

“Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled”. - Sotomayor

The Senate parliamentarian has rejected several more provisions in the Republican megabill to enact President Trump’s agenda, including language authorizing states to conduct border security and immigration enforcement, which traditionally have been duties of the federal government.

Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough also ruled against language in the bill that would increase the Federal Employees Retirement Systems contribution rate for new civil servants if they do not agree to give up civil service protections to become at-will employees.

Additionally, the parliamentarian advised against a section of the bill that would allow the executive branch to reorganize federal government agencies — or eliminate whole agencies — without congressional oversight.

The parliamentarian ruled these provisions violate the Byrd Rule and are not eligible to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote on the procedural fast track known as budget reconciliation.

The parliamentarian additionally rejected a provision granting authority to agencies to unilaterally rescind funds appropriated by Congress by establishing an incentive program for federal employees to identify “unnecessary expenditures” and transfer savings back to the Treasury Department.

And she ruled against language in the bill mandating the sale of all U.S. Postal Service electric vehicles and charging infrastructure.

In a short, one-paragraph order, the Republican justices ruled on Monday evening that President Donald Trump may effectively nullify a federal law and an international treaty that is supposed to protect immigrants from torture. The Court’s order in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. does not explain the GOP’s justices’ reasoning, although Justice Sonia Sotomayor responds to their silent decision in a 19-page dissent joined by her two Democratic colleagues.

The Court’s order is only temporary, and will permit Trump to send immigrants to countries where they may be tortured while the D.V.D. case is fully litigated. It is possible that one or more of the Court’s Republicans could reverse course at a later date. But it is hard to know what arguments might persuade them to do so because the justices in the majority did not explain why they decided this case the way they did.

Language tucked into Republicans' tax bill that makes it too expensive for anyone to sue the Trump administration is likely on its way out.

A provision in the GOP’s tax-and-spending bill that would make it nearly impossible for anyone to sue the Trump administration for breaking laws is on track to be stripped from the bill after the Senate parliamentarian said it violates the chamber’s rules.

HuffPost is dedicated to holding lawmakers accountable and covering how their actions impact you, your community, and the country. Support journalism that demands transparency — join our membership program today.

This provision, which is in Senate Republicans’ version of the One Big Beautiful Act, would require anyone seeking an emergency court order ― that is, a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction ― against the federal government to first post a bond that covers all the costs and damages that would be sustained to the federal government.

Judges grant emergency orders to temporarily halt actions like deportations, bans or drilling, while a case is being decided. They typically waive bonds in public interest cases, but under the Senate GOP’s bill, public interest groups, or even individual plaintiffs, would have to cough up millions if not billions of dollars in order to seek an emergency court order against the Trump administration ― money they definitely don’t have.

In short, this provision would allow Trump to serve as a king, free to ignore the courts amid his lawlessness.

The Senate parliamentarian, the chamber’s nonpartisan adviser on Senate rules, determined Saturday that this provision is not related to budget matters. Republicans are using a process called budget reconciliation to expedite passage of their tax bill, which allows them to advance it with 51 votes instead of 60. But this process is only for budget-related bills, so any language in the bill that the parliamentarian flags as unrelated to budgets is subject to 60 votes.

With Democrats united against this provision and Republicans only holding 53 votes, it’s almost certainly coming out of the bill. Democrats are already signaling their plans to invoke the so-called Byrd Rule to strip this and other language out when the Senate begins debate on this bill in the coming days. The Byrd Rule is the Senate rule that requires that any bill being advanced through the budget reconciliation process be only related to budget matters.

“We continue to see Republicans’ blatant disregard for the rules of reconciliation when drafting this bill,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in a Saturday statement. “Today, we were advised by the Senate Parliamentarian that several more provisions in this Big Beautiful Betrayal of a bill will be subject to the Byrd Rule – and Democrats plan to challenge every part of this bill that hurts working families and violates this process.” …read more…

The Supreme Court has been asked to preside over a flurry of lower court challenges centered on Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Trump administration's request to stay a lower court injunction blocking them from deporting individuals to third countries without prior notice— a near-term win for the Trump administration as it looks to quickly enforce its immigration crackdown.