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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Congress defund federal courts with key Trump budget process?

As Republicans look for ways to rein in federal judges issuing countless orders to halt the Trump administration's action on immigration in particular, a number of potential avenues for doing so are being considered. 

However, the use of a key budget process that lowers the Senate's threshold to 51 votes to defund certain courts could face significant obstacles.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, House Freedom Caucus policy chair and chair of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, told Fox News Digital he isn't "for or against" any specific approach to addressing the countrywide injunctions that are throwing a wrench into President Donald Trump's priorities.

CHUCK SCHUMER FACING 'UPHILL FIGHT' AMID LEADERSHIP DOUBTS: 'MATTER OF WHEN, NOT IF'

"We ought to look at [impeachment], we ought to look at jurisdiction-stripping, we ought to look at every option that needs to be addressed about judges that are actively taking steps to try to undermine the presidency," he said.

The Republican added, "I think there are pros and cons of those approaches. I think we need to look at … funding scenarios. Now that takes a little time; you've got to work through either the appropriations, rescissions or reconciliation process, depending on where it's appropriate."

The budget reconciliation process lowers the threshold for Senate passage from 60 votes to 51 out of 100, allowing the party in power to more easily advance its agenda with no opposition party support. However, the provisions must relate to budgetary and other fiscal matters. The House of Representatives already has a simple majority threshold.

The process is being relied on heavily by Republicans, who have a trifecta in Washington, in order to push through Trump agenda items.

BATTLE OF THE CHAMBERS: HOUSE AND SENATE TENSIONS BOIL OVER AS TRUMP BUDGET HANGS IN LIMBO

In the months since Trump took office, his aggressive pace has been somewhat hampered by federal judges across the country issuing numerous orders to halt immigration, waste-cutting and anti-diversity, equity and inclusion actions. 

This has prompted Republicans to call for action against what they consider abusive actions by lower-tier federal judges.  

"I don’t think defunding is a viable option," said Andy McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney and a Fox News contributor. 

"The chief justice would be angry that the district courts were understaffed, and Trump wouldn’t get away with later trying to add the positions back so that he could fill them," he continued.

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo called potentially defunding the courts that have been causing problems for the administration "a terrible idea."

"It would make no difference anyway; the cases challenging Trump’s executive orders would still be challenged in the courts that exist," he explained. 

This was echoed by former Trump attorney Jim Trusty, who said, "I don’t think defunding an already overworked judicial system would be right or effective."

BIDEN ADMIN'S 'VAST CENSORSHIP ENTERPRISE' WITH HELP OF NGOS SLATED FOR KEY HEARING, LAWMAKER SAYS

Because of the specific guidelines for what can be included in reconciliation bills, legal experts seem to be in agreement that defunding courts wouldn't meet the requirements. 

One such expert told Fox News Digital that not only does the provision need to have a federal fiscal impact, the policy effect cannot outweigh that impact. 

They further noted that the Senate's parliamentarian would be the one to make a judgment on this. 

Trusty said "the solution to judicial activism" is either the appellate courts finding ways to stop the injunctions on appeal or by direct orders, or "Congress develops a nimble response and passes legislation to clarify their intent to let the executive branch act without judicial tethers on various issues."

"The better option would be to explore ways to limit the jurisdiction of the lower courts or to fast-track appeals when they try to issue nationwide injunctions," McCarthy said.

CONGRESS EXPANDED THE EXECUTIVE – ONLY FOR TRUMP TO QUASH MUCH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

As for potentially impeaching federal judges, which has been floated by Trump himself, Trusty said it "should still be viewed as a prosecution substitute for office holders who have committed treason or high crimes and misdemeanors; in other words, serious crimes."

"Bad judgment and wrong-headed decisions are not crimes," he noted. 

Neither Trump's White House nor Republican leadership in Congress have indicated plans to pursue the issue through the reconciliation process.

Lawmakers have acknowledged the problem, though, and the House is set to take up legislation to address the judges' actions this week.

‘Corrupt, dangerous’: GOP Rep moves to impeach judge who blocked Trump federal funds freeze

FIRST ON FOX: Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde is formally introducing his articles of impeachment against a Rhode Island judge who previously ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze federal funds. 

The articles, first shared with Fox News Digital, charge Chief U.S. District Judge John James McConnell Jr. 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."  

If McConnell is found guilty of such charges, the articles read, he should be removed from office. 

SCOOP: IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP TREN DE ARAGUA DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

McConnell is currently overseeing a lawsuit brought by 22 states and the District of Columbia that challenges the Trump administration's move to withhold federal grant funds. After McConnell ordered the administration to comply with a restraining order, the government appealed to the First Circuit – which refused to stay the orders. 

"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."

COURT ORDER HALTING DEPORTATION FLIGHTS ‘UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IMPEDES’ EXECUTIVE BRANCH, TRUMP ALLIES ARGUE

Clyde announced plans to draft impeachment articles in early February, after McConnell ordered the Trump administration to reinstate paused federal grants and loans. The articles formalize the charges. 

McConnell has also come under fire from Trump supporters and conservatives in recent weeks after a 2021 video resurfaced in which he warned that courts must "stand and enforce the rule of law … against arbitrary and capricious actions by what could be a tyrant or could be whatnot." 

The articles cite that video, claiming McConnell "has allowed his personal, political opinions to influence his decisions and rulings," and that he has demonstrated a "bias that would warp his decision" in the federal freeze case. 

In a statement, Clyde said "judicial activism" is "the Left’s latest form of lawfare."

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: IMPEACHAPALOOZA IS HERE TO STAY

"Congress bears the responsibility and the constitutional authority to hold activist judges accountable through impeachment," he continued. "I applaud the work of my colleagues to hold other rogue judges accountable, and I hope we see swift action on this critical matter in the House very soon."

When contacted, the court declined to comment. 

Clyde's impeachment resolution follows a similar move by Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, who earlier filed articles of impeachment against U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg. The Washington, D.C.-based federal judge is overseeing a separate case challenging President Donald Trump's use of an 18th-century wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador who were linked to the violent gang Tren de Aragua. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Gill accuses Boasberg of abusing his power by pausing the deportation order under the 1789 law. 

The mounting criticism of lower court judges who have ruled against the Trump administration prompted U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue an unusual statement in response this month.

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

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

Judges v Trump: Here are the key court battles halting the White House agenda

The recent wave of preliminary injunctions from federal judges has stymied President Donald Trump's early agenda in his second White House term, prompting new questions as to how far the administration might go if it opts to challenge these court orders. 

Federal judges across the country have blocked Trump's ban on transgender persons serving in the U.S. military, ordered the reinstatement of core functions of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, and halted Elon Musk's government efficiency organization, DOGE, from oversight and access to government agencies, among other things. They've also temporarily halted deportations, or attempted to, so judges can consider the relevant laws.

Combined, the wave of rulings has been met with outrage from Trump administration officials, some of whom said they plan to appeal the rulings to the Supreme Court, if needed. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has used her podium to rail against "radical left-wing judges," who she has alleged are acting with a political agenda to block Trump's executive orders.

"These judicial activists want to unilaterally stop President Trump from deporting foreign terrorists, hiring and firing executive branch employees, and determining the readiness of our troops," Leavitt said on X, expanding on remarks made Wednesday at a press briefing.

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

"They MUST be reined in," she added.

Some of Trump's supporters in Congress have threatened judges who block the president's agenda with impeachment, while his critics worry the president's attacks on the judiciary will collapse the constitutional system, bringing to the fore an impassioned debate over the separation of powers in the Constitution. 

Here's a rundown of where things stand. 

U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang, an Obama appointee, ruled on Tuesday that DOGE's efforts to dismantle USAID "on an accelerated basis" likely violated the U.S. Constitution "in multiple ways" and ordered the partial restoration of the agency's functions, including reinstatement of personnel access to email and payment systems.

Chuang's preliminary injunction is believed to be the first to directly invoke Musk himself. It said Musk could interact with USAID employees only after being granted "express authorization" from an agency official, and it blocked DOGE from engaging in any further work at USAID.

Hours later, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes issued a preliminary injunction barring the Pentagon from enforcing Trump's order on transgender persons serving in the military.

Reyes, the first openly gay member of the court, wrote in a scathing 79-page ruling that the Trump administration failed to demonstrate that transgender service members would hinder military readiness, relying on what she described as "pure conjecture" to attempt to justify the policy and thus causing undue harm to thousands of current U.S. service members.  

SHELTERS, JESUS, AND MISS PAC-MAN: US JUDGE GRILLS DOJ OVER TRANS POLICY IN DIZZYING LINE OF QUESTIONING

Both rulings are almost certain to be challenged by the Trump administration. In fact, Reyes was so confident that the Justice Department would file an emergency appeal that she delayed her ruling from taking force until Friday to allow the Trump administration time to file for an emergency stay.

Reyes wasn't wrong. Senior administration officials vowed to challenge the wave of court rulings, which they said are an attempt by the courts to unduly infringe on presidential powers.

"We are appealing this decision, and we will win," Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on social media.

"District court judges have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces…is there no end to this madness?" White House policy adviser Stephen Miller said later in a post on X. 

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

Several other high-profile cases are playing out in real time that could test the fraught relationship between the courts and the executive branch, and next steps remain deeply uncertain.

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg warned the Trump administration on Wednesday that it could face consequences for violating his court order temporarily blocking it from invoking a little-known wartime law to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals from U.S. soil, including alleged members of the gang Tren de Aragua, for 14 days. 

Boasberg handed down the temporary restraining order Saturday evening, around the time that the Trump administration proceeded to deport hundreds of migrants, including Venezuelan nationals subject to the Alien Enemies Act, to El Salvador. He also ordered in a bench ruling shortly after that any planes carrying these individuals return to the U.S. 

But at least one plane with migrants deported by the law in question touched down later that evening in El Salvador.

"Oopsie, too late," El Salvador's president said in a post on X.

In the days since, government lawyers citing national security protections 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.

The White House has repeatedly asserted that lower court judges like Boasberg should not have the power to prevent the president from executing what it argues is a lawful agenda, though the judges in question have disagreed that the president's actions all follow the law.

"A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil," Leavitt told Fox News.

Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, said in an interview on "Fox & Friends" this week: "We are not stopping."

"I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming," Homan said, adding, "Another fight. Another fight every day."

SCOTUS RULES ON NEARLY $2 BILLION IN FROZEN USAID PAYMENTS

The administration's appeals, which are all almost guaranteed, may have a better chance of success than previous cases that reached appellate courts, including one in which the Supreme Court ruled against the president.

There are two types of near-term relief that federal judges can offer plaintiffs before convening both parties to the court for a full case on the merits: a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, or a TRO. 

A TRO immediately blocks an action for 14 days to allow more time for consideration. But it's a difficult test for plaintiffs to satisfy: they must prove that the order in question would pose immediate and "irreparable harm"– an especially burdensome level of proof, especially if it hinges on an action or order that has not yet come into force. 

The outcomes, as a result, are very narrow in scope. One could look to the TRO request granted by U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali earlier this month, which required the Trump administration to pay out $2 billion in owed money for previously completed USAID projects. 

Since it did not deal with current contracts or ongoing payments, the Supreme Court, which upheld Ali's ruling, 5-4, had little room to intervene.

The request for a preliminary injunction, however, is a bit more in depth. Successful plaintiffs must demonstrate to the court four things in seeking the ruling: First, that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the claim when it is heard later on; that the balance of equities tips in their favor; that the injunction is considered within the sphere of public interest; and finally, that they are "likely" to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of court action.

This wider level of discretion granted to the district courts in a preliminary injunction ruling invites much more scrutiny, and more room for the government to appeal the ruling to higher courts should they see fit. 

It's a strategy both legal analysts and even Trump himself dangled as a likely possibility as they look to enforce some of their most sweeping policy actions. 

Trump suggested this week that Boasberg, tasked with overseeing the escalating deportation fight, be impeached, describing him in a post on Truth Social as a "crooked" judge and someone who, unlike himself, was not elected president.

"He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!" Trump said.

The post earned the rebuke of Chief Justice John Roberts, who noted that it broke with 200 years of established law. And on Thursday, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, James Blair, appeared to punt the issue to Congress.

He told Politico in an interview that Trump’s remarks were shining "a big old spotlight" on what it views as a partisan decision, but noted impeaching a judge would be up to Republicans in Congress, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who he said would ultimately "figure out what can be passed or not" in Congress.

"That’s the speaker’s job. And I won’t speak for what the speaker’s opinion of that is," he said. "I think the thing that is important right now is the president is highlighting a critical issue."

California Sen Adam Schiff changes tune on DOJ, reams increasingly ‘Orwellian’ leadership

Sen. Adam Schiff, once a staunch defender of the Justice Department’s independence, now warns it has become an ‘Orwellian’ tool for President Donald Trump and ripe for political abuse.

The California Democrat and former U.S. prosecutor, who served four House terms before his election to the Senate last fall, has long been an outspoken Trump foe, using his former posts as chair of the House Oversight Committee and impeachment probes to urge a more independent-minded Justice Department. 

"The rule of law is a core foundation of our nation," Schiff previously told Time Magazine during Trump's first term in office. "No one, not even the president, is above it."

Schiff once served as a federal prosecutor at the Justice Department, where he helped successfully convict an ex-FBI agent on charges of spying for the Soviet Union. Throughout his later service in the House, he repeatedly defended the Justice Department as independent-minded and asserted that its career officials operate above the political fray. 

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

He also chided his Republican colleagues who, in his view, too harshly criticized the agency, warning them that doing so could lead to an erosion of trust.

Fewer than four years later, however, Schiff is singing a different tune. 

Now in the Senate, the California Democrat is one of the most vocal critics, sounding the alarm about Trump's efforts to reform the Justice Department to his liking. 

On Monday, he pushed back against Trump's claim that he and other members of the House committee tasked with investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot could be subject to "investigation at the highest level," as the president threatened in a Truth Social post.

"The members of the Jan 6 Committee are all proud of our work," Schiff wrote on X, in response to Trump's remarks. "Your threats will not intimidate us. Or silence us."

Earlier this month, Schiff took aim at the current leadership of the Justice Department in a blistering floor speech, noting that the DOJ’s three most senior officials, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and John Sauer, all formerly represented Trump in criminal court proceedings. 

By so frequently claiming the Justice Department has been improperly "weaponized" against him, Schiff said, Trump has arguably given his officials a green light, "in Orwellian fashion, to do what they have accused others of doing," which is "to weaponize the department. … To use the department as a sword and as a shield."

WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY DEFENDS TRUMP'S FIRING OF INSPECTORS GENERAL

Schiff also blasted the Supreme Court decision last August that expanded the view of presidential immunity – a ruling, he said, that "has turbocharged the ability to weaponize the Department of Justice by a president who wishes to use it for that purpose."

Last month, Schiff joined other Democrats on the panel in urging the administration to turn over information that prompted their decision to remove or reassign dozens of career Justice Department officials and FBI personnel. 

Lawmakers also cited concerns about a sprawling questionnaire sent by Justice Department officials to thousands of FBI agents and supervisors in January asking detailed questions about their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot investigation.

FBI AGENTS GROUP TELLS CONGRESS TO TAKE URGENT ACTION TO PROTECT AGAINST POLITICIZATION

That questionnaire is also the subject of a lawsuit filed this year by current and former FBI agents, who are seeking to head off any retaliation or discriminatory action against personnel involved in the Jan. 6 probe. A judge is expected to hear from both parties in court later this month.

Most recently, Trump attempted to strip security clearances and access to federal government buildings for all Perkins Coie employees, a law firm he sees as opposed to his political agenda, prompting a federal judge to step in and block the order.

 "An American President is not a king – not even an 'elected' one – and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute," U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell wrote in a court order this month that blocked one of Trump’s executive orders from taking force.

Schiff, for his part, appears to share that view.

"There could be no more frontal assault on the post-Watergate policy of having some division between the White House and the Justice Department than the Supreme Court of the United States saying, ‘Break down that wall. Use the department any way you wish. Create cases where there’s no evidence. Dismiss cases where there’s plenty of evidence. And you will never face accountability. No matter how corrupt a motive,'" Schiff said this month. 

Reached for comment about his evolving views on the Justice Department, Schiff's office pointed Fox News Digital to his previous remarks, including a February interview on MSNBC’s "The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell." Asked about his claims that Trump has weaponized the Justice Department – and the severity of the issue – Schiff responded, "We’ve had a debate about what level of constitutional crisis we’re in, and frankly, I think we’re already there."

Trump calls for judge in deportation legal battle to be impeached

President Donald Trump called for the impeachment of a judge in a Truth Social post on Tuesday, apparently referring to U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg who recently sought to block deportation flights to El Salvador.

"This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President - He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY," Trump declared in the post.

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

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.

Scott Walker calls nixing of landmark WI law that led to mass protests in 2011 a ‘brazen political action’

Former Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker spoke out after a county judge in Madison struck down major parts of a 2011 law geared toward public employee unions. 

Dane County Judge Jacob Frost ruled that the provisions of a law known as Act 10, which selectively exempt certain public workers from its restrictions on unionization and collective bargaining, are unconstitutional. The controversial law sought to close a budget deficit by limiting collective bargaining, thereby moderating public workers' benefits that Walker said at the time helped solve a fiscal situation he was required to address.

The original passage in 2011 led to weekslong protests inside the state Capitol, and even saw legislative Democrats flee to neighboring Illinois to prevent Republicans from reaching a quorum to vote on it. Walker later survived a 2012 recall election over the law's passage and rode his success into a decent showing in the 2016 presidential race, where he eventually bowed out of the primary that ultimately went to Donald Trump. 

On Tuesday, Walker, who currently leads the conservative-training nonprofit Young America's Foundation (YAF), said his law simply took power "out of the hands of the big union bosses and put it firmly into the hands of the hardworking taxpayers…"

"And what this court decision did as brazen political action was to throw that out and put power back in the hands of those union bosses," he said in an interview, calling collective bargaining not a right but an "expensive entitlement."

POMPEO CLAIMS TEACHERS' UNION BOSS IS AMONG THE ‘MOST DANGEROUS PEOPLE' IN US

Asked about Frost’s assertion that disparate treatment of collective bargaining rights of certain "public safety" workers and other public workers was unconstitutional, Walker said it was a "bogus political argument." 

Frost stripped more than 60 sections of the law from the books.

The law was upheld multiple times at the state and federal levels, Walker replied, adding a new issue is that of a potentially-growing "liberal activist majority" on the officially nonpartisan Wisconsin Supreme Court that may hear any appeal of the ruling.

Walker said that if appealed, the first place the case will land is in Waukesha court, which he predicted would overturn Frost. But a subsequent appeal by the left would bring it before the state’s high bench.

"It’s all the more reason why the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin this spring (2025) is more important than ever," he said.

Walker went on to discuss the roots of Act 10, and how it was his way of abiding by Wisconsin’s balanced-budget requirement. He noted the original name was the "Budget Repair Act" and that a prior Democratic administration instead chose to cut funding for municipalities, which instead resulted in layoffs.

Instead of risking job loss or Medicare cuts, Walker opted to require public workers to contribute more to their entitlements in return for keeping their pensions solvent.

WALKER SAYS WISCONSIN REPUBLICANS ARE MOTIVATED

In addition, Wisconsin Senate President Chris Kapenga echoed Walker’s claim that partisan politics played a role in the ruling:

"[I]t’s proof there is very little justice left in our justice system. Wisconsin's legislature should be discussing impeachment, as we are the only check on their power," said Kapenga, R-Oconomowoc.

"Believing Dane County judges and the liberal majority in our state Supreme Court are independent jurists is almost as far-fetched as believing the border is secure, inflation's not a problem, or [President Biden] won't pardon his son."

"The left keeps telling us, ‘Don't believe what you see’ — Wisconsinites see right through it," he said.

As for Walker’s current role as president of YAF, he said his organization is preparing for conservative leadership to return to Washington as he brought it to Madison in 2010.

Walker said he is thrilled by the prospect of seeing many YAF alumni in the new Trump administration, including Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump and formerly ex-Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Sergio Gor, a longtime aide to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was named Trump’s head of presidential personnel last month. Walker praised Gor's prior work leading YAF’s George Washington University chapter.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Four years ago, younger voters sided with Biden by 25 points," Walker said. "This election, that shrunk right down to 5 or 6 points. And most interestingly, young men four years ago went with Biden by 15 points. In this election, they shifted to Trump by 14. What we need to do is lock that in."

Lawmakers harshly criticize Biden’s decision to pardon Hunter: ‘Liar’

Lawmakers reacted with harsh criticism on Sunday after President Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden, who earlier this year was convicted in two separate federal cases.

The pardon comes after Biden and his communications team continued to insist the president’s son would not be pardoned.

Hunter pleaded guilty to federal tax charges in September, which spared him from a public trial over his failure to pay taxes while he spent lavishly on drugs, escorts, luxury hotel stays, clothing and other personal items.

The first son was also convicted of three felony gun charges in June after lying on a mandatory gun purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.

BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER BIDEN AHEAD OF EXIT FROM OVAL OFFICE

After Hunter was convicted, President Biden indicated he did not plan to pardon his son. That all changed on Sunday night.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., was quick to respond to Biden’s move to pardon his son, saying the president "has lied from start to finish about his family’s corrupt influence peddling activities."

"Not only has he falsely claimed that he never met with his son’s foreign business associates and that his son did nothing wrong, but he also lied when he said he would not pardon Hunter Biden," Comer said. "The charges Hunter faced were just the tip of the iceberg in the blatant corruption that President Biden and the Biden Crime Family have lied about to the American people. It’s unfortunate that, rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability."

KJP SAYS PRESIDENT BIDEN STILL HAS NO PLANS TO PARDON HUNTER BIDEN FOR TAX FRAUD, GUN CHARGES

Another federal lawmaker who weighed in on the matter Sunday was House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

"Democrats said there was nothing to our impeachment inquiry," Jordan said. "If that’s the case, why did Joe Biden just issue Hunter Biden a pardon for the very things we were inquiring about?"

Jordan had been one of the key figures pushing to expose Biden family business dealings and an investigation into alleged corruption that Republicans suggest could have led to an impeachment against President Biden.

POLL COMPARES WHETHER TRUMP, HUNTER BIDEN SHOULD GET PRISON SENTENCES, ACCORDING TO US ADULTS

In September 2023, Hunter filed a lawsuit against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, alleging the former Trump lawyer violated his privacy rights by illegally disseminating content from a laptop the first son dropped off at a computer store in Delaware.

The complaint claimed Giuliani was "primarily responsible" for the "total annihilation" of Hunter's digital privacy, while also naming Robert Costello, a former federal prosecutor who previously represented the former New York City mayor, as a defendant.

"Biden, who will not even meet with his granddaughter Navy, didn’t pardon his son because he’s a good father," Giuliani wrote on X after learning about the pardon. "He did so because, as his son admits on the Hard Drive, for 30 years Hunter has given half the millions he’s collected to the Boss of the Crime Family- Joe Biden."

WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS CIA 'STONEWALLED' IRS INTERVIEW WITH HUNTER BIDEN 'SUGAR BROTHER' KEVIN MORRIS: HOUSE GOP

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, also responded to the pardon on X.

"I’m shocked Pres Biden pardoned his son Hunter [because] he said many many times he wouldn’t & I believed him," Grassley wrote. "Shame on me."

IRS WHISTLEBLOWER SHAPLEY SAID HE ‘COULD NO LONGER PURSUE’ HUNTER BIDEN SUGAR BROTHER KEVIN MORRIS DUE TO CIA

President-elect Trump had previously been asked whether Biden would pardon his son, and said, "I’ll bet you the father probably pardons him. Let’s see what happens."

On Sunday, the president-elect took to Truth Social to share his reaction.

"Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?" Trump asked. Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!"

Trump's transition team also responded to the news in a statement to Fox News.

"The failed witch hunts against President Trump have proven that the Democrat-controlled DOJ and other radical prosecutors are guilty of weaponizing the justice system," Steven Cheung, who served as Trump’s campaign communications director and has since been appointed to serve as his director of communications in the White House, said. "That system of justice must be fixed, and due process must be restored for all Americans, which is exactly what President Trump will do as he returns to the White House with an overwhelming mandate from the American people."

IRS investigators Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler, who blew the whistle on political interference into Hunter’s tax crimes, released a statement after learning about the pardon.

"No amount of lies or spin can hide the simple truth that the Justice Department nearly let the President's son off the hook for multiple felonies. We did our duty, told the truth, and followed the law," they said. "Anyone reading the President's excuses now should remember that Hunter Biden admitted to his tax crimes in federal court, that Hunter Biden's attorneys have targeted us for our lawful whistleblower disclosures, and that we are suing one of those attorneys for smearing us with false accusations.

"President Biden has the power to put his thumb on the scales of justice for his son, but at least he had to do it with a pardon explicitly for all the world to see rather than his political appointees doing it secretly behind the scenes," they continued. "Either way it is a sad day for law-abiding taxpayers to witness this special privilege for the powerful."

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment, but has not yet heard back.

Jordan demands Smith retain all records related to Trump prosecutions as special counsel’s office winds down

FIRST ON FOX: The House Judiciary Committee is concerned that special counsel Jack Smith and prosecutors involved in the investigations of now President-elect Donald Trump will "purge" records to skirt oversight and is demanding they produce to Congress all documents related to the probes before the end of the month, Fox News Digital has learned. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., penned a letter to Smith on Friday, obtained by Fox News Digital. 

TRUMP VOWS TO LEAD ‘GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA' IN VICTORY SPEECH: ’FIX EVERYTHING'

"The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing its oversight of the Department of Justice and the Office of Special Counsel. According to recent public reports, prosecutors in your office have been ‘gaming out legal options’ in the event that President Donald Trump won the election," they wrote. "With President Trump’s decisive victory this week, we are concerned that the Office of Special Counsel may attempt to purge relevant records, communications, and documents responsive to our numerous requests for information." 

Jordan and Loudermilk warned that the Office of Special Counsel "is not immune from transparency or above accountability for its actions." 

"We reiterate our requests, which are itemized in the attached appendix and incorporated herein, and ask that you produce the entirety of the requested material as soon as possible but no later than November 22, 2024," they wrote. 

Jordan and Loudermilk are demanding Smith turn over information about the use of FBI personnel on his team — a request first made in June 2023 — and whether any of those FBI employees "previously worked on any other matters concerning President Trump." 

They also renewed their request from August 2023, demanding records relating to Smith and prosecutor Jay Bratt visiting the White House or Executive Office of the President; a request from September 2023 for records related to lawyer Stanley Woodward—who represented Trump aide Walt Nauta; a request from December 2023 for communications between Attorney General Merrick Garland and the special counsel’s team; and more. 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LOOKING TO WIND DOWN TRUMP CRIMINAL CASES AHEAD OF INAUGURATION

The Justice Department is looking to wind down two federal criminal cases against President-elect Trump as he prepares to be sworn in for a second term in the White House — a decision that upholds a long-standing policy that prevents Justice Department attorneys from prosecuting a sitting president. 

DOJ officials have cited a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel filed in 2000, which upholds a Watergate-era argument that asserts it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for the Justice Department to investigate a sitting president. 

It further notes that such proceedings would "unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency."  

"In light of the effect that an indictment would have on the operations of the executive branch, ‘an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office,’" the memo said in conclusion.

Smith was leading an investigation into the alleged retention of classified records. Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges stemming from that probe. 

The case was eventually tossed completely by a federal judge in Florida, who ruled that Smith was improperly and unlawfully appointed as special counsel. 

Smith also took over an investigation into alleged 2020 election interference. Trump also pleaded not guilty, but his attorneys took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue on the basis of presidential immunity. 

The high court ruled that Trump was immune from prosecution for official presidential acts, forcing Smith to file a new indictment. Trump pleaded not guilty to those new charges as well. Trump attorneys are now seeking to have the election interference charges dropped in Washington, D.C., similarly alleging that Smith was appointed unlawfully. 

Justice Department looking to wind down Trump criminal cases ahead of inauguration

The Justice Department is looking to wind down two federal criminal cases against President-elect Trump as he prepares to be sworn in for a second term in the White House — a decision that upholds long-standing policy that prevents Justice Department attorneys from prosecuting a sitting president. 

In making this argument, Justice Department officials cited a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel filed in 2000, which upholds a Watergate-era argument that asserts it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for the Justice Department to investigate a sitting president. 

It further notes that such proceedings would "unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency."  

"In light of the effect that an indictment would have on the operations of the executive branch, ‘an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office,’" the memo said in conclusion.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr also backed this contention Wednesday in an interview with Fox News Digital, noting that after Trump takes office in January, prosecutors will be unable to continue the cases during his term. 

TRUMP VOWS TO LEAD ‘GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA' IN VICTORY SPEECH: ’FIX EVERYTHING'

Barr told Fox News Digital that a Trump-appointed attorney general could immediately halt all federal cases brought by current Special Counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., and Florida. 

The charges in D.C. stem from Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. In Florida, they are centered on Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving the White House in 2020.

And though Trump would be powerless to halt two state cases filed in Georgia and New York, Barr said local prosecutors and judges need to move on from the "spectacle" of prosecuting the president-elect.

"Further maneuvering on these cases in the weeks ahead would serve no legitimate purpose and only distract the country and the incoming administration from the task at hand," Barr said.

He also noted that voters were well aware of the criminal allegations against Trump when they voted to re-elect him for a second term.

"The American people have rendered their verdict on President Trump, and decisively chosen him to lead the country for the next four years," Barr said

"They did that with full knowledge of the claims against him by prosecutors around the country and I think Attorney General [Merrick] Garland and the state prosecutors should respect the people’s decision and dismiss the cases against President Trump now."

This is a breaking news story. Check back soon for more developments.