Newsmax’s Michael Cozzi flags immigration and religious liberty cases in the new Supreme Court term as potential wins for President Trump, even as Trump questions three justices he appointed.

Michael Cozzi laid out the stakes Sunday on Newsmax’s “Wake Up America Weekend.” The Supreme Court’s new term begins Monday with a docket that includes immigration fights, voting rules, gun regulations, environmental liability, and religious liberty.

Cozzi said the biggest case for Trump is the third-country deportation dispute set for December. That fight tests the administration’s power to remove migrants to countries other than their own. Detention without bond hearings is also on the radar.

Those questions sit against earlier Court action that already let Trump restart third-country deportations. The new arguments could lock in more authority for border enforcement.

Cozzi put it plainly.

"I think the biggest one is going to be the third-country deportation case that is going to be in December,"

He also flagged First Amendment religious liberty cases out of Colorado. At issue is whether religious preschools can be shut out of a state-funded program over faith-based admissions policies on sex and gender. Cozzi framed the fight as whether “transgender ideology has to be incorporated” in the state.

He told viewers:

"However, we also have some First Amendment religious liberty cases when it comes to whether or not transgender ideology has to be incorporated in the state of Colorado,"

Trump airs frustration with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett

Last week President Trump said he regrets appointing Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. He faulted them for rulings that went against his policies. Trump has still secured several wins at the Court and could see more this term.

Cozzi treated the complaint as nothing new in American history. Presidents have second-guessed their own picks for generations.

He walked through the record:

"If you look back at presidential history, this has been a presidential pastime, really since even President [James] Madison, who regretted nominating Justice [Joseph] Story, who was one of the most original and dynamic authors at the Supreme Court,"

Cozzi continued the timeline into the last two centuries, naming Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman, who put Justice Tom C. Clark on the bench. He then turned to Dwight Eisenhower.

Eisenhower’s line, as Cozzi relayed it, was blunt:

"The two biggest mistakes I ever made as president are sitting at the bench of the United States Supreme Court."

That long pattern of friction does not erase the practical stakes now. Immigration enforcement and religious liberty remain live fights. Prior Court moves that cleared the path for Trump’s third-country deportations show how much turns on these dockets.

Border authority and faith protections sit at the center

The December third-country case and the Colorado preschool dispute give the justices fresh chances to draw clear lines. One tests whether the executive can actually remove people who have no legal right to stay. The other tests whether states can punish religious schools for living out their beliefs on sex and gender.

Voters who want lawful immigration and secure borders have watched soft enforcement and endless process for years. The same voters have watched state agencies lean on religious institutions to adopt contested gender rules. These cases put both problems in front of the Court at once.

Trump’s earlier Court successes, including the restoration of tools that let states verify voter citizenship, already proved the bench can deliver concrete results when the law is clear. More of the same is possible this term.

Cozzi’s historical tour underlines a simple truth. Every president who names justices eventually watches some of them vote the other way. Madison, Wilson, Truman, and Eisenhower all felt it. Trump is saying the same thing out loud about Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

The difference this time is the subject matter. Deportation authority and religious freedom are not abstract. They decide whether immigration law means what it says and whether faith-based schools keep their character.

Presidents will always spar with the Court they shape. What matters is whether the justices enforce the borders and protect the First Amendment the public expects.