Supreme Court chief justice report urges caution on use of AI ahead of contentious election year

With a wary eye over the future of the federal courts, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned Sunday of the perils of artificial intelligence (AI) when deciding cases and other important legal matters.

His remarks came in the annual year-end report issued by the head of the federal judiciary, which made no mention of current controversies surrounding his court, including calls for greater transparency and ethics reform binding the justices.

Noting the legal profession in general is "notoriously averse to change," Roberts urged a go-slow approach when embracing new technologies by the courts.

"AI obviously has great potential to dramatically increase access to key information for lawyers and non-lawyers alike," he said. "But just as obviously it risks invading privacy interests and dehumanizing the law."

TOP REPUBLICAN TALKS AI ARMS RACE: 'YOU'LL HAVE MACHINES COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER'

"But any use of AI requires caution and humility," he added. "As 2023 draws to a close with breathless predictions about the future of Artificial Intelligence, some may wonder whether judges are about to become obsolete. I am sure we are not— but equally confident that technological changes will continue to transform our work."

Roberts also summarized the work of the nation's 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts and his own Supreme Court. Previous year-end reports have focused on courthouse security, judges’ pay, rising caseloads and budgets. 

The chief justice's predictions of the future did not include his own court's caseload, as he and his colleagues are poised to tackle several politically-charged disputes in the new year, many focused on former president Donald Trump's legal troubles and re-election efforts.

WATCHDOG WARNS SEVERAL FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE BEHIND ON AI REQUIREMENTS

The Supreme Court has tackled its share of election fights over the decades — remember Bush v. Gore nearly a quarter century ago? — but 2024 promises to make that judicial drama look quaint by comparison. 

First up could be whether states can keep Trump's name off primary and general election ballots. Colorado's highest court said yes, and now the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide the extent of a 14th Amendment provision that bans from office those who "engaged in insurrection."

State courts across the country are considering whether Trump's role in 2020 election interference and the Jan. 6 Capitol riots would disqualify him from seeking re-election.

The justices are being asked to decide the matter quickly, either by mid-February or early March, when the "Super Tuesday" primaries in 16 states are held.

In his leadership role as "first among equals," the 68-year-old Roberts will likely be the key player in framing what voting disputes his court will hear and ultimately decide, perhaps as the deciding vote. 

Despite a 6-3 conservative majority, the chief justice has often tried to play the middle, seeking a less-is-best approach that has frustrated his more right-leaning colleagues.

But despite any reluctance to stay away from the fray, the court, it seems, will be involved in election-related controversies. 

"Given the number of election disputes it might be coming, a lot of them could be moving very quickly and will be very important to see what the court does," said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. "Sometimes the Supreme Court has no choice but to be involved in the election cases, because there are some voting rights and election cases that the justices are required to resolve on the merits."

Already the high court is considering redistricting challenges to voting boundaries in GOP-leaning states, brought by civil rights groups.

That includes South Carolina's first congressional district and claims the Republican-led legislature created a racial gerrymander. A ruling is expected in spring 2024.

The high court could also be asked to weigh in on emergency appeals over vote-by-mail restrictions, provisional ballots deadlines, polling hours, the Electoral College and more. 

Just weeks before President Trump's first House impeachment in 2019, Roberts tried to downplay his court's consideration of partisan political disputes.

"When you live in a polarized political environment, people tend to see everything in those terms," Roberts said at the time. "That’s not how we at the court function and the results in our cases do not suggest otherwise."

But the court's reputation as a fair arbiter of the law and Constitution has continued to erode to all-time lows.

A Fox News poll in June found just 48% of those surveyed having confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 83% just six years ago.

COMMERCE SECRETARY WILL BAN NVIDIA AI CHIPS DESIGNED TO GET AROUND RESTRICTIONS

Donald Trump faces separate criminal prosecution in four jurisdictions in 2024 — two federal cases over document mishandling and 2020 election interference; and two state cases in Georgia over 2020 election interference and New York over hush money payments to a porn star.

The prospect of a former president and leading GOP candidate facing multiple criminal convictions — with or without the blessing of the United States Supreme Court — has the potential to dominate an already riven election campaign.

The former president has filed various motions in each case, seeking to drop charges, delay the proceedings, and be allowed to speak publicly at what he sees as politically-motivated prosecutions.

The Supreme Court recently refused to fast-track a separate appeal, over Trump's scheduled criminal trial scheduled to start the day before "Super Tuesday."

Special counsel Jack Smith is challenging Trump's claim of presidential immunity in the 2020 election interference case. The former president says the prosecutions amount to a "partisan witch hunt."

While the justices are staying out of the dispute for now, they could quickly jump back in later this winter, after a federal appeals court decides the merits in coming weeks.

But the justices will decide this term whether some January 6 Capitol riot defendants can challenge their convictions for "corruptly" obstructing "official proceedings." Oral arguments could be held in February or March.

More than 300 people are facing that same obstruction law over their alleged efforts to disrupt Congress' certification of Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

The former president faces the same obstruction count in his case, and what the high court decides could affect Trump's legal defense in the special counsel prosecution, and the timing of his trial.

EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES OF BIDEN'S AI EXECUTIVE ORDER

In the short term, the Supreme Court, with its solid conservative majority, will hear arguments and issue rulings in coming months on hot-button topics like:

Abortion, and access to mifepristone, a commonly-used drug to end pregnancies

– Executive power, and an effort to sharply curb the power of federal agencies to interpret and enforce "ambiguous" policies enacted by Congress

– Social media, and whether tech firms — either on their own or with the cooperation of the government — can moderate or prevent users from posting disinformation

Gun rights and a federal ban on firearm possession by those subject to domestic violence restraining orders

Off the bench, the court last month instituted a new "code of conduct" — ethics rules to clarify ways the justices can address conflicts of interest, case recusals, activities they can participate in outside the court and their finances.

It followed months of revelations that some justices, particularly Clarence Thomas, did not accurately report gifts and other financial benefits on their required financial disclosure reports.

The court in a statement admitted the absence of binding ethics rules led some to believe that the justices "regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules."

"To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct."

All this reflects the delicate balancing act the chief justice will navigate in a presidential election year.

The unprecedented criticism of the high court's work — on and off the bench — is not lost on its nine members.

"There's a storm around us in the political world and the world at large in America," Justice Brett Kavanaugh said this fall. "We, as judges and the legal system, need to try to be a little more, I think, of the calm in the storm."

Some court watchers agree the court as an institution may struggle in the near term to preserve its legitimacy and public confidence, but time might be on its side.

"By its nature, the court kind of takes a long-term view of things," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department official, who has litigated cases before the Supreme Court. "Even when we disagree with the outcome in a particular case, I have never had any doubt that these are men and women who are doing their absolute best to faithfully apply the laws and the Constitution of the United States to reach the right result."

Texas law banning drag performances in front of children ruled unconstitutional by federal judge

The Texas law dubbed the "Drag Ban" that restricted "sexually oriented performances" in the presence of a child or on public property was ruled unconstitutional on Tuesday by a federal judge, who issued a permanent injunction barring state officials from enforcing it.

Senate Bill 12 was signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in June and was set to go into effect Sep. 1 but was blocked after being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed a lawsuit against the law last month.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge David Hittner said the law was "an unconstitutional restriction on speech," and that it "violates the First Amendment as incorporated to Texas by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution."

TRUMP CAMPAIGN WALKS BACK CLAIM FORMER PRESIDENT PURCHASED GLOCK AMID QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGALITY

The ruling further ordered Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other state officials to not enforce the law.

According to one of the definitions in the law, a "sexually oriented performance" means a visual performance that features "a male performer exhibiting as a female, or a female performer exhibiting as a male, who uses clothing, makeup, or other similar physical markers and who sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience" and "appeals to the prurient interest in sex."

Critics have referred to the law as a "drag ban," though its author and supporters claim it was proposed and signed into law to protect children.

WATCH: REPORTERS PILE ON FRUSTRATED KARINE JEAN-PIERRE OVER BIDEN PLAN TO JOIN UAW PICKET

The ACLU filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas in Houston, and claimed the law "unconstitutionally singles out drag performances as a disfavored form of expression." It also asserted that several terms are not defined or are written in a way that targets protected expression.

Drag was described in the lawsuit as an "art form" that is "inherently expressive," and has no set standard. "As with any art form, there is nothing inherently sexual or obscene about drag," the lawsuit read. "Drag can be performed for any age level and in any venue, since drag artists tailor their performances to their audience."

Fox News Digital has reached out to Paxton's office for comment.

Fox News' Greg Wehner contributed to this report.

Hunter Biden sues Rudy Giuliani over laptop, accuses ex-Trump lawyer of ‘hacking’

Hunter Biden on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani alleging the former President Trump lawyer violated his privacy rights by illegally disseminating content from Biden's infamous laptop.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California states Giuliani is "primarily responsible" for the "total annihilation" of Biden's digital privacy. It also names Robert Costello, a former federal prosecutor who previously represented Giuliani, as a defendant, Fox News has confirmed. 

"For the past many months and even years, Defendants have dedicated an extraordinary amount of time and energy toward looking for, hacking into, tampering with, manipulating, copying, disseminating, and generally obsessing over data that they were given that was taken or stolen from Plaintiff's devices or storage platforms, including what Defendants claim to have obtained from Plaintiff's alleged ‘laptop’ computer," Biden's attorneys wrote in the complaint, claiming that the data was not even from a "laptop," but from an "external drive."

The contents of this "external drive" include pictures, videos, emails and other data that since their initial publication by the New York Post in 2020, have paced Biden in legal jeopardy and caused political problems for this father, President Biden.

NEWSOM'S LONGTIME TIES TO HUNTER BIDEN EMERGE AFTER HE JUSTIFIES HIS BUISNESS DEALS: ‘HERE’S MY DIRECT EMAIL'

Giuliani and Costello have openly acknowledged that they obtained copies of files from a hard drive device that Biden allegedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019. Giuliani provided that information to the Post in October 2020, which published a story based on Hunter Biden's emails that implicated President Biden in a business deal with a Ukrainian company that had hired Hunter on its board. 

House Republicans have launched an impeachment inquiry into President Biden based on claims that he used his position, then as vice president, to deter Ukrainian prosecutors from investigating the company that his son worked for. GOP lawmakers further allege, based on their follow-up investigations, that the president was involved in several business deals arranged by his son Hunter. 

The president has repeatedly denied any involvement in his son's business dealings.

BOB MENENDEZ ENLISTS HUNTER BIDEN'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN BRIBERY CASE

Hunter Biden's attorneys previously issued cease-and-desist letters to Giuliani and others who obtained and disseminated the laptop's contents.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to prevent Giuliani and others from accessing, tampering with, manipulating or copying Biden's data and have them return the "device/hard drive" to Biden, along with any backup files, cloud files or copies of the same data.

Neither attorneys for Hunter Biden nor a representative for Giuliani immediately responded to a request for comment. 

The lawsuit filed Tuesday is the latest effort from Biden and his lawyers to hit back after leaks of the information catapulted his sordid private life onto the front page of many conservative media outlets.

HUNTER BIDEN SUES FORMER WH AIDE FOR ALTERING, PUBLISHING ‘PORNOGRAPHIC’ PHOTOS FROM THE LAPTOP HE DENIES IS HIS

Earlier this month, the president's son sued former President Trump aide Garrett Ziegler, alleging that Ziegler and his company spread "tens of thousands of emails, thousands of photos, and dozens of videos and recordings" that were considered "pornographic" from the device.

In March, Biden initiated a countersuit asserting that the Wilmington, Delaware, computer repair shop owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, had unlawfully disseminated Biden's personal information, and leveled six invasion of privacy charges against him. Mac Isaac first filed a lawsuit against the president’s son — as well as CNN, Politico, and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.— in October 2022 for defamation.

According to Mac Isaac, Biden did not return for the laptop within three months after dropping it off, and he could not be reached. He then alerted the FBI after seeing emails illustrating information about then-Vice President Joe Biden’s purported foreign business dealings and videos of Biden taking drugs and performing sex acts with prostitutes.

Before federal agents picked up the device, Mac Isaac made a copy of its hard drive and gave it to Giuliani the following year.

Biden was expected to plead guilty in July to two misdemeanor tax counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax as part of a plea deal to avoid jail time on a felony gun charge. Instead, he pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and one felony gun charge last month.

Fox News' Jamie Joseph contributed to this report.

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.