What happened
The Supreme Court yesterday allowed the Trump administration to at least temporarily resume deporting migrants to countries where they don't have citizenship or other ties, without notice or a chance to contest the destination. The court's three liberal justices dissented, saying the majority's brief, unsigned "emergency docket" order deprived migrants of congressionally mandated due process.

Who said what
The high court's conservative majority lifted an April order from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston requiring the administration to give migrants facing deportation the time and opportunity to raise objections to being sent to third countries where they could be tortured. "The absence of any reasoning made it impossible to understand the majority's thinking" behind yesterday's decision, The New York Times said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a sharp dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the ruling exposed "thousands to the risk of torture or death" and was"rewarding lawlessness" by halting an order the Trump administration has repeatedly defied. "The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard," she wrote.

What next?
The Department of Homeland Security "can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them," agency spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. "Fire up the deportation planes." But federal judges "could continue to block third-country deportations in individual cases," Politico said. Last night Murphy said the administration was still barred by a separate order from deporting six migrants in limbo in Djibouti to South Sudan, where DHS was sending them last month before the judge stepped in.

What happened
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) yesterday said she had ordered the state's public energy utility to build New York's first new nuclear power plant since 1989. The plant, to be constructed somewhere in upstate New York for an unknown cost, will produce at least a gigawatt of energy, enough to power a million homes. New York's three active nuclear plants produce 3.3 gigawatts, or about 20% of the state's power.

Who said what
Nuclear energy has "enjoyed a resurgence of interest from states and companies in recent years" due to its emissions-free power and ability to "run at all hours, unlike wind and solar," The New York Times said. But utilities have been "deterred by the high price tag." The country's two newest reactors, completed in Georgia last year, cost nearly $35 billion, more than double the initial estimate, and were finished seven years behind schedule. 

Nuclear plants also create radioactive waste and can cause catastrophic damage if they fail, as happened in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011. The new plant will be a "model of 21st century nuclear design with safety at the forefront," Hochul said. "This is not your grandparents' nuclear reactor."

What next?
Hochul said there is high interest in hosting the new upstate plant and the jobs it will provide. "Everybody is raising their hand right now," she said. "It's going to be hard to decide." The project will also "offer a practical assessment" of President Donald Trump's executive orders aiming to "accelerate development of nuclear-power projects," The Wall Street Journal said.