Aggregator

Video shows the moment Southampton cops opened fire on a knife-wielding madman as he stabbed his disabled mother in a horrific Mother’s Day attack.

Stock up on the essentials before the sale ends

Supreme Court Sides With Trump Admin On Removing Green Card Holders Accused Of Crimes

Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

In a 6-3 decision Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, holding that green card holders can be stripped of their status if they traveled abroad while facing criminal charges involving moral turpitude, finding that pending allegations are sufficient to subject them to removal proceedings.

The Court said immigration officials do not need clear and convincing evidence of a crime at the moment a green card holder reenters the U.S. to treat them as an “applicant for admission” by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The case,  Blanche v. Lau, was focused on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who became a U.S. resident in 2007. He was arrested in 2012 and charged in New Jersey for allegedly selling $300,000 worth of knock-off shorts.

While Lau was awaiting trial, he left the U.S. but upon his return he was deemed an “applicant for admission” by the Department of Homeland Security which sought his removal from the United States.

The majority determined that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require border officers “to have clear and convincing evidence” of a disqualifying offense at the exact time of parole. Instead, they said the government can satisfy the evidentiary burden later during removal proceedings.

The Court accepted the government’s argument that requiring immediate proof at the border would be unworkable and that the statutory text (“has committed”) does not mandate a “conviction” or immediate proof before parole is granted.

The decision allows DHS to treat green card holders facing pending criminal charges as returning aliens awaiting inspection, and later removal proceedings, rather than readmitting them as residents.

The majority explained that removing a permanent resident on a charge of inadmissibility involves two steps:

At step one, only commission of the crime is required to show that the alien could be regarded as seeking to be admitted; at step two, conviction or admission is required to show that the alien seeking to be admitted is inadmissible.

Lau was correctly charged with inadmissibility. At step one, the Government regarded him as an alien seeking admission because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before attempting to reenter the country.

At step two, he was inadmissible and therefore removable because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

The three liberal dissenting justices argued that this ruling strips lawful permanent residents of their status based on unproven accusations, effectively allowing the government to bypass the higher burden of proof required for deportation by using the “inadmissibility” track instead.

“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check. With today’s decision, the Court allows the Government to return an LPR (lawful permanent resident) to the status of ‘seeking an admission’ upon his entry at the border, so long as the Government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted,” wrote liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent.

“That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation of the relevant statutory scheme, which guarantees that LPRs will not be ‘regarded as seeking an admission’ at the border unless certain exceptions apply.”

James Percival, the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, called the ruling a “big win” in a statement, Tuesday.

“Today, the Supreme Court affirmed an important tool DHS has long used to prevent criminals from entering our country. Big win!” Percival posted on X.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 15:45

Meta Developing Prediction Market App Called "Arena" To Compete With Polymarket, Kalshi

The company formerly known as Facebook which has yet to change its name from the terribly outdated Meta to something more AI-related, even if Meta has so far lost any hope of being a leading frontier model, is developing a new app called “Arena” that mirrors a prediction market platform to compete with the runaway success of Polymarket and Kalshi, according the New York Times.

The product - which would operate independently from Facebook and Instagram - would allow users to make forecasts about future events, ranging from politics and sports to entertainment and world affairs. However, unlike traditional prediction market platforms such as Polymarket or Kalshi, users would likely rely on a video game-like points system instead of cash, the report said, although the company has not ruled out the eventual use of real-money betting. In some ways, the product would be an extension of Meta's scuttled stablecoin project, Libra, when the company was hoping to enter the lucrative payments wallet market, however that venture proved unsuccessful and Zuckerberg pulled the plug in 2022.

The people described the product as both experimental and a top priority inside the company.

The effort comes as prediction markets have gained unprecedented popularity following Polymarket’s breakout success during the 2024 US presidential election, when traders came to the crypto-based platform to place bets on electoral outcomes, driving billions of dollars in trading volume and elevating prediction markets into the mainstream political conversation.

Meta previously launched a similar product called Forecast in 2020, which encouraged users to make predictions about current events and emerging trends during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. But as with most other new ventures by the company, Meta ultimately shut down the product in 2022.

As CoinDesk notes, Meta’s renewed interest in the sector is hardly surprising given the broader industry trend in the same direction. Nearly every major trading platform has made some effort to offer prediction market-style products or event contracts. Crypto-native companies such as Coinbase and Kraken have explored opportunities in the space, while retail brokerage Robinhood has introduced event-based contracts tied to political and economic outcomes.

Yet the rapid growth of those markets has also attracted increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny. Critics argue that contracts tied to elections, geopolitics, or other sensitive events can blur the line between financial instruments and gambling. 

Regulators have also raised concerns about market manipulation, insider information, consumer protection, and the potential for participants to profit from events they may be able to influence. In the United States, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has repeatedly grappled with whether certain event contracts serve a legitimate hedging purpose or constitute prohibited gaming activities.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 15:25

Doris Montalvo claims in the suit that NYCHA had been put on notice about a rodent infestation at 38 Rutgers St. but refused to act.

Sources claimed that the Pima County Sheriff’s Department and the FBI allegedly bungled a chance to find Nancy in early February.

Sources claimed that the Pima County Sheriff’s Department and the FBI allegedly bungled a chance to find Nancy in early February.

There’s beef over a beach privacy breach. 

It's time for the star-spangled deals.

Protect your skin and your wallet by nabbing this deal before the sale ends

Mayor Karen Bass put her desire to be reelected ahead of the truth when it came to the failures leading up to the Palisades fire — scorching former LAFD Chief Kristin Crowley in her alleged path of lies — according to a new defamation lawsuit brought against Bass by Crowley. Crowley served as Fire Chief...

The luxe-looking style earns high marks from Amazon shoppers as well.

The luxe-looking style earns high marks from Amazon shoppers as well.

Judge Blocks SNAP Restrictions On Sugary Drinks, Candy

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Monday blocked the USDA from restricting the use of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance ​Program (SNAP) to buy sugary foods or drinks in five states.

Bags of candy on shelves at a Target store in Austin, Texas, on June 4, 2025. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued the ruling in response to a lawsuit by five SNAP recipients challenging the Agriculture Department's (USDA's) issuance of waivers for Colorado, Iowa, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Nebraska that allow them to restrict certain types of foods that can be purchased under the program.

According to the court documents, the states sought USDA approval between April and August 2025 to conduct pilot projects that would waive the federal definition of food and exclude soft drinks and sugary food from SNAP benefits.

The USDA approved the requests, but the plaintiffs argued the agency lacked authority to approve the food restriction waivers.

In her ruling, Jackson said the USDA lacked congressional approval to waive the federal definition of food under the program.

"Congress defined what 'food' is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted. It did not authorize the agency to cut types of food out of SNAP entirely," the judge said.

"It set out clearly the type of experimental projects that could be tested to address the unquestionably serious health issues attributed to the rise of obesity in the population in general and particularly the low-income population. But it did not invite the Secretary to ignore its directives by trying to advance those ends under the banner of 'efficiency' or administrative improvements."

The judge also said that while the federal government and states may seek to encourage healthier choices for SNAP households, they must do so through lawful steps.

Following the ruling, the USDA ⁠defended the move and signaled that it would continue pursuing restrictions on the use of SNAP benefits for certain foods.

"The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial," a USDA spokesperson said in a statement. "USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for ​families and communities reliant on ​SNAP."

Katie Deabler, senior attorney at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, which represents the plaintiffs, said the ruling marked "a major step" in restoring essential food aid to SNAP households.

"This decision makes clear that the USDA cannot bypass the legal guardrails that establish how SNAP must operate across the country. It affirms that families deserve a program that works without confusion," Deabler said in a statement.

The USDA has so far approved food restriction waivers ⁠in 23 states, allowing them to restrict SNAP participants from using their benefits to buy products such as ​soda and candy.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have supported banning food items deemed unhealthy from SNAP as part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda.

In June 2025, Kennedy called on all state governors to exclude sugary drinks from the SNAP program.

"Taxpayer dollars should never bankroll products that fuel the chronic disease epidemic," he said at the time.

Naveen Athrappully and Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 15:05

The actress called herself "the biggest sore loser" of the night.

The actress called herself "the biggest sore loser" of the night.

Could there be a Season 2 of I Will Find You? Well, here's what the stars have to say.

Croatia should have an easy night at the office against Panama.

Get up to $1,000 in no sweat tokens over 10 Days with the BetMGM bonus code NYPNEWSGET.

Is Cole Hauser actually leaving 'Dutton Ranch'?