Supreme Court to debate Trump restrictions on birthright citizenship and enforcement of nationwide injunctions

The case on the Supreme Court's docket this week ostensibly deals with a challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship.

But overriding that important constitutional debate is a more immediate and potentially far-reaching test of judicial power: the ability of individual federal judges to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, preventing temporary enforcement of President Donald Trump's sweeping executive actions.

That will be the focus when the nine justices hear oral arguments Thursday morning about how President Trump's restrictions on who can be called an American citizen can proceed in the lower federal courts.

Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office that would end automatic citizenship for children of people in the U.S. illegally.

SUPREME COURT POISED TO MAKE MAJOR DECISION THAT COULD SET LIMITS ON THE POWER OF DISTRICT JUDGES

Separate coalitions of about two dozen states, along with immigrant rights groups, and private individuals — including several pregnant women in Maryland — have sued.

Three separate federal judges subsequently issued orders temporarily blocking enforcement across the country while the issues are fully litigated in court. Appeals courts have declined to disturb those rulings.

Now the three consolidated cases come to the high court in an unusual scenario, a rare May oral argument that has been fast-tracked for an expected ruling in coming days or weeks.

The executive order remains on hold nationwide until the justices decide.

But the cases will likely not be decided on the merits at this stage, only on whether to narrow the scope of those injunctions. That would allow the policy to take effect in limited parts of the country or only to those plaintiffs actually suing over the president's authority.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE

A high court decision could be sweeping, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 — and counting — federal lawsuits against White House actions filed since Jan. 20, according to a Fox News data analysis.

Of those, more than 200 judicial orders have halted large parts of the president's agenda from being enacted, almost 40 of them nationwide injunctions. Dozens of other cases have seen no legal action so far on gateway issues like temporary enforcement.

While the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the use of universal injunctions, several conservative justices have expressed concerns over  power.

Justice Clarence Thomas in 2018 labeled them "legally and historically dubious," adding, "These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system – preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch."

And it comes to the Supreme Court as part of the so-called emergency or "shadow" docket, time-sensitive appeals known officially as "applications" that usually arrive in the early stages.

They seek to temporarily block or delay a lower court or government action that, despite its procedurally narrow posture, can have immediate and far-reaching implications.

Things like requests for stays of execution, voting restrictions, COVID vaccine mandates or access to a federally approved abortion medication and, since January, Trump's sweeping executive reform plans.

Some members of the court have expressed concern that these kinds of appeals are arriving with greater frequency in recent years, high-profile issues leading to rushed decisions without the benefit of full briefing or deliberation.

'ACTIVIST' JUDGES KEEP TRYING TO CURB TRUMP’S AGENDA – HERE’S HOW HE COULD PUSH BACK

Justice Elena Kagan last year said the shadow docket's caseload has been "relentless," adding, "We’ve gotten into a pattern where we're doing too many of them."

The pace this term has only increased with the new administration frustrated at dozens of lower court setbacks.

"We've seen a lot of justices critical of the fact that the court is taking an increasing number of cases and deciding them using the shadow docket," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department lawyer and a top appellate advocate. 

"These justices say, 'Look, we don't have to decide this on an emergency basis. We can wait.'"

Many progressive lawyers complain the Trump administration has been too eager to bypass the normal district and intermediate appellate court process, seeking quick, end-around Supreme Court review on consequential questions of law only when it loses.

The debate over birthright citizenship and injunctions is expected to expose further ideological divides on the court's 6-3 conservative majority.

That is especially true when it comes to the 13 challenges over Trump policies that have reached the justices so far, with six of them awaiting a ruling.

The court's three more liberal justices have pushed back at several preliminary victories for the administration, including its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport scores of illegal immigrants suspected of criminal gang activity in the U.S.

TRUMP'S REMARKS COULD COME BACK TO BITE HIM IN ABREGO GARCIA DEPORTATION BATTLE

Dissenting in one such emergency appeal over the deportations to El Salvador, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law." 

"Our job is to stand up for people who can't do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes," Sotomayor separately told an American Bar Association audience last week. "But, right now, we can't lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight."

Trump has made no secret of his disdain for judges who have ruled against his policies or at least blocked them from being immediately implemented.

He called for the formal removal of one federal judge after an adverse decision over deporting illegal immigrants. That prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public statement, saying, "Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."

And in separate remarks last week, the chief justice underscored the judiciary's duty to "check the excesses of Congress or the executive."

The first section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Trump said last month he was "so happy" the Supreme Court will hear arguments, adding, "I think the case has been so misunderstood."

The president said the 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to people born in the U.S., was ratified right after the Civil War, which he interpreted as "all about slavery."

"If you look at it that way, we would win that case," the president said in Oval Office remarks.

Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," would deny it to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are illegal immigrants. And it bans federal agencies from issuing or accepting documents recognizing citizenship for those children.

An estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 are living with an unauthorized immigrant parent, according to the Pew Research Center. There are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, 3.3% of the population. Although some census experts suggest those numbers may be higher.

But in its legal brief filed with the high court, the Justice Department argues the issue now is really about judges blocking enforcement of the president's policies while the cases weave their way through the courts, a process that could last months or even years. The government initially framed its high court appeal as a "modest request."

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS ADDRESSES DIVISIONS BETWEEN JUSTICES AFTER SEVERAL RECENT SCOTUS SKIRMISHES

"These injunctions exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III [of the Constitution] and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II," said Solicitor General John Sauer, who will argue the administration's case Thursday. "Until this Court decides whether nationwide injunctions are permissible, a carefully selected subset of district courts will persist in granting them as a matter of course, relying on malleable eye-of-the-beholder criteria."

The plaintiffs counter the government is misguided in what it calls "citizenship stripping" and the use of nationwide injunctions.

"Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay," said Nicholas Brown, the attorney general of Washington state. "If this Court steps in when the applicant [government] is so plainly wrong on the law, there will be no end to stay applications and claims of emergency, undermining the proper role and stature of this Court. This Court should deny the applications."

The consolidated cases are Trump v. CASA (24a884); Trump v. State of Washington (24a885); Trump v. New Jersey (24a886). 

House Democrat moves to force Trump impeachment vote

A lone House Democrat is moving to force a chamber-wide vote on his impeachment resolution against President Donald Trump.

Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., introduced his impeachment resolution as privileged on Tuesday afternoon, meaning leaders have two days of the House in session to take up the legislation.

House GOP leaders could move to table the motion, a procedural vote aimed to scuttle a piece of legislation without having lawmakers vote on the legislation itself.

ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' COULD SPARK HOUSE GOP REBELLION

But an impeachment vote would likely put vulnerable House Democrats in a tough spot. 

Democrats have struggled to unite behind a potent message since the 2024 election, and such a vote could be politically perilous for their most vulnerable members as they work to win back the House majority in 2026.

No Republicans are likely to support impeaching Trump, however, meaning Thanedar's measure will likely fail.

"Donald Trump has unlawfully conducted himself, bringing shame to the presidency and the people of the United States," Thanedar said when deeming his resolution privileged.

BROWN UNIVERSITY IN GOP CROSSHAIRS AFTER STUDENT'S DOGE-LIKE EMAIL KICKS OFF FRENZY

Thanedar also took a swing at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), calling it a "flagrantly unconstitutional creation."

The India-born Michigan Democrat first introduced seven articles of impeachment against Trump in late April.

They include charges of obstruction of justice, tyranny, bribery and corruption, and abuse of trade powers, among others. 

But Politico reported that his resolution got off to a bumpy start. 

Four Democratic co-sponsors who were originally listed on the legislation implied they were mistakenly added and then removed themselves, the outlet reported. Thanedar told Politico at the time he respected their decisions.

Thanedar's filing comes after Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, similarly threatened to file impeachment articles against Trump. 

Green was later thrown out of Trump's address to a joint session of Congress for repeatedly protesting the speech.

Fox News Digital reached out to Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and the White House for comment on Thanedar's move but did not immediately hear back.

Dem in Trump district race scrubs social media of posts praising progressives: ‘Scam artist’

FIRST ON FOX: A Democrat running for Congress in New Jersey who has been positioning herself as a moderate to unseat the sitting Republican in a pro-Trump district, has deleted several social media posts promoting progressive candidates and causes.

Democrat Rebecca Bennett, who is running in the Democratic primary to unseat GOP Rep. Thomas Kean Jr. in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, is a Navy veteran and current member of the Air Force National Guard who has been labeled by local media as a "moderate" in a race the Cook Political Report ranks as "Lean Republican."

A Fox News Digital review of Bennett’s X account, which was created in July 2011 and recently converted from @BigRedBecks to @RebeccaForNJ07, shows several deleted posts that seemingly drift away from the "moderate" label, including praise of progressive Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

"Love her," Bennett said in a now-deleted post about Warren in 2019. 

BIDEN DENIES HE LEFT 2024 RACE TOO LATE TO STOP TRUMP, SAYS IT WOULDN'T HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE

"I love everything about this," Bennett said in a now-deleted post praising a video mashup of Warren to the tune of a Taylor Swift song. "(Except the misogyny that makes it real…) #TeamWarren."

Bennett has also removed posts praising former Vice President Kamala Harris, who was defeated by President Donald Trump, not only nationally, but also narrowly with voters in Kean’s district by just over one percentage point. 

"Let’s Goooooo," Bennett wrote in a now-deleted post after Harris was announced as then-former Vice President Joe Biden’s running mate in 2020. 

If elected, Bennett would serve alongside Democratic New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who she praised in 2020, calling him the "best senator." That post has since been deleted. 

VANCE, CONSERVATIVES BLAST OMAR OVER RESURFACED 'FEARFUL OF WHITE MEN' CLIP: 'GENOCIDAL LANGUAGE'

During the civil unrest and rioting that erupted after the death of George Floyd in 2020, Bennett posted on X that she agreed in a now-deleted post with a comment from former Obama campaign strategist David Plouffe, where he said House Democrats should "hold hearings" and investigate law enforcement officials responding to the riots.

Bennett also deleted a post that appears to support the first impeachment of President Trump.

"Officially a @JasonCrowCO6 fan," Bennett posted on January 21, 2020 as the impeachment trial was unfolding where Crow ultimately voted to impeach. "I’m a vet who also didn’t have the equipment I needed to do my job, so this is personal for me too. #ImpeachmentTrial."

Fox News Digital reached out to Bennett’s team to inquire about the motivation behind deleting the X posts. 

Bennett's announcement video, which is almost two minutes long, does not mention that she is a Democrat.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokeswoman Maureen O'Toole said, "It’s clear Rebecca Bennett is desperately trying to run away from her past and cover up her radical, out of touch agenda."

"But New Jersey voters see right through her act and know exactly who she is: a radical scam artist who can’t be trusted."

Bennett's team, in a statement to Fox News Digital, did not address why the posts were removed but dismissed the criticism from the NRCC. 

"It’s no surprise to see the NRCC and conservative news outlets start attacking Rebecca, because they know she is a serious threat to beat Congressman Tom Kean next November and flip NJ7," Dan Bryan, senior advisor to the Bennett campaign, said. 

"Rebecca and her campaign will continue to ignore recycled bad faith attacks from right-wing outlets and focus on her record serving this country and Congressman Kean’s failure to deliver for working families in our district."

Bennett is not the first New Jersey Democrat running for Congress to face scrutiny over deleted social media posts.

Sue Altman, who was defeated by Kean in 2024, faced heated criticism for deleting social media posts that were critical of law enforcement. 

The race in NJ-07 will be closely watched in next year's midterm elections given the thin majority Republicans currently hold in the House of Representatives, where the GOP currently holds 220 seats compared to 215 for the Democrats.

Chief Justice Roberts doubles down on defense of courts as SCOTUS gears up to hear key Trump cases

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts used a public appearance Wednesday to stress the importance of an independent judiciary, doubling down on defense of the courts under fire by President Donald Trump and his allies, who have accused so-called "activist judges" of overstepping their bounds.

Asked during a fireside chat event in Buffalo, New York, about judicial independence, Roberts responded in no uncertain terms that the role of the federal courts is to "decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive."

That role, he added, "does require a degree of independence."

BOASBERG GRILLS DOJ OVER REMARKS FROM TRUMP AND NOEM, FLOATS MOVING MIGRANTS TO GITMO IN ACTION-PACKED HEARING

Roberts' remarks are not new. But they come as Trump and his allies have railed against federal judges who have paused or halted key parts of the president's agenda. (Some of the rulings they've taken issue with came from judges appointed by Trump in his first term.)

The Supreme Court is slated to hear a number of high-profile cases and emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration in the next few months, cases that are all but certain to keep the high court in the spotlight for the foreseeable future.

Among them are Trump's executive orders banning transgender service members from serving in the U.S. military, restoring fired federal employees to their jobs and a case about whether children whose parents illegally entered the U.S. and were born here should be granted citizenship. Oral arguments for that last case kick off next week.

TRUMP-ALIGNED GROUP SUES CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IN EFFORT TO RESTRICT POWER OF THE COURTS

Just hours before Roberts spoke to U.S. District Judge Lawrence Vilardo, a high-stakes hearing played out in federal court in Washington, D.C.

There, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg spent more than an hour grilling Justice Department lawyers about their use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport hundreds of migrants to El Salvador earlier this year. 

Boasberg’s March 15 order that temporarily blocked Trump’s use of the law to send migrants to a Salvadoran prison sparked ire from the White House and in Congress, where some Trump allies had previously floated calls for impeachment.

Roberts, who put out a rare public statement at the time rebuking calls to impeach Boasberg or any federal judges, doubled down on that in Wednesday's remarks.

"Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with a decision," Roberts said, adding that he had already spoken about that in his earlier statement.

In the statement, sent by Roberts shortly after Trump floated the idea of impeaching Boasberg, said that "for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," he said.

"The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose," he said in the statement. 

Speaker Johnson gives verdict on House plan to impeach judges blocking Trump

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., signaled there is little appetite for judicial impeachments among House Republican leaders. 

He said a bill passed by the House earlier this year, aimed at limiting federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in most cases, was a "silver bullet" against activist judges.

Johnson refused to pull impeachment off the table indefinitely when pressed by Fox News Digital, but he cautioned that there was a high bar for such maneuvers, while noting that getting enough votes to impeach in the House and remove in the Senate is an uphill battle in itself.

REPUBLICANS ADVANCE TRUMP ALLY'S GULF OF AMERICA BILL TO FULL HOUSE VOTE DESPITE DEM OPPOSITION

"Look, impeachments are never off the table if it's merited. But in our system, we've had 15 federal judges impeached in the entire history of the country. I mean, there may be some that I feel merit that, but you’ve got to get the votes for it, right? And it's a very high burden," Johnson said.

"And by the way, even if we could get an impeachment article through the House on a federal judge, it's unlikely that they would be tried and convicted in the Senate on that, with the divided number we have. So, short of that, what can we do?"

The speaker said House Republicans had "done everything within our power to solve that problem."

GOP LEADERS FIND NEW MAJOR HOLIDAY DEADLINE FOR TRUMP'S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ AMID MEDICAID TAX DIVISIONS

"Darrell Issa's bill is a great response: The No Rogue Rulings Act would prohibit a single individual judgment issuing a nationwide injunction like that to stop the entire policy of an administration," Johnson said. 

"We passed it to the House, we sent it to the Senate with every expectation that they should be able to take that up. And I certainly hope they can, because, again, shouldn't be a partisan issue."

Some conservatives, however, are still hungry to pursue the impeachment route. They could force the House to do so by introducing a "privileged" resolution, meaning Johnson would need to take it up within two legislative days. 

However, it is a politically risky undertaking that is ultimately guaranteed to fail in the Senate, where at least several Democrats would be needed to meet the two-thirds threshold for removal. 

It comes amid the Trump administration’s continued standoff with the courts over a litany of the new White House’s policies — from deportation flights to the Department of Government Efficiency.

Republicans have dismissed the rulings as political decisions by activist judges, while Democrats accuse the White House of waging war on a co-equal branch of government. 

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has consistently said it is complying with all lawful court orders while denouncing activist judges in court and in the media sphere. 

Lawyer of whistleblower in Trump impeachment case sues administration over revoked security clearance

A lawyer who represented a government whistleblower in a case that led to President Donald Trump's first impeachment sued the Trump administration on Monday for "unconstitutional retaliation" after his security clearance was revoked.

Lawyer Mark Zaid argued that the administration's decision to pull his clearance in March was in retaliation for representing former Department of Homeland Security intelligence chief Brian Murphy, who was key to Trump's 2019 impeachment.

Murphy filed a whistleblower complaint in 2019 alleging Trump, amid his re-election campaign, pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate then-U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine. 

The U.S. House of Representatives voted later that year to impeach Trump for abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress, but he was later acquitted by the Senate.

HAKEEM JEFFRIES BLAMES TRUMP FOR NEWARK AIRPORT CHAOS, ACCUSES WHITE HOUSE OF 'BREAKING THE FAA'

Zaid's lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., claims the decision to rescind his security clearance represents a "dangerous, unconstitutional retaliation by the President of the United States against his perceived political enemies" that "eschews any semblance of due process."

The complaint accuses the Trump administration of violating the Administrative Procedures Act, the First Amendment and parts of the Fifth Amendment.

"No American should lose their livelihood, or be blocked as a lawyer from representing clients, because a president carries a grudge toward them or who they represent,"  Zaid said in a statement. "This isn’t just about me. It’s about using security clearances as political weapons."

FORMER VP PENCE VOWS TO SPEAK OUT IF PRESIDENT TRUMP VEERS FROM 'CONSERVATIVE AGENDA' 

The lawsuit cites a 2019 incident in which Trump called Zaid a "sleazeball" at a Louisiana rally and told reporters that the lawyer was a "disgrace" who "should be sued."

The move to pull Zaid's clearance was "a bald-faced attack on a sacred constitutional guarantee: the right to petition the court or federal agencies on behalf of clients," the lawsuit says, noting that an "attack on this right is especially insidious because it jeopardizes Mr. Zaid’s ability to pursue and represent the rights of others without fear of retribution."

Trump has also revoked clearances of several other political foes, including former President Joe Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and his own former national security advisor John Bolton, as well as attorneys at other law firms.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Zaid urged the court to rule that Trump's revocation decision was unconstitutional and reinstate his clearance. He has had access to classified information since 1995 and a security clearance since 2002.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Trump proves that he has no idea what the Constitution is—again

Attempting to deflect from courts repeatedly ruling against his immigration policy, President Donald Trump lied to reporters on Monday, claiming that the courts fabricated the need for cases to be heard—despite the right to a trial being a constitutional law for more than 234 years.

“The courts have all of a sudden, out of nowhere, they said, ‘maybe you have to have trials.’ Trials, we’re going to have 5 million trials? Doesn’t work, doesn’t work. You wouldn’t have a country left,” he said.

Trump has been under fire for denying detainees due process. Students like Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk have been abducted for their pro-Palestinian advocacy, and legal U.S. resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia was wrongly captured and deported to El Salvador.

On April 30, a court ordered the release of Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian immigrant who was held by the Department of Homeland Security while it tried to find a reason for his deportation.

Contrary to Trump’s statement, the U.S. Constitution explicitly lays out the right to a trial in the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Similarly, the Seventh Amendment notes:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

These rights were part of the ten amendments ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, and nothing in U.S. law or Trump’s executive orders have nullified them. The Sixth Amendment ensures that accusations leveled by the government against people have to be proven in a court of law and not just by royal fiat, as was done by the British government in the colonial era.

Trump’s unconstitutional remarks come just one day after he told NBC “I don’t know” when asked if the president needs to uphold the Constitution. Like every president before him, Trump took an oath of office, making it clear that this was a core element of his presidential duties.

The presidential oath of office states:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The oath is not ambiguous, and defense of the Constitution is not optional.

Trump’s ignorance of U.S. law and history was also on display when he recently argued that the Declaration of Independence was a “declaration of unity and love and respect.” The document famously severed the relationship between colonists and England, leading to the bloody Revolutionary War where hundreds of thousands died.

Of course, Trump is the only president who has been impeached twice. In both instances, he was found to be in violation of the Constitution.

No wonder he thinks the right to a trial came “out of nowhere.”

Campaign Action

Supreme Court justices sure are quiet about attacks on their power

Late last month, in his official capacity as presiding officer of the Judicial Conference, Chief Justice John Roberts got sued by America First.

That’s the legal group that Donald Trump’s senior adviser and chief ghoul Stephen Miller founded. America First typically keeps busy by suing everyone Miller finds insufficiently racist. This lawsuit, though, is wholly designed to do Trump’s bidding. 

Yes, the lawsuit that would drastically shift power from the judiciary to Trump’s White House was basically engineered by someone who works in Trump’s White House.

You’re probably wondering why this hasn’t been splashed all over every news source, particularly since it was filed almost two weeks ago. It’s a direct challenge to the authority of the judicial branch, yet there’s been nary a peep until Talking Points Memo reported on it Friday. No official statements from the court, no missive from Roberts, no Justice Sam Alito penning a whiny op-ed. Just meek silence about an existential threat. 

That meek silence might not seem so distressing if the justices were always close-mouthed about challenges to the judiciary, but that’s not the case. Roberts knows how to issue statements about threats to the judiciary’s independence because he does it routinely. Alito knows how to run to the Wall Street Journal when he wants to complain. 

America First’s lawsuit is ostensibly about whether the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But what it’s really about is a demand that the White House be given control over an arcane, but crucial, part of the judiciary by declaring it part of the executive branch. 

Stephen Miller, Trump’s chief ghoul.

Without getting too deep into the brainworms of this theory, it goes something like this: The Judicial Conference is an agency, not a court, because it doesn’t issue decisions. Instead, it is a body that makes rules for the courts. It’s also a body that must respond to congressional oversight requests. The chief justice has the power to appoint people to committees, so, according to the lawsuit, he is “acting as an agency head.” Rinse and repeat for roughly the same argument about the Administrative Office. 

You know where this is going, right? If it’s an agency, it’s part of the executive branch. If it’s part of the executive branch, it’s under the control of the president. 

In theory, the lawsuit is only asking for this so that those entities would have to respond to America First’s FOIA requests, but the only way that can happen is by saying they’re part of the executive branch, because their current status as part of the judiciary makes them exempt from FOIA.

So, what power would the president gain if both were under his control? Well, the Judicial Conference manages administrative and policy issues for the federal courts. 

That sounds fairly benign, but in that role, it handles complaints against federal judges and workplace harassment issues in the judiciary. It prepares plans on how to assign judges if necessary. It promulgates the regulations for financial disclosures and other ethics rules. Imagine a White House that could weaponize complaints against judges it hates while ignoring any ethical lapses by reliable favorite judges. 

What about the Administrative Office? It’s what it sounds like. It provides all the administrative support for the judicial branch, including financial, technology, legislative, and program support services. It also develops the annual judiciary budget and carries out Judicial Conference policies. 

Imagine a White House that completely controls how resources are distributed across federal courts or decides which program initiatives the courts can undertake. Imagine that White House slashing that funding to the bone or letting Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency run roughshod through confidential databases.

Shifting both of these over to the executive would have another effect, which is that it would undermine congressional oversight. Right now, those offices respond to oversight or investigation requests from members of Congress. In theory, those offices would still have that responsibility, but they’d be controlled by Trump toadies. 

Conservatives like Trump and Miller are unhappy that Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island had the temerity to inquire into undisclosed billionaire-funded freebies received by Alito and Clarence Thomas. Those inquiries came after the April 2023 ProPublica report that Thomas failed to disclose literally dozens of destination vacations, private jet flights, and more from his billionaire buddy, Harlan Crow. The report sparked Whitehouse’s 2023 request to the Judicial Conference that it refer Thomas to the attorney general for investigation. 

Justice Clarence Thomas was the subject of extensive ProPublica reporting about his failure to disclose all of the gifts he’d received from rich benefactors.

So, a close adviser to the president is puppeteering a lawsuit that would strip the judiciary of the power to oversee its own affairs and would hobble its ability to work with Congress on meaningful oversight. 

But the most vocal conservative justices do not see this blatant power grab as problematic. At least, that’s what we can deduce from the fact that they’ve said nothing, despite being perfectly happy to speak out on far lesser matters. 

Remember when the chief justice was so concerned that Congress not exceed its authority over the judiciary that he refused to appear before the Senate in April 2023 to answer questions about court ethics after news broke about Thomas? About a month later, he touted the judiciary’s “status as an independent branch of government under the Constitution’s separation of powers” as a reason not to allow Congress to impose any code of conduct on the court. 

So what exactly does have to happen to rouse Roberts to raise the alarm? Well, apparently, a milquetoast statement from a Democratic senator. 

In March 2020, while making a speech outside the Supreme Court, Sen. Chuck Schumer said of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” 

Heavens! Roberts rushed to get a statement out that named Schumer, quoted him, and said that "threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”

By contrast, look at the statement Roberts made after Trump went after Judge James A. Boasberg, the judge who blocked the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan immigrants. 

“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED,” Trump declared on social media. He also called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator.” 

And it wasn’t just Trump. Multiple elected GOP officials have introduced articles of impeachment against multiple federal judges. Trump supporters have threatened the families of at least 11 judges who have ruled against the administration.

Did Roberts call anyone out by name? Did Roberts quote Trump? Haha, of course not. 

Here’s the whole of Roberts’ statement: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

That’s telling ’em, John. 

What about Alito? He’s someone who has not been shy about making public statements whenever he feels attacked. When Alito learned in June 2023 that ProPublica was publishing a story about his failure to disclose a fancy vacation paid for by billionaire Paul Singer and to recuse himself from cases related to Singer’s hedge fund, he had an op-ed over at the Wall Street Journal before the ProPublica piece even ran.  

Justice Samuel Alito published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal to attacks reporting about him.

One month later, he was back on the op-ed pages, the subject of a fawning interview co-authored by David Rivkin Jr., an attorney who had a tax case before the Supreme Court at the time of the interview. In refusing to recuse, Alito explained that Rivkin, when writing the articles, was magically “a journalist, not an advocate.” Sure. 

Alito also took the opportunity to declare that Congress can’t regulate the Supreme Court, period, because there’s nothing in the Constitution that says so. It sounds like Alito is very concerned when the other branches try to intrude on the judiciary’s authority! Oh, wait, that only applies to Democrats in Congress. Apparently, when the executive branch makes a power grab, that’s just fine. 

A few years ago, the America First case would have been the sort of lawsuit only brought by the weirdest pro se litigants who were convinced that Roberts was Illuminati or some such thing. The notion that the whole of the constitutional order should be upended, that the judiciary’s administrative functions secretly belong to the executive branch, would have been treated like the nonsense it was. 

Now, though, this sort of nonsense is being pushed by one of the president’s closest advisers and just happens to track the president’s goal of eradicating the independence of the other branches of government. But still, from the Supreme Court? Silence. 

Campaign Action

Rep. Mikie Sherrill suggests third Trump impeachment as she campaigns to be next New Jersey governor

Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., suggested impeaching President Donald Trump a third time to stop Republicans following the 2026 midterms, as she seeks to become the next governor of New Jersey.

"I think you have to test yourself. I think it’s not enough to take on one tough fight. I think there’s a lot of tough fights going on," Sherrill told supporters during a campaign event at Ridgeway Volunteer Fire Company Station 34 in Manchester Township on April 26, according to the New York Post.

Sherrill, 53, was first elected to the U.S. House in the 2018 midterms, winning the state's 11th congressional district that had long been considered a Republican stronghold. She voted for both of Trump's impeachments during his first administration.

"When I impeached the president the first time — who knew I would ever be saying–" she was saying at the campaign event last week when an audience member interjected that she should "do it again," leading to laughter from the rest of the crowd.

GOP GOVERNOR HOPEFUL PUSHES ANTI-CHINA POLICY AFTER YEARS OF CHINESE INVESTMENTS

"Yeah, exactly. We’ll see," she replied. "Maybe we’ll go for the trifecta."

The congresswoman added: "But when I impeached him the first time, I thought I would probably lose my seat after that because of my district."

Earlier this week, Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., filed articles of impeachment against Trump for several alleged high crimes and misdemeanors, including for eliminating federal programs without congressional authorization, violating First Amendment rights and refusing to follow court orders to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. after he was sent to a prison in his home country of El Salvador.

The administration purports that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, although a judge previously granted him a form of protected status known as "withholding of removal" after finding that he would likely be a target of Salvadoran gangs if deported to his native country. Democrat lawmakers, many legal experts and other critics of the move to send Abrego Garcia to the Salvadoran prison say this was done without giving him the opportunity to exercise his due process rights.

Trump's "unlawful actions have subverted the justice system, violated the separation of powers, and placed personal power and self-interest above public service," Thanedar said in a statement when introducing articles of impeachment against the president.

Sherrill explained at her event how Democrat-led states could challenge Trump’s agenda.

"I was on the floor on January 6th. And he has no intention of leaving in four years — zero," Sherrill said, as Trump has floated the idea of bending the constitutional rules to run for a third term.

"It’s up to, again, all of us to make sure that we are there, mobilizing, bringing people together as he’s trying to divide us apart, finding ways around and, kind of, to block and tackle in the states," Sherrill said.

GOP CANDIDATE RIPS BLUE STATE DIRECTIVE MEDDLING IN POLICE FORCE'S COOPERATION WITH ICE: 'HANDCUFFED'

"I have to tell you it’s all down to federalism, in my mind. It’s down to the states — and taking them to court as they’re trying to meddle in our election system," she added.

Others facing Sherrill in the Democrat gubernatorial primary include Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, former Montclair mayor and president of the New Jersey Education Association Sean Spiller and former state Senate president Stephen Sweeney.

Current Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy is term-limited.

The New Jersey Democrat primary will be held on June 10.