Judges blocking Trump’s executive orders are acting ‘erroneously,’ White House says

The judicial branch has been behaving "erroneously," according to White House press secretary, after several judges have blocked various executive orders from President Donald Trump. 

"I would like to point out that the judges in this country are acting erroneously," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Wednesday news briefing. "We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench."

On Saturday, Judge James Boasberg with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order halting the Trump administration from deporting migrants allegedly part of the Tren de Aragua gang under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The law permits deportation of natives and citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing.

However, flights carrying the migrants continued to El Salvador, and Leavitt said Sunday the order had "no lawful basis" since Boasberg issued it after the flights departed from U.S. airspace.

THESE ARE THE JUDGES GOING TOE TO TOE AGAINST TRUMP'S AGENDA 

Meanwhile, Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment in a social media post Tuesday, prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare statement condemning Trump’s remarks. 

Specifically, Roberts said that "it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision" for more than two centuries." 

In response, Leavitt said Wednesday that the Supreme Court needs to "reign in" judges who are behaving as "partisan activists" and are "undermining" the judicial branch, while also asserting that Trump does respect Robert. 

Efforts to oust Boasberg have also been launched in Congress. For example, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, unveiled an impeachment resolution against Boasberg Tuesday, claiming that Boasberg was "guilty of high crimes" in a post on social media. 

WHITE HOUSE BLASTS JUDGE FOR ATTEMPTING TO HALT DEPORTATION FLIGHTS TO EL SALVADOR: ‘NO LAWFUL BASIS’

"It's incredibly apparent that there is a concerted effort by the far left to judge shop, to pick judges who are clearly acting as partisan activists from the bench in an attempt to derail this president's agenda," Leavitt said. "We will not allow that to happen." 

Leavitt said that while flights to deport illegal immigrants to El Salvador are currently not scheduled, the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign will continue as litigation continues on this case. 

"We don't have any flights planned specifically, but we will continue with the mass deportations," Leavitt said. "And I would just like to point out that the judge in this case is essentially trying to say that the President doesn't have the executive authority to deport foreign terrorists…That is an egregious abuse of the bench." 

Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report. 

Victim’s family ‘confident’ Oklahoma’s Richard Glossip will be convicted after Supreme Court orders new trial

The family of murdered Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese told Fox News Digital they are "confident" Richard Glossip will once again be found guilty after the Supreme Court tossed out his conviction and ordered a new trial. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a majority opinion Tuesday that "the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony" in court proceedings against Glossip, who was convicted and sentenced to death following the 1997 killing. Prosecutors alleged that it was a murder-for-hire scheme. 

"The family remains confident that when that new trial is held, the jury will return the same verdict as in the first two trials: guilty of first-degree murder," Derek Van Treese, Barry’s son, said in a statement to Fox News Digital provided by the family’s lawyer, Paul Cassell. 

"The burning issue here is of process and procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that one small bit of impeachment evidence should have been presented at Glossip’s trial and has remanded for a new trial," he continued. "Two juries have shown that the issue at hand isn't one of guilt or innocence, Glossip is clearly guilty of first-degree murder." 

SUPREME COURT TOSSES CONVICTION AND DEATH SENTENCE OF OKLAHOMA INMATE, ORDERS NEW TRIAL 

Derek Van Treese added that "For the last 10,276 days, we've been waiting for justice for the murder of Barry Van Treese." 

"As difficult as it may be to start fresh on a 28-year-old case, I hope that the Attorney General and the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office can begin to show the perseverance that our family has shown throughout this process," he also said. "We pray that they exhibit the fortitude to take politics out of the equation and process this case as it is, a death penalty case, and not take the easy road of a lesser charge. If they find themselves unable to shoulder the burden, they should recuse themselves and allow someone with the aptitude and skill necessary to prosecute this case so it can finally be laid to rest, once and for all." 

SOUTH CAROLINA DEATH ROW INMATE CHOOSES FIRING SQUAD AS EXECUTION METHOD 

Don Knight, Glossip's attorney, told the Associated Press that the Supreme Court’s ruling "was a victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system." 

"Rich and I opened the decision together on the phone this morning, knowing it would be a life-changing moment," his wife said in a text message to the AP following the Supreme Court’s announcement. "To say that we are overcome with emotion is an understatement. We are deeply grateful. Today is truly an answered prayer." 

Glossip, 62, is currently being held at the maximum-security Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, according to the AP. 

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond was quoted by the news agency as saying that Glossip will remain in custody, and he will now consult with the Oklahoma County district attorney over whether to try Glossip again and if the state should seek the death penalty or lesser charges. 

"I do not believe Richard Glossip is innocent," Drummond reportedly added, noting that "I have conferred with several members of the Van Treese family and given them my heartfelt sadness for where they are, where they find themselves." 

Fox News’ Bill Mears contributed to this report. 

Sotomayor criticizes presidential immunity case as putting the high court’s legitimacy on the line

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Court's 2024 presidential immunity case in her first public appearance since the start of the second Trump term, saying it places the Court's legitimacy on the line. 

Sotomayor made the comments during an appearance in Louisville, Kentucky, during which she was asked a range of questions, including the public's perception of the high court, according to the Associated Press. Sotomayor's comments are her first in public since President Donald Trump took office last month. 

"If we as a court go so much further ahead of people, our legitimacy is going to be questioned," Sotomayor said during the Louisville event. "I think the immunity case is one of those situations. I don’t think that Americans have accepted that anyone should be above the law in America. Our equality as people was the foundation of our society and of our Constitution."

'INTEGRITY OF THE COURT': CRUZ REINTRODUCES AMENDMENT TO COMBAT COURT EXPANSION EFFORTS

In a 6-3 decision in July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

The case stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

Sotomayor notably wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, saying the decision "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS SWEARING IN MULTIPLE TRUMP CABINET OFFICIALS RAISES EYEBROWS AT CNN

"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law," the dissent continued. "Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

During her Louisville appearance, Sotomayor shared that she "had a hard time with the immunity case," saying the Constitution contains provisions "not exempting the president from criminal activity after an impeachment."

Sotomayor warned that if the Court were to continue down the same path, the Court's legitimacy would ultimately be at risk. 

SUPREME COURT DENIES TRUMP ATTEMPT TO STOP SENTENCING IN NEW YORK V. TRUMP

"And if we continue going in directions that the public is going to find hard to understand, we’re placing the court at risk," Sotomayor said. 

When asked for comment, a White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital, "This historic 6-3 ruling speaks for itself."

The justice suggested that one way to resolve the public's distrust in the Court would be to slow down in overturning precedent. The Court has, in recent years, overturned various landmark decisions, including Roe v. Wade in 2022, and striking down affirmative action in college admissions in 2023 and the Chevron doctrine in 2024. 

"I think that creates instability in the society, in people’s perception of law and people’s perception of whether we’re doing things because of legal analysis or because of partisan views," Sotomayor said. "Whether those views are accurate or not, I don’t accuse my colleagues of being partisan."

Sotomayor made similar comments in 2023, saying she had a "a sense of despair" about the Court's direction following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe. Sotomayor did not name the case specifically. 

However, the justice said she did not have the luxury to dwell on those feelings.

"It’s not an option to fall into despair," Sotomayor said. "I have to get up and keep fighting."

Fox News Digital's Ronn Blitzer and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Trump gets inaugurated Monday; here’s how the Supreme Court swears in new presidents

Top members of the three branches of government will come together in a rare display of national unity and tradition when the presidential and vice-presidential oaths of office are delivered at Monday's inauguration. A swear-in rookie, and perhaps funny hats, will be indispensable parts of the ceremonies.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh will continue a nearly 240-year-old tradition of administering the oaths to President-elect Trump and his No. 2, JD Vance. The other seven members of the high court are expected to attend the event in the Capitol Rotunda, all in their judicial robes. 

Whatever political differences exist, they surely will not be on display at this most cordial and dignified of ceremonies. After all, the first person the president thanks will likely be the chief justice. But an undercurrent of tension remains.

During his first run for high office in 2016, candidate Trump took the unusual step of attacking a member of the federal judiciary, labeling Roberts "an absolute disaster" among other personal insults. This will be the "Chief's" fifth presidential swearing-in, his second with Trump.

HOW TO WATCH, STREAM TRUMP'S 2025 INAUGURATION ON JANUARY 20TH

The choice of Kavanaugh is no surprise: incoming second lady Usha Vance clerked for Kavanaugh when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

She then went on to a prestigious law clerkship at the Supreme Court with Roberts. Sources say Kavanaugh gave an especially strong job recommendation for Usha Vance to his now bench colleague.

In an August interview with "Fox and Friends," Usha Vance said Kavanaugh was "such a good boss" and "decent person" who "hired people from all over the political spectrum."

"My experience working for him was overwhelmingly positive," she added.

Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas are among recent justices who have performed similar vice-presidential swear-in honors.

While chief justices have normally sworn in the president, a broader mix of officials have handled the vice-presidential duties. Then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert swore in Vice President Dick Cheney in 2005.

Thomas did the honors when Mike Pence was sworn in 2017 as vice president for Trump's first term.

TRUMP SWEARING-IN TO MOVE INDOORS DUE TO COLD WEATHER, SOURCE TELLS FOX NEWS

Article VI of the Constitution requires executive officers, including the president, as well as members of Congress and federal judges, to "be bound by oath or affirmation," but nothing mandates that a Supreme Court justice administer it. When it comes to the presidential inauguration, they just have, most of the time.

There was no Supreme Court yet formed when George Washington took the first oath of office in 1789, so New York's highest ranking judge did the honors at Federal Hall on Wall Street. Four years later, Associate Justice William Cushing swore in Washington for a second term, beginning the Supreme Court tradition.

Early swear-ins were usually conducted in the House or Senate chamber. The 1817 inaugural was held outdoors for the first time when James Monroe took the oath in front of the Old Brick Capitol, where the legislature met temporarily after the original Capitol was burned by invading British troops in the War of 1812. The Monroe swear-in site is now occupied by the Supreme Court, which opened its building in 1935.

The man who handled the duties more than 200 years ago was John Marshall, widely acknowledged as the most influential chief justice in U.S. history. He participated in a record nine swear-ins, from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Jackson. For Roberts, this will be his fifth.

The Constitution lays out the exact language to be used in the 34-word oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Many judges have tacked on four little words, "so help me God." It is not legally or constitutionally required, unlike other federal oaths that invoke the words as standard procedure. Historians have been at odds over whether President Washington established precedent by adding the phrase on his own during his first acceptance, but contemporary accounts mention no such ad-libbing.

Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said it spontaneously in 1861, and other presidents over the years have followed suit. A Bible is traditionally used, with the president placing one hand on it while raising the other during the oath of office.

The 16th president and Chief Justice Roger Taney shared a mutual animosity. When the oath was administered just days before the Civil War erupted, many attending the ceremony noticed the frosty demeanor both men showed each other, befitting the late winter chill. Several historians have said Lincoln later that year secretly issued an arrest warrant for Taney, who tried to block the president's suspension of habeas corpus during the conflict. The warrant was never served.

President Barack Obama used Lincoln's Bible for his two swear-ins.

Trump is expected to again use the Lincoln Bible and a family Bible.

TRUMP, VANCE OFFICIAL PORTRAITS RELEASED AHEAD OF INAUGURATION

Roberts, administering his first presidential oath in 2009, strayed slightly from the text, which prompted its re-administration for protective purposes the following day, in a private White House ceremony.

Those Jan. 20 ceremonies at the Capitol also ran long, so that the presidential oath was not completed until five minutes past noon. Nonetheless, Obama under the 20th Amendment had officially assumed the presidency at noon.

At the time, a California atheist, Michael Newdow, objected and went to federal court to prevent Roberts from prompting Obama to repeat the "so help me God" phrase. Newdow, along with several non-religious groups, argued the words violated the constitutional ban on government "endorsement" of religion.

The high court ultimately rejected the lawsuit, and no such legal challenges are expected this time.

Four years later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor swore in Biden for a second term as vice president in 2013. She was asked by Vice President Harris to do the honors again, with the first female vice president citing the fact both women once served as government prosecutors.

Pence used the family Bible of the late President Ronald Reagan, telling Fox News at the time, "It's just very humbling for me. We are approaching it with prayer, but with deep, deep gratitude to the president-elect for his confidence and deep gratitude to the American people." 

Trump also broke tradition by not attending the swear-in of his successor four years ago.

Lyndon Johnson's swear-in from 1965 marked a change from tradition. His wife Claudia – known as Lady Bird – held the Bible, a job previously managed by the high court's clerk. Spouses have since had the honor, and Melania Trump and Usha Vance are expected to continue that role.   

Hopefully, nerves won't result in a repeat of the 1941 goof, when then-clerk Elmore Cropley dropped the Bible just after Franklin Roosevelt took the oath to begin his third presidential term.

GET TO KNOW DONALD TRUMP'S CABINET: WHO HAS THE PRESIDENT-ELECT PICKED SO FAR?

It usually is not hard at the inauguration to spot the justices, who are normally shielded from broad public view in the camera-barred court. They are announced as a group, arrive wearing their black robes – usually covering bulky winter coats – and are given prominent seats on the specially built platform on the West Front of the Capitol.

Before Marshall took over the court in 1801, the justices wore red robes with fur trim and white wigs in all public settings. His practice of a simple black silk robe without wig remains the American judicial standard.

And if there is any doubt about their identities, look for some unusual-looking headgear several justices may be sporting. The large black "skullcaps" have no brims and can be made of wool, silk or even nylon. Perhaps to keep them from looking like a Jewish yarmulke, the hats are usually pleated upward, which one federal judge privately told Fox News made him look like he was wearing a dirty napkin.

Given the inauguration ceremony is indoors this year because of expected frigid weather, the skullcaps may be an afterthought.

They have been around in British courts since the 16th century, and at least a century in the United States. Only judges wear them, and only at formal ceremonies, not in court.

Official records are hazy on the hats, but Chief Justice Edward White proudly wore one in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson became president. The "age of the skullcap" peaked in 1961 when seven of the nine justices wore them at the bitterly cold inauguration of President John F. Kennedy.

The last time around, only now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer was brave enough to sport one, though Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and the late Antonin Scalia had worn them previously. None of the six current or former women justices ever used them.

Scalia told an audience a few years ago why he favored skullcaps. "If you've ever seen an inauguration, you will see me wearing the old hats judges used to wear. It's a ridiculous-looking hat, but it's a tradition. Yes, it's silly looking."

Scalia's headgear was a replica of one worn by St. Thomas More, a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia

The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist also sported them, not surprising, given his role as an unofficial historian of court procedure and tradition.

He made one of the most dramatic appearances in inaugural history while suffering from thyroid cancer in 2005. There was speculation he would be too ill to attend, but he assured officials he would be there, and he kept his word.

After three months away from the public eye while he received chemotherapy, the ailing 81-year-old chief was introduced to the audience just before President George W. Bush was to take the oath. Using a cane, Rehnquist walked slowly to the podium without assistance – wearing a dark baseball cap – and did the honors. His voice was clear but raspy, because of a trachea tube in his throat, which was hidden by a scarf.

Afterward, Rehnquist wished Bush good luck, then was quickly escorted out of the cold.

Rehnquist also swore in President Bill Clinton eight years earlier. Unbeknownst to Clinton or the public, the justices days earlier had taken a private vote in Clinton v. Jones. Their ruling said the president could not refuse to testify in an ongoing civil lawsuit against him by Paula Jones, who alleged sexual harassment. That triggered a series of events leading to Clinton's 1999 impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, presided over by Rehnquist himself, without the skullcap.

‘Rot and decay’: Rep Hank Johnson argues SCOTUS term limits are path forward for removing ‘corrupt’ justices

Georgia Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson, a strong proponent of Supreme Court reform, says term limits for the justices is a way to eliminate "the possibility of long-term rot and decay" that he argues is present on the high court now. 

"Term limits is a way of creating a process that eliminates the possibility of long-term rot and decay due to corporate corruption on the court that we have now with no means of being able to correct it other than impeachment and conviction of a justice," Johnson told Fox News Digital in an interview Thursday.

"And if you could not impeach and convict Donald Trump, you're certainly not going to be able to remove a corrupt Supreme Court justice from office when he or she is doing the bidding of the right-wing forces that put them there in the very beginning."

Johnson, a ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, previously teamed up with Democrats in both the House and Senate to propose court reform bills in an effort to both expand the court and impose term limits on the justices. During Congress' most recent session, Johnson introduced the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act (TERM) that would impose 18-year term limits on justices.

LEAD COUNSEL HITS NEW DEM EFFORT TO 'DELEGITIMIZE' SUPREME COURT AMID SENATOR'S REPORT ON KAVANAUGH PROBE

In May 2023, Johnson joined Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., Tina Smith, D-Minn., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., as well as Democrat Reps. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Cori Bush, D-Miss., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., in reintroducing the Judiciary Act of 2023 that would expand the Supreme Court to a 13-justice bench. The nine-justice court currently has a conservative supermajority.

"We want to prevent this kind of rot and decay from ever overtaking a Supreme Court again," Johnson said. "And term limits would enable that to happen."

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON SAYS SUPREME COURT'S PUBLIC PERCEPTION AS TOO POLITICAL IS 'PROBLEMATIC'

Johnson went on to say that justices with lifetime tenure become "unaccountable, and they can do whatever they want," calling the bench "a club of kings and queens who can do whatever they want to do simply because they serve in a third co-equal branch of government."

President Biden previously voiced support for such reform, releasing a statement in late July delineating three specific reforms, one of which called for Congress to approve term limits. Vice President Harris echoed Biden's sentiments, saying in a statement that reforms were being proposed because "there is a clear crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court."

JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON SAYS SHE WOULD SUPPORT AN 'ENFORCEABLE CODE' OF ETHICS FOR THE SUPREME COURT

Johnson said he has yet to have direct conversations with Harris about implementing such reforms in anticipation of the vice president possibly winning the Oval Office in November, but he said she is "aware of the challenge that we face."

"She's supportive of efforts like my legislation," Johnson said. "So I look forward to having future conversations with, hopefully, President-elect and future President Kamala Harris and her team."

Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris campaign for comment.

Johnson acknowledged that proposals to reform the court would face an uphill battle toward enactment, with the congressman foreseeing the Senate blocking the measures with a filibuster.

"We're in it for the long haul, and however long it takes, this legislation will be there for consideration," he said.

Amy Coney Barrett asserts her voice, carries on Scalia legacy

After her fourth term on the bench, Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett is asserting her voice and following in the footsteps of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a pioneer of originalism on the high court and her former boss. 

Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump in October 2020 to fill the seat of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, surprised some this term by voting in a few key cases with the Democrat-appointed minority.

But legal experts say that the former law professor is proving that her interpretation of the Constitution is consistent with what the Founding Fathers intended, and that disagreements between her and her fellow conservative justices should be "celebrated."

"This term we have seen all the originalist justices engaged in a healthy debate about how to apply tenets of originalism and textualism in many different contexts," Carrie Severino, president of JCN, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "And that is a sign that the originalist project has matured, and that the justices are fleshing out these important principles, and it should be celebrated."

AOC FILES ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST JUSTICES ALITO, THOMAS, ALLEGES 'UNCHECKED CORRUPTION'

For many years, a widely lauded and accepted judicial philosophy was that the Constitution was a "living and breathing document." But conservative legal practitioners contested that approach as too volatile to political whims, judicially inappropriate and a departure from what the founders actually wrote in their original intent. 

But in the 1980s, the concept of an originalist interpretation of the law started to grow, largely driven by Reagan-appointed Justice Scalia.  

"It used to be that the late, great, Justice Scalia was basically the only originalist on the court," said John Shu, a constitutional lawyer and former official in both Bush administrations. "Then, in 1991, it became Scalia and Thomas and sometimes Rehnquist. In 2005 and 2006, it became Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.  And since 2017, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and of course Justice Barrett joined the Court, and she is very much following in Justice Scalia’s, for whom she clerked, footsteps."

Some experts say that approach bore out this term when Barrett sided with her liberal colleagues in the case in which the majority ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal "obstruction" crime. 

That case will likely aid the legal arguments of former President Trump who was charged with obstruction, among other crimes, by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT SAYS PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF SCOTUS IS 'WELCOME'

In her dissent, Barrett wrote that by "narrowing" a federal statute, the Court "failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches."

"[S]tatutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway," Barrett wrote, adding that the Court’s majority abandoned that approach and does "textual backflips to find some way— any way—to narrow the reach" of the statue at issue. 

Severino says that in her dissent, Barrett was "exactly in line" with Scalia's approach to that type of clause.

"Within originalism and textualism, there are people who in some particular instances may disagree on how those principles apply in a specific case," Severino wrote. "So it's not surprising that Barrett is going to have a different approach than Thomas or Alito or Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. They all have their own slightly different flavors, different personality, to exactly how they apply those," Severino said. 

"It’s a great sign that the justices are openly discussing what's the best way to apply originalism and textualism, the original intent and the actual text, which is what good and fair judges are supposed to do," said Shu.

"Justice Barrett’s opinions from this term indicate that the Scalia approach, over time, carried the day," he said.  "He also was great at showing how the originalist perspective is the common-sense perspective, and the one most faithful to the law and to a judge’s responsibilities."

Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, noted that Barrett "was law professor for a long time, so she has a different background than everybody else on the court."

"She's very thoughtful, she's very intellectual, she's very theoretical. She wants to get the theory right. She's a professor's justice," he observed. 

"She’s still very much in the Scalia mode. She's thinking about how to apply history and tradition and what that test means, and getting the theory of the matter right," he said. 

Which he said "was clear in the immunity decision, where she agreed fully with Robert's majority opinion, but said it would have been better to reframe this as an unconstitutional application of criminal law, rather than calling it immunity."

BIDEN'S SCOTUS CRITIQUES LARGELY UNPRECEDENTED, EXPERTS SAY, CONTRAST WITH CLINTON'S DEFERENCE IN 2000

"She's not a moderate. She's not a centrist. She’s not moving left," Shapiro said. "She’s an originalist and a textualist."

Jennifer Mascott, law professor at Catholic University and former Justice Department official, said Barrett’s writings this term "show a highly intelligent, careful principal jurist who is looking herself, as all the justices do, independently at the questions before her, and just taking the time for the American public to explain in important cases where she may have done something differently than the majority opinion." 

Notably, Barrett authored a concurrence in the case in which the high court unanimously ruled that Colorado could not remove Trump from 2024 election ballot. 

"The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up," she wrote. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home."

The former Notre Dame professor is not without criticism on the right, with some conservative observers saying she can be too cautious or timid when it comes to upsetting precedent.

Giancarlo Canaparo, senior fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, says Barrett is "extremely mindful of the difference between conservative judges and conservative politicians, and she's trying very hard to be a conservative judge."

"And that means, I think, for her, not only being faithful to the text of the law and the Constitution, but also making sure that the court doesn't move on a particular issue until it’s sort of aware of the downstream effects on this doctrine or that doctrine," he said.

Canaparo observed that Barrett "needs to feel like she knows everything that can possibly be known" about a matter in order to make a move. 

"She's going to take positions when she feels like she knows everything, which is often in in those few areas where she wrote that she wrote about as a professor, but in other cases, we see areas where she's unwilling to make moves based on whatever information she has on hand, which you know that can be a good thing sometimes. Sometimes not."

But "sometimes, like a general, you've got to go with what information you have," he said. 

"Sometimes it seems like maybe she doesn't actually want a particular party to win, or she doesn't want to make a particular move, and so she uses the claim that there isn't enough information in the record as sort of an out."

Canaparo's critique aside, though, conservative legal watchers appear to sign on to Bush administration veteran John Shu's opinion that, "all in all, I think it’s great that a former Scalia clerk is now on the Court to carry on his legacy."

AOC files articles of impeachment against Justices Alito, Thomas, alleges ‘unchecked corruption’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., filed articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas on Wednesday, alleging "unchecked corruption."

Ocasio-Cortez threatened to file the articles last week, raising arguments about undisclosed gifts Thomas has received from wealthy conservatives and recent controversies involving Alito's home and personal politics.

"The unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court has now spiraled into a Constitutional crisis threatening American democracy writ large," Cortez wrote in a statement. "Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito’s pattern of refusal to recuse from consequential matters before the court in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law, the integrity of our democracy, and one of the clearest cases for which the tool of impeachment was designed."

"Justice Thomas and Alito’s repeated failure over decades to disclose that they received millions of dollars in gifts from individuals with business before the court is explicitly against the law. And their refusal to recuse from the specific matters and cases before the court in which their benefactors and spouses are implicated represents nothing less than a constitutional crisis. These failures alone would amount to a deep transgression worthy of standard removal in any lower court, and would disqualify any nominee to the highest court from confirmation in the first place," she argued.

CONGRESSIONAL DEMS BLAST RULING ON TRUMP IMMUNITY: 'EXTREME RIGHT-WING SUPREME COURT'

Ocasio-Cortez's Wednesday filing includes three articles of impeachment against Thomas and two against Alito. The charges against Thomas involve undisclosed gifts as well as his lack of recusal in cases allegedly involving his wife's legal and financial interests.

NY DEM SLAMS 'SQUAD' MEMBER'S PROFANITY-LACED RANT AT RALLY WITH AOC: 'UNHINGED'

The charges against Alito also include failure to disclose gifts and his lack of recusal in cases in which he had "a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party" before the court.

Ocasio-Cortez first threatened an article of soft impeachment following the Supreme Court's ruling in former President Trump's immunity case. The ruling in question said a president has absolute immunity from prosecution for "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," and "presumptive immunity" for official acts in general. The court said there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

SCOTUS RULES EX-PRESIDENTS HAVE PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION FOR OFFICIAL ACTS IN IMMUNITY CASE

"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X following the decision. "Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return." 

The lawmaker argues that Alito was biased in favor of Trump and participants in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. She and other critics base the accusation on Alito flying an "appeal to heaven" flag at his home. The flag has been a symbol associated with American independence since before the Revolutionary War.

Congressional Dems blast ruling on Trump immunity: ‘Extreme right-wing Supreme Court’

Democratic lawmakers lamented the conservative majority Supreme Court's decision on Monday, granting presidents limited immunity for actions in their official capacity. 

"This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote on X. "The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law."

"Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president," he continued. 

SCOTUS RULES EX-PRESIDENTS HAVE PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION FOR OFFICIAL ACTS IN IMMUNITY CASE

The court ruled on Monday that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution when it comes to official acts while they are in office, but this does not extend to unofficial acts. The ruling was decided 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," he wrote. 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said she would introduce articles of impeachment over the decision, though she did not specify which justices she would target.

"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control. Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return," Ocasio-Cortez said on X.

Minutes later, fellow progressive Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, responded, "Count me in."

Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., claimed in a statement, "This Court has lost all credibility—made painfully clear by the fact that Justice Thomas and Justice Alito refused to recuse themselves from this case despite their glaring lack of impartiality."

BALANCE OF POWER: DEM REP SAYS PEOPLE WILL 'WANT TO TALK ABOUT' BIDEN STATUS ON TICKET AFTER DEBATE

The Vermont lawmaker has been an advocate of ethical reform for the nation's highest court. 

The ruling sets a "dangerous precedent," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution," he added. 

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., called the ruling "shocking."

"The extreme right-wing Supreme Court just drastically weakened accountability if a president attempts to use their office for criminal purposes. It’s a disastrous ruling that could have grave effects on our democracy," she claimed. 

VULNERABLE DEMS WON'T SAY WHETHER BIDEN SHOULD BE NOMINEE: 'PRESIDENT CAN MAKE HIS OWN DECISIONS'

Another strong advocate for ethics reform, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., wrote on X, "My stomach turns with fear & anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out-of-control Court."

"The members of Court’s conservative majority will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme & nakedly partisan hacks—politicians in robes," he said. 

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claimed the Supreme Court had gone "rogue" in its decision-making. "The former president’s claim of total presidential immunity is an insult to the vision of our founders, who declared independence from a King," she said in a statement. 

Democrats in Congress were quick to point out that three of the justices were appointed by former President Trump. According to Schumer, the decision on immunity, handed down by the court's conservatives, "suggests political influence trumps all in our courts today."

TOP 5 MOMENTS DURING TRUMP-BIDEN DEBATE SHOWDOWN: 'I DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH A PORN STAR'

"He appointed 3 extreme judges and is now exploiting the powers of the president in ways that were once unthinkable. The court can no longer be counted on to defend the constitution," said Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif. 

Vulnerable Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin avoided opining on the ruling itself, but bashed the Supreme Court in general on X. "Reminder: Republicans and this activist Supreme Court are responsible for stripping away women’s reproductive rights and they aren’t done attacking our freedoms. My Women’s Health Protection Act would restore these rights everywhere across the country. Let’s pass it," she wrote. 

SCOTUS weighs monumental constitutional fight over Trump immunity claim

The Supreme Court waded cautiously Thursday in a landmark area of law it has never before encountered: whether former presidents have "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution, stemming from the special counsel's federal election interference case.

In a special courtroom session lasting more than two and a half hours, the justices appeared to be looking for middle ground that might see at least some of Trump's sweeping claims dismissed, while still allowing future presidents to be criminally exempt from clearly official executive functions — like their role as commander in chief.

The official question the justices are confronting: "Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?"

SUPREME COURT SHARPLY AT ODDS OVER EMERGENCY ROOM ABORTION ACCESS IN STATES' RIGHTS CHALLENGE

In riveting arguments, a partisan divide developed early on the nine-member bench, as it weighed whether and when executive official duties versus private conduct in office could be subject to prosecution.

Both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications for future presidents.

"If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office?" asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes, I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country."        

Justice Samuel Alito asked, "If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?"

Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the stakes, however the court rules: "This will have huge implications for the presidency."

Trump was not in attendance at the argument but talked about the stakes when greeting supporters at a New York construction site.

"A president has to have immunity," he said Thursday morning. "If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president, you won't have a president."

The underlying factor is time — whether the court's expedited ruling, expected in May or June, would allow any criminal trial to get underway before the November presidential election. Depending on the outcome, jury selection could begin by late summer or early fall, or the case could be delayed indefinitely or dismissed altogether. 

SUPREME COURT SHARPLY DIVIDED OVER ENFORCING MUNICIPAL HOMELESS CAMPING BAN

The stakes could not be higher, for both the immediate political prospects and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. 

As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his broad constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority — with three of its members having been appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged the former president 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.

Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election results, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Smith and several of his deputies attended the arguments. 

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO REVIEW WHETHER TRUMP IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION IN FEDERAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

The lengthy courtroom arguments raised a series of hypotheticals to explore the "outer perimeter" of criminal executive liability.

Several justices wondered whether a president could someday be prosecuted for ordering the assassination by his military of a political rival; ordering a nuclear weapons strike; or demanding a bribe for a political appointment.

"If you expunge the official part from the indictment, that's like a one-legged stool, right?" said Chief Justice John Roberts, suggesting official executive acts could be separated from partisan, unofficial acts. "I mean, giving somebody money isn't bribery unless you get something in exchange. And if what you get in exchange is to become the ambassador of a particular country, that is official: the appointment that's within the president's prerogatives. The unofficial part: I'm going to get $1,000,000 for it."

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the president could stage a coup to remain in office. When John Sauer, Trump's attorney, hedged on an answer, Kagan replied, "That answer sounds to me as though, under my test, it's an official act," subject to post-office prosecution. "But that sure sounds bad, doesn't it?"

She added there was no immunity clause in the Constitution for a good reason. "Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?"

Michael Dreeben, attorney for the Special Counsel’s office, defended the government’s position.

"It's baked into the Constitution that any president knows that they are exposed to potential criminal prosecution," he said. "It's common ground that all former presidents have known that they could be indicted and convicted. And Watergate cemented that understanding."

Sauer suggested only an impeachment and conviction in the Senate could lead to future criminal prosecution of an ex-president.

"There are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench," said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, pointing to her colleagues, "and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment. So why is the president different when the impeachment clause doesn't say so?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor focused on the specific allegations facing Trump and other potential criminal liability, which no jury has yet considered. "I'm having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe and a countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that."

TRUMP WARNS THAT IF HE LOSES PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, SO WILL 'CROOKED' JOE BIDEN

But Kavanaugh, who served as President George W. Bush's staff secretary, a key White House legal adviser on executive power, offered larger concerns.

"I'm not focused on the here and now of this case. I'm very concerned about the future," he said.

"We're writing a rule for the ages," added Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Trump faces criminal prosecution in three other jurisdictions: another federal case over his handling of classified documents while in office; a Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state's 2020 voting procedures; and a New York case over alleged fraud involving hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York state case began April 15.

But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Again, depending on how the court rules, proceedings may not get underway until later this summer, early fall, or perhaps much later.

The wildest of wildcards: Trump wins re-election and then, upon taking office, orders his attorney general to dismiss the special counsel and his cases. Some justices wondered if Trump — if re-elected — could execute a self-pardon for all past and future crimes.

But the practical fact is that Jack Smith's case is frozen for now.

And while this appeal would normally be decided in late June at the end of the Court's term, it is being expedited, so a ruling could come sooner. 

If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, the trial court will "un-pause" — meaning all the discovery and pre-trial machinations that have been on hold would resume. 

Trump's team would likely argue to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan that they need several months at least from that point to actually be ready for a jury trial. 

A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean his election interference prosecution collapses and could implicate his other pending criminal and civil cases.

But for now, Trump may have achieved a short-term win even if he eventually loses before the Supreme Court — an indefinite delay in any trial, that may carry over well past Election Day on Nov. 5.  

The case is Trump v. U.S. (23-939).

Trump attorney, Supreme Court justice clash on whether a president who ‘ordered’ a ‘coup’ could be prosecuted

An attorney for former President Donald Trump in the presidential immunity hearing clashed with Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan over a hypothetical question on whether a president who "ordered" a "coup" could be prosecuted. 

"If it's an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand," Trump's attorney John Sauer argued Thursday before the Supreme Court, which is being broadcast publicly via audio only. 

Sauer's statement was in response to Justice Elena Kagan's hypothetical question, asking if a president who is no longer in office directing the military to stage a coup would constitute an "official act."

"He's no longer president. He wasn't impeached. He couldn't be impeached. But he ordered the military to stage a coup. And you're saying that's an official act?," Kagan asked.

LIVE UPDATES: TRUMP NY TRIAL TESTIMONY RESUMES AS SUPREME COURT HEARS IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

"I think it would depend on the circumstances, whether it was an official act. If it were an official act, again, he would have to be impeached," Sauer responded. 

"What does that mean? Depend on the circumstances? He was the president. He is the commander in chief. He talks to his generals all the time. And he told the generals, 'I don't feel like leaving office. I want to stage a coup.' Is that immune [from prosecution]?" Kagan pressed.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ARGUMENTS IN TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY CASE

Sauer responded it would "depend on the circumstances of whether there was an official act" if the hypothetical president would be immune from prosecution. 

"That answer sounds to me as though it's like, 'Yeah, under my test it's an official act.' But that sure sounds bad, doesn't it?" Kagan said.

TRUMP SAYS NY JUDGE MERCHAN 'THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE SUPREME COURT' AFTER BARRING HIM FROM IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

"That's why the framers have a whole series of structural checks that have successfully, for the last 234 years, prevented that very kind of extreme hypothetical. And that is the wisdom of the framers. What they viewed as the risk that needed to be guarded against was not the notion that the president might escape, you know, a criminal prosecution for something, you know, sort of very, very unlikely in these unlikely scenarios," Sauer responded.

"The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how there were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn't provide immunity to the president. And, you know, not so surprising. They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law," Kagan said. 

The back and forth came as the Supreme Court weighs whether Trump is immune from prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case. Smith’s case is currently on pause until the Supreme Court issues a ruling. The case charged Trump 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. The case stems from Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of Trump breached the U.S. Capitol. 

TRUMP SLAMS 'BIDENOMICS' AHEAD OF COURT, CLAIMS TO HAVE A 'GOOD CHANCE' OF WINNING LIBERAL STATE

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August, and called on the Supreme Court to weigh whether a former president can be prosecuted for "official acts," as the Trump legal team argues. 

The Supreme Court is expected to reach a resolution on whether Trump is immune from prosecution by mid-June. 

Trump is also part of an ongoing trial in New York City where he is accused of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to each charge. The trial prevented Trump from attending the Supreme Court hearing Thursday. 

BIDEN INSISTS RED STATE WON TWICE BY TRUMP IS SUDDENLY 'IN PLAY'

The NY v. Trump case focuses on Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen paying former pornographic actor Stormy Daniels $130,000 to allegedly quiet her claims of an alleged extramarital affair she had with the then-real estate tycoon in 2006. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Prosecutors allege that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen, and fraudulently logged the payments as legal expenses. Prosecutors are working to prove that Trump falsified records with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime, which is a felony.  Prosecutors this week said the second crime was a violation of a New York law called "conspiracy to promote or prevent election."

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report.