Lojay when me and you go do this challenge?

The Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s restriction on the Trump administration’s policy of deporting migrants to third countries, even when those individuals have no ties to the destination. The decision allows the administration to resume removals like a recent blocked flight to South Sudan, where immigration officials had stationed personnel in Djibouti while awaiting legal clarity. The majority provided no explanation, prompting a sharp dissent from the Court’s liberal justices.⁠
⁠
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the ruling, writing that the Court was “rewarding lawlessness.” She added, “Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers.” The case originated from a challenge filed by noncitizens alleging due process violations, with U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issuing a nationwide injunction in April.⁠
⁠
Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the judge’s order as lacking a legal foundation and interfering with national security efforts to remove “some of the most heinous criminals.” The administration has argued that these deportations are lawful and critical to enforcement. While the injunction did not mandate return to the U.S., it required that migrants be given the opportunity to raise legal objections before removal. The matter now returns to an appeals court.⁠
⁠
​​​🔗Head to our bio for the full story

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge brought by Republican committees and Vice President JD Vance to federal campaign finance rules that limit spending coordinated between political parties and candidates. The case originated during Vance’s 2022 Senate campaign in Ohio and questions whether restrictions on such spending violate First Amendment protections. The court will take up the matter in its next term starting in October.⁠
⁠
The plaintiffs—including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and former Congressman Steve Chabot—argue the limits “severely restrict political party committees from doing what the First Amendment entitles them to do: fully associate with and advocate for their own candidates for federal office.” The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the limits last year, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling. Lawyers for President Donald Trump’s administration supported the appeal and asked the court to appoint a third party to defend the existing law.⁠
⁠
The justices also approved a motion from the Democratic National Committee and related groups to intervene in defense of the spending limits. “The Republican Party has spent decades trying to eliminate statutory limits on political party expenditures that are coordinated with candidates’ campaigns,” attorney Marc Elias said. The challenge follows a broader trend in campaign finance litigation, including the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which struck down limits on independent expenditures by outside groups.⁠
⁠
​​​🔗Head to our bio for the full story

Follow @holisticvitalis When Holistic Vybez was launched, it was just a husband and wife—two people passionate about natural healing—doing their best to serve their family and community 🌱👫

As the brand began to grow, they hit a major challenge: the name couldn’t be trademarked. To protect what they built—and continue serving with integrity—they knew it was time to evolve 🔐✨

So… meet Holistic Vitalis 💛

A new name, with the same trusted ingredients 💧 The same wildcrafted sea moss from St. Lucia 🌊 The same family behind it—growing and evolving, just like the brand. As the founders prepare to bring new life into the world, this rebrand couldn’t be more aligned 🤰🏽🌼

🎥 Watch the video pinned to their profile to hear the full story—what’s changing, what’s staying the same, and how Holistic Vitalis will carry their mission even further.

📦 Same quality. Same values. A new beginning.