Hochul’s office silent when pressed if she sticks by ‘no one is above the law’ belief amid AG’s indictment

New York Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul offered her support of Empire State Attorney General Letitia James when she was first indicted on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution, following years of the New York governor celebrating legal challenges originating in her home state and elsewhere against President Donald Trump. 

"New Yorkers know @NewYorkStateAGJames for her integrity, her independence, and her relentless fight for justice," Hochul posted to X following James' indictment. "What we're seeing today is nothing less than the weaponization of the Justice Department to punish those who hold the powerful accountable." 

A grand jury in Virginia indicted James Thursday, months after Federal Housing Finance Director Bill Pulte said in a criminal referral to the Department of Justice in April that James allegedly falsified mortgage records to obtain more favorable loans. She faces charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Pulte alleged in his criminal referral that James purchased a home in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2023, but identified it as her primary residence on mortgage documents and a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac form. James is legally required to live in New York as a statewide elected official in that state. 

LEGAL EXPERT CALLS OUT 'IRONIC' TWIST AS NY AG WHO PROSECUTED TRUMP FACES FEDERAL BANK FRAUD CHARGES

"No one is above the law. The charges as alleged in this case represent intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust," U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan said when James was indicted. "The facts and the law in this case are clear, and we will continue following them to ensure that justice is served."

Hochul, as well as other prominent Democrats, have pointed to the indictment as alleged "political weaponization" and political persecution of a Trump foe at the hands of the administration. 

James and Trump have long traded barbs, with James campaigning for the attorney general job in 2018 by vowing to pursue legal charges against Trump if elected. Her office ultimately filed nearly 100 legal challenges against the first Trump administration and vowed to continue the legal battles upon his re-election in November 2024. 

MAMDANI ASSAILS TRUMP FOR 'POLITICAL RETRIBUTION' AGAINST LETITIA JAMES IN SWEEPING DEFENSE OF EMBATTLED AG

Trump accused Democrats of waging lawfare — which is understood as leveraging the courts to gain political advantage — as a last-ditch attempt to prevent him from running for the Oval Office again in the 2024 cycle and securing another federal election win. Trump, for example, was indicted and found guilty in a New York case that accused him of falsifying business records, he was indicted on racketeering charges in Georgia, faced federal criminal cases claiming he mishandled sensitive government documents after his first presidency, and another claiming he attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. 

Trump also faced civil cases, including James accusing Trump and the Trump Organization of inflating asset values in a lawsuit that found Trump and his companies liable. 

Fox News Digital took a look back at Hochul's previous comments on Trump and the legal cases that plagued the president during his first administration through his interim as the 45th and 47th president, and found the governor frequently celebrated cases that conservatives identified as "lawfare." 

Fox News Digital reached out to Hochul's office for comment on her past remarks on legal cases against Trump as she promotes the narrative that the administration is weaponizng the justice system against political foes, but did not immediately receive a reply. Fox Digital specifically asked if Hochul stands by her previous comments that "no one is above the law," considering James' indictment, but did not receive replies. 

Trump is the first and only president to be impeached twice by the House, with Hochul remaking during his first impeachment in 2019 — which accused him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to allegedly seeking foreign interference from Ukraine to boost his re-election efforts in 2020 — that no one is above the law.

LETITIA JAMES' OWN WORDS COME BACK TO HAUNT HER AFTER FEDERAL BANK FRAUD CHARGES FILED

"It’s really quite simple — NO ONE is above the law. Not now, not ever," she posted to Facebook. "Speaker Pelosi & Democrats in Congress are holding the president accountable because they have a patriotic duty to uphold our Constitution, not play partisan politics."

As Trump stood trial for the civil fraud case launched by James that accused Trump and Trump Organization of financial fraud, Hochul commented that she had "full confidence" that he would be held accountable, while also remarking that he had "temper tantrums" in court. 

"Former President Donald Trump is testifying in an unprecedented civil trial brought by our own Attorney General, Tish James. So far from telling the truth as he's required to do, he's throwing temper tantrums from the witness stand and verbally attacking judges and courtroom staff,"  she said in November 2023. "His conduct has been a disgrace and I have full confidence that Donald Trump will be held accountable for his actions." 

A month later, the Democratic governor appeared to throw her support behind a lawsuit that aimed to prevent Trump's name from appearing on voting ballots for the 2024 election. 

NEW YORK AG LETITIA JAMES' INDICTMENT SPARKS SHARP PARTISAN DIVIDE

A group of Colorado voters brought forth a lawsuit in 2022 arguing Trump should be deemed ineligible from holding political office under a Civil War-era insurrection clause. The lawsuit argued Trump's action on Jan. 6, 2021 — when supporters breached the U.S. Capitol — violated a clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents officers of the United States, members of Congress or state legislatures who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution from holding political office.

"Jan. 6 will live in infamy. Shame on us if we forget that," Hochul said in December 2023, when the Colorado Supreme Court declared him ineligible to run for president. "Shame on us what happened to this country when a Capitol that I used to proudly walk in as a member of Congress was literally under siege, people died, people were injured, and if he doesn’t take responsibility for that, then the American people ought to hold him accountable. So that’s what’s starting in Colorado."

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in March 2024 to keep Trump on the ballot.

After Trump was found liable in James' civil fraud case in 2023 and ordered to pay $355 million fine, Hochul worked to calm other business leaders' concerns that they could face similar trials, citing that Trump and "his behavior" set him apart. 

"I think that this is really an extraordinary, unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about, because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior," Hochul said on the radio show "The Cats Roundtable" in February 2024. 

An appeals court threw out the monetary penalty in the case earlier in 2025. 

Later that same year, Hochul celebrated that "no one is above the law" when Trump was found guilty in NY v. Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records. 

"Today's verdict reaffirms that no one is above the law," Hochul said in a statement in May 2024. "In preparation for a verdict in this trial, I directed my Administration to closely coordinate with local and federal law enforcement and we continue to monitor the situation. We are committed to protecting the safety of all New Yorkers and the integrity of our judicial system."

As the election came down to the wire in 2024, Hochul slammed Trump as a "fraud" and "philanderer" who lacked New York values, while pointing to the New York v. Trump case. 

"Donald Trump was born a New Yorker but ended up a fraud, a philanderer, and a felon. He wasn’t raised with the New York values that I know," Hochul declared during her Democratic National Convention speech in Chicago in 2024. "Trust me, America, if you think you’re tired of Donald Trump, talk to a New Yorker. We’ve had to deal with them for 78 long years, the fraud, the tax dodging, the sham university, the shady charities."

DOJ OPENS GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION INTO LETITIA JAMES TIED TO TRUMP CIVIL CASE

Trump won the Republican primary in the 2024 election cycle, and swept the seven battleground states on Election Day, defeating then-Vice President Kamala Harris to succeed then-President Joe Biden in the Oval Office. 

Hochul and James held a press conference the day after the election, and vowed to battle the Trump agenda while honoring the results of the election. 

"I want to be very clear that while we honor the results of this election and will work with anyone who wants to be a partner in achieving the goals of our administration in our state, that does not mean we'll accept an agenda from Washington that strips away the rights that New Yorkers have long enjoyed," Hochul said on Nov. 6, 2024. 

"We did not expect this result, but we are prepared to respond to this result," James said during the same press conference. "And my office has been preparing for several months because we've been here before," James said. "We faced this challenge before, and we used the rule of law to fight back. And we are prepared to fight back once again because, as the attorney general of this great state, it is my job to protect and defend the rights of New Yorkers and the rule of law. And I will not shrink from that responsibility."

Trump slammed the onslaught of court cases against him in recent years, denying wrongdoing and identifying them as attempts from his political foes as tools to prevent him from seeking and winning re-election. 

"They're playing with the courts, as you know, they've been playing with the courts for four years," Trump said in January, just days before he was sworn back into office. "Probably got me more votes because I got the highest number of votes ever gotten by a Republican by far, actually, by a lot. And, you know, we had a great election, so I guess it didn't work. But even to this day, they're playing with the courts and they're friendly judges that like to try and make everybody happy. … It's called lawfare, it's called weaponization of justice." 

Instead of impeachment, Dems are using Article II challenges to impede Trump this time

Democrats tenaciously working to thwart the second Trump administration seemingly have thrown out their playbook from the president's first administration — abandoning repeated attempts to impeach President Donald Trump in favor of broadening their focus on leveraging Article II of the Constitution to impede MAGA policies. 

Democrats, since the early days of Trump's second presidency, have accused him of taking steps that amount to a "gross overreach of presidential authority" or launching "illegal power grabs," most notably in response to some of the more than 200 executive orders the president has signed this term. Lawsuits challenging the administration also have focused language on claims Trump is exceeding his executive authority, sparking some policies to get tied up in the courts. 

Article II of the Constitution lays out the foundation for the balance of power between the office of the president and other branches of the government, including establishing the executive branch. Section II of Article II details the duties and powers of a president. 

WHITE HOUSE REBUKES ‘EGREGIOUS’ COURT ORDER BLOCKING TROOP DEPLOYMENTS AMID PORTLAND UNREST

Political foes have turned to Article II in their legal battles against Trump, repeatedly claiming he has exceeded his authority.

"Trump Derangement Syndrome takes on many forms — despite the Democrats’ failure to stop President Trump’s incredibly popular agenda in his first term, they’re trying a new strategy this time and failing again," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital Thursday when asked about the increase in claims and cases claiming Trump is overstepping his presidential bounds. 

"The Trump Administration’s policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings from far-left liberal activist judges," she continued. "The president will continue implementing the policy agenda that the American people voted for in November and will continue to be vindicated by higher courts when liberal activist judges attempt to intervene." 

Trump's first administration was underscored by two impeachment efforts, which landed Trump as the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice. Trump was acquitted by the Senate both times. 

The first impeachment effort in 2019 accused Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to allegedly seeking foreign interference from Ukraine to boost his re-election efforts in 2020. 

The focus of that impeachment focused on a July 2019 phone call in which Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to launch investigations into the Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine, including Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Burisma holdings company. Biden was under federal investigation at the time. 

NEWSOM WARNS AMERICANS 'YOU WILL LOSE YOUR COUNTRY' UNDER TRUMP AT CALIFORNIA SUMMIT

The House impeached Trump on both articles of impeachment in December 2019, with the Senate voting to acquit Trump on both articles of impeachment in February 2020. 

Months later, Democrats teed up another Trump impeachment after the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Trump notched another first, when the Senate tried a former president after the House voted to impeach him just a week before Joe Biden was inaugurated as the nation's 46th president. The Senate ultimately acquitted Trump in the case. 

The second impeachment focused on the breach of the U.S. Capitol by throngs of Trump supporters when the Senate and House convened to certify Biden's 2020 election win. Trump was accused of working to overturn the results of the election and that he incited an insurrection with rhetoric regarding the election ahead of the Capitol breach. 

"I will never forgive the people who stormed the Capitol for the trauma that they caused in our young people, our members of the press who were covering that day, our staffers, the maintenance crew, the people who keep the Capitol neat and clean," then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in an interview on MSNBC in 2022.  

"This was a disgrace. And the president instigated an insurrection, refused to stop it and as those films show, would not, in a timely fashion, allow the National Guard to come in and stop it. And that is sinful," she continued.

The Senate acquitted Trump of the impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection in February 2021. 

The impeachment efforts followed Democrats threatening and vowing to impeach Trump at various points throughout his first administration. 

"I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America for obstruction of justice. I do not do this for political purposes, Mr. Speaker. I do this because I believe in the great ideals that this country stands for — liberty and justice for all, the notion that we should have government of the people, by the people, for the people," Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green declared in May 2017 in regard to former FBI Director James Comey's investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

TRUMP HAS NOW BEEN IN OFFICE FOR SIX MONTHS, FOR THE SECOND TIME. HERE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS

"The time has come to make clear to the American people and to this president that his train of injuries to our Constitution must be brought to an end through impeachment," Tennessee Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen said in November 2017 over claims Trump obstructed justice when he fired Comey in May 2017. 

Trump's four years after his first administration were riddled with a handful of civil and criminal cases, including standing trial in New York when he was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in May 2024. 

District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office worked to prove that Trump falsified the business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged 2006 affair with Trump. Trump has maintained his innocence in the case, and was sentenced after his election win to an unconditional discharge, meaning he faced no prison time or fines. 

Trump also was indicted in Georgia on racketeering charges over claims he attempted to overturn the state's 2020 election results, which the president denied. That case was put on hold after District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified from prosecuting it. 

A pair of federal criminal cases were dismissed, including one that alleged Trump mishandled sensitive government documents at his Florida Mar-a-Lago home after his presidency, as well as another claiming Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. Special counsel Jack Smith oversaw both cases. 

Trump also faced civil cases, including New York Attorney General Letitia James accusing Trump and the Trump Organization of inflating asset values. In another case, E. Jean Carroll, a former columnist who alleges Trump raped her in a New York City department store dressing room in the 1990s, accused Trump of defamation in a 2022 case. 

Trump railed against the accusations and cases as examples of lawfare to prevent him from winning a second presidency, taking a victory lap upon his 2024 win that the efforts failed. 

"These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought," Trump wrote on Truth Social in November 2024, when Smith announced he would drop the felony cases. 

TRUMP IS ‘UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO AVOID’ FATE OF MOST TWO-TERM PRESIDENTS, WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL EXPLAINS

"It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump added.

Trump's second administration has been his with more than 400 lawsuits, according to Just Security's lawsuit tracker targeting the administration, with many disputing Trump's executive orders and policies as they relate to slimming down the size of the federal government, his policies removing diversity, equity and inclusion language and initiatives from the federal government, protecting girls' sports from the inclusion of biological male players, and his various directives to remove the millions of illegal immigrants who have flooded the U.S. in recent years. 

Trump and his administration are in the midst of cleaning up U.S. cities that have historically been rocked by crime, including working to remove illegal immigrants residing in the cities. Most recently, Trump ordered the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, in response to "radical left terrorism" in the city, specifically members of the recently-designated domestic terrorism organization, Antifa. 

"The Radical Left’s reign of terror in Portland ends now, with President Donald J. Trump mobilizing federal resources to stop Antifa-led hellfire in its tracks. While Democrat politicians deny reality, it’s obvious what’s happening in Portland isn’t protest; it’s premeditated anarchy that has scarred the city for years — leaving officers battered, citizens terrorized, and property defaced," the White House said in an announcement that Trump was deploying federal resources to Portland on Sept. 30. 

WHITE HOUSE SAYS ‘THE REAL CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS TAKING PLACE WITHIN OUR JUDICIAL BRANCH’

"What President Trump is trying to do is an abuse of power," Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said in September of Trump's order to deploy the troops to Portland. "And it is a threat to our democracy. Governors should be in command of their National Guards, our citizens soldiers who sign up to stand up in an emergency to deal with real problems."

Oregon sued the Trump admistration over the order, claiming Trump lacked the authority to deploy the National Guard. 

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a temporary restraining order halting Trump’s plan to deploy 200 Oregon National Guard troops, then again on Sunday expanded the order to bar the administration from deploying any National Guard units from any state to Oregon pending further proceedings. Immergut determined Trump's order likely exceeded his presidential authority. 

The White House has hit back that Trump is within his presidential limits. 

"I think her opinion is untethered in reality and in the law," Leavitt told reporters at a White House press briefing. "The president is using his authority as commander in chief, U.S. code 12 406, which clearly states that the president has the right to call up the National Guard and in cases where he deems it's appropriate. … The ICE facility has been really under siege. And, by these anarchists outside, they have been, disrespecting law enforcement. They've been inciting violence."

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted Immergut's ruling that blocked the Oregon National Guard troops from deploying to Portland, but the other ruling baring any National Guard troops from deploying to Portland remains in effect. 

Alexander Vindman’s congressman brother leads off Dems boosting Jay Jones after texts: ‘Send a message’

Democratic Virginia Rep. Yevgeny "Eugene" Vindman, twin brother of Trump impeachment figure Alexander Vindman, blasted out to his Twitter followers a call to vote for Democrats Jay Jones and Abigail Spanberger days after texts showed the former referenced killing Republicans.

Meanwhile, a House of Delegates candidate in conservative southside Virginia doubles and triples down on support of Jones amid social media pushback.

As Jones’ controversy and campaign unraveled over the weekend, Vindman, D-Va., took to X to issue comments standing behind the entire Democratic ticket.

"We’re just a month out from Election Day in Virginia. It’s time for our Commonwealth to send a message that we’re tired of Republican chaos," Vindman wrote Sunday, two days after texts came to light showing Jones envisioning the murder of then-Virginia House Speaker Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah.

YOUNGKIN SAYS DEMOCRAT AG CANDIDATE JAY JONES MUST 'STEP AWAY IN DISGRACE’ OVER TEXTS ABOUT FORMER GOP LEADER

Virginia "make a plan to vote — early if you can," he said, adding "for" and the three X handles for gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger, lieutenant gubernatorial nominee Ghazala Hashmi and Jones.

"Your voice couldn’t be more important this year," concluded Rep. Eugene Vindman, who coincidentally holds Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger's former seat. 

The post got ratioed by critics, including one telling Vindman, "Nobody is voting for Jay ‘Two Bullet’ Jones."

"Get lost," the man wrote.

JAY JONES SAID IF MORE POLICE WERE KILLED IT WOULD REDUCE SHOOTINGS OF CIVILIANS, ACCORDING TO VIRGINIA LAWMAKER

Another respondent posted a meme image of the Harrison family from "Pawn Stars" speaking with a customer and the caption "We need to tone down the political violence rhetoric" – "Virginia Democrats: Best I can do is murder your children."

A third posted the ubiquitous "Marked Safe From… Today" flag meme, with the caption "Virginia Attorney General candidate Jay Jones."

"Virginia — not for lovers anymore," another wrote, referring to the Old Dominion’s famous 50-year tourism slogan.

Rep. Eugene Vindman's brother Alexander Vindman was a key figure in then-Rep. Adam Schiff's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Schiff defended then-witness Alexander Vindman in congressional hearings after Trump and other Republicans repeatedly condemned the former Ukraine-focused National Security Council staffer.

In Washington, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine also defended his support for Jones, saying he's known the former Norfolk state delegate for 25 years.

"I think those statements were not in character, and he has apologized — I wish other people in public life would sincerely apologize for stuff," Kaine said.

At the other end of Virginia, a Democrat running for a seat in Pittsylvania County and vicinity doubled and tripled down on her endorsement of Jones as the controversy continued.

YOUNGKIN PRESSES DEMS TO PUSH JAY JONES OFF VIRGINIA AG TICKET AFTER 'BEYOND DISQUALIFYING' MESSAGES SURFACE

Candidate Melody Cartwright, a former graphic designer at the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Martinsville, lambasted the delegate whom Jones had incidentally texted the invective to and vociferously defended the attorney generalship nominee.

Jay Jones "will defend Virginia's rights, healthcare, and education. Stay the course," Cartwright wrote on X, inscribing Jones’ handle.

"I stand with (Jay Jones) period. End of statement," Cartwright wrote in a second tweet, both of which were lambasted by critics.

"Then you stand for a man who fantasizes about the murder of his political opponent's children and wants to kill them, the parents, and piss on their graves," replied former Energy Department staffer Matt van Swol.

Another critic said Cartwright’s comment wasn’t just a show of support but "an endorsement of an (expletive) death-obsessed lunatic."

"No one is surprised. By you, by him, or by your entire party. It’s who you are," wrote conservative figure Western Lensman.

Another reply included a one-second clip of conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart from his CPAC 2012 intro video, saying "War," which had been one of the last appearances by the major right-wing figure before his death just days later. Breitbart's stern-faced delivery of the singular word grew into a memorialization on the right in the time since; depicting the view that the left holds visceral hatred for the right.

Virginia Del. Eric Phillips, R-Martinsville, who defeated Cartwright last cycle and faces her again, told Fox News Digital it’s "not the Virginia way" to even entertain chatter in terms of what Jones referenced in his texts.

"It's disturbing and disgraceful for my opponent to defend Jay Jones' vile comments," Phillips said of Cartwright.

"Standing with someone who talks about shooting colleagues in the head, harming their children, and desecrating graves is indefensible," Phillips added.

"Anyone who excuses or embraces that kind of hate has no business asking to serve in the Virginia House of Delegates."

In a separate tweet, Cartwright also bashed Virginia Del. Carrie Coyner, R-Chester, who originally had shared Jones’ texts with the National Review and Fox News Digital.

Trump’s presidency faces crucial tests as Supreme Court begins pivotal term

The Supreme Court will launch its new term Monday with a focus on controversial prior rulings and a review of President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive agenda.

After a three-month recess, the nine justices met together for the first time this week to reset their docket, and discuss appeals that have piled up over the summer. The high court will resume oral arguments to confront issues like gender identity, election redistricting, and free speech.

But looming over the federal judiciary is the return of Trump-era legal battles. The administration has been winning most of the emergency appeals at the Supreme Court since January, that dealt only with whether challenged policies could go into effect temporarily, while the issues play out in the lower courts — including immigration, federal spending cuts, workforce reductions and transgender people in the military.

In doing so, the 6-3 conservative majority has reversed about two dozen preliminary nationwide injunctions imposed by lower federal courts, leading to frustration and confusion among many judges.

FEDERAL JUDGES ANONYMOUSLY CRITICIZE SUPREME COURT FOR OVERTURNING DECISIONS WITH EMERGENCY RULINGS

Now those percolating petitions are starting to reach the Supreme Court for final review — and legal analysts say the bench may be poised to grant broad unilateral powers to the president.

The justices fast-tracked the administration’s appeal over tariffs on dozens of countries that were blocked by lower courts. Oral arguments will be held in November.

In December, the justices will decide whether to overturn a 90-year precedent dealing with the president's ability to fire members of some federal regulatory agencies like the Federal Trade Commission. 

And in January, the power of President Trump to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors will be tested in a major constitutional showdown. For now, the Biden-appointed Cook will remain on the job.

"A big fraction of the Supreme Court's docket will present the question: ‘can President Trump do?’— then fill in the blank. And that could be imposing tariffs; firing independent board members; removing illegal aliens; sending the military into cities like Los Angeles," said Thomas Dupree, a prominent appellate attorney and constitutional law expert. "So, much of what the Supreme Court is deciding this term is whether the president has acted within or has exceeded his authority." 

The tariffs dispute will be the court's first major constitutional test on the merits over how broadly the conservative majority high court views Trump's muscular view of presidential power, a template for almost certain future appeals of his executive agenda.

In earlier disputes over temporary enforcement of those policies, the court's left-leaning justices warned against the judiciary becoming a rubber stamp, ceding its power in favor of this president.

After a late August high court order granting the government the power to temporarily terminate nearly $800 million in already-approved health research grants, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said her conservative colleagues had "ben[t] over backward to accommodate" the Trump administration. "Right when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints, the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins."

But some of Jackson's colleagues have denied they are paving the way for Trump's aggressive efforts to redo the federal government.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT WEIGHS TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS ADMIN OUTLINES ENFORCEMENT DETAILS

"The framers recognized, in a way that I think is brilliant, that preserving liberty requires separating the power," said Justice Brett Kavanaugh earlier this month at a Texas event. "No one person or group of people should have too much power in our system."

And Justice Amy Coney Barrett told Fox News' Bret Baier three weeks ago that she and her colleagues "don't wear red and blue, we all wear black because judges are nonpartisan ... We're all trying to get it right. We're not playing for a team."

Barrett, who is promoting her new book, "Listening to the Law," said her court takes a long-term view, and is not reflexively on Trump's side.

"We're not deciding cases just for today. And we're not deciding cases based on the president, as in the current occupant of the office," Barrett told Fox News. "I think the judiciary needs to stay in its lane ... we're taking each case and we're looking at the question of presidential power as it comes. And the cases that we decide today are going to matter, four presidencies from now, six presidencies from now."

KAVANAUGH CITES 3 PRESIDENTS IN EXPLAINING SUPREME COURT'S BALLOONING EMERGENCY DOCKET

These sharp court fractures between competing ideologies will likely escalate, as the justices begin a more robust look at a president's power, and by dint, their own.

"He who saves his Country does not violate any Law," Trump cryptically posted on social media a month after retaking office.

Federal courts have since been trying to navigate and articulate the limits of the executive branch, while managing their own powers.

Yet several federal judges — appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents — have expressed concern that the Supreme Court has been regularly overturning rulings by lower courts dealing with challenges to Trump administration policies — mostly with little or no explanation in its decisions.

Those judges — who all requested anonymity to speak candidly — tell Fox News those orders blocking enforcement have left the impression they are not doing their jobs or are biased against the President.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TORPEDOES SCOTUS WITH EMERGENCY REQUESTS AND SEES SURPRISING SUCCESS

Those frustrations have spilled into open court.

"They’re leaving the circuit courts, the district courts out in limbo," said federal appeals Judge James Wynn about the high court, during oral arguments this month over the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to Social Security data.

"We're out here flailing," said Wynn, an Obama bench appointee. "I'm not criticizing the justices. They're using a vehicle that’s there, but they are telling us nothing. They could easily just give us direction, and we would follow it."

The president may be winning short-term victories in a court where he has appointed a third of its members, but that has not stopped him or his associates from criticizing federal judges, even calling for their removal from office when preliminary rulings have gone against the administration.

"This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" Trump posted on social media, after a March court ruling temporarily halting the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

The target of the attack was DC-based Chief Judge James Boasberg, appointed to the bench by President Obama.

 Top Trump White House policy advisor Stephen Miller, in interviews, has warned against some unaccountable and "communist crazy judges" "trying to subvert the presidency." 

TRUMP TURNS TO SUPREME COURT IN FIGHT TO OUST BIDEN-ERA CONSUMER SAFETY OFFICIALS

According to an analysis by Stanford University's Adam Bonica, federal district judges ruled against the administration 94.3% of the time between May and June. 

But the Supreme Court has in turn reversed those injunctions more than 90% of the time, giving the president temporary authority to move ahead with his sweeping reform agenda.

As for the rhetoric, the high court has walked a delicate path, reluctant to criticize Trump directly, at least for now.

"The fact that some of our public leaders are lawyers advocating or making statements challenging the rule of law tells me that, fundamentally, our law schools are failing," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor at a recent Georgetown University Law Center event, without naming Trump by name. "Once we lose our common norms, we’ve lost the rule of law completely."

Chief Justice John Roberts in March offered a rare public statement criticizing impeachment calls from the right.

But several federal judges who spoke to Fox News also wish Roberts would do more to assert his authority and to temper what one judge called "disturbing" rhetoric.

The U.S. Marshals Service — responsible for court security — reports more than 500 threats against federal judges since last October, more than in previous years. Law enforcement sources say that includes Boasberg, who, along with his family, has received physical threats and intimidating social media posts.

TURLEY: JUSTICE JACKSON SHOWS ‘JUDICIAL ABANDON’ IN LONE DISSENT ON TRUMP LAYOFF RULING

"I think it is a sign of a culture that has, where political discourse has soured beyond control," said Justice Barrett in recent days.

"The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity," said Justice Jackson in May. "The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government."

The administration in recent days asked Congress for $58 million more in security for executive branch officials and judges, following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist who led Turning Point USA. 

A Fox News poll from this summer found 47% of voters approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing, a 9-point jump since last year when a record low 38% approved.

"Over the past decade, public confidence in our major institutions has declined," says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps conduct the Fox News survey with Democrat Chris Anderson. "The Court’s rebound could reflect its attempts to steer a middle course on politically polarizing questions or indicate an uptick in positive attitudes toward our more venerable institutions."

Still, by more than 2-to-1, more voters think the court is too conservative (43%) than too liberal in its decisions (18%, a low), while 36% think the court’s rulings are about right. That continues a seven-year trend.

FEDERAL JUDGES ANONYMOUSLY CRITICIZE SUPREME COURT FOR OVERTURNING DECISIONS WITH EMERGENCY RULINGS

The public's views of the court's ability to steer clear of politics will be tested this term.

Besides the two Trump-related appeals, the justices are already scheduled to decide:

But court watchers are pointing to several hot-button pending appeals where "stare decisis" or respect for established landmark court rulings will be tested:  same-sex marriage and communal school prayer.   

The high court is expected to decide in coming weeks whether to put those petitions on its argument calendar, with possible rulings on the merits by June 2026.

But other cases are already awaiting a final ruling: the use of race in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act; and independent government boards.

"I think the likeliest candidates for being revisited are the ones that involve the power of the president to fire the heads of federal agencies," said attorney Dupree. "This is an old precedent that's been on the books really back since the New Deal, and it's come into question in recent years. There's been a long shadow hanging over these decisions, and I think the Supreme Court is poised to revisit those this term and in all likelihood overrule that."

The court may have already set the stage, by using the emergency docket in recent weeks to allow Trump to temporarily fire members of several other independent federal agencies without cause. The court's liberal wing complained that giving the president that power without explanation effectively unravels the 1935 precedent known as "Humphrey's Executor."

KAVANAUGH CITES 3 PRESIDENTS IN EXPLAINING SUPREME COURT'S BALLOONING EMERGENCY DOCKET

"Today’s order favors the president over our precedent," said Justice Elena Kagan in a blistering dissent against Trump's removal of Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board.

The court's "impatience to get on with things — to now hand the President the most unitary, meaning also the most subservient, administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever) — must reveal how that eventual decision will go" on the merits, added Kagan.

Sotomayor said recent overturned precedents were "really bad" for certain groups of people.

"And that’s what’s at risk, is in each time we change precedent, we are changing the contours of a right that people thought they had," she said this month. "Once you take that away, think of how much more is at risk later. Not just in this situation."

The conservative justices in recent years have not been shy about revisiting cases that had been settled for decades but now have been overturned: the nationwide right to abortion, affirmative action in education and the discretionary power of federal agencies.

Other pending issues the justices may soon be forced to confront which could upset longstanding precedent include libel lawsuits from public officials, flag burning and Ten Commandments displays in public schools.

One justice who has been more willing than his benchmates to overrule precedents may be its most influential: Justice Clarence Thomas.

"I don’t think that any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel," Thomas said last week at a Catholic University event. If it is "totally stupid, and that’s what they’ve decided, you don’t go along with it just because it's decided" already.

How James Comey’s indictment could go south for the DOJ

As former FBI Director James Comey stares down a two-count federal indictment alleging he made a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, the Department of Justice faces an uphill climb in securing a conviction. 

Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan of the Eastern District of Virginia is under pressure to move the prosecution forward against Comey’s formidable defense team, which has multiple ways to challenge the charges.

Halligan, a Trump ally and former insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, is up against the possibility that Comey's lawyers will file requests to toss the case out. If Comey is unsuccessful and the case goes to trial, Halligan will then face a new hurdle: persuading a jury. Critics say President Donald Trump, Halligan and any others involved in the case could also see external repercussions for rushing to bring what they view as a flimsy, retributive indictment.

In terms of pre-trial efforts, several lawyers have speculated that Comey will argue to the court that his two charges should be dismissed on numerous grounds.

COMEY INDICTMENT SPARKS FIERCE POLITICAL REACTIONS NATIONWIDE

Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade of Michigan told Fox News Digital one possibility is that Comey could argue the prosecution was selective.

"To prevail on a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must show not only that the prosecution was motivated by an improper purpose, but also that other similarly situated individuals were treated differently," McQuade said.

She said it would be "remarkably easy to demonstrate the first factor," pointing to Trump’s extraordinary comments on social media openly saying he wanted Comey charged out of vengeance. Comey, one of Trump’s top political nemeses, led the FBI when it opened a controversial investigation into Trump over his 2016 campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia.

McQuade said, however, that the second factor would be difficult to prove — that others have not been prosecuted for false statements to Congress — since that "essentially requires a defendant to prove a negative."

COMEY DENIES CHARGES, DECLARES 'I AM NOT AFRAID'

Jim Trusty, a former DOJ prosecutor who once worked on Trump’s defense team, told Fox News the indictment is still in an early stage, the specific allegations remain unclear and that a "wait and see" approach was best. Trusty said, though, that critics who claim Trump is weaponizing the DOJ against his enemies are misguided.

"Lawfare was certainly used as a weapon to go after Trump, but it also protected people, and so you can also look at this as four years of love from the Biden administration kept Comey out of the crosshairs," Trusty said.

Trusty said Comey’s indictment could be perceived as a "tit for tat," or it could simply be "overdue."

McQuade said that at this early stage, she viewed Comey's acquittal as the "more likely" way the DOJ would fail, pointing to what she said was "convoluted" language in the indictment.

She said it seemed to rely on congressional testimony Comey gave in 2020, when Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, referenced a question asked by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in 2017 about whether Comey authorized a leak to the media. Cruz also slightly misquoted Grassley, she said.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SEEKS TO INDICT FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY FOR ALLEGEDLY LYING TO CONGRESS

"Because the prosecution must show that Comey knowingly and willfully made a false statement, that messy record may be a fatal flaw," McQuade said.

Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick of the Western District of Virginia told Fox News Digital that if the court permits Comey to access any records related to the DOJ’s "internal deliberations" about the case, those details could undermine the prosecution and bolster a defense that the case was tainted by political motivations.

"The biggest potential fallout for DOJ will be if the judge permits the Comey legal team to get under the hood of the internal deliberations of DOJ to prosecute or not prosecute Comey," Fishwick told Fox News Digital. "The Comey team wants to argue this prosecution is just about politics and revenge, but they will need as much evidence as possible to buttress this claim as DOJ will counter the grand jury indicted Comey, not DOJ."

Trump’s appointment of Halligan as U.S. attorney was a last-minute move, as the five-year statute of limitations on Comey’s testimony expired on Sept. 30. Trump ousted her predecessor, Erik Siebert, a 15-year veteran of the Virginia office, and brought in Halligan, a willing participant in Trump’s mission to take down his political rivals.

While Trump has suggested other indictments are coming down the pike, critics have zeroed in on Comey's case, calling it weak enough that Trump also risks impeachment over it and that Halligan and any other prosecutors who decide to join the case risk career penalties. No DOJ prosecutors have joined Halligan on the case at this stage.

Former DOJ official Harry Litman, host of "Talking Feds" and vocal Trump critic, said "some accountability" would come if Democrats take the House next year, advocating they impeach Trump for what he says is an abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

"If we can just get through the midterms and give the House of Representatives the power to subpoena all of these jokers on Capitol Hill, grill them and then impeach Trump again … all of the evidence of the crime that Donald Trump just committed will be laid out for public inspection," Litman said.

He also cited a report that career prosecutors advised Halligan against charging Comey, suggesting she faces the "possibility of serious professional sanctions" because of it.

How James Comey’s indictment could go south for the DOJ

As former FBI Director James Comey stares down a two-count federal indictment alleging he made a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, the Department of Justice faces an uphill climb in securing a conviction. 

Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan of the Eastern District of Virginia is under pressure to move the prosecution forward against Comey’s formidable defense team, which has multiple ways to challenge the charges.

Halligan, a Trump ally and former insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, is up against the possibility that Comey's lawyers will file requests to toss the case out. If Comey is unsuccessful and the case goes to trial, Halligan will then face a new hurdle: persuading a jury. Critics say President Donald Trump, Halligan and any others involved in the case could also see external repercussions for rushing to bring what they view as a flimsy, retributive indictment.

In terms of pre-trial efforts, several lawyers have speculated that Comey will argue to the court that his two charges should be dismissed on numerous grounds.

COMEY INDICTMENT SPARKS FIERCE POLITICAL REACTIONS NATIONWIDE

Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade of Michigan told Fox News Digital one possibility is that Comey could argue the prosecution was selective.

"To prevail on a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must show not only that the prosecution was motivated by an improper purpose, but also that other similarly situated individuals were treated differently," McQuade said.

She said it would be "remarkably easy to demonstrate the first factor," pointing to Trump’s extraordinary comments on social media openly saying he wanted Comey charged out of vengeance. Comey, one of Trump’s top political nemeses, led the FBI when it opened a controversial investigation into Trump over his 2016 campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia.

McQuade said, however, that the second factor would be difficult to prove — that others have not been prosecuted for false statements to Congress — since that "essentially requires a defendant to prove a negative."

COMEY DENIES CHARGES, DECLARES 'I AM NOT AFRAID'

Jim Trusty, a former DOJ prosecutor who once worked on Trump’s defense team, told Fox News the indictment is still in an early stage, the specific allegations remain unclear and that a "wait and see" approach was best. Trusty said, though, that critics who claim Trump is weaponizing the DOJ against his enemies are misguided.

"Lawfare was certainly used as a weapon to go after Trump, but it also protected people, and so you can also look at this as four years of love from the Biden administration kept Comey out of the crosshairs," Trusty said.

Trusty said Comey’s indictment could be perceived as a "tit for tat," or it could simply be "overdue."

McQuade said that at this early stage, she viewed Comey's acquittal as the "more likely" way the DOJ would fail, pointing to what she said was "convoluted" language in the indictment.

She said it seemed to rely on congressional testimony Comey gave in 2020, when Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, referenced a question asked by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in 2017 about whether Comey authorized a leak to the media. Cruz also slightly misquoted Grassley, she said.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SEEKS TO INDICT FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY FOR ALLEGEDLY LYING TO CONGRESS

"Because the prosecution must show that Comey knowingly and willfully made a false statement, that messy record may be a fatal flaw," McQuade said.

Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick of the Western District of Virginia told Fox News Digital that if the court permits Comey to access any records related to the DOJ’s "internal deliberations" about the case, those details could undermine the prosecution and bolster a defense that the case was tainted by political motivations.

"The biggest potential fallout for DOJ will be if the judge permits the Comey legal team to get under the hood of the internal deliberations of DOJ to prosecute or not prosecute Comey," Fishwick told Fox News Digital. "The Comey team wants to argue this prosecution is just about politics and revenge, but they will need as much evidence as possible to buttress this claim as DOJ will counter the grand jury indicted Comey, not DOJ."

Trump’s appointment of Halligan as U.S. attorney was a last-minute move, as the five-year statute of limitations on Comey’s testimony expired on Sept. 30. Trump ousted her predecessor, Erik Siebert, a 15-year veteran of the Virginia office, and brought in Halligan, a willing participant in Trump’s mission to take down his political rivals.

While Trump has suggested other indictments are coming down the pike, critics have zeroed in on Comey's case, calling it weak enough that Trump also risks impeachment over it and that Halligan and any other prosecutors who decide to join the case risk career penalties. No DOJ prosecutors have joined Halligan on the case at this stage.

Former DOJ official Harry Litman, host of "Talking Feds" and vocal Trump critic, said "some accountability" would come if Democrats take the House next year, advocating they impeach Trump for what he says is an abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

"If we can just get through the midterms and give the House of Representatives the power to subpoena all of these jokers on Capitol Hill, grill them and then impeach Trump again … all of the evidence of the crime that Donald Trump just committed will be laid out for public inspection," Litman said.

He also cited a report that career prosecutors advised Halligan against charging Comey, suggesting she faces the "possibility of serious professional sanctions" because of it.

Pritzker swiftly fact-checked after claiming he never derided GOP with dictatorship comparison: ‘Pathological’

Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker was swiftly fact-checked by conservatives on social media for claiming he "never called Republicans ‘Nazis’" as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle traded barbs on heightened political rhetoric following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. 

"That is completely false. I have never called Republicans ‘Nazis,’" Pritzker said Monday while fielding questions from the media during a press conference where the Democratic state leader accused President Donald Trump of "actively fanning the flames of division" following Kirk's Wednesday murder. 

Pritzker, who has condemned Kirk's shocking assassination as "horrifying," came under fire earlier in September when he claimed the "president's rhetoric often foments" political violence. 

Now, the Democratic governor is facing impeachment efforts from state Republicans for rhetoric they claim has incited violence, and for his claims linking Nazi Germany to the GOP. 

MAHER SAYS COMPARING TRUMP TO HITLER MUST END, WARNS IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR KILLERS TO JUSTIFY ASSASSINATIONS

Conservatives on social media unleashed on Pritzker for claiming he has "never called Republicans ‘Nazis,’" pointing to his February State of the State address. 

Pritzker did not explicitly call Republicans "Nazis," but compared the newly minted Trump administration to the rise of Nazi Germany. 

"The authoritarian playbook is laid bare here: They point to a group of people who don’t look like you and tell you to blame them for your problems. If you think I’m overreacting and sounding the alarm too soon, consider this: It took the Nazis one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours, and 40 minutes to dismantle a constitutional republic," Pritzker said in February. 

"Tyranny requires your fear and your silence and your compliance," Pritzker added. "Democracy requires your courage. So gather your justice and humanity, Illinois, and do not let the ‘tragic spirit of despair’ overcome us when our country needs us the most." 

Republicans and conservatives in the state took to X to compare his previous comments on Republicans and Nazi Germany to his press conference remarks. 

FOLLOWING KIRK’S ASSASSINATION, LAWMAKERS REACT TO LETHAL POLITICAL CLIMATE: 'VIOLENT WORDS PRECEDE VIOLENT ACTIONS'

"Governor Pritzker claims he’s never called Republicans Nazis, but his own words suggest otherwise," the Illinois House Republicans posted to X Monday, accompanied by videos comparing the governor's remarks

"Pritzker Today: I've never called Republican's Nazi's Pritzker in February: ‘Pritzker Compares Trump Administration’s Approach to Nazi Germany During State Budget Address,’" the Illinois Republican Party similarly posted to X. 

Critics slammed the governor as "pathological" and a "liar," saying that his public remarks are forever achieved on the internet

Others on X pointed to Pritzker's remarks from April during a speech in New Hampshire promoting mass mobilization against Republicans while declaring they "cannot know a moment of peace."

DONALD TRUMP JR. WARNS POLITICAL VIOLENCE IS 'NOT GOING BOTH WAYS' AS HE MOURNS CHARLIE KIRK'S DEATH

"Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption — but I am now," he said, Fox News Digital reported at the time. 

"These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soapbox and then punish them at the ballot box. They must feel in their bones … that we will relegate their portraits to the museum halls reserved for tyrants and traitors."

Fox News Digital reached out to Pritzker's office Tuesday morning regarding the criticisms from Republicans over the comparison and the recent impeachment efforts in the state but did not immediately receive a reply. 

Pritzker is facing renewed impeachment efforts from state Republicans following the assassination of Kirk. Conservatives nationwide have argued that leftists deriding conservatives as "fascists," "Nazis" and serving as threats to democracy led to the violence that claimed Kirk's life.

Illinois Republican state Rep. Chris Miller filed articles of impeachment against Pritzker earlier in September, claiming the governor "has engaged in conduct which, under the totality of the circumstances, constitutes inciting violence which is incompatible with the duties of his office."

Illinois Republican state Rep. Adam Niemerg filed an impeachment resolution against the governor Monday while invoking the assassination of Kirk. 

JB PRITZKER CONDEMNS POLITICAL VIOLENCE AFTER CHARLIE KIRK'S DEATH, SAYS TRUMP'S RHETORIC 'OFTEN FOMENTS IT'

"Pritzker’s remarks are providing legitimacy to radicals who are committing these heinous crimes against people like Charlie Kirk," Niemerg said in a statement, Capitol News Illinois reported. "If it were one isolated incident — it would be one thing but there is a pattern here."

Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is the only governor in the state's history to be impeached and removed from office in 2009, following federal corruption charges. Impeachment efforts in the state require involvement from both the General Assembly and state Senate to move forward — making the effort unlikely as both chambers are controlled by Democrats in the deep blue state. 

Pritzker continued in his Monday press conference remarks that Trump has encouraged American division, while calling for political rhetoric across the board to be toned down. 

"This should come from the top, but with each crisis in the last few years, we can’t rely on President Trump to tamp down the anger and the passion in the aftermath of political violence," he said Monday. "Instead, he actively fans the flames of division as he did on Friday, regularly advocates violence for political retribution, and in more than one case, declares that we are at war, not with a foreign adversary, but with each other. I don’t believe any of that."   

Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated while attending an event at Utah Valley University Wednesday. A single shot rang out and struck Kirk in the neck while he sat under a tent on campus and spoke with students. 

Kirk was a conservative movement powerhouse, championing faith and family policies to young adults, most notably on college campuses. 

He leaves behind his wife, Erika, and their two children, ages one and three. Kirk's funeral is planned for Sunday in Arizona, with Trump and other administration leaders expected to attend. 

Trump foes melt down that SCOTUS is unleashing ‘racial terror’ on US with ICE raid ruling

A handful of California Democrats, who are also longtime political foes of President Donald Trump, slammed a Supreme Court ruling that lifts restrictions on the Trump administration’s immigration raids in Los Angeles as "un-American" and opening the door to a "parade of racial terror."

"@realDonaldTrump's hand-picked SCOTUS majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in LA. His administration is targeting Latinos — and anyone who doesn’t look or sound like @StephenM's idea of an American — to deliberately harm our families and economy," California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted to X on Monday evening. 

Newsom, who has sparred with Trump stretching back to the president's first administration, was reacting to a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling on Monday that the Trump administration can continue deploying immigration raids in California, which blocked a lower court's ruling that halted such raids in the state. 

The case was punted to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in July blocked ICE from conducting raids in Los Angeles County, citing that they were likely unconstitutional as federal agents were detaining individuals for "apparent race or ethnicity," or speaking Spanish. Immigration activists had accused the federal government of targeting Latinos based on criteria such as speaking Spanish. The Ninth Circuit upheld the July order before the Supreme Court weighed in. 

TRUMP ADMIN SEEKS TO OVERTURN FEDERAL RESTRAINING ORDER LIMITING ICE OPERATIONS IN LOS ANGELES

Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff each issued a rebuke of the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday, calling the Trump administration's immigration raids "blatantly illegal." 

"This Administration rounded up and arrested California residents, including U.S. citizens and legal residents, based on the color of their skin or the language they speak. This is blatantly illegal, yet the Supreme Court is allowing it to happen while the case proceeds. When the history of this country’s rapid descent into dictatorship is written, Republicans in Congress and the Roberts Court will have been its primary enabler," Schiff posted to X on Monday. 

Schiff has a long documented contentious relationship with Trump, including over the Jan. 6, 2021 investigation, Trump's first impeachment trial and the Russia investigation. The California Democrat is currently under a Department of Justice investigation for alleged mortgage fraud uncovered under the second Trump administration. 

"I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of LA, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country. Today’s ruling is not only dangerous – it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S." Bass added in her own message on X

Bass and Trump have also sparred in the past, most recently over the summer when federal immigration officials first converged on the city, and back in January when wildfires ripped across Southern California and devastated the Los Angeles area. 

"Let me be clear: we will not allow the White House, nor the Supreme Court, to divide us. And to all Angelenos, I will never stop fighting for your rights, your dignity, and your safety, despite this administration’s efforts to threaten them. We will stand united," Bass continued in a press release. 

LOS ANGELES JUDGE WEIGHS SEVERE LIMITS ON TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN CALIFORNIA

The Supreme Court's majority did not include an explanation for the ruling. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, authored a concurring opinion arguing that a combination of factors — such as race — could provide authorities with reasonable suspicion to stop a person and inquire about their immigration status. 

"To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors," Kavanaugh wrote.

SUPREME COURT RULES ON TRUMP'S THIRD-COUNTRY DEPORTATIONS, IN MAJOR TEST FOR PRESIDENT

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued the dissent and argued the emergency order approving such raids was "troubling" and pointed to the majority's lack of explanation for the move.  

"We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job," Sotomayor wrote.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SUES LOS ANGELES OVER SANCTUARY POLICIES THAT 'IMPEDE' ICE OPERATIONS

The Trump administration celebrated the Supreme Court's decision on Monday. 

"This is a win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law," Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said, according to Politico. "DHS law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members, and other criminal illegal aliens… ."

The Supreme Court order follows the Trump administration ordering immigration officials to carry out raids back in June to remove individuals illegally residing in Los Angeles, which dubbed itself a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants in November before Trump was sworn back into the Oval Office. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Riots and protests subsequently broke out in the city as local leaders, such as Newsom and Bass, slammed the Trump administration's illegal immigrant crackdown and offered words of support to illegal immigrants. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom's, Bass' and Schiff's respective offices on Monday afternoon. 

Fox News Digital's Ashley Oliver contributed to this report. 

Federal judge releases woman accused of threatening to kill Trump

A woman arrested last month for allegedly making death threats against President Donald Trump has been released by a federal judge who has clashed with the Trump administration several times this year, including by attempting to block the deportations of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act.

Chief Judge James Boasberg ordered Nathalie Rose Jones, 50, released no later than Aug. 27 under electronic monitoring and instructed her to visit a psychiatrist in New York City once she retrieves her belongings from a local police station.

Boasberg’s order came after US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya ordered Jones to be held without bond and undergo a competency evaluation. She cited her "very troubling conduct" of social media posts aimed at the president, combined with the fact that she had then traveled to the District of Columbia, per WUSA9.

INDIANA WOMAN FACES FEDERAL CHARGES FOR SOCIAL MEDIA THREATS TO DISEMBOWEL TRUMP

Jones took part in a "dignified arrest ceremony" for Trump at a protest in Washington, D.C., which circumnavigated the White House complex and was arrested following an investigation into her series of concerning Instagram and Facebook posts. 

In early August, Jones labeled Trump a terrorist, referred to his administration as a dictatorship, and stated that Trump had caused extreme and unnecessary loss of life in relation to the coronavirus

"I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation present," an Aug. 6 post directed at the FBI states.

In an Aug. 14 post directed to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Jones allegedly wrote, "Please arrange the arrest and removal ceremony of POTUS Trump as a terrorist on the American People from 10-2pm at the White House on Saturday, August 16th, 2025."

The next day, Jones voluntarily agreed to an interview with the Secret Service, during which she called Trump a "terrorist" and a "nazi," authorities said. 

She said that if she had the opportunity, she would kill Trump at "the compound" if she had to and that she had a "bladed object," which she said was the weapon she would use to "carry out her mission of killing" the president.

Following the protest in Washington, D.C on Aug. 16, Jones was interviewed again by the Secret Service, during which she admitted that she had made threats towards Trump during her interview the previous day. 

She was charged with threatening to kill, kidnap, or seriously hurt the president and sending messages across state lines that contained threats to kidnap or harm someone.

BONDI DOJ FILES COMPLAINT ALLEGING MISCONDUCT BY FEDERAL JUDGE JAMES BOASBERG

Upadhyaya expressed concern over the gravity of Jones’s threats and ruled they were serious enough to justify detention and scheduled a status conference and preliminary hearing for Sept. 2, with prosecutors required to secure an indictment by Sept. 15.

But Jones’s lawyers, who had argued their client was unarmed and had no real desire to follow through with the threats, appealed Upadhyaya’s detention decision, and Boasberg overturned Upadhyaya’s detention order.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. 

Boasberg, a President Barack Obama appointee, has found himself in the crosshairs of the Trump administration several times this year.

In March, he issued a temporary restraining order seeking to block Trump’s use of a 1798 wartime-era immigration law, the Alien Enemies Act, to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador.

Boasberg ordered all planes bound for El Salvador to be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil, which did not happen, and later, ordered a new investigation to determine whether the Trump administration had complied with his orders. 

In April, he ruled that the court had grounds to move on possible contempt proceedings, though that ruling was stayed by a higher appeals court, which has yet to consider the matter.

His March 15 order touched off a complex legal saga that ultimately spawned dozens of deportation-related court challenges across the country — though the one brought before Boasberg was the very first — and later prompted the Supreme Court to rule, on two separate occasions, that the hurried removals had violated migrants' due process protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Trump has publicly attacked him as a "Radical Left Lunatic" and called for his impeachment.

In July, Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg, accusing him of making improper comments about President Trump's administration, Chief Justice Roberts, and roughly two dozen other federal judges — remarks that she allegedly argued undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 

Boasberg allegedly warned the judges that he believed the Trump Administration would "disregard rulings of federal courts" and trigger "a constitutional crisis." 

"Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders," the complaint reads. "Nor did Judge Boasberg identify any purported violations of court orders to justify his unprecedented predictions."

Fox News’ Breanne Deppisch and Louis Casiano contributed to this report. 

‘Dr. Strangelove with a mustache’: Bolton blasted for ‘profiteering’ off US secrets by White House advisor

Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro tore into John Bolton for "profiteering off America’s secrets" on Tuesday after the FBI raided his home last week in a reported classified document probe.

"I served with Bolton, and he was far too frequently a loose cannon, bent on bombings and coups — Doctor Strangelove with a mustache," Navarro, who also advised Trump on trade during his first term, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill.

"He agitated for airstrikes, pushed regime-change fantasies, and obsessed over military solutions when diplomacy was working. Then, instead of honoring executive privilege and confidential debate, Bolton acknowledged that in writing his memoir he relied on the ‘copious notes’ he had conspicuously taken inside the White House." 

Bolton published a book in 2020, The Room Where it Happened, reportedly receiving a $2 million advance for a tell-all of his time in the Trump administration. He served as Trump’s national security advisor starting in 2018 but fell out with the president and left the position in 2019. 

BOLTON UNLEASHES ON TRUMP UKRAINE POLICY DAYS AFTER FBI RAID

Navarro accused Bolton of "sharing information about Oval Office conversations and national security that should have stayed secret — either by law or under executive privilege."

"That isn’t service. That isn’t patriotism. That’s profiteering off of America’s secrets."

Navarro noted that Bolton had described confidential U.S. deliberations on how to fracture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s control and prompt military defections. 

"That kind of blueprint isn’t something you hand to the public — or to Maduro’s intelligence services."

He noted that disclosing national defense information without authorization could violate U.S. code. 

"If evidence is found and indictments made, Bolton may one day go to prison for shredding that Constitution, defying executive privilege, and trampling safeguards meant to protect America’s security," Navarro said. "If that happens, Bolton won’t be remembered for his book tour. He’ll be remembered for the sequel he writes in prison."

Fox News Digital has reached out to a spokesperson for Bolton for comment. 

DEMOCRATS OPPOSED JOHN BOLTON FOR YEARS — UNTIL THEY SOUGHT HIM AS AN ALLY AGAINST TRUMP

Navarro spent four months in prison last year after being convicted of contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.

The FBI executed a search warrant on Bolton’s home and office on Friday. 

Democrats have also fumed about Bolton’s book: when the former national security advisor refused to serve as their star witness during the first Trump impeachment related to Ukraine, they accused him of saving the juicy details for his memoir. 

In June 2020, Judge Royce Lamberth found Bolton had "likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations." 

He’d submitted the 500-page manuscript for a national security review, but when the review wasn’t completed in four months, he "pulled the plug on the process and sent the still-under-review manuscript to the publisher for printing," according to the judge. 

Lamberth allowed the book to hit the shelves because "the horse is already out of the barn" – the book’s excerpts had already been leaked and 200,000 copies had been shipped.