The Supreme Court agreed on Nov. 13, 2026, to hear Mullin v. RAICES, reviewing President Donald Trump's proclamation that suspends asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border. Lower federal courts in Washington, D.C., and the D.C. Circuit had ruled the policy unlawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Arguments are expected in spring 2027, with a decision likely before July.
The Trump administration says the asylum suspension is a cornerstone of its immigration crackdown, invoking Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and declaring an “invasion” at the southern border. Challengers argue that federal law explicitly allows people physically present in the U.S. to apply for asylum, even if they entered without authorization.
The Supreme Court agreed Friday, Nov. 13, 2026, to review the Trump administration's policy of categorically denying asylum claims at the southern border. The case is Mullin v. RAICES; lower courts had ruled the policy illegal.
NBC News projects Rep. Lauren Boebert lost re-election in Colorado's 4th Congressional District to Democrat Eileen Laubacher, a retired Navy rear admiral and former Biden National Security Council official.
European governments are debating who should represent Europe in Russia-Ukraine peace talks, and some European leaders are pushing back on Russia's participation in future negotiations. Personal/professional publication announcement, not a news claim requiring verification. Political opinion about Canadian immigration, not a checkable factual claim. Self-referential headline-cluster count, not a factual news claim. Personal opinion/discussion thread, not a checkable factual claim.
BNow, the big story is across the Atlantic.
BEurope is arguing about who gets to sit at the table for Ukraine peace talks.
BThat was inevitable the moment Washington and Moscow started talking directly.
BAl Jazeera reports European governments are debating who represents them, while sparring with Russia over participation.
BAnd the European Commission wants a seat, but France and Germany each think they should speak.
BSo it's a diplomatic mess before the talks even start.
BBut it matters. If Europe's shut out, Ukraine loses its biggest backers.
BBiggest backers? Europe had years to build real defense and didn't.
BThey've given real money and weapons. Not enough, but real.
BMoney and weapons aren't the same as having a seat at the table to end a war.
BSo they don't deserve one? That's the argument?
BI'm saying the seat should come with responsibility. Europe wants influence without carrying the cost.
BThat's a dodge. This isn't about European pride. It's about whether Ukraine gets sold out.
BNo, it's about whether the US gets dragged into a wider war because Europe won't defend itself.
BWe're already in it. The question is whether Ukraine survives.
BAnd the answer can't be endless checks from Washington.
BCome on—nobody's asking for checks right now. They're asking for a chair.
BThey're asking for a chair they haven't paid for.
BThen what's the answer? Washington and Moscow decide Ukraine's borders alone?
BMy answer is Europe should double its defense spending before it lectures Washington.
BThat's a five-year answer to a five-day problem.
BMaybe. But that's the honest answer.
BYou know the danger? If Europe feels shut out, they'll go around the US and make their own deal.
BThey don't have the military weight to cut their own deal.
BThey have the economic weight. That's not nothing.
BFine. But economic weight doesn't stop Russian tanks.
BIt can pay for the weapons that do.
BThen write the check first.
BWe're not going to settle this.
BNo, but it's the fight that will define the next six months.
BDifferent world entirely: a new study questions a term we use in immigration debates without thinking.
BWhich one?
BDr. Sue Ishaq posted her student Riya's paper in Gut Microbes. It says 'westernization' is a bad concept for microbiome changes after immigration.
BSo the old story—immigrant gut bacteria becomes Westernized—is too simple.
BExactly. The paper examines how researchers use social and population descriptors in these comparisons.
BDoes that change the immigration debate or just the lab?
BIf people are going to claim immigration changes health outcomes, they need to be precise about what they're measuring.
BThat's fair. But it won't break through the political noise.
BMaybe not, but it's a reminder that immigration is more than border fights. It's biology too.
BAnd bad data makes bad policy.