Aggregator
Tech Life
Mikel Brown Jr. emerges as betting favorite for Nets’ No. 6 NBA Draft pick
Stock up on Dawn Powerwash while it’s nearly 30% off Prime Day
These best-selling Marshall headphones are nearly half-off today
Shocking DA decision hours before maniac choked out woman in violent rampage in California Target
NYPD detective shot in standoff with armed lunatic gets sweet hug from Commissioner Tisch after hospital release
New era for NYC nightlife? I went backstage with Black Coffee at Pacha to find out
What is a heat dome? How the atmospheric phenomenon has Europe trapped in a heat wave
Video shows NY cops stop maniac son in his tracks as he stabs mom 40 times in zombie-like trance
Mrs. Meyer’s summer soap bundle is less than $20 for Prime Day
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 - 15:45Meta 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