The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a pair of clean immigration wins last week, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani responded by announcing he would ignore them. Now Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) is sounding the alarm.
The Court ruled 6-3 Thursday in Mullin v. Doe to allow the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants. This ruling set off predictable outrage from the progressive wing of the party. Mamdani was first out of the gate. In a video statement, he declared the decision "cruel" and invoked the specter of the Haitian Revolution to frame deportation enforcement as a betrayal of universal freedom.
"To have people who frankly taught the world about freedom have their own freedom put into jeopardy by the actions of a Supreme Court and federal administration - it is not only cruel, it's not something we will ever accept," Mamdani said. "The Supreme Court just sparked one of the largest attacks on immigrants in modern American history. In one fell swoop, thousands of Haitians and Syrians now risk losing the right to live and work in the country they call home."
He went on to reassure migrants that New York City would not comply with the ruling.
"To the tens of thousands of New Yorkers with TPS who are watching the news, frightened about what comes next, hear me clearly: New York City is your home. You belong here. We will not turn our backs on you," Mamdani said. "You will not face this cruelty alone. This administration will stand alongside immigrant New Yorkers today, tomorrow, and every day that follows."
These are not ambiguous rulings with room for creative local interpretation. The Supreme Court made its ruling, and Mamdani's position is that he can ignore it just because he doesn't like it.
On Fox News's Saturday in America on June 28, Sen. Fetterman sat down with host Kayleigh McEnany and walked through a glaring inconsistency, one his own party seems unwilling to acknowledge. He has spent years pushing back on Democrats who insisted Donald Trump was dragging the country toward a constitutional crisis. His response at the time was straightforward: the Trump administration had not defied a court order. The standard, as Fetterman understood it, was simple. You follow the courts, or you create a crisis.
Now the mayor of New York City is publicly refusing to follow the courts' rulings, and the party that ran years of constitutional-crisis programming has gone quiet.
"I haven't seen the freak-out now that the mayor of New York is now saying I'm going to defy the Supreme Court ruling," Fetterman told McEnany.
He then called out his fellow Democrats, who are either silent or actively defending Mamdani.
"Many of the members in my party are not calling him out... [or they are] defend[ing] him, or just say[ing] we really actually have to follow the court rulings because... that's a constitutional crisis, when you have the leader of the country's largest city [saying] we're not going to follow or honor what the Supreme Court says," Fetterman said.
Democrat Senator John Fetterman says he has not seen Donald Trump cause a Constitution crisis, but Fetterman says that when he heard Zohran Mamdani say he would defy the Supreme Court on the temporary protected status of Haitians, “That’s a Constitutional crisis”
“That's a… pic.twitter.com/Zq8nfW9SW9
Fetterman has become a consistent, if lonely, Democratic voice against his party's leftward slide. He has cited progressive figures like Maine Senate candidate Graham Planter, Los Angeles mayoral candidate Nithya Raman, Washington, D.C., mayoral candidate Janeese Lewis George, and a wave of progressive candidates running across New York City as evidence that the party has lost touch with most Americans.
Tyler Durden Mon, 06/29/2026 - 20:30A retired elementary school teacher from Petersburg just punched his ticket back onto Alaska's Republican U.S. Senate primary ballot after he was accused of being a deliberate spoiler and struck from the ballot.
Dan Sullivan of Petersburg announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate on May 29 to challenge incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. (Photo courtesy of Dan Sullivan)Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled late Friday that the Alaska Division of Elections had no legal right to disqualify Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. The Division had yanked him on June 15, calling his filing a sham designed to confuse voters and tilt the race toward Democrat Mary Peltola in November. Matthews said the state basically invented a "good faith" test that doesn't exist in the U.S. Constitution, Alaska statutes, or the Division's own rules - and that's a problem when you're talking about a federal office.
In the Friday night ruling, the judge determined Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, is an eligible candidate for U.S. Senate and that the division shall include his name on the August 18 primary ballot.
The division’s decision to disqualify Sullivan because it determined his candidacy was not filed in “good faith” was unconstitutional, Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled. “The director’s assertion that Mr. Sullivan seeks to confuse or misguide voters is not supported by a preponderance of evidence,” he wrote. -Alaska Beacon
The U.S. Constitution sets only three qualifications for senator: age, citizenship length, and state residency. States can't tack on extra hurdles, especially subjective ones about someone's motives. The judge noted the Division accepted Republican complaints at face value while brushing aside Sullivan's explanations, and he pointed out that practical fixes like printing middle initials (Dan J. versus Dan S.) exist if name similarity is the real worry.
What set this offSullivan, a former U.S. Forest Service employee who taught fifth grade in Petersburg, filed May 29 as a Republican. He shares the incumbent senator's first and last name - a coincidence he's called a "matter of fate." Election officials and GOP groups zeroed in on several red flags: he'd recently switched his registration to Republican, having spent decades with the now-defunct Alaskan Independence Party until it dissolved late last year; his campaign materials and website looked similar to the incumbent's; and he'd worked with a political consultant, Amber Lee, whom Republicans flagged as a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates. Officials also seized on the fact that he first emailed the Division asking to appear on the ballot as "Dan S. Sullivan" - the senator's exact name, down to the middle initial - before switching the request to "Dan J." They argued the whole package was meant to siphon votes in a primary that could decide whether Sen. Dan Sullivan faces a tougher general election.
The opposition came from the top: Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom opened an investigation, the Alaska Republican Party filed formal complaints, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee referred Sullivan to the Federal Election Commission, claiming his candidacy broke federal law.
Sullivan's response was straightforward: he's unhappy with the incumbent's record after 12 years and wants to give voters another choice. He says he followed every rule, paid the fees, and met the qualifications - and he flatly rejects the idea that he's a Democratic plant. Asked by the Associated Press whether he'd had any contact with Peltola's campaign, he said "zero, none, zilch." Peltola's camp and state Democrats have denied the spoiler accusation too, and when the Division actually pulled him, it didn't point to any proof of coordination - it rested the call on his supposed lack of "good faith." His small Southeast Alaska hometown has largely rallied behind him.
Matthews didn't buy the Division's claim that it had broad power to police "ballot fairness" by removing candidates it disliked. He ordered Sullivan's name on the August 18 primary ballot. The state immediately moved to appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court, which has until Tuesday to settle the matter - right up against the deadline for printing ballots.
For now, the "other" Dan Sullivan stays in. Alaskan voters might have to do a little extra homework to tell the two apart, but the judge made clear that's not grounds to disqualify someone who otherwise qualifies.
U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, NOT the retired teacher, at the Alaska State Capitol in February. Tyler Durden Mon, 06/29/2026 - 19:40