Category: fox-news/person/donald-trump

Dems fume over ‘due process’ for Abrego Garcia despite long history of party bucking the legal principle

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Democrats are facing pushback as they continue to call for due process for illegal immigrant and suspected MS-13 member Kilmar Abrego Garcia after years of seemingly ignoring due process for their political rivals. 

During the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election and the first Trump term, many Democrats called for President Donald Trump to be put in jail despite only facing allegations of impropriety at the time.

"He needs to be imprisoned & placed in solitary confinement," Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters said in October 2019.  "But for now, impeachment is the imperative."

"I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison," then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly told fellow Democrats in 2019, according to Politico.

VANCE SOUNDS OFF ON DEPORTATION, 'RATIFICATION OF BIDEN'S ILLEGAL MIGRANT INVASION' VIA 'FAKE LEGAL PROCESS'

Democrats also assured the public that January 6 prisoners were receiving due process in terms of their treatment in jail despite Republican claims to the contrary and arguing that the defendants were being held for too long.

"They want to have a conversation about whether or not their iPads are working or if they have enough time on their iPads," Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas said in 2023, according to the Dallas Observer. "This is what I'm hearing. As someone who's been a public defender, let me tell you something: They know nothing about what bad conditions are."

During a Jan. 7 press conference, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said about the January 6th protesters, "No leniency. No leniency for these people. They have the cameras all over. They have their pictures. No matter what part of the country they came from, we ought to go after them right now."

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called for Kyle Rittenhouse to be thrown in jail as his trial was still developing. 

"Lock up Kyle Rittenhouse and throw away the key," Jeffries posted on X, then known as Twitter, during the trial where Rittenhouse was facing a homicide charge for his actions during a George Floyd riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Rittenhouse was ultimately acquitted. 

APPEALS COURT DENIES DOJ BID TO BLOCK RETURN OF KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA FROM EL SALVADOR PRISON

Democrats fought vigorously against the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and amplified allegations of sexual assault against him before any due process had been completed investigating those claims.

Speaking to CNN's "State of the Union," Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, called for an independent FBI investigation of claims against Kavanaugh, before explaining why the presumption of innocence and due process should not apply to his case.

"I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases," Hirono told host Jake Tapper, in response to a question about whether Kavanaugh was entitled to a presumption of innocence. "His credibility is already very questionable in my mind....  When I say that he's very outcome-driven, he has an ideological agenda, and I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplify his, in my view, inability to be fair."

Over the past few weeks, Jeffries and other Democrats have been vocal proponents of due process when it comes to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant with alleged ties to a violent gang who was deported to El Salvador.

Many Democrats have railed against the Trump administration over issues like due process and questions about the kind of treatment Garcia could be receiving in the prison he is allegedly being housed in. 

"Mistakenly removing a U.S. resident that has protection from deportation legally granted to him by an immigration court and then making no effort to get him back not only places Mr. Abrego Garcia’s life in danger, but also violates the basic principles of due process and the rule of law," Waters said in a recent letter to Trump. 

The face of the resistance to Garcia's deportation has been Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who traveled to El Salvador to meet with Garcia last week which drew strong criticism from the White House.

Van Hollen also opposed Kavanaugh's confirmation using the unsubstantiated sexual assault allegations against him.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, "If the hill that Democrats want to die on is demanding the return of a violent illegal alien, wifebeater, and foreign terrorist, we are happy to dig that grave for them."

Some on social media have called out Democrats in recent days for alleged hypocrisy on the issue of due process, with many pointing out the millions of illegal immigrants who entered the country under President Joe Biden with little to no concern from his party. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"I’m here to remind you that Democrats have never actually cared about due process," Townhall columnist Dustin Grage posted on X while quoting the Jeffries post on Rittenhouse. "Hope this helps."

"Democrats do not care about due process, not one bit," Breitbart senior editor Joel Pollak posted on X. "That's why we now have millions of illegal aliens in the country to begin with – and also why they trashed the civil liberties of hundreds of witnesses and defendants under Biden."

"The entire purpose of flooding us with immigrants was to make due process impossible," Twitchy’s Amy Curtis posted on X. "That some are okay with this, and don’t care about undoing the damage done by Democrats does not surprise me."

"It's important to remember that when it came to BLM mob demands and accusations of sexual assault against men (believe all women), the left/Democrats proudly dismissed Due Process," conservative commentator Chad Felix Greene posted on X. "They only care about Constitutional rights when they believe it benefits them politically."

Trump-backed bill to stop ‘rogue’ judges passes House

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday to limit federal district judges' ability to affect Trump administration policies on a national scale.

The No Rogue Rulings Act, led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., passed the House and limits district courts' power to issue U.S.-wide injunctions, instead forcing them to focus their scope on the parties directly affected in most cases.

All but one Republican lawmaker voted for the bill, which passed 219 to 213. No Democrats voted in favor.

The Trump administration has faced more than 15 nationwide injunctions since the Republican commander-in-chief took office, targeting a wide range of President Donald Trump's policies, from birthright citizenship reform to anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts.

Issa himself was confident the bill would pass, telling Fox News Digital on Tuesday morning, "We've got the votes."

SENATE GOP PUSHES TRUMP BUDGET FRAMEWORK THROUGH AFTER MARATHON VOTE SERIES

He was less certain of the bill getting Democratic support, though he noted former Biden administration solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar made her own complaints about district judges' powers during the previous White House term.

"We're hoping some people look at it on its merits rather than its politics," Issa said.

Rep. Derek Schmidt, R-Kan., who has an amendment on the bill aimed at limiting plaintiffs' ability to "judge shop" cases to favorable districts, told Fox News Digital before the vote, "A lot of things get called commonsense around here, but this one genuinely is."

"The basic policy of trying to rein in the overuse of nationwide injunctions was supported by Democrats before. It's supported by Republicans now, and I'm hoping [this vote will] be supported by both," he said.

Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, who, like Schmidt and Issa, is a House Judiciary Committee member, told Fox News Digital after the bill's passage, "Many Democrat-appointed lower court judges have conducted themselves like activist liberal lawyers in robes while attempting to stop President Trump's nationwide reforms. The No Rogue Rulings Act limits this unchecked power."

Another GOP lawmaker, Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, told Fox News Digital, "More than 77 million Americans voted for [Trump's] pro-American policies and want to see them implemented quickly. There is no reason that activist judges whose authority does not extend nationally should be allowed to completely stop [his] agenda."

Republicans' unity on the issue comes despite some early divisions over how to hit back at what they have called "rogue" and "activist" judges.

MEET THE TRUMP-PICKED LAWMAKERS GIVING SPEAKER JOHNSON A FULL HOUSE GOP CONFERENCE

Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., who supported impeachment and Issa's bill, told Fox News Digital, "The judicial vendetta against President Trump’s agenda needs to be checked. Nationwide injunctions by activists judges have stood in the way of the American people’s will and in come cases their safety, since the President was sworn into office."

Stutzman said Issa's bill "will stop individual judge’s political beliefs from preventing the wants and needs of our citizens from being implemented."

A group of conservatives had pushed to impeach specific judges who have blocked Trump's agenda, but House GOP leaders quickly quashed the effort in favor of what they see as a more effective route to take on the issue.

Despite its success in the House, however, the legislation does face uncertain odds in the Senate, where it needs at least several Democrats to hit the chamber's 60-vote threshold.

‘Watermelon head’: Trump trolls Democratic Sen Schiff

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Sen. Adam Schiff fired back late Tuesday after President Donald Trump mocked the California Democrat during a black-tie Republican dinner in Washington, D.C.

"The President of the United States seems oddly focused on me," Schiff posted after footage of Trump's jokes made the rounds.

"Shouldn't he be focused on the economy he's crashing?" he wrote.

During the event hosted by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) – the House Republicans' campaign arm – Trump wove in a few insults about the Boston-born Angeleno's appearance into a verbal indictment of his role in the 2016 Russia collusion investigation.

KASH PATEL ENRAGES ADAM SCHIFF IN CLINTONIAN BATTLE OVER THE WORD ‘WE’

"Adam ‘Schifty’ Schiff – can you believe this guy?" Trump said. "He's got the smallest neck I've ever seen – and the biggest head: We call him Watermelon-Head." Trump went on to ruminate about how Schiff's "big fat face" could "stand on a neck" the size of the president's finger. 

"It's the weirdest thing – it's a mystery; no one can understand it."

Trump went on to call Schiff "one of the most dishonest human beings I've ever seen," and wondered aloud how people like Schiff could be able to run for office.

FLASHBACK: SCHIFF, WHO REPEATEDLY CLAIMED EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION, DENOUNCES DURHAM REPORT AS ‘FLAWED’

"He was in charge of the fake witch hunt – with 'Russia, Russia, Russia' – it was a made-up story," he said, playing off the "Brady Bunch" line "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha."

In 2020, Schiff managed the House's impeachment probe into Trump, leading off his opening remarks that January by comparing former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's 1792 warning to then-President George Washington about future American leaders who would rise to the executive "despotic in [their] ordinary demeanor."

"When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits… known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind," Schiff said at the time.

Since then, he and Trump have often traded criticisms, with Trump also referring to him in the past as a "structural marvel," with an appearance like a "finger on a basketball."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In October, Trump compared Schiff to the "enemy from within" and called him a "sleazebag" on FOX Business before lamenting that the Democrat would likely defeat former MLB star Steve Garvey for California's open U.S. Senate seat.

For his part, Schiff has also clapped back at Republicans for their criticisms – responding in July to a report that now-Vice President JD Vance had lamented campaign name-calling after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called the GOP ticket "weird."

"Shifty Schiff, pencil neck and watermelon head, would like a word, JD," Schiff responded at the time on Facebook.

Fox News Digital reached out to Schiff for additional comment but did not immediately hear back.

Texas AG Ken Paxton announces run for US Senate

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on Fox News' The Ingraham Angle Tuesday night that he will run for the U.S. Senate. 

The announcement comes as Paxton no longer faces the cloud of a federal corruption investigation that loomed over him as he rose up the ranks in the Republican Party. 

The announcement by Paxton, a close ally of President Donald Trump and a MAGA firebrand, comes two weeks after Republican Sen. John Cornyn officially launched his re-election campaign as he bids for a fifth six-year term serving Texas in the Senate.

EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR DETAILS SURFACE IN HISTORIC IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF TEXAS AG KEN PAXTON

"It's time for a change in Texas," Paxton told Fox News' Laura Ingraham, before acknowledging Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas' other Republican senator. "It's time that we have another great senator that will actually stand up and fight for Republican values, fight for the values of the people of Texas and also support Donald Trump in the areas that he's focused on in a very significant way."

On Sunday, Cornyn said he was looking forward to "the competition" amid rumors of Paxton's candidacy. 

Paxton, who has been Texas' top prosecutor since 2015, criticized his GOP rival, pointing to Cornyn's position on a border wall and opposing Trump during the 2016 election. 

"Ken Paxton is a fraud," Cornyn's campaign wrote on X after Paxton's announcement. "He talks tough on crime and then lets crooked progressive Lina Hidalgo off the hook. He says his impeachment trial was a sham but he didn’t contest the facts in legal filings which will cost the state millions."

"He says he’s anti-woke but he funnels millions of taxpayer dollars to lawyers who celebrate DEI," the post continued. "And Ken claims to be a man of faith but uses fake Uber accounts to meet his girlfriend and deceive his family."

Cornyn also previously came under criticism from conservatives after he helped push a bipartisan gun control bill after the 2022 mass shooting at a Uvalde, Texas elementary school that killed 19 students and two teachers. 

TEXAS AG PAXTON ACQUITTED ON ALL IMPEACHMENT CHARGES: 'THE TRUTH PREVAILED'

Cornyn's campaign noted that the incumbent senator has voted with Trump more than 95% of current senators. Trump and Texas need a "battle-tested conservative" who knows how to protect his agenda in the Senate and won't be outsmarted by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democrats, the campaign said. 

"It sets the table for the most expensive primary in Texas. It will be a brutal battle," veteran Republican strategist Dave Carney told Fox News. Carney, the longtime top political adviser to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, noted that the announcement by Paxton also "opens up the attorney general’s race. There will probably be a very competitive primary for that and we’re going to have a lot of musical chairs down ballot."

Matt Mackowiak, a veteran Republican strategist and communications consultant based in Texas and Washington, D.C., said "this is going to be the most expensive, nastiest, most aggressive, most personal U.S. Senate primary in Texas history."

"You have two candidates who are going to raise significant funds, who are in significant positions, who do not like each and have not liked each other, whose teams do not like each other and the stakes could not be higher," he emphasized.

The announcement from Paxton puts the gears in motion for what may be an extremely expensive and bruising GOP primary battle, pitting the remaining establishment and business factions of the Republican Party versus the ascendant MAGA wing.

WILL DEMOCRATS ONCE AGAIN CHASE THE ‘GHOST OF A BLUE TEXAS’ IN NEXT YEAR'S SENATE RACE?

Paxton's announcement was not a huge surprise, as he has long claimed Cornyn does not represent the conservative values of Texans and has accused the senator of not being an ally of Trump.

He has also regularly labeled Cornyn a "RINO," a "Republican in name only" and an insult MAGA and "America First" Republicans have regularly used to criticize more mainstream or establishment members of the GOP.

And Paxton, for a couple of years, has flirted with a primary challenge against the 73-year-old Cornyn, a former state senator, former Texas Supreme Court justice, and former state attorney general, who first won election to the U.S. Senate in 2002.

FACING POSSIBLE PRIMARY CHALLNGE FROM A TRUMP ALLY, LONGTIME TEXAS SENATOR ANNOUNCES RE-ELECTION

"I can’t think of a single thing he’s accomplished for our state or even for the country," Paxton said in a September 2023 interview on the Fox News Channel. "Somebody needs to step up and run against this guy," adding, "everything’s on the table for me."

Fast-forward to earlier this year, and Paxton, at a county GOP meeting in Texas, told supporters that one of the things "we need to do, and I might play a role in this, is replace John Cornyn in the U.S. Senate."

And in a Fox News Digital interview in January, Paxton acknowledged that he was "looking potentially at the U.S. Senate."

Cornyn, during the early stages of the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race, had said he would prefer that the GOP take a new direction, which angered Trump. But the senator endorsed Trump in late January of last year, after the then-former president won both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, the first two contests in the Republican presidential nomination calendar.

Since Trump returned to the White House three months ago, Cornyn has been supportive of the president's Cabinet nominees and agenda.

ONLY ON FOX NEWS: SENATE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN CHAIR REVEALS HOW MANY SEATS HE'S AIMING FOR IN 2026

And in the senator's campaign launch video last month, the announcer highlighted that during Trump's first term in office, "Texas Sen. John Cornyn had his back."

As he gears up for what will most certainly be his roughest re-election of his decades-long career, Cornyn has the backing of the top Republican in the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

And Republican sources confirm to Fox News that Thune, as well as National Republican Senatorial Committee chair Sen. Tim Scott, have personally asked Trump to back Cornyn.

The president's grip on the GOP is stronger than ever and any endorsement Trump may make in the emerging Republican Senate primary in Texas would be extremely influential.

Making Cornyn's path to renomination even more difficult is a possible Senate bid by Rep. Wesley Hunt, who represents a Houston area district.

The third-term 43-year-old Texas Republican and rising MAGA star has made his case to the president's political team, sources confirm to Fox News. Hunt's argument is that he's the only person who can win both a GOP primary and a general election, a source familiar with the discussions confirmed to Fox News.

An outside group supportive of Hunt is currently spending seven figures to run ads across the Lone Star State to increase the lawmaker's name ID.

CORNYN'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN SPARKS QUESTIONS ON BOTH PARTY FLANKS AS DEMS CHASE 'THE GHOST OF A BLUE TEXAS'

Some Republican operatives and strategists worry that a primary battle in Texas could cost up to $100 million, potentially diverting much-needed resources from other races.

While Paxton is very popular with the conservative base of the party, it's not clear at this point what Trump will do regarding the race. And political strategists note that toppling Cornyn in a GOP primary will likely be a very expensive proposition, and it's not clear if Paxton can raise the money needed for victory.

"This says two things. One, Paxton sees an opportunity. And two, him getting in this early shows he needs the maximum time possible to try to raise money," Mackowiak said,  He added that Paxton "has received some negative feedback on fundraising."

Paxton grabbed national attention in 2020 for filing the unsuccessful Texas vs. Pennsylvania case in the Supreme Court that tried to overturn former President Joe Biden’s razor-thin win over Trump in the Keystone State, and for speaking at the Trump rally near the White House that immediately preceded the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by right-wing extremists aiming to disrupt congressional certification of Biden’s Electoral College victory.

During Biden's four years in the White House, Paxton took the administration to court numerous times.

While Paxton, who's in his third four-year term as Texas attorney general, has long been a legal warrior in the MAGA movement, he also has plenty of personal political baggage.

Paxton was indicted on securities fraud charges soon after taking office in 2015, and more recently came under investigation by the FBI over bribery and corruption allegations from former top staffers. And in 2022, he survived a bruising primary amid his many legal difficulties.

In 2023, Paxton was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives, but he was later acquitted of all charges by the state Senate. 

The charges in the long-running federal corruption probe were dropped during the final weeks of the Biden administration. 

The attorney general also faced an investigation by the Texas State Bar for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

While Paxton for years has denied any wrongdoing and has survived his legal fights, he would likely continue to face tough optics and plenty of incoming fire over his past predicaments during a Senate showdown.

The eventual winner of next year's GOP primary will be considered the favorite in the general election against whomever the Democrats nominate.

Former Rep. Colin Allred has said he'll decide by this summer if he'll mount a 2026 Senate campaign.

Allred, a former Baylor University football player and NFL linebacker who later represented Texas' 32nd Congressional District (which includes parts of Dallas and surrounding suburbs), was last year's Democratic challenger in the race against Cruz.

Boasberg contempt showdown looms after Supreme Court hands Trump immigration win

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A federal judge is weighing whether to hold Trump administration officials in civil contempt after they defied a court order blocking deportation flights last month – even as the Supreme Court on Monday handed the administration a temporary legal victory, allowing it to resume use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants.

President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda is colliding with the federal judiciary as his administration races to fulfill a central campaign promise: mass deportations. The aggressive pace – which has included the removal of alleged members of violent transnational gangs – has triggered a wave of legal challenges from critics who claim the administration is unlawfully ejecting migrants from the country.

The high court’s 5–4 decision, which Trump praised on X as a "great day for justice in America," lifted a lower court’s injunction and allows deportations to resume for now, though with added due process protections. The unsigned, four-page ruling focused narrowly on the lower court’s order and permits the administration to invoke the wartime-era Alien Enemies Act to expedite removals. 

However, the ruling does little to halt the escalating feud between the Trump administration and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has signaled he may hold administration officials in contempt for defying his order last month to ground deportation flights. Boasberg is set to preside over a hearing Tuesday to address the administration’s use of the state secrets privilege to block the court from accessing information about the flights. It will mark the judge’s first opportunity to respond since the Supreme Court sided with Trump.

JUDGE BOASBERG POISED TO HOLD TRUMP ADMIN IN CONTEMPT, TAKES DOWN NAMES OF DHS OFFICIALS: 'PRETTY SKETCHY'

Though Trump and his allies celebrated the Supreme Court’s intervention, the decision offers only a narrow and potentially short-lived reprieve.

The ruling requires the administration to provide detainees slated for removal with proper notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportation in court. However, the justices said those legal challenges must be filed in Texas – not in Washington, D.C. – a jurisdictional shift that injects fresh uncertainty into the lower court proceedings. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned that the ruling would make it significantly harder for individuals to contest their removals on a case-by-case basis.

"We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this," she said.  

Boasberg blocked the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act for a 14-day period last month to allow the court time to review the case on its merits. The order drew scathing criticism from Trump, who labeled Boasberg an "activist judge" and called for his impeachment – prompting a rare warning from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Boasberg has said he will decide as early as this week whether to pursue civil contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials for defying his order.

Three planes carrying 261 migrants – including more than 100 individuals slated for removal solely under the Alien Enemies Act – were flown to El Salvador last month from the U.S., around the same time Boasberg issued an emergency order blocking the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan nationals for 14 days.

Boasberg also issued a bench ruling ordering that all migrant flights be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil. The administration did not comply, and hours later, the planes arrived in El Salvador.

At a show-cause hearing last week, Boasberg instructed Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign to determine who in the administration knew about the restraining order and when. He also demanded to know who made the decision not to comply, saying that information could be relevant if he moves forward with contempt proceedings.

Boasberg contested Ensign's suggestion that the administration may not have violated the emergency restraining order.

"It seems to me there is a fair likelihood that that is not correct," Boasberg told Ensign. "In fact, the government acted in bad faith throughout that day," he added.

SUPREME COURT GRANTS TRUMP REQUEST TO LIFT STAY HALTING VENEZUELAN DEPORTATIONS

Boasberg asked follow-up questions about agency affiliation, titles and the spelling of officials' names – suggesting he would be examining their roles in the case very closely as he weighed whether there was probable cause to move on civil contempt. Ensign repeatedly told the court he did not know and was not privy to the information himself. "I made diligent efforts to obtain that information," he told Boasberg.

The Trump administration’s repeated failure to meet court deadlines may give Boasberg grounds to proceed with civil contempt proceedings, even if jurisdictional questions limit his ability to rule on the plaintiffs’ broader request for a preliminary injunction.

Government lawyers have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights and whether the plane (or planes) of migrants knowingly departed U.S. soil after the judge ordered them not to do so, citing national security protections. 

The Supreme Court has affirmed that federal judges have the authority to compel parties to act and hold them accountable for defying court orders in both civil and criminal cases.

The potential contempt proceedings come amid soaring tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, as Trump administration officials clash with federal judges overseeing a flood of lawsuits and emergency requests to halt administration actions. While contempt findings against executive officials are rare, they are not without precedent.

 APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

In civil cases, a judge will often reiterate the original order and set clear steps and deadlines for the party to demonstrate compliance. If those deadlines are missed, the court can take further action to compel obedience – consistent with the basic principle that "all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly."

Boasberg sharply criticized Trump officials for failing to comply with his bench order requiring deportation flights to return to the U.S. and for refusing to provide basic information about the individuals who were removed. During last week’s hearing, it became clear the administration had not been withholding classified materials, as previously implied — a revelation that appeared to undercut its national security justification and drew further frustration from the judge. He also noted that the administration may have violated multiple court deadlines, including one that allowed sensitive information to be filed under seal.

"Can you think of one instance" where the state secrets privilege was invoked using unclassified info? Boasberg asked Ensign, who struggled to respond.

"Pretty sketchy," Boasberg said aloud in response.

The judge, visibly frustrated, pressed further. "You standing here have no idea who made the decision not to bring the planes back or have the passengers not be disembarked upon arrival?" He then continued to question Ensign about the names, locations, and agencies of the individuals involved in the removals.

"If you really believed everything you did that day was legal and could survive a court challenge, I can't believe you ever would have operated in the way you did," Boasberg said. 

Now comes Tuesday’s pivotal hearing, as Boasberg weighs whether the administration’s national security claims are justified or merely an attempt to shield misconduct from judicial scrutiny.

Judge targeted by GOP for impeachment deals blow to Trump’s FEMA objectives

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A Rhode Island federal judge targeted for impeachment dealt the Trump administration a legal blow on Friday, ordering it to lift a freeze on federal funds.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to unfreeze federal funds to states after plaintiffs alleged the agency had failed to comply with an earlier court order.

The lawsuit was originally launched by 22 states and the District of Columbia, challenging the Trump administration’s decision to block funding for programs like the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Pollution Reduction Grant and other environmental initiatives. 

LAWSUIT TRACKER: NEW RESISTANCE BATTLING TRUMP'S SECOND TERM THROUGH ONSLAUGHT OF LAWSUITS TAKING AIM AT EOS

Plaintiffs in the suit, including the states of New York, California, Illinois and Rhode Island, argued that FEMA's implementation of a manual review process for payment requests violated a previous preliminary injunction issued by McConnell. The states argued that the review "constitutes 'a categorical pause or freeze of funding appropriate by Congress.'"

The defendants, which include President Donald Trump and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), responded that the review did not violate the order because "FEMA is relying on its own independent authorities to implement the process rather than the OMB Directive."

McConnell concluded that the plaintiffs had "presented evidence that strongly suggests that FEMA is implementing this manual review process based, covertly, on the President's January 20, 2025 executive order." 

COURTROOM COMBAT: INSIDE THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY SYSTEM WHERE TRUMP'S AGENDA IS UNDER ASSAULT

"The Court reaffirms its preliminary injunction order," McConnell wrote. 

McConnell had issued a restraining order in late January that enjoined the defendants from freezing federal funds. This came after OMB released a memo on Jan. 27 announcing the administration's plans to temporarily pause federal grants and loans. The White House later rescinded the memo on Jan. 29. 

However, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the move didn’t equate a "recission of the federal funding freeze." 

‘CORRUPT, DANGEROUS’: GOP REP MOVES TO IMPEACH JUDGE WHO BLOCKED TRUMP FEDERAL FUNDS FREEZE

After McConnell ordered the administration to comply with the restraining order, the government appealed to the First Circuit — which refused to stay the orders. 

McConnell also recently made headlines after becoming one of several federal judges hit with impeachment articles. 

Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde formally introduced his articles of impeachment against McConnell on March 24, after his initial announcement in February. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The articles, first shared with Fox News Digital, charged McConnell with abuse of power and conflicts of interest, stating he "knowingly politicized and weaponized his judicial position to advance his own political views and beliefs."

"The American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump in November, providing a clear mandate to make our federal government more efficient," Clyde told Fox News Digital. "Yet Judge McConnell, who stands to benefit from his own injunction, is attempting to unilaterally obstruct the president’s agenda and defy the will of the American people. Judge McConnell’s actions are corrupt, dangerous, and worthy of impeachment."

Fox News Digital's Diana Stancy contributed to this report.

Judge Boasberg poised to hold Trump admin in contempt, takes down names of DHS officials: ‘Pretty sketchy’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Thursday grilled Trump administration lawyers over whether they defied a court order blocking deportations under a wartime immigration law — a potential step toward holding the administration in contempt.

At issue is the administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang. Boasberg pressed Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign on why the government appeared to ignore an emergency injunction last month halting those deportations.

The administration has appealed the underlying case to the Supreme Court. But for now, Boasberg is weighing whether there is probable cause to move forward with contempt proceedings — a question that remained open after a tense exchange in court.

Boasberg said he would issue a decision as early as next week on how to proceed if he finds grounds to hold the administration in contempt.

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

During the hearing, Ensign was repeatedly questioned about who in the Trump administration had information about the flights and when the three deportation flights left U.S. soil for El Salvador. At least 261 migrants were deported that day, including more than 100 Venezuelan nationals who were subject to removal "solely on the basis" of the law temporarily blocked by the court.

"You maintain that the government was in full compliance with the court’s order on March 15, correct?" Boasberg asked Ensign. 

Ensign said yes, to which the judge responded: "It seems to me the government acted in bad faith that day." 

"If you really believed everything you did that day was legal and would survive a court challenge, you would not have operated the way that you did," Boasberg said.  

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

He repeatedly questioned Ensign about his knowledge of the flights and whether any related materials were classified, which could have triggered state secrets protections.

Government lawyers have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights, and whether the plane (or planes) of migrants knowingly departed U.S. soil after the judge ordered them not to do so, citing national security protections. 

But according to Ensign, that may not have been an issue. He told Boasberg the flight information likely wasn’t classified, prompting the judge to wonder aloud why it hadn’t been shared with him in an ex parte setting.

"Can you think of one instance" where the state secrets privilege was invoked using unclassified info? he asked Ensign, who struggled to respond.

"Pretty sketchy," Boasberg said aloud in response.

Another focus of Thursday’s hearing was timing — both when President Donald Trump signed the proclamation authorizing use of the Alien Enemies Act, and when federal agents began loading planes with migrants bound for El Salvador.

Boasberg noted that the Trump administration began loading the planes the morning of March 15, hours before the flights left the U.S.

"So then it’s not crazy to infer there was prior knowledge and actions ahead of the Saturday night deportations?" he asked Ensign.

The judge pressed the lawyer over the names, locations and agencies of individuals who were privy to the removals, as well as internal conversations with other administration officials who may have been listening in to the court proceedings.

"Who did you tell about my order?" Boasberg asked. "Once the hearing was done, who did you tell?"

Ensign says he relayed the information to Department of Homeland Security contacts and State Department officials, among others.

He listed the names of the individuals, at Boasberg's request, which the judge then carefully transcribed onto a pad of paper, interjecting at times to clarify the spelling or ask for their job titles.

The hearing is the latest in a flurry of legal battles over the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. It follows Boasberg’s order requiring officials to explain why they failed to comply with his directive to return the deportation flights — and whether they knowingly defied the court.

Boasberg told both sides he would see them again next week for arguments on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, set for Tuesday.

The hearing also marks the latest clash between Trump and Boasberg, whom the president has publicly denounced as an "activist" judge and called for his impeachment. 

Trump faces Judge Boasberg over migrant deportation flights defying court order

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A federal judge will hear from government lawyers Thursday to determine whether the Trump administration defied court orders when it deported hundreds of migrants to El Salvador last month.

The hearing marks the latest clash between President Donald Trump and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who Trump has publicly attacked as an "activist" judge and called for his impeachment. At issue is whether the administration knowingly violated Boasberg’s emergency order, which temporarily blocked the deportations and required that any individuals removed under a centuries-old immigration law be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil. Flights carrying migrants, including those deported under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, still landed in El Salvador that same night.

"Oopsie…" El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, wrote on X after they landed in his country. "Too late."

Boasberg, who issued the emergency orders at the center of the controversial and complex case, has said he intends to find out whether the administration knowingly violated them, and who, if anyone, should be held accountable.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

"The government isn’t being forthcoming," Boasberg told Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign during an earlier hearing. "But I will get to the bottom of whether they complied with my order, who violated it and what the consequences will be."

At Thursday's hearing, Boasberg is expected to revisit many of the same questions he raised earlier, including how many planes left the U.S. carrying individuals deported "solely on the basis" of the Alien Enemies Act. Other questions include how many individuals were on each plane and what time and from which location each plane took off. 

Although the administration has already appealed the case twice – first to the D.C. Circuit, which upheld Boasberg’s order, and then to the Supreme Court – the judge is still pressing for answers. Thursday’s hearing is part of his effort to determine whether the government defied the court when it carried out the deportation flights.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

The Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, has been used only three times in American history – during the War of 1812 and the two world wars – making its modern application by the Trump administration a rare legal maneuver.

Trump officials have argued invoking the law is necessary to expel dangerous individuals, including alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, who were flown to El Salvador under the administration’s new deportation policy.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs have pushed back on the administration’s use of the 1798 law, calling its use during peacetime "unprecedented."

In a brief filed to the Supreme Court earlier this week, plaintiffs argued the law permits immediate deportations only in cases of a "declared war" or an "invasion or predatory incursion" by a foreign nation, conditions they say don’t apply to the Venezuelan nationals targeted for removal.

Government lawyers have declined to disclose key details about the deportation flights, including whether any planes departed after Boasberg’s order, citing national security protections.

Boasberg had previously warned the administration of consequences if it violated his order and criticized earlier filings as "woefully insufficient," noting the government also refused his offer to submit information under seal.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

The case has become a political flash point over the balance of power between the courts and the executive branch. Trump allies dismiss much of the judiciary’s involvement as the work of "activist" judges seeking to rein in the president and overstep their constitutional role.

Trump's demand for Boasberg to be impeached prompted a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts said in a statement. "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The White House has kept up its criticism of the lower courts, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt last month accusing judges of overstepping their bounds and infringing on the president’s authority.

"The administration will move quickly to pursue Supreme Court review, defend the Constitution, and protect the American people," Leavitt said in a statement.

Republicans, Democrats trade barbs in heated hearing on activist judges blocking Trump agenda

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Democrats and Republicans repeatedly clashed on Tuesday during a lengthy hearing on what the GOP calls "activist judges" blocking President Donald Trump's agenda.

The House Judiciary Committee's subcommittees on the Constitution and on courts held the joint hearing in preparation for a House-wide vote on legislation that would limit district judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. That bill is currently stalled, however, after an unrelated fight on proxy voting paralyzed the House floor.

During the hearing, Democrats repeatedly tried to press Republicans on the issue of judicial impeachments — something pushed by conservatives but that House GOP leaders have shown little appetite for pursuing.

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

"Some guy I've never heard of, he, might be in Congress, introduced an impeachment resolution, and he's not here," Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said of an impeachment resolution targeting U.S. district Judge James Boasberg by Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas.

"He hasn't been here for at least the last hour, and every witness here is in agreement that we really shouldn't be impeaching judges. I haven't heard a single colleague on the other side say we should be impeaching judges."

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who was co-chairing the hearing alongside Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, asked Swalwell to yield his time — but the California Democrat refused.

"I don't think they have anything to talk about with the bills, since they offered a similar bill, and even the solicitor general, as late as October of last year in the Biden administration, wanted exactly what we're moving out of committee today," Issa told Fox News Digital about Democrats' ploy.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., compared conservatives' push to impeach judges to House Republicans' impeachment inquiry efforts into former President Joe Biden — which ultimately did not end in any such proceedings.

"I guess we're taking a page out of [House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer's] playbook, we're just doing fake impeachments," Moskowitz told Fox News Digital.

But Roy, who co-led the hearing with Issa, told Fox News Digital it was about "trying to make clear that you've got a handful of judges acting, clearly politically, to stop the administration from acting."

"It's pretty clear that my Democratic colleagues prefer to defend the right of an MS-13 gang member, clearly here illegally, from being deported," Roy said.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

But Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., another member of the committee, said at least one goal was to "raise the profile of the issue."

"Maybe the more headlines a hearing like this gets, it clearly sets it on the plate of Chief Justice Roberts, right, to take action and try to get control of the courts again," he said.

It's not immediately clear when Issa's bill will get a vote, after House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., announced House floor activity was canceled for the rest of this week.

Wave of court orders blocking Trump’s agenda are a ‘judicial coup d’etat,’ Gingrich says

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich condemned the wave of federal judges blocking President Donald Trump's agenda as a "judicial coup d'etat" on Tuesday.

Gingrich made the comments while testifying at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing focused on "judicial overreach" by U.S. district court judges across the country. The former lawmaker highlighted that the vast majority of judges filing injunctions or restraining orders against Trump's executive actions have been appointed by Democrats.

"Mr. Gingrich, I'm told that 92% of the judges who have issued blanket injunctions against the administration have been appointed by Democrats. That at least suggests a partisan tilt to all of this… doesn't that undermine public confidence in our courts?" Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., asked at the hearing.

"If you look at the recent reports from various polling firms, clearly a majority of Americans believe that no single district judge should be able to issue a nationwide injunction," Gingrich responded.

"Look, my judgment is as a historian. This is clearly a judicial coup d'etat. You don't have this many different judges issue this many different nationwide injunctions – all of them coming from the same ideological and political background – and just assume it's all random efforts of justice," he continued.

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

"This is a clear effort to stop the scale of change that President Trump represents," he added.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

Gingrich went on to argue that it is unacceptable for "random" judges to micromanage the president of the United States.

"They put both Americans and the nation at risk when they intervene to become basically alternative presidents. You now have potentially 677 alternative presidents, none of whom won an election," he said.

The best solution for the wave of injunctions is for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to intervene, Gingrich said. Roberts could ensure that any such rulings from lower federal courts could move straight up to the Supreme Court.

At the center of the court controversy is District Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to block the Trump administration from deporting members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador. Other judges have placed injunctions on Trump's efforts to trim down the federal government.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., met privately with Republican judiciary committee members last week for what sources called a "brainstorming" session on how to respond to judges like Boasberg.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Ideas raised by lawmakers included a fast-tracked appeals process, wielding Congress’ spending power over the judiciary, and limiting the ability to "judge shop."

And some conservatives are eager to target specific judges they believe are abusing their power via the impeachment process, but House Republican leaders are wary of that route and believe it to be less effective than other legislative avenues.

Fox News' Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.