Category: fox-news/politics/judiciary/federal-courts

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

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

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. 

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

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

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.

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.

Migrant deported to third country returned to US after Trump admin yields to judge’s order

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A Guatemalan man who was deported to Mexico by the Trump administration was returned to the U.S. this week, his lawyers confirmed to Fox News on Thursday, marking the first known instance of the Trump administration complying with a judge’s orders to return an individual removed from the U.S. based on erroneous information.

The individual, identified only as O.C.G, was returned to the U.S. via commercial flight, lawyers confirmed, after being deported to Mexico in March.

The news comes one week after lawyers for the Justice Department told U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy that they were working to charter a plane to secure the return of the individual, identified only as O.C.G., to U.S. soil. 

Murphy had ruled that O.C.G., a Guatemalan migrant, had been deported to Mexico earlier this year without due process and despite his stated fears of persecution, and ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return. 

TRUMP FOE JUDGE BOASBERG RULES DEPORTED MIGRANTS CAN CHALLENGE REMOVALS, IN BLOW TO ADMIN

Additionally, Murphy told laywers for the administration that O.C.G. had not been given the chance to contest his removal to a country where he could face threats of torture, a right afforded under U.S. and international law.

O.C.G. was previously held for ransom and raped in Mexico but was not afforded the chance to assert those fears prior to his removal, Murphy noted in his order, citing submissions from O.C.G.'s attorneys.

"In general, this case presents no special facts or legal circumstances, only the banal horror of a man being wrongfully loaded onto a bus and sent back to a country where he was allegedly just raped and kidnapped," Murphy said earlier this month, noting that the removal process "lacked any semblance of due process."

US JUDGE ACCUSES TRUMP ADMIN OF ‘MANUFACTURING CHAOS’ IN SOUTH SUDAN DEPORTATIONS, ESCALATING FEUD 

"The return of O.C.G. poses a vanishingly small cost to make sure we can still claim to live up to that ideal," Murphy said in his order.

Lawyers for the Trump administration told the court last week that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations Phoenix Field Office made contact over the weekend with O.C.G.’s attorneys and are "currently working with ICE Air to bring O.C.G. back to the United States on an Air Charter Operations (ACO) flight return leg."

That appears to have happened, and O.C.G. was flown via commercial airline to the U.S. on Wednesday.

The news comes amid a broader court fight centered on Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act – an 18th-century wartime law it invoked earlier this year to deport certain migrants more quickly. Many were sent to CECOT, El Salvador's maximum-security prison.

To date, the Trump administration has not complied with federal court orders to facilitate the return of those individuals to the U.S., even individuals who were deported in what the administration has acknowledged was an administrative error. 

Unlike the migrants at CECOT, however, O.C.G. had not been detained in Mexico.

The Trump administration did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment. They did not immediately respond to questions about whether the administration plans to follow suit in other cases in which a federal judge ordered the administration to return an individual deemed to have been wrongfully deported.

The news comes just hours after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to provide all migrants removed to CECOT under the Alien Enemies Act an opportunity to seek habeas relief to contest their removal, as well as the opportunity to challenge their alleged gang status, which was the basis for their removal under the law.

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

Judge Boasberg also gave the Trump administration one week to submit to the court information explaining how it plans to facilitate the habeas relief to migrants currently being held at CECOT.

That ruling is almost certain to provoke a high-stakes legal standoff with the administration, and comes as Trump officials have railed against Judge Boasberg and others who have ruled in ways seen as unfavorable to the administration as so-called "activist judges."

Trump called for Boasberg's impeachment earlier this year, prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public statement of rebuke. 

"America’s asylum system was never intended to be used as a de facto amnesty program or a catch-all, get-out-of-deportation-free card," DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement over the weekend.

100 days of injunctions, trials and ‘Teflon Don’: Trump second term meets its biggest tests in court

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Donald Trump has spent the first 100 days of his second White House term signing a flurry of executive orders aimed at delivering on his policy priorities: slashing government spending, cracking down on illegal immigration and eliminating many diversity and equity initiatives enacted under the Biden administration.

The more than 150 executive orders Trump has signed far outpace those of his predecessors. But they have also triggered a torrent of lawsuits seeking to block or pause his actions, teeing up a high-stakes showdown over how far Trump can push his Article II powers before the courts can or should intervene. 

It’s a looming constitutional clash spinning like a top through the federal courts; a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it set of hearings and appeals and emergency orders that deal with weighty issues of due process and First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Trump’s critics argue the fast-paced strategy is meant to confuse and overwhelm his opponents. His supporters counter that it allows him to strike with maximum precision and sidestep a clunky, slow-moving Congress as the president pursues his top priorities.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW EL SALVADOR DEPORTATION FLIGHT CASE

In his first 100 days, administration lawyers have gone to bat in courtrooms across the country to defend Trump's early executive orders and halt a wave of lawsuits and emergency restraining orders aimed at blocking them. 

Trump, meanwhile, has steadfastly maintained that he would "never defy" the Supreme Court as recently as in an interview last week. 

"I'm a big believer in the Supreme Court and have a lot of respect for the justices," Trump told Time Magazine.  

Critics say he already has.

"The second Trump administration has taken the guardrails off of the norms that historically governed the rule of law and is undertaking steps to enhance the perceived power of the executive branch to the detriment of the two other co-equal branches," Mark Zaid, an attorney who has gone toe-to-toe with the Trump administration in several court cases this year, told Fox News Digitial.

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

"These actions threaten the fundamental notion of our democracy, particularly as the Administration seeks to eliminate due process protections in a quest for power."

The biggest fights so far have centered around the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law, to deport certain migrants to El Salvador. Another major case to watch will be challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. 

Two separate federal judges, in D.C. and Maryland, have suggested they could move to begin possible contempt proceedings against some Trump officials for refusing to comply with their orders.

In one case, a judge issued a scathing rebuke against Trump officials for failing to return a Maryland resident and alleged gang member who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador this year. Separately, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said there was probable cause to find Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for defying his order to return deportation flights to El Salvador on March 15.

The Trump administration has fought back, questioning the authority of lower courts to stop his agenda. The Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on a challenge to some of the nationwide injunctions, beginning with a birthright citizenship case in early May.

Meanwhile, White House officials have railed against the "activist" judges who they say have overstepped and are acting with a political agenda to block Trump's policies. They’ve blasted judges for pausing Trump’s transgender military ban, reinstating USAID programs and blocking Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing federal offices.

Some congressional allies have threatened impeachment against judges who defy Trump, but so far Congress has not advanced any impeachment articles.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined this week to rule out the arrest of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.

Asked at a press briefing about the hypothetical on Monday, Leavitt referred the matter to the Justice Department but said a judge in New Mexico was arrested in "a clear-cut case of obstruction."

"And so anyone who is breaking the law or obstructing federal law enforcement officials from doing their jobs is putting themselves at risk of being prosecuted, absolutely," she said.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, told Fox News Digital that he sees Trump's early actions as getting ahead of the 2026 primaries and moving with maximum force to implement his agenda.

Trump "knows that he has no alternative but to push ahead on all fronts if he is going to make meaningful progress on his promised reforms," Turley told Fox News. 

"The midterm elections are looming in 2026. If the Democrats retake the House, he knows that he can expect investigations, impeachments and obstruction. That means that he has to expedite these cases and establish his lines of authority in areas ranging from migration to the markets."

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.

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.