Legal experts weigh in on Menendez indictment, suggest ‘monster’ charges point to likely conviction

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., has found himself caught up in a wave of legal troubles, and multiple legal experts told Fox News Digital that the "monster" indictment and strong evidence presented against him last week could likely result in a conviction at trial.

The Menendez indictment alleges that the senator and his wife, from at least 2018 through 2022, "engaged in a corrupt relationship" with three New Jersey businessmen.

"Today, I'm announcing that my office has obtained a three-count indictment charging Sen. Robert Menendez, his wife, Nadine Menendez, and three New Jersey businessmen, Wael Hana, Jose Uribe and Fred Daibes, for bribery offenses," U.S. Attorney Damian Williams for the Southern District of New York said at a press conference on Friday.

"I'm hard-pressed to think of an honest explanation for a senator having that amount of cash, gold and other items of value," said Philip Holloway, a criminal defense attorney and former assistant district attorney. "This case will be very difficult, if not impossible, to defend. I think this is the end of Menendez' time in the Senate and his days of breathing free air are likewise coming to an end."

MENENDEZ DEFIANT AS GROWING CHORUS OF DEMOCRATS CALL FOR HIS RESIGNATION

"Prosecutors went out of their way to be very specific and to even show some of the evidence and fruits of the alleged crime, such as cash and gold bars. Undoubtedly, there is more to this case that they have not yet revealed," Holloway added. "I suspect there may be audio recordings obtained via wire taps, electronic communications such as emails and text messages, and witness testimony from people with direct knowledge of relevant matters. In short, the indictment appears to be very strong."

According to the indictment, the couple accepted "hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes in exchange for using Menendez's power and influence as a senator to seek to protect and enrich Hana, Uribe, and Daibes and to benefit the Arab Republic of Egypt."

The alleged bribes included gold, cash, payments toward a mortgage, compensation for a low-or-no-show job, a luxury car and "other things of value."

After an investigation began, Menendez disclosed that in 2020 his family accepted gold bars.

According to prosecutors, Menendez gave sensitive U.S. government information to Hana, an Egyptian-American businessman who "secretly aided the Government of Egypt."

Menendez allegedly pressured an official at the Department of Agriculture with the goal of protecting a business monopoly granted to Hana by the Egyptian government. In return, Hana allegedly kicked back profits from the monopoly to Menendez, the indictment states.

FBI agents found "approximately $500,000 of cash stuffed into envelopes in closets" and jammed into the senator's jacket pockets while executing a search warrant at Menendez's home, Williams said during the press conference.

Similar to that of Holloway, Joseph Tully, a criminal defense attorney out of San Francisco, said the "monster" indictment is "very strong" and concerning for Menendez.

DEMOCRAT SEN BOB MENENDEZ STEPS DOWN 'TEMPORARILY' AS CHAIR OF SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE

"The indictment charges Robert Menendez, his wife, Nadine Menendez, as well as three businessmen, Wael Hana, Jose Uribe and Fred Daibes, who are accused of being co-conspirators," Tully said. "Sen. Menendez faces up to 45 years if convicted of all charges."

"The indictment is very strong. Why? Because there is physical evidence presented in the indictment itself that you can put your finger on that points strongly to guilt," he added.

Like others who have processed the charges against the senator, Tully believes the case involving Menendez will be a "lengthy process."

"If I had to predict, I would say that the case will settle before trial in order to minimize incarceration time for Sen. Menendez, but this will be a lengthy process in part because the two sides will have to sort out what is real and what is overblown in the indictment," he said. "The government prosecutors will not want to budge, so the defense will have to keep hammering them with any investigation that they produce, which can undermine the prosecution’s accusations."

Echoing Holloway and Tully, David Gelman, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, told Fox he believes, based on what has been revealed, that Menendez "should be very concerned right now about these charges."

Speaking to its strength, Gelman said the indictment "appears to be anchored by physical evidence" recovered from the senator's home.

Gelman also outlined how a prolonged Menendez downfall could impact the New Jersey Senate election next cycle should he not resign.

"The charges are extremely serious and directly touch upon his public office. However, it's not the first time the senator has faced such allegations. If he were to resign, then the governor could appoint a replacement until the end of his term," said Gelman. "If convicted, or if it keeps going, which it will, the Senate will go through impeachment hearings in the event he doesn’t resign. If he does not, and with an election looming, this could assist any Democrat challenger in the primary."

Making a similar point about the 2024 election, Tully said, "Looking at the political landscape, the Democrats will likely rally around their colleague and keep him in his post for as long as possible."

"They will most likely take a wait-and-see approach to any congressional sanction or discipline and wait until the criminal action has run its course," Tully added.

Gerard Filitti, senior counsel at The Lawfare Project, said the indictment "paints a pretty detailed, well-documented and damning picture of alleged malfeasance by the chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, acting illegally for the benefit of a foreign government."

"At a time when the Department of Justice is under scrutiny for what some call a two-tiered system of justice, the allegations that Sen. Menendez sought to influence state and federal prosecutions in exchange for cash are particularly troubling," said Filitti. "That Menendez was advising the president on whom to nominate as a United States attorney also calls to question the impartiality of the federal criminal justice system."

Discussing Menendez's fate, as compared to past cases presented against the senator, Filitti said the evidence outlined in the indictment "speaks to a higher likelihood that [Menendez] would be convicted at trial."

5 EXPLOSIVE REVELATIONS FROM DEM SEN BOB MENENDEZ'S BOMBSHELL FEDERAL INDICTMENT

In agreement with many of her counterparts, Alexandra Wilkes, an attorney and Republican strategist, said she believes the "strong indictment" included "clear evidence of accepting bribes for political favors."

"What is so shocking is the senator's arrogance and brazenness. Meetings were conducted in the open, and payments and gifts were accepted directly without even the slightest effort to conceal them," Wilkes said.

For Wilkes, it's too early to determine whether Menendez will face jail time or be removed from office, but she noted that the "gold bars" and "money in jackets" is "cartoonishly bad – even by New Jersey standards."

Others, including Ken Belkin, a criminal defense and civil rights attorney in New York, say that betting against the senator in this case is not a wise position to take.

"He beat one federal indictment against all the odds, I wouldn't necessarily bet against him," said Belkin. "There is a sense of mistrust regarding federal prosecution among a large segment of the population."

Pointing to "spousal privilege" and highlighting the fact that "communications between husband and wife are typically privileged," Belkin suggested that issue will be "fertile ground for the defense to assert that privilege in order to make a motion to suppress some of the government's evidence."

At least a dozen New Jersey and national Democrats have called on Menendez to resign from office in the wake of the indictment.

The calls ramped up after New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, said the allegations that Menendez accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for favors were "deeply disturbing" and that Menendez should immediately step down. Should Menendez resign, Murphy would appoint an interim senator to serve until Menendez's current term ends in 2025.

"These are serious charges that implicate national security and the integrity of our criminal justice system," Murphy said Friday. The governor emphasized that Menendez is innocent until proven guilty but noted that "the alleged facts are so serious that they compromise the ability of Sen. Menendez to effectively represent the people of our state. Therefore, I am calling for his immediate resignation."

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Menendez, who temporarily stepped down from his chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has denied all wrongdoing and insisted that he will not resign.

"Those who believe in justice believe in innocence until proven guilty. I intend to continue to fight for the people of New Jersey with the same success I’ve had for the past five decades," Menendez said in a statement. "This is the same record of success these very same leaders have lauded all along. It is not lost on me how quickly some are rushing to judge a Latino and push him out of his seat. I am not going anywhere."

Fox News' Chris Pandolfo and Adam Sabes contributed to this report.

Media figures post identical ‘talking points’ equating Menendez indictment with Clarence Thomas accusations

Several left-wing activists and commentators took to social media to issue an identical message on Friday, equating the indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., on bribery charges to alleged ethics violations by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The message, which suggest that either Menendez and Thomas should both step down from their roles or that Menendez should only be pushed to resign if Thomas does, came after it was alleged in a federal indictment that the New Jersey senator had accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for favors.

"Here's the deal: Menendez resigns. Clarence Thomas resigns. One standard. Corruption is corruption," Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote in a post to X, formerly known as Twitter.

Rubin's message was echoed by several others, including retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who served as a witness during the first impeachment proceedings of former President Donald Trump.

MENENDEZ DEFIANT AS GROWING CHORUS OF DEMOCRATS CALL FOR HIS RESIGNATION

"Clarence Thomas resigns. Menendez resigns. One standard. Corruption is corruption," Vindman wrote.

Several other accounts made posts with the same language, drawing criticism from conservatives across social media.

Blasting what appeared to be coordinated "talking points," conservative activist Melissa Tate responded to Vindman and said, "Justice Clarence Thomas ain’t going nowhere sir."

"Even the ‘Journalists’ gets their talking points from the regime," Tate wrote in another tweet that featured a screenshot of the identical language being used by different people.

The similarity between Menendez and Thomas that was drawn by Rubin, Vindman, and others comes after a ProPublica report earlier this year revealed that Thomas had received gifts from Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow without reporting them. His defenders, however, have argued that he has followed the court's reporting guidelines.

Several stories regarding Thomas and other Supreme Court justices have since followed, leading to left-wing attacks against the high court. In March, the New York Times reported that rules were modified to require justices and other federal judges to reveal more activities, such as private jet travel and visits to commercial properties.

CRITICS SLAM LATEST PROPUBLICA 'HIT PIECE' ON JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS

The Menendez indictment alleges that the senator and his wife, from at least 2018 through 2022 "engaged in a corrupt relationship" with three New Jersey businessmen.

"Today, I'm announcing that my office has obtained a three count indictment charging Senator Robert Menendez, his wife, Nadine Menendez, and three New Jersey businessmen, Wael Hana, Jose Uribe and Fred Daibes for bribery offenses," U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said at a press conference on Friday morning. 

According to the indictment, the couple accepted "hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes in exchange for using Menendez's power and influence as a senator to seek to protect and enrich Hana, Uribe, and Daibes and to benefit the Arab Republic of Egypt."

The alleged bribes included gold, cash, payments toward a mortgage, compensation for a low-or-no-show job, a luxury car, and "other things of value."

After an investigation began, Menendez disclosed that in 2020 his family accepted gold bars.

According to prosecutors, Menendez gave sensitive U.S. government information to Hana, who's an Egyptian-American businessman, who "secretly aided the Government of Egypt."

Menendez allegedly pressured an official at the Department of Agriculture with the goal of protecting a business monopoly granted to Hana by the Egyptian government.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In return, Hana allegedly kicked back profits from the monopoly to Menendez, the indictment states.

FBI agents found "approximately $500,000 of cash stuffed into envelopes in closets," and jammed into the senator's jacket pockets, while executing a search warrant at Menendez's residence, Williams said during the press conference.

Fox News' Adam Sabes and Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.

White House addresses possibility of pardoning Hunter Biden for first time since federal indictment

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre addressed the possibility of President Biden pardoning his son, Hunter, for the first time since the latter was indicted on federal charges for making false statements and unlawfully possessing a firearm.

"Will the president pardon or commute his son if he is convicted?" one reporter asked Jean-Pierre during Friday's daily White House press briefing.

"So I've answered this question before. It was asked of me not too long ago — a couple of weeks ago — and I was very clear, and I said no," Jean-Pierre responded.

BIDEN BREAKS SILENCE ON POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT, BLAMES GOP DESIRE TO ‘SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT’

Her answer was unchanged from the one she gave in July following Hunter's first appearance at a Delaware federal court where the president's sonded not guilty to tax charges pl. Jean-Pierre simply said "no" when asked if the president would pardon his son if convicted.

Biden was indicted Thursday on federal gun charges out of Special Counsel David Weiss' investigation. 

He was specifically charged with making a false statement in the purchase of a firearm; making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a federal firearms licensed dealer; and one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. 

ROMNEY USES BIDEN'S OWN WORDS AGAINST HIM, CALLS FOR PRESIDENT TO JOIN HIM IN RETIREMENT: ‘TIME TO TRANSITION’

These are the first charges Weiss has brought against the first son since being granted special counsel status. 

The charges come after an original plea agreement collapsed during Hunter's July court appearance, when he was expected to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax as part of a plea deal to avoid jail time on the felony gun charge.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Trump to plead ‘not guilty’ to charges stemming from special counsel’s Jan. 6 probe

WASHINGTON D.C.--Former President Donald Trump on Thursday will plead ‘not guilty’ in federal court to all four federal charges stemming from Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into 2020 election interference and the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, sources familiar said. 

Trump, the 2024 GOP front-runner, is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Trump traveled from his resort in Bedminster, N.J., Thursday to Washington D.C. His first court appearance took place at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

TRUMP INDICTED ON CHARGES OUT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL PROBE INTO JAN 6

US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhaya is presiding over Thursday's proceedings. Judge Tanya Chutkan will preside over the trial. Chutkan, a former assistant public defender before her appointment to the bench by President Barack Obama, has handled several cases involving individuals who entered the Capitol on January 6.

Trump posted to his Truth Social late Wednesday saying that the case "will hopefully be moved to an impartial Venue, such as the politically unbiased nearby State of West Virginia!" 

"IMPOSSIBLE to get a fair trial in Washington, D.C., which is over 95% anti-Trump, & for which I have called for a Federal TAKEOVER in order to bring our Capital back to Greatness," Trump posted. "It is now a high crime embarrassment to our Nation and, indeed, the World. This Indictment is all about Election Interference!!!" 

The indictment comes out of Smith's investigation into whether Trump or other officials and entities interfered with the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election, including the certification of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, 2021.

On Jan. 6, 2021, pro-Trump rioters breached the U.S. Capitol during a joint session of Congress to certify the Electoral College results in favor of President Biden.

The House of Representatives drafted articles of impeachment against him on a charge of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot — making him the first and only president in history to be impeached, and ultimately acquitted, twice. 

This is the second federal indictment the former president faces out of Smith’s investigation. Trump, who leads the 2024 GOP presidential primary field, has already pleaded not guilty in federal court in the Southern District of Florida to 37 counts related to his alleged improper retention of classified records from his presidency.

SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH SAYS JAN 6 ‘FUELED BY LIES’ FROM TRUMP, PRAISES ‘HEROES’ WHO DEFENDED CAPITOL

Those charges include willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and false statements. Trump was charged with an additional three counts as part of a superseding indictment out of that probe last week.

Trump is the first former president in U.S. history to face federal criminal charges. 

The former president posted again to his Truth Social Thursday morning, accusing the Biden administration of bringing criminal charges against him to drain funds from his 2024 presidential campaign. 

"Look, it’s not my fault that my political opponent in the Democrat Party, Crooked Joe Biden, has told his Attorney General to charge the leading (by far!) Republican Nominee & former President of the United States, me, with as many crimes as can be concocted so that he is forced to spend large amounts of time & money to defend himself," Trump said. "The Dems don’t want to run against me or they would not be doing this unprecedented weaponization of "Justice." BUT SOON, IN 2024, IT WILL BE OUR TURN. MAGA!"

Campaign finance documents show Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, burned through at least $42.8 million this year, much of it used to cover costs related to his mounting legal peril. The former president has $31.8 million cash on hand.

Trump has also pleaded not guilty to 34 counts in New York in April stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation. Trump is accused of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. 

Legal experts slam Jack Smith for bringing ‘lousy’ case against Trump: ‘Disinformation indictment’

Legal experts are criticizing special counsel Jack Smith for his latest indictment against Donald Trump for accusing the former president of spreading disinformation and other activities protected by the First Amendment.

Trump was indicted out of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation related to 2020 election interference and the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, and is facing charges such as conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

"The most jarring thing about this indictment is it basically just accuses him of disinformation — this is a disinformation indictment," said legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a Fox News contributor.

"It said [Trump] was spreading falsehoods, that [he] was undermining integrity of the election — that is all part of the First Amendment," Turley said. "And I think that courts will look skeptically."

TRUMP INDICTED ON CHARGES OUT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL PROBE INTO JAN 6

Turley said that one thing that is noticeably absent from the indictment is a charge for "conspiracy for incitement" or "seditious conspiracy."

"Those were the claims the Democrats used in the impeachment and said the evidence was absolutely clear, people like (Rep.) Adam Schiff and others saying [Trump] is clearly guilty of those crimes," Turley explained. "Well, they’re not in here."

He added: "I think there are some serious legal problems with this indictment."

Andy McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Fox News contributor, told Fox News Digital that Smith brought "a lousy case."

"I think all the counts have significant legal problems, and that’s even before you get to the complex problems of trying to prove Trump’s intent," McCarthy said.

SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH SAYS JAN 6 ‘FUELED BY LIES’ FROM TRUMP, PRAISES ‘HEROES’ WHO DEFENDED CAPITOL

McCarthy said that one "significant problem" is the fraud that Smith has alleged.

"It is not actionable fraud as the Supreme Court has described fraud — as recently as May," McCarthy said. "The Supreme Court made very clear that fraud in federal law is a scheme to swindle someone out of money or physical property."

McCarthy added that this is "exactly the kind of case" the court was telling prosecutors not to bring, "and he brought it anyway."

McCarthy also dismissed the "conspiracy against rights" charge that Smith brought against Trump.

"Smith is using a statute enacted right after the Civil War, which was actually directed at violent intimidation by the Ku Klux Klan against Black voters in the South — which doesn’t have any connection to what we’re talking about here," McCarthy explained. "They applied that law to ballot box stuffing, so what Smith is trying to tease out of that case is what then-Justice Thurgood Marshall said in the 1960s: You don’t have to have violence. You just have to have activity that functionally cancels out people’s votes."

TRUMP PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO 37 FEDERAL FELONY CHARGES IN CLASSIFIED RECORDS CASE

McCarthy said the "most insidious thing" the special counsel does is "he doesn’t charge Trump with any violence because there is no connection."

"The Justice Department would love to charge Trump with seditious conspiracy, but the problem is, he said he supported a peaceful march on the Capitol," McCarthy said. "That may have been a stupid thing to do, but not a criminal thing to do."

McCarthy told Fox News Digital that Smith alleges that Trump "exploited the violence at the Capitol riot."

"That’s an unseemly thing for a prosecutor to do when he is not charging Trump with the Capitol riot," McCarthy explained. "Inconveniently for him, he has no evidence that Trump orchestrated them, or intended for them to do it."

McCarthy added that Smith put this into the indictment so he can argue that he "needs Capitol riot evidence in the trial."

"And then he’ll try to rush the trial in the run-up to the election," McCarthy said. "Then the American electorate will have Capitol riot imagery in the front of their minds as they go to vote in 2024."

DESANTIS CALLS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT REFORMS AFTER TRUMP JANUARY 6 INDICTMENT 

But not every legal expert says Smith's case is weak. Laurence Tribe, professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard University, told Fox News Digital that Smith has brought an "airtight" indictment against the former president.

"The factual details, if true as claimed, leave Trump with no legitimate legal defenses," Tribe said. "And the sources for all the damning direct quotations, including those by Mr. Trump himself, are all individuals he hand-picked for their loyalty to him — they have no conceivable motive to lie. And there’s no chance they’re misremembering anything so stark."

Tribe told Fox News Digital that Trump’s "only hope to avoid conviction" on this latest set of charges is "to get someone installed as president who would pardon him or get the Justice Department to drop the case."

Smith announced the charges against Trump on Tuesday, saying Jan. 6 was "an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy."

"Described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies — lies by the defendant — targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government: the nation's process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election," he said.

Trump has been ordered to appear in federal court in Washington, D.C., for his arraignment on Thursday at 4:00 p.m.

This is the second federal indictment the former president faces out of Smith’s investigation. Trump, who leads the 2024 GOP presidential primary field, has already pleaded not guilty to 37 counts related to his alleged improper retention of classified records from his presidency.

Those charges include willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements. Trump was charged with an additional three counts as part of a superseding indictment out of that probe last week.

Biden admin ordered to turn over Prince Harry’s immigration records amid preferential treatment claim

A federal judge on Tuesday gave the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) one week to deal with requests for Prince Harry's immigration records after the agency was sued by the Heritage Foundation.

The Biden administration appeared in a federal court Tuesday after the conservative think tank filed a lawsuit demanding DHS release Prince Harry's immigration records, alleging the administration gave him "preferential treatment" in allowing entry to the U.S. 

The suit claimed that the Biden administration allowed the prince to enter the U.S. despite his admission of illegal drug use – a factor that would usually be enough to deny other people entry. 

Entities within DHS, including Border Patrol, denied the group's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the documents, but DHS headquarters had yet to make a decision on the requests.

D.C. District Court Judge Carl Nichols gave DHS until June 13 to notify the court on whether it will expedite or respond to a request for the records.

PRINCE HARRY'S UK COURT BATTLE: ROYAL SAYS TABLOIDS WERE 'MAIN FACTOR' FOR BREAKUP WITH EX CHELSY DAVY

Heritage filed the original FOIA requests for the documents following the release of Prince Harry's bestselling memoir, "Spare," in which he admitted to using cocaine, psychedelics and marijuana.

When filling out a visa application, those drug abuses are supposed to be documented in detail, and would normally trigger a special review if not rejection of the application. However, the group is suspicious that Prince Harry was either not honest on his visa application, or that the Biden administration gave him preferential treatment.

DHS entities rejected the original FOIA request, citing privacy concerns for the British royal, who moved to Montecito, California, with his wife Meghan Markle in 2020. Lawyers for the agency also leveled that argument in court Tuesday.

Nile Gardiner, director of the foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center, told Fox News Digital Wednesday the judge's urging of a swift decision from the administration is a "very positive development."

"This matter is being treated very seriously," he said. 

Gardiner said there is "strong public interest for the release of Prince Harry's immigration records, especially in light of his widespread admission and drug use in ‘Spare,’ his memoir."

PRINCE HARRY'S UK COURT SHOWDOWN: ROYAL FAILS TO SHOW UP FOR FIRST DAY, LEAVES JUDGE FRUSTRATED

"We believe that it is important that the public is aware of what he actually put in his immigration application. Did he outline in detail all his drug use as he was supposed to do? We also want to know whether he received any kind of preferential treatment for U.S. officials with regard to his visa application. So if there was any dishonesty on the application, that would be perjury and a criminal offense." he added.

DHS SUED FOR PRINCE HARRY’S IMMIGRATION RECORDS TO SEE IF HE LIED ABOUT DRUG USE

"The situation with Prince Harry's immigration application was that it was, it appears, to have been so fast-tracked, while most people wait many months, years to have their applications process. So it is in the public interest for immigration law to be applied fairly to everyone who applies without a favor or bias and so this is why there is a big public interest here," Gardiner said.

Heritage said in its lawsuit that while this case "focuses on the widespread public and press interest on the specific issue of whether DHS acted, and is acting, appropriately as regards the Duke of Sussex, it cannot be separated from its broader context." 

"The press and congressional hearing rooms are replete with detailed accusations that DHS is deliberately refusing to enforce the country’s immigration laws and is responsible for the current crisis at the border," the lawsuit said.

"[T]he broader controversy is so grave that Articles of Impeachment have been filed against DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas and Secretary Mayorkas has taken the extraordinary step of retaining private counsel to represent him in impeachment proceedings," it said.

Chief Justice Roberts asked to testify in Senate on Supreme Court ethics amid Thomas controversy

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on Thursday asked Chief Justice John Roberts testify on May 2 about ethics rules that govern the Supreme Court, as controversy continues to swirl around Justice Clarence Thomas' trips he took with a GOP mega-donor.

"I invite you, or another Justice whom you designate, to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 2, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to testify at a public hearing regarding the ethical rules that govern the Justices of the Supreme Court and potential reforms to those rules," Durbin said in a letter to Roberts on Thursday.

"In extending this invitation, I offer that the scope of your testimony can be limited to these subjects, and that you would not be expected to answer questions from Senators regarding any other matters," Durbin said.

AOC DOUBLES DOWN ON ‘IGNORING’ ABORTION RULE, CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT: ‘ABUSE OF JUDICIAL OVERREACH’

Durbin asked Roberts this month to open an investigation into Thomas over what Democrats say is his "misconduct" that was detailed in a ProPublica report.

The liberal news outlet's report accused Thomas of improperly receiving lavish vacations from Republican mega donor Harlan Crow, which reportedly included taking trips across the world on Crow's yacht and private jet without disclosing them.

Expert have dismissed the ProPublica report as political hit piece and explained that justices are permitted to accept invites to properties of friends for dinner or vacations without paying for it or disclosing it.

Thomas released a rare statement following the report saying that he has consistently followed ethics guidelines.

DEMOCRATS PRESS SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE TO INVESTIGATE CLARENCE THOMAS' TRIPS WITH GOP MEGADONOR

"Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years," Thomas said.

"As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them. Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable," Thomas said.

"I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines," he said. "These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future."

REPORT ON CLARENCE THOMAS' TRAVEL HABITS IS 'POLITICS PLAIN AND SIMPLE': EXPERT

Durbin told Roberts Thursday that "there has been a steady stream of revelations regarding Justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges and, indeed, of public servants generally."

"These problems were already apparent back in 2011, and the Court’s decade-long failure to address them has contributed to a crisis of public confidence. The status quo is no longer tenable," Durbin said.

Durbin added that "there is ample precedent for sitting Justices of the Supreme Court to testify before Congress, including regarding ethics. Durbin says the Judiciary Committee most recently heard testimony from sitting Justices in October 2011, and that hearing "included robust exchanges about the Court’s approach to ethics matters."

Fox News Digital's Brandon Gillespie contributed to this report.

Justice Thomas defends trips taken with ‘dearest friends’ after reports say he accepted gifts

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a rare statement Friday to defend travel he took with his friends over many years, following reports that he failed to report travel-related gifts from a GOP mega-donor.

A ProPublica investigation published this week found that Thomas’ close friendship with real estate developer Harlan Crow allowed him to accompany the Texas billionaire on luxury vacations on his private jet and yacht, as well as free stays on Crow’s vast vacation property, among other perks.

But Thomas defended the trips and explained that he has always followed Supreme Court guidance.

"Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years," the justice, who has served on the bench for 32 years, said in a Friday statement.

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS CALL FOR CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT AFTER REPORTED UNDISCLOSED GIFTS FROM GOP MEGADONOR

"As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them. Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable," Thomas said.

CLARENCE THOMAS REPORT SPURS NEW CALLS FROM DEMOCRATS FOR SUPREME COURT CODE OF ETHICS

"I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines," he said. "These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future."

In a statement to ProPublica, Crow denied ever trying to influence Thomas or put him in positions where other influential people could do the same.

"The hospitality we have extended to the Thomas’s (sic) over the years is no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends," part of the statement reads. "We have never asked about a pending or lower court case, and Justice Thomas has never discussed one, and we have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue. More generally, I am unaware of any of our friends ever lobbying or seeking to influence Justice Thomas on any case, and I would never invite anyone who I believe had any intention of doing that."

SUPREME COURT BLOCKS WEST VIRGINIA FROM IMPLEMENTING 'SAVE WOMEN'S SPORTS' LAW AS STATE BATTLES ACLU

Last month, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which creates and oversees policies for federal courts, revised its ethics and financial disclosure guidelines to require the justices to disclose things like traveling by private jet and staying in resorts.

The ProPublica report sparked reaction from Senate Democrats who called for a strict code of ethics to be imposed on the nine justices.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Thursday that Thomas’ alleged actions are "simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a Justice on the Supreme Court."

"Today’s report demonstrates, yet again, that Supreme Court Justices must be held to an enforceable code of conduct, just like every other federal judge," Durbin said in a Thursday statement. "The ProPublica report is a call to action, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will act."

Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., shared similar sentiments in her calls for accountability.

"The American people deserve a federal judiciary that is accountable to the rule of law, not wealthy Republican donors. Today's news is a stark reminder that judges should be held to the highest ethical standards and free from conflicts of interest," Warren wrote on Twitter

Fox News Digital's Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.

Cuomo accuser files lawsuit against New York state, alleging responsibility for sexual harassment

A former aide who accused former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo of sexual harassment in a federal lawsuit has filed another lawsuit against the Empire State.

Charlotte Bennett, a former New York state employee and the second woman to accuse Cuomo of sexual harassment, filed the complaint in a state court on Wednesday, alleging the state government is accountable for Cuomo's sexual harassment and for the actions of other aides who did not take action on the matter once it was reported.

While Cuomo and the aides are not listed as defendants in the suit, Bennett targets the state with claims of sexual harassment and retaliation.

Last September, Bennett filed a lawsuit against Cuomo and members of his executive staff, including former chief of staff Jill DesRosiers; former secretary Melissa DeRosa; and special counsel Judith Mogul, saying she was retaliated against after complaining about Cuomo's alleged misconduct.

CUOMO ACCUSER CHARLOTTE BENNETT CALLS FOR CNN TO FIRE CHRIS CUOMO: ANYTHING LESS LACKS 'MORALS AND A BACKBONE'

In the September suit, Bennett said Cuomo "subjected her to sexualized comments about her appearance" and "assigned her humiliating and demeaning tasks." She also said Cuomo "subjected her to invasive and unwanted questions about her personal life, romantic and sexual relationships, and history as a survivor of sexual assault."

The former aide also alleged in the lawsuit that Cuomo said he was "lonely" in a comment to her and wanted a girlfriend who lived in Albany, allegedly adding that he would be willing to date someone over the age of 21. Bennett was 25 at the time of the alleged remark.

Bennett also alleges Cuomo made "sexual advances" toward her, and cited a June 25, 2020, incident. She said in the lawsuit that while Cuomo was discussing a proposal on police reform, he said that the way Bennett's mask moved in and out when she breathes reminded him of the monsters in the movie "Predator."

EX-AIDE TO ANDREW CUOMO SUES, ALLEGES FORMER GOV AND TOP AIDES CREATED 'SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT'

Cuomo has denied the allegations, with a spokesperson for the former governor, Rita Glavin, telling Fox News Digital last year that Cuomo has always said that he "didn't harass anyone."

"The Governor has always said he didn’t harass anyone and with each day that goes by more and more information is uncovered showing how evidence favorable to the Governor was suppressed and crucial facts ignored or omitted that undermined witness credibility. What else will come out during the discovery process? We’ll see them in court," Glavin said at the time.

Bennett alleged in the September 2022 lawsuit that DesRosiers, Mogul and DeRosa all "aided and abetted" the sexual harassment, and said that Cuomo subjected her to a "sexually hostile work environment."

When Bennett reported Cuomo's alleged sexual harassment to DesRosiers, the lawsuit alleges that she was transferred to an "inferior position" on the Executive Chamber's health policy team.

The New York attorney general's office did not immediately respond to Fox News when asked about Bennett's lawsuit against the state.

New York AG Letitia James' office conducted a months-long investigation into Cuomo, concluding with an August 2021 report that said he sexually harassed at least 11 women from 2013 to 2020. Cuomo stepped down from office shortly after the report was made public to avoid what many saw as his likely impeachment.

Cuomo filed an ethics complaint against James last year, alleging she violated conduct rules and had an "intolerable personal and political conflict of interest" when she selected two investigators as part of the probe.

Fox News' Adam Sabes and Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this article.

Supreme Court Justice Jackson gets support from conservatives in first majority ruling

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued her first majority opinion Tuesday since joining the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jackson wrote the opinion in the case of Delaware vs. Pennsylvania Et. Al — a case concerning a dispute between multiple states on escheatment of unclaimed money.

CNN RIDICULED FOR SUGGESTING 'WEALTHY' SUPREME COURT IS BIASED AGAINST STUDENT LOAN DEBTORS: 'WORST TWEET'

The court overruled objections from Delaware and greenlighted the continued authority of a Special Master in the proceedings consistent with the court opinion.

The eight other justices unanimously supported Parts I, II, III, and IV-A of the opinion. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh in her opinion regarding Part IV-B. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett did not concur with Part IV-B.

Jackson wrote her first opinion in November 2022, a short dissenting opinion that supported Ohio death row inmate Davel Chinn's motion.

REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS FILE APPEAL REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF THE PA LEGISLATURE'S IMPEACHMENT OF LARRY KRASNER

The justice's November dissenting opinion was at odds with the rest of the court, save fellow Justice Sotomayor.

Justices on the Supreme Court have attested to a good working environment between colleagues despite perceived ideological differences.

Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh offered praise for Jackson last month, telling an audience at the University of Notre Dame Law School that she has "hit the ground running."

Kavanaugh was present for a keynote Q&A session at the 2023 Notre Dame Law Review Federal Courts Symposium, where he addressed the perception that the Supreme Court is sharply divided on ideological grounds after a series of controversial decisions that went in favor of conservatives. 

"There are great relations among all nine justices both personally and professionally. We only get tough cases, and we disagree on some of those. I think that's more nuanced than it is sometimes portrayed," Kavanaugh said.

Fox News' Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.