Category: fox-news/politics/judiciary

DOJ faces off with entire Maryland federal bench over automatic pauses in deportation cases

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A judge appeared skeptical on Wednesday of the Department of Justice's arguments related to an unusual lawsuit the Trump administration brought against all 15 district court judges in Maryland challenging a court order.

Judge Thomas Cullen of the Western District of Virginia questioned the DOJ over the lawsuit, which alleges that the Maryland district court overstepped its authority by imposing a standing order that automatically pauses deportation cases for two days when they are first filed.

Cullen, a Trump appointee, told DOJ attorneys early on in the hearing he was wary of their position.

"One of the things about me is that I don’t have a very good poker face, and you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism," Cullen said.

TRUMP DHS SUES ENTIRE BENCH OF FEDERAL JUDGES IN MARYLAND DISTRICT COURT OVER AUTOMATIC INJUNCTIONS

The Virginia federal judge is presiding over the case in Baltimore because the Maryland judges recused themselves. Cullen said he would issue a decision by Labor Day on whether he would block the standing order.

DOJ attorney Elizabeth Hedges argued during the hearing that the Maryland court's order had the effect of "tampering with the [U.S.] attorney general’s discretion" over immigration enforcement matters.

The order requires clerks to immediately enter administrative injunctions that last two business days in cases brought by alleged illegal immigrants who are challenging their detentions or removals. The injunctions have the effect of temporarily barring the Department of Homeland Security from deporting or changing the legal status of an immigrant until a judge has time to review the case.

Hedges argued that the judges automatically enter the orders in these cases even if the court lacks jurisdiction in some of them.

The lawsuit, brought in June, comes as the Trump administration has taken an aggressive public posture against individual federal judges who have blocked enforcement of many of the president's executive actions, including in areas of immigration, education and federal agency cuts.

President Donald Trump has complained his agenda has been hamstrung and has called for the impeachment of certain judges whose orders he disagrees with. But the Supreme Court has, in many cases, overrode judges and allowed Trump to temporarily implement his executive actions while the lawsuits proceed in the lower courts.

Attorney Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of the Maryland judges, said during the hearing that there were "less confrontational" alternatives to resolving differences with the courts than suing every member of a district court.

Clement, a renowned conservative lawyer who served as former President George Bush's solicitor general, defended the standing order, calling it a "modest effort to preserve the judiciary's ability to perform its constitutionally assigned role."

'LAWLESS AND INSANE': TRUMP ADMIN READIES FOR FIGHT AFTER JUDGES BLOCK ABREGO GARCIA REMOVAL FOR NOW

Chief Judge George Russell of Maryland said he issued the standing order as a scheduling convenience to make sure the "status quo" is preserved when a deportation case is filed. He cited a "recent influx" of cases involving detained immigrants that were being filed after normal court hours, including on weekends and holidays.

The lawsuit represents a test of the independence of the judiciary branch. Clement said it was "fundamentally incompatible" with the separation of powers.

"We just don’t have a tradition of suits that are executive versus judiciary, executive versus Congress, Congress versus the executive," Clement said, adding that "we don’t really expect one branch to sue another to try to vindicate its institutional interests."

The lawsuit also comes as Trump's mass deportation agenda has encountered some roadblocks as immigrants raise court challenges and appeals to their removals.

Perhaps the most prominent instance of this occurred in Maryland, where Judge Paula Xinis, now one of the 15 defendants in the lawsuit against the judges, ordered the government to return Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. after the Trump administration admitted to the court it mistakenly deported him to a prison in El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia has since been returned and is facing criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants. He has pleaded not guilty.

House Republicans call for investigation into Obama-appointed judge in Trump funding case

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: A pair of Republican oversight hawks escalated a complaint on Tuesday about a district court judge who is presiding over one of the Trump administration’s cases, alleging the judge has a financial conflict of interest.

Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman and member of the House Judiciary Committee, respectively, asked the judicial council for the First Circuit Court of Appeals to investigate Judge John McConnell, according to a letter obtained by Fox News Digital.

McConnell, an Obama appointee, has been presiding over a pivotal funding freeze case in Rhode Island brought by 22 states with Democratic attorneys general. The case centers on the Office of Management and Budget’s order in January that federal agencies implement a multibillion-dollar suspension of federal benefits.

JUDGE TARGETED BY GOP FOR IMPEACHMENT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP'S FEMA OBJECTIVES

The states’ lawsuit argued the funding freeze was illegal because Congress had already approved the funds for use. McConnell agreed with the states and blocked the administration from suspending the funds, and the case is now sitting before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

McConnell wrote in an order in March that the Trump administration’s funding suspension "fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government." 

The judge said the freeze lacked "rationality" and showed no "thoughtful consideration of practical consequences" because it threatened states’ "ability to provide vital services, including but not limited to public safety, health care, education, childcare, and transportation infrastructure."

Issa and Jordan said McConnell’s long-standing leadership roles with Crossroads Rhode Island, a nonprofit that has received millions of dollars in federal and state grants, raised the possibility of a judicial ethics violation.

"Given Crossroads’s reliance on federal funds, Judge McConnell’s rulings had the effect of restoring funding to Crossroads, directly benefitting the organization and creating a conflict of interest," Jordan and Issa wrote.

Their letter was directed to Judge David Barron, chief judge of the First Circuit and chair of the First Circuit Judicial Council.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN FROM DISMANTLING 3 AGENCIES

McConnell was quick to become one of Trump’s judicial nemeses when he became involved with the funding freeze case. His initial order blocking the freeze and subsequent orders to enforce his injunction and unfreeze FEMA funds fueled criticism from Trump's allies.

The Trump-aligned group America First Legal has been highlighting McConnell’s ties to Crossroads Rhode Island for months through its own investigation and complaint to the First Circuit.

Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., filed articles of impeachment against the judge in March, though impeachment as a solution for judges with whom Republicans take issue has not garnered widespread support among the broader Republican conference.

Vocal Trump supporter Laura Loomer targeted the judge’s daughter on social media, and X CEO Elon Musk elevated her grievance on his platform.

One of McConnell’s local newspapers, the Providence Journal, described the judge as a man "well-known" in Democratic political circles and a major donor to Democratic politicians and organizations before he was confirmed to the bench in 2011.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

McConnell included Crossroads Rhode Island and his membership as a board member in his recent public annual financial disclosure reports. No parties in the case have actively sought his recusal at this stage.

An aide for the judge did not respond to a request for comment.

Ex-Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pleads for civil political discourse, warns ‘democracy is at risk’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned Thursday that the tone of political discourse and threats to judges are undermining the ability of the U.S. to serve as an example of freedom and democracy around the world.

Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who retired in 2018 during President Donald Trump's first term, was speaking during a virtual forum about threats to the rule of law, as he defended the role of judges in a democracy and advocated for the need to protect them and their families from threats.

"Many in the rest of the world look to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be," Kennedy said during the "Speak Up for Justice" event, one day before the current Supreme Court justices are set to deliver their final rulings of the current term.

"If they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk. Freedom is at risk," he continued.

BOOKER, CRUZ SPAR OVER THREATS TO US JUDGES IN FIERY SENATE EXCHANGE

Kennedy did not mention Trump, even as other participants expressed concern about the barrage of threats and attacks against judges for blocking key parts of the president's political agenda during his second term, including his immigration policies, firings of federal workers and his implementation of broad-based tariffs.

But Kennedy's remarks appeared to be sparked, at least in part, by the Trump administration's repeated attacks against judges who have ruled against him, including some whom he appointed during his first term.

In March, Trump criticized U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg as a "radical left lunatic" and called for his impeachment after he attempted to block the administration from removing alleged Venezuelan gang members from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime presidential power Trump invoked.

Last month, Trump attacked "USA-hating" judges as "monsters who want our country to go to hell."

Trump's rhetoric has come alongside an uptick in threats against judges, according to POLITICO, although spokespeople for the administration have said the president is against any threats and that they would face prosecution from the Justice Department.

Kennedy said "judges must have protection for themselves and their families" and that "judges are best protected when the public and our nation realize how central they are to our discourse." 

"We should be concerned in this country about, as I've already indicated, the tone of our political discourse," he said. "Identity politics are used so that a person is characterized by his or her partisan affiliation. That's not what democracy and civil discourse is about."

Other participants at the forum, which featured judges from the U.S. and other countries who warned about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies, also took aim at Trump's statement denouncing the courts.

Without mentioning Trump by name, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed by a disgruntled lawyer who went to her New Jersey home in 2020, said disinformation about judges was spreading "from the top down," with jurists attacked as "rogue" and "corrupt."

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS DOUBLES DOWN ON DEFENSE OF COURTS AS SCOTUS GEARS UP TO HEAR KEY TRUMP CASES

"Judges are rogue. Sound familiar? Judges are corrupt. Sound familiar? Judges are monsters. … Judges hate America," Salas said. "We are seeing the spreading of disinformation coming from the top down."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Salas warned that the number of threats recorded against judges this year was reaching historic heights in the U.S., noting that the U.S. Marshals Service has tracked more than 400 threats against judges since January, when Trump was inaugurated.

"We're going to break records, people, and not in a good way," she said.

Reuters contributed to this report.

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

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

SCOOP: Judge Boasberg impeachment push gains support despite House GOP leaders’ resistance

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: A resolution to impeach U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg is still gaining support despite House GOP leaders' hesitation to move on such a measure.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced an article of impeachment against Boasberg last month after he issued an emergency order temporarily halting the Trump administration's deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act.

Reps. Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., signed onto the bill as co-sponsors last week, Fox News Digital was told, despite House GOP leaders signaling around the same time that they have little appetite to pursue that route.

The resolution now has 22 total co-sponsors – suggesting the effort is still alive and well among conservatives in the House Republican conference.

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

President Donald Trump is using the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Tren De Aragua gang members to a detention facility in El Salvador. 

Boasberg's standoff with the Trump administration, which includes accusations the White House ignored his initial order that the administration has denied, has sent shock waves through Capitol Hill. 

Republicans see it as one of the most egregious examples of "rogue judges" blocking Trump's agenda. 

Trump himself singled out Boasberg and called for his impeachment over the legal showdown.

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

More than a dozen injunctions have been levied against various Trump policies, with targets ranging from birthright citizenship reform to the Department of Government Efficiency.

However, House GOP leaders are hesitant to support impeachment as a method to target Boasberg and other judges – believing it to be a less effective route to accountability.

Several rank-and-file Republican lawmakers suggested to Fox News Digital last month that they would not support such a move, giving it long odds of success in the House.

Gill's resolution accused Boasberg of abusing his power.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

He could still force a House-wide vote on the measure by reintroducing it as a "privileged resolution," giving leaders two legislative days to hold at least one procedural vote.

As of last week, however, Gill told Fox News Digital he had no plans to do so.

It comes as House Republicans coalesce around legislation by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to limit district judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. That bill is expected to get a vote on Wednesday afternoon.

Trump allies scrutinize Judge Boasberg’s DC connections as high-stakes legal battles escalate

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Federal Judge James Boasberg is facing mounting criticism from President Donald Trump and his allies as he presides over multiple high-profile lawsuits targeting the Trump administration – cases that have now brought the judge’s personal and professional ties under fresh scrutiny. 

Boasberg, who was previously appointed to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and reportedly once roomed with Justice Brett Kavanaugh at Yale, has become a flashpoint for conservatives who accuse the judiciary of bias against the Trump administration. Now the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Boasberg's recent orders halting deportations of violent illegal immigrants and overseeing cases tied to leaked internal communications have amplified claims of partisanship and drawn fierce rebukes from Trump and his allies.

"The Chief Justice handpicked DC Obama Judge Jeb Boasberg to serve on the FISA court," said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project. "The DC federal judges are in a cozy little club, and they protect their own." His comments echo a broader sentiment on the right that Boasberg’s judicial decisions – and his close ties within the legal establishment – reflect a partisan tilt against the president.

Boasberg, a Washington, D.C., native, earned an advanced degree in Modern European History from Oxford University in 1986 and later attended Yale Law School, where he lived with Kavanaugh, according to multiple reports.  

TRUMP UNLOADS ON JUDGE BOASBERG, 'RADICAL LEFT JUDGES' FOR HALTING DEPORTATIONS OF VIOLENT ILLEGAL ALIENS

He graduated in 1990 and clerked for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before joining Keker & Van Nest in San Francisco as a litigation associate from 1991 to 1994. He later worked at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans in Washington from 1995 to 1996.

After serving in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Boasberg was appointed in 2002 by then-President George W. Bush to serve as an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the local trial court for the District. In 2011, then-President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where he was confirmed by the Senate and received his commission on March 17, 2011.

Boasberg was appointed to serve a seven-year term on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA Court, by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. 

The FISA Court is made up of 11 federal judges, all of whom are hand-selected by the chief justice. After undergoing rigorous background checks, FISA Court judges are then responsible for approving surveillance requests and wiretap warrants submitted by federal prosecutors, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Most of the court's work remains classified.

Boasberg served as the court’s presiding judge from 2020 to 2021 before returning to the D.C. District Court.

After Boasberg on March 15 ordered the Trump administration to halt its deportations of illegal immigrants under a 1798 wartime authority, Trump took to Truth Social to call for his impeachment. The president’s remarks echoed a growing chorus of conservatives who have recently called for the impeachment of federal judges overseeing his administration’s legal battles.

JUDGE IN CROSSHAIRS OF TRUMP DEPORTATION CASE ORDERS PRESERVATION OF SIGNAL MESSAGES

"I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!" Trump wrote in the post.

In an unprecedented move by the nation's high court, Roberts released a public statement shortly thereafter, denouncing impeachment as an appropriate response to judicial disagreements. 

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

Trump once again unloaded on Boasberg in a March 30 Truth Social post after the judge extended his restraining order on March 28. The extension will run through April 12. 

"People are shocked by what is going on with the Court System. I was elected for many reasons, but a principal one was LAW AND ORDER, a big part of which is QUICKLY removing a vast Criminal Network of individuals, who came into our Country through the Crooked Joe Biden Open Borders Policy! These are dangerous and violent people, who kill, maim and, in many other ways, harm the people of our Country," Trump wrote on the social media platform. 

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

"The Voters want them OUT, and said so in Record Numbers. If it was up to District Judge Boasberg and other Radical Left Judges, nobody would be removed, the President wouldn’t be allowed to do his job, and people’s lives would be devastated all throughout our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!," he continued. 

Boasberg came under additional fire after he was randomly assigned to preside over a lawsuit involving the Trump administration's leaked Signal chat. 

After Boasberg was assigned to the case, Trump again took to Truth Social and accused Boasberg of "grabbing the 'Trump Cases' all to himself."

Davis also took to social media, writing, "Judge Jeb Boasberg is lighting on fire his legitimacy over an unnecessary, lawless, and dangerous pissing match with the President Jeb will lose. 

"Let’s hope the Chief Justice doesn’t light the entire federal judiciary’s legitimacy on fire by siding with his personal buddy Jeb," Davis wrote. 

At the start of the March 27 hearing, Boasberg emphasized that he was randomly assigned to the case through a docket computer system.

"That's how it works, and that's how all cases continue to be assigned in this court," Boasberg said during the hearing. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House, the Supreme Court, and the D.C. District Court for additional comment.

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch, Emma Colton and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.