Trump foes melt down that SCOTUS is unleashing ‘racial terror’ on US with ICE raid ruling

A handful of California Democrats, who are also longtime political foes of President Donald Trump, slammed a Supreme Court ruling that lifts restrictions on the Trump administration’s immigration raids in Los Angeles as "un-American" and opening the door to a "parade of racial terror."

"@realDonaldTrump's hand-picked SCOTUS majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in LA. His administration is targeting Latinos — and anyone who doesn’t look or sound like @StephenM's idea of an American — to deliberately harm our families and economy," California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted to X on Monday evening. 

Newsom, who has sparred with Trump stretching back to the president's first administration, was reacting to a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling on Monday that the Trump administration can continue deploying immigration raids in California, which blocked a lower court's ruling that halted such raids in the state. 

The case was punted to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in July blocked ICE from conducting raids in Los Angeles County, citing that they were likely unconstitutional as federal agents were detaining individuals for "apparent race or ethnicity," or speaking Spanish. Immigration activists had accused the federal government of targeting Latinos based on criteria such as speaking Spanish. The Ninth Circuit upheld the July order before the Supreme Court weighed in. 

TRUMP ADMIN SEEKS TO OVERTURN FEDERAL RESTRAINING ORDER LIMITING ICE OPERATIONS IN LOS ANGELES

Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff each issued a rebuke of the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday, calling the Trump administration's immigration raids "blatantly illegal." 

"This Administration rounded up and arrested California residents, including U.S. citizens and legal residents, based on the color of their skin or the language they speak. This is blatantly illegal, yet the Supreme Court is allowing it to happen while the case proceeds. When the history of this country’s rapid descent into dictatorship is written, Republicans in Congress and the Roberts Court will have been its primary enabler," Schiff posted to X on Monday. 

Schiff has a long documented contentious relationship with Trump, including over the Jan. 6, 2021 investigation, Trump's first impeachment trial and the Russia investigation. The California Democrat is currently under a Department of Justice investigation for alleged mortgage fraud uncovered under the second Trump administration. 

"I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of LA, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country. Today’s ruling is not only dangerous – it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S." Bass added in her own message on X

Bass and Trump have also sparred in the past, most recently over the summer when federal immigration officials first converged on the city, and back in January when wildfires ripped across Southern California and devastated the Los Angeles area. 

"Let me be clear: we will not allow the White House, nor the Supreme Court, to divide us. And to all Angelenos, I will never stop fighting for your rights, your dignity, and your safety, despite this administration’s efforts to threaten them. We will stand united," Bass continued in a press release. 

LOS ANGELES JUDGE WEIGHS SEVERE LIMITS ON TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN CALIFORNIA

The Supreme Court's majority did not include an explanation for the ruling. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, authored a concurring opinion arguing that a combination of factors — such as race — could provide authorities with reasonable suspicion to stop a person and inquire about their immigration status. 

"To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors," Kavanaugh wrote.

SUPREME COURT RULES ON TRUMP'S THIRD-COUNTRY DEPORTATIONS, IN MAJOR TEST FOR PRESIDENT

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued the dissent and argued the emergency order approving such raids was "troubling" and pointed to the majority's lack of explanation for the move.  

"We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job," Sotomayor wrote.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SUES LOS ANGELES OVER SANCTUARY POLICIES THAT 'IMPEDE' ICE OPERATIONS

The Trump administration celebrated the Supreme Court's decision on Monday. 

"This is a win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law," Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said, according to Politico. "DHS law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members, and other criminal illegal aliens… ."

The Supreme Court order follows the Trump administration ordering immigration officials to carry out raids back in June to remove individuals illegally residing in Los Angeles, which dubbed itself a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants in November before Trump was sworn back into the Oval Office. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Riots and protests subsequently broke out in the city as local leaders, such as Newsom and Bass, slammed the Trump administration's illegal immigrant crackdown and offered words of support to illegal immigrants. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom's, Bass' and Schiff's respective offices on Monday afternoon. 

Fox News Digital's Ashley Oliver contributed to this report. 

Federal judge releases woman accused of threatening to kill Trump

A woman arrested last month for allegedly making death threats against President Donald Trump has been released by a federal judge who has clashed with the Trump administration several times this year, including by attempting to block the deportations of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act.

Chief Judge James Boasberg ordered Nathalie Rose Jones, 50, released no later than Aug. 27 under electronic monitoring and instructed her to visit a psychiatrist in New York City once she retrieves her belongings from a local police station.

Boasberg’s order came after US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya ordered Jones to be held without bond and undergo a competency evaluation. She cited her "very troubling conduct" of social media posts aimed at the president, combined with the fact that she had then traveled to the District of Columbia, per WUSA9.

INDIANA WOMAN FACES FEDERAL CHARGES FOR SOCIAL MEDIA THREATS TO DISEMBOWEL TRUMP

Jones took part in a "dignified arrest ceremony" for Trump at a protest in Washington, D.C., which circumnavigated the White House complex and was arrested following an investigation into her series of concerning Instagram and Facebook posts. 

In early August, Jones labeled Trump a terrorist, referred to his administration as a dictatorship, and stated that Trump had caused extreme and unnecessary loss of life in relation to the coronavirus

"I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation present," an Aug. 6 post directed at the FBI states.

In an Aug. 14 post directed to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Jones allegedly wrote, "Please arrange the arrest and removal ceremony of POTUS Trump as a terrorist on the American People from 10-2pm at the White House on Saturday, August 16th, 2025."

The next day, Jones voluntarily agreed to an interview with the Secret Service, during which she called Trump a "terrorist" and a "nazi," authorities said. 

She said that if she had the opportunity, she would kill Trump at "the compound" if she had to and that she had a "bladed object," which she said was the weapon she would use to "carry out her mission of killing" the president.

Following the protest in Washington, D.C on Aug. 16, Jones was interviewed again by the Secret Service, during which she admitted that she had made threats towards Trump during her interview the previous day. 

She was charged with threatening to kill, kidnap, or seriously hurt the president and sending messages across state lines that contained threats to kidnap or harm someone.

BONDI DOJ FILES COMPLAINT ALLEGING MISCONDUCT BY FEDERAL JUDGE JAMES BOASBERG

Upadhyaya expressed concern over the gravity of Jones’s threats and ruled they were serious enough to justify detention and scheduled a status conference and preliminary hearing for Sept. 2, with prosecutors required to secure an indictment by Sept. 15.

But Jones’s lawyers, who had argued their client was unarmed and had no real desire to follow through with the threats, appealed Upadhyaya’s detention decision, and Boasberg overturned Upadhyaya’s detention order.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. 

Boasberg, a President Barack Obama appointee, has found himself in the crosshairs of the Trump administration several times this year.

In March, he issued a temporary restraining order seeking to block Trump’s use of a 1798 wartime-era immigration law, the Alien Enemies Act, to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador.

Boasberg ordered all planes bound for El Salvador to be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil, which did not happen, and later, ordered a new investigation to determine whether the Trump administration had complied with his orders. 

In April, he ruled that the court had grounds to move on possible contempt proceedings, though that ruling was stayed by a higher appeals court, which has yet to consider the matter.

His March 15 order touched off a complex legal saga that ultimately spawned dozens of deportation-related court challenges across the country — though the one brought before Boasberg was the very first — and later prompted the Supreme Court to rule, on two separate occasions, that the hurried removals had violated migrants' due process protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Trump has publicly attacked him as a "Radical Left Lunatic" and called for his impeachment.

In July, Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg, accusing him of making improper comments about President Trump's administration, Chief Justice Roberts, and roughly two dozen other federal judges — remarks that she allegedly argued undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 

Boasberg allegedly warned the judges that he believed the Trump Administration would "disregard rulings of federal courts" and trigger "a constitutional crisis." 

"Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders," the complaint reads. "Nor did Judge Boasberg identify any purported violations of court orders to justify his unprecedented predictions."

Fox News’ Breanne Deppisch and Louis Casiano contributed to this report. 

Winsome Earle-Sears rebukes Spanberger plan to undo Virginia’s ICE pact: ‘This is not hard’

EXCLUSIVE: Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears rebuked a plan announced Wednesday by her 2025 gubernatorial opponent Abigail Spanberger to rescind an executive order that gives law enforcement and jailers authority to work with ICE in particular circumstances.

"Well, we know she won't be able to do that because she's not going to win," Earle-Sears quipped in a Wednesday interview.

"The people of Virginia are going to vote for me because [Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s order is] common sense and is keeping them safe. They have been safe since we've been in office," she said.

Earle-Sears said she and Youngkin have overseen a one-third drop in statewide crime, and she dismissed Spanberger’s remarks — first made in a Virginia Mercury interview — as "dangerous ideas" that are "all theory; no practical usage."

VIRGINIA LEADERS REBUKE RACIST SIGN TARGETING GOP GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE WINSOME EARLE-SEARS: ‘REPULSIVE’

Youngkin’s order sought to "maximize collaboration" with DHS and "us[e] all available methods to facilitate the arrest and deportation of inadmissible and removable criminal illegal immigrants."

To that end, Earle-Sears said Spanberger’s pledge ignores major developments in the battle against illegal immigrant gangs and the like.

"The number three MS-13 [was captured] right here in Manassas under her nose in her former neck of the woods," Earle-Sears said of Salvadoran national Henrry Josue Villatoro-Santos, who is alleged to be a top ranking member of the transnational gang.

Villatoro-Santos, 24, was arrested in March in Dale City – a middle-class suburb along I-95 between Fredericksburg and Washington – in an operation overseen by the FBI’s Manassas Field Office from the other side of Prince William County.

Spanberger previously represented the area in Congress – in a seat now held by Democrat Yevgeny "Eugene" Vindman, the twin brother of high-profile Trump impeachment figure Alexander Vindman.

In breaking the news earlier Wednesday, Spanberger said, "I would rescind [Youngkin’s] executive order, yes."

Spanberger said the Youngkin-Sears effort pulls local law enforcement away from their regular duties and wrongly encourages the state to dabble in federal roles.

DNC HIRES NEW TOP EXEC WITH LONG HISTORY OF PUSHING RACIAL GRIEVANCES, LEFTIST IDEOLOGY

The Democrat called the U.S. immigration system "absolutely broken" and said allowing cops to help "tear families apart [is] a misuse of … resources."

Earle-Sears said officials in Richmond cannot focus on economic development and other top concerns of Virginians unless those constituents live in a safe environment.

Therefore, she said, separating themselves from DHS is counterproductive and "dangerous" to both the citizenry and the federal agents conducting the immigration operations.

The Republican nominee emphasized that she, too, is an immigrant — stressing that she came to the U.S. legally — and contrasted her story with that of many illegal immigrants arrested with criminal records, noting that her family came from Jamaica in search of opportunity and a better life.

"These criminal illegal immigrants, they come here for an opportunity to prey on us, and they prey on the very population that they're a part of," she said.

"We don't want that."

Youngkin also responded to the news, asking rhetorically if November’s "choice could be any more clear."

"In her very first act as governor, [Abigail Spanberger] promises to turn Virginia into a sanctuary state for dangerous illegal immigrants," Youngkin said on X. 

"[Earle-Sears] promises to keep dangerous criminals off our streets," the term-limited governor said.

DOJ faces off with entire Maryland federal bench over automatic pauses in deportation cases

A judge appeared skeptical on Wednesday of the Department of Justice's arguments related to an unusual lawsuit the Trump administration brought against all 15 district court judges in Maryland challenging a court order.

Judge Thomas Cullen of the Western District of Virginia questioned the DOJ over the lawsuit, which alleges that the Maryland district court overstepped its authority by imposing a standing order that automatically pauses deportation cases for two days when they are first filed.

Cullen, a Trump appointee, told DOJ attorneys early on in the hearing he was wary of their position.

"One of the things about me is that I don’t have a very good poker face, and you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism," Cullen said.

TRUMP DHS SUES ENTIRE BENCH OF FEDERAL JUDGES IN MARYLAND DISTRICT COURT OVER AUTOMATIC INJUNCTIONS

The Virginia federal judge is presiding over the case in Baltimore because the Maryland judges recused themselves. Cullen said he would issue a decision by Labor Day on whether he would block the standing order.

DOJ attorney Elizabeth Hedges argued during the hearing that the Maryland court's order had the effect of "tampering with the [U.S.] attorney general’s discretion" over immigration enforcement matters.

The order requires clerks to immediately enter administrative injunctions that last two business days in cases brought by alleged illegal immigrants who are challenging their detentions or removals. The injunctions have the effect of temporarily barring the Department of Homeland Security from deporting or changing the legal status of an immigrant until a judge has time to review the case.

Hedges argued that the judges automatically enter the orders in these cases even if the court lacks jurisdiction in some of them.

The lawsuit, brought in June, comes as the Trump administration has taken an aggressive public posture against individual federal judges who have blocked enforcement of many of the president's executive actions, including in areas of immigration, education and federal agency cuts.

President Donald Trump has complained his agenda has been hamstrung and has called for the impeachment of certain judges whose orders he disagrees with. But the Supreme Court has, in many cases, overrode judges and allowed Trump to temporarily implement his executive actions while the lawsuits proceed in the lower courts.

Attorney Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of the Maryland judges, said during the hearing that there were "less confrontational" alternatives to resolving differences with the courts than suing every member of a district court.

Clement, a renowned conservative lawyer who served as former President George Bush's solicitor general, defended the standing order, calling it a "modest effort to preserve the judiciary's ability to perform its constitutionally assigned role."

'LAWLESS AND INSANE': TRUMP ADMIN READIES FOR FIGHT AFTER JUDGES BLOCK ABREGO GARCIA REMOVAL FOR NOW

Chief Judge George Russell of Maryland said he issued the standing order as a scheduling convenience to make sure the "status quo" is preserved when a deportation case is filed. He cited a "recent influx" of cases involving detained immigrants that were being filed after normal court hours, including on weekends and holidays.

The lawsuit represents a test of the independence of the judiciary branch. Clement said it was "fundamentally incompatible" with the separation of powers.

"We just don’t have a tradition of suits that are executive versus judiciary, executive versus Congress, Congress versus the executive," Clement said, adding that "we don’t really expect one branch to sue another to try to vindicate its institutional interests."

The lawsuit also comes as Trump's mass deportation agenda has encountered some roadblocks as immigrants raise court challenges and appeals to their removals.

Perhaps the most prominent instance of this occurred in Maryland, where Judge Paula Xinis, now one of the 15 defendants in the lawsuit against the judges, ordered the government to return Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. after the Trump administration admitted to the court it mistakenly deported him to a prison in El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia has since been returned and is facing criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants. He has pleaded not guilty.

Democrats attempting to visit Brooklyn ICE facility reportedly ‘trapped’ after being rebuffed by agents

Three Democratic New York City federal lawmakers attempted to gain entry to the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, where as many as 100 illegal immigrants are being held, according to one state lawmaker.

Images posted Wednesday by the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) showed Reps. Adriano Espaillat, Nydia Velazquez and Daniel Goldman walking toward the MDC with the Gowanus Expressway in the background.

The NYIC said the lawmakers had been refused entry to the prison, which has a history of high-profile inmates, including currently Sean "P. Diddy" Combs and Luigi Mangione, and formerly ex-Trump attorney Michael Cohen and MSNBC host Al Sharpton after he was arrested for trespassing on a Puerto Rican bombing range in 2001.

"Masked agents refused [the lawmakers’] oversight access to Sunset Park [MDC] and have now trapped them between a fence and the facility," NYIC tweeted.

SENATOR SAYS BALTIMORE ICE FACILITY HIDES ‘EVIL PERSISTING IN DARKNESS’ AFTER DEMS TRY NEWARK REDUX

"They can’t get out or get in."

A spokesperson for Espaillat told Fox News Digital officials "closed the gate and ran away for about 20-30 minutes."

"No one could get in or out – either way – locking the members in for that time period."

Fox News Digital reached out to Goldman and Velazquez for further comment.

Fox News Digital also reached out to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security for their accounting of the incident.

GRAHAM MOCKS DEMOCRATS AS DEA CHIEF PICK CONFIRMS MS-13 GANG TATTOOS

The situation marks the third time in recent weeks that lawmakers have attempted to gain entry to otherwise secure federal holding facilities.

Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., was arrested for allegedly accosting federal agents outside a jail in her home city of Newark.

DEMOCRATS CELEBRATE RETURN OF SUSPECTED HUMAN TRAFFICKER KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA

McIver had been joined by several other lawmakers, including Rep. Robert Menendez Jr., D-N.J., son of the former senator, who is currently imprisoned separately on bribery charges.

Reps. Kweisi Mfume, Sarah Elfreth, Johnny Olzewski Jr. and Sens. Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., were all similarly rebuffed at a Baltimore ICE office where a handful of detained immigrants were reportedly being held.

ICE said at the time that the building, near Charles Center in the city’s downtown, is not a true holding facility and only a processing center.

In the Brooklyn case, New York Democrats have railed against ICE for some time for their use of the jail as a detention facility for illegal immigrants.

State Sen. Andrew Gounardes, D-Bay Ridge, said in July that MDC Brooklyn recently began holding more than 100 detainees and claimed that many have no criminal records.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"ICE is disappearing immigrants, many of whom have no criminal records, into a jail that a judge called ‘contemptuous of human life and dignity.’ That should appall all of us," Gounardes said in a statement.

"This isn’t about public safety—it’s a show of force meant to instill fear in our communities and keep immigrants in the shadows. It’s incredibly dangerous, disturbing and un-American. It must end now."

Prior to his visit Wednesday, Goldman – who served as Sen. Adam Schiff’s, D-Calif., lead attorney in the congressional impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump – lambasted the president for his administration’s decision to utilize the MDC.

"Rather than continuing the Biden administration’s efforts to boost staffing and reduce lockdowns at the MDC, the Trump administration has reversed those improvements and is now further overloading an already unsafe and understaffed facility with dozens of immigrants with no criminal history," Goldman said.

According to ICE’s Office of Congressional Relations website, members of Congress need only submit a request via email at least seven days in advance of their desired visit.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson explained to Fox News Digital that the seven-day requirement is meant to "prevent interference with the President’s Article II authority to oversee executive department functions."

The spokesperson also noted that "ICE law enforcement has seen a surge in assaults of 830%, as well as disruptions and obstructions to enforcement, including by politicians themselves," in an apparent reference to McIver.

Fox News Digital’s Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.

Democrat John Fetterman declares support for ICE, condemning any calls for abolition as ‘outrageous’

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., has expressed support for the work performed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and condemned any calls to put the kibosh on the federal law enforcement agency.

"ICE performs an important job for our country," he declared in a post on X, describing "Any calls to abolish ICE" as "inappropriate and outrageous."

Multiple Republican lawmakers agreed with Fetterman.

FETTERMAN ISSUES ‘DO’ AND ‘DO NOT’ LIST, DOUBLING DOWN ON ANTI-VIOLENCE MESSAGE AFTER CALLING OUT LA ‘ANARCHY’

"Amen," Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a post when retweeting his Democratic colleague's post.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., also expressed agreement with Fetterman's comments.

"Seconded," a post on Lee's @SenMikeLee X account that retweeted Fetterman declares.

"I concur. Thank you Senator," Mace noted when retweeting Fetterman's post.

‘NOT A DEMOCRAT’: JOHN FETTERMAN CALLS ZOHRAN MAMDANI'S NYC PRIMARY WIN A ‘GIFT’ TO THE GOP

The post on Fetterman's @SenFettermanPA X account echoed comments the senator had made previously. 

"ICE agents are just doing their job," he told Fox News' Tyler Olson, adding, "I fully support that." Regarding any Democrats who want to abolish ICE or "treat them as criminals," Fetterman decried that as "inappropriate" as well as "outrageous."

But Fetterman has also expressed support for the prospect of amnesty for migrant workers.

DEMOCRATIC SEN. FETTERMAN SHUTS DOWN AOC'S CALL FOR TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT AFTER IRAN STRIKES

"Absolutely support amnesty for the hardworking, otherwise law-abiding migrant workers. Round up and deport the criminals. We must acknowledge the critical contribution migrants make to our nation’s economy," he noted in a post on X.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soros-backed Philly DA could face uphill battle for re-election if GOP write-in scheme succeeds

In the six-to-one Democrat stronghold of Philadelphia, winning a seat as a Republican is tough to say the least.  There hasn’t been a Republican mayor since Bernard Samuel in the 1950s, for example. 

So it may not be that surprising that the local GOP has a plan it hopes will give a Democrat primary challenger to incumbent District Attorney Lawrence Krasner a crucial second round against the Soros-backed prosecutor should he get knocked out in Tuesday's primary election.

Krasner is facing fellow Democrat and former judge Pat Dugan, who also has the support of several Democrat ward committees and Philadelphia political stalwarts like state Sen. Tina Tartaglione, plus a slew of union groups like IAFF and the Teamsters.

In his pitch to voters, Dugan drafted a "geographic prosecution plan" to crack down on crime in the city.

2024: THE YEAR LAW AND ORDER WAS RESTORED BY VOTERS

"This plan is about more than just fighting crime—it’s about rebuilding communities. [It] will hold criminals accountable, provide second chances when appropriate, and ensure every neighborhood feels the impact of a fair and just system they can trust and believe in again," Dugan said in a statement on his campaign site.

Krasner, seeking a third term, has been lambasted for his progressive criminal justice policies and faced impeachment proceedings from Republicans in the now-Democrat-controlled State House of Representatives.

In 2023, a Commonwealth Court judge ruled the GOP-controlled Senate cannot hold a trial because the House’s articles of impeachment didn’t meet the bench’s standards.

One top Republican, 2022 gubernatorial nominee Sen. Doug Mastriano, notably opposed Krasner’s impeachment, quipping, "Philadelphia: They want Krasner – they like him. That’s a huge mandate."

While there was a drop in homicides year-over-year in 2023, Philadelphia saw a spike from 351 the year he took office in 2018 to 562 in 2021. Krasner also ceased charges for certain offenses like marijuana possession, eliminated cash bail for some offenders and has sought generally more lenient sentences than conservatives want.

In the city where then-Mayor James Kenney did a dance on social media to celebrate its inception as a sanctuary city, Krasner has followed up by refusing to honor ICE detainer requests, saying that letting the feds tell him who to jail is unconstitutional.

PHILADELPHIA DA KRASNER SLAMMED BY MURDER VICTIM'S SISTER: WE'RE FED UP

Krasner’s backing from about $1.45 million in political action committee support tied to Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros has also led to criticism.

Last week, Dugan told PhillyVoice the city is feeling "Krasner fatigue" after eight years.

"Many people come up to me and tell stories about how upset they are with some of the policies with the DA's office," he said.

Republicans, largely out of power in the city for decades outside of two at-large city council seats that they – or independents – must statutorily be elected to, see Dugan’s candidacy as an opportunity to oust Krasner and have a way to give him a second chance should he fail in Tuesday's primary.

The city’s Republican Party funded a website advising voters to write-in Dugan on the Republican line. By law, if Dugan receives 1,000 write-ins, he will be named the Republican general election nominee unless he declines the opportunity. That would give more city voters a chance to turn out Krasner in the November general election.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"This is about making crime in Philadelphia illegal," PhillyGOP chair Vince Fenerty told the South Philly Review.

Fox News Digital reached out to both Krasner and Dugan via their campaigns for comment but did not hear back by the publication deadline.

Supreme Court to debate Trump restrictions on birthright citizenship and enforcement of nationwide injunctions

The case on the Supreme Court's docket this week ostensibly deals with a challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship.

But overriding that important constitutional debate is a more immediate and potentially far-reaching test of judicial power: the ability of individual federal judges to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, preventing temporary enforcement of President Donald Trump's sweeping executive actions.

That will be the focus when the nine justices hear oral arguments Thursday morning about how President Trump's restrictions on who can be called an American citizen can proceed in the lower federal courts.

Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office that would end automatic citizenship for children of people in the U.S. illegally.

SUPREME COURT POISED TO MAKE MAJOR DECISION THAT COULD SET LIMITS ON THE POWER OF DISTRICT JUDGES

Separate coalitions of about two dozen states, along with immigrant rights groups, and private individuals — including several pregnant women in Maryland — have sued.

Three separate federal judges subsequently issued orders temporarily blocking enforcement across the country while the issues are fully litigated in court. Appeals courts have declined to disturb those rulings.

Now the three consolidated cases come to the high court in an unusual scenario, a rare May oral argument that has been fast-tracked for an expected ruling in coming days or weeks.

The executive order remains on hold nationwide until the justices decide.

But the cases will likely not be decided on the merits at this stage, only on whether to narrow the scope of those injunctions. That would allow the policy to take effect in limited parts of the country or only to those plaintiffs actually suing over the president's authority.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE

A high court decision could be sweeping, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 — and counting — federal lawsuits against White House actions filed since Jan. 20, according to a Fox News data analysis.

Of those, more than 200 judicial orders have halted large parts of the president's agenda from being enacted, almost 40 of them nationwide injunctions. Dozens of other cases have seen no legal action so far on gateway issues like temporary enforcement.

While the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the use of universal injunctions, several conservative justices have expressed concerns over  power.

Justice Clarence Thomas in 2018 labeled them "legally and historically dubious," adding, "These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system – preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch."

And it comes to the Supreme Court as part of the so-called emergency or "shadow" docket, time-sensitive appeals known officially as "applications" that usually arrive in the early stages.

They seek to temporarily block or delay a lower court or government action that, despite its procedurally narrow posture, can have immediate and far-reaching implications.

Things like requests for stays of execution, voting restrictions, COVID vaccine mandates or access to a federally approved abortion medication and, since January, Trump's sweeping executive reform plans.

Some members of the court have expressed concern that these kinds of appeals are arriving with greater frequency in recent years, high-profile issues leading to rushed decisions without the benefit of full briefing or deliberation.

'ACTIVIST' JUDGES KEEP TRYING TO CURB TRUMP’S AGENDA – HERE’S HOW HE COULD PUSH BACK

Justice Elena Kagan last year said the shadow docket's caseload has been "relentless," adding, "We’ve gotten into a pattern where we're doing too many of them."

The pace this term has only increased with the new administration frustrated at dozens of lower court setbacks.

"We've seen a lot of justices critical of the fact that the court is taking an increasing number of cases and deciding them using the shadow docket," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department lawyer and a top appellate advocate. 

"These justices say, 'Look, we don't have to decide this on an emergency basis. We can wait.'"

Many progressive lawyers complain the Trump administration has been too eager to bypass the normal district and intermediate appellate court process, seeking quick, end-around Supreme Court review on consequential questions of law only when it loses.

The debate over birthright citizenship and injunctions is expected to expose further ideological divides on the court's 6-3 conservative majority.

That is especially true when it comes to the 13 challenges over Trump policies that have reached the justices so far, with six of them awaiting a ruling.

The court's three more liberal justices have pushed back at several preliminary victories for the administration, including its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport scores of illegal immigrants suspected of criminal gang activity in the U.S.

TRUMP'S REMARKS COULD COME BACK TO BITE HIM IN ABREGO GARCIA DEPORTATION BATTLE

Dissenting in one such emergency appeal over the deportations to El Salvador, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law." 

"Our job is to stand up for people who can't do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes," Sotomayor separately told an American Bar Association audience last week. "But, right now, we can't lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight."

Trump has made no secret of his disdain for judges who have ruled against his policies or at least blocked them from being immediately implemented.

He called for the formal removal of one federal judge after an adverse decision over deporting illegal immigrants. That prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public statement, saying, "Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."

And in separate remarks last week, the chief justice underscored the judiciary's duty to "check the excesses of Congress or the executive."

The first section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Trump said last month he was "so happy" the Supreme Court will hear arguments, adding, "I think the case has been so misunderstood."

The president said the 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to people born in the U.S., was ratified right after the Civil War, which he interpreted as "all about slavery."

"If you look at it that way, we would win that case," the president said in Oval Office remarks.

Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," would deny it to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are illegal immigrants. And it bans federal agencies from issuing or accepting documents recognizing citizenship for those children.

An estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 are living with an unauthorized immigrant parent, according to the Pew Research Center. There are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, 3.3% of the population. Although some census experts suggest those numbers may be higher.

But in its legal brief filed with the high court, the Justice Department argues the issue now is really about judges blocking enforcement of the president's policies while the cases weave their way through the courts, a process that could last months or even years. The government initially framed its high court appeal as a "modest request."

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS ADDRESSES DIVISIONS BETWEEN JUSTICES AFTER SEVERAL RECENT SCOTUS SKIRMISHES

"These injunctions exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III [of the Constitution] and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II," said Solicitor General John Sauer, who will argue the administration's case Thursday. "Until this Court decides whether nationwide injunctions are permissible, a carefully selected subset of district courts will persist in granting them as a matter of course, relying on malleable eye-of-the-beholder criteria."

The plaintiffs counter the government is misguided in what it calls "citizenship stripping" and the use of nationwide injunctions.

"Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay," said Nicholas Brown, the attorney general of Washington state. "If this Court steps in when the applicant [government] is so plainly wrong on the law, there will be no end to stay applications and claims of emergency, undermining the proper role and stature of this Court. This Court should deny the applications."

The consolidated cases are Trump v. CASA (24a884); Trump v. State of Washington (24a885); Trump v. New Jersey (24a886). 

Boasberg contempt showdown looms after Supreme Court hands Trump immigration win

A federal judge is weighing whether to hold Trump administration officials in civil contempt after they defied a court order blocking deportation flights last month – even as the Supreme Court on Monday handed the administration a temporary legal victory, allowing it to resume use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants.

President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda is colliding with the federal judiciary as his administration races to fulfill a central campaign promise: mass deportations. The aggressive pace – which has included the removal of alleged members of violent transnational gangs – has triggered a wave of legal challenges from critics who claim the administration is unlawfully ejecting migrants from the country.

The high court’s 5–4 decision, which Trump praised on X as a "great day for justice in America," lifted a lower court’s injunction and allows deportations to resume for now, though with added due process protections. The unsigned, four-page ruling focused narrowly on the lower court’s order and permits the administration to invoke the wartime-era Alien Enemies Act to expedite removals. 

However, the ruling does little to halt the escalating feud between the Trump administration and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has signaled he may hold administration officials in contempt for defying his order last month to ground deportation flights. Boasberg is set to preside over a hearing Tuesday to address the administration’s use of the state secrets privilege to block the court from accessing information about the flights. It will mark the judge’s first opportunity to respond since the Supreme Court sided with Trump.

JUDGE BOASBERG POISED TO HOLD TRUMP ADMIN IN CONTEMPT, TAKES DOWN NAMES OF DHS OFFICIALS: 'PRETTY SKETCHY'

Though Trump and his allies celebrated the Supreme Court’s intervention, the decision offers only a narrow and potentially short-lived reprieve.

The ruling requires the administration to provide detainees slated for removal with proper notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportation in court. However, the justices said those legal challenges must be filed in Texas – not in Washington, D.C. – a jurisdictional shift that injects fresh uncertainty into the lower court proceedings. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned that the ruling would make it significantly harder for individuals to contest their removals on a case-by-case basis.

"We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this," she said.  

Boasberg blocked the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act for a 14-day period last month to allow the court time to review the case on its merits. The order drew scathing criticism from Trump, who labeled Boasberg an "activist judge" and called for his impeachment – prompting a rare warning from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Boasberg has said he will decide as early as this week whether to pursue civil contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials for defying his order.

Three planes carrying 261 migrants – including more than 100 individuals slated for removal solely under the Alien Enemies Act – were flown to El Salvador last month from the U.S., around the same time Boasberg issued an emergency order blocking the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan nationals for 14 days.

Boasberg also issued a bench ruling ordering that all migrant flights be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil. The administration did not comply, and hours later, the planes arrived in El Salvador.

At a show-cause hearing last week, Boasberg instructed Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign to determine who in the administration knew about the restraining order and when. He also demanded to know who made the decision not to comply, saying that information could be relevant if he moves forward with contempt proceedings.

Boasberg contested Ensign's suggestion that the administration may not have violated the emergency restraining order.

"It seems to me there is a fair likelihood that that is not correct," Boasberg told Ensign. "In fact, the government acted in bad faith throughout that day," he added.

SUPREME COURT GRANTS TRUMP REQUEST TO LIFT STAY HALTING VENEZUELAN DEPORTATIONS

Boasberg asked follow-up questions about agency affiliation, titles and the spelling of officials' names – suggesting he would be examining their roles in the case very closely as he weighed whether there was probable cause to move on civil contempt. Ensign repeatedly told the court he did not know and was not privy to the information himself. "I made diligent efforts to obtain that information," he told Boasberg.

The Trump administration’s repeated failure to meet court deadlines may give Boasberg grounds to proceed with civil contempt proceedings, even if jurisdictional questions limit his ability to rule on the plaintiffs’ broader request for a preliminary injunction.

Government lawyers have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights and whether the plane (or planes) of migrants knowingly departed U.S. soil after the judge ordered them not to do so, citing national security protections. 

The Supreme Court has affirmed that federal judges have the authority to compel parties to act and hold them accountable for defying court orders in both civil and criminal cases.

The potential contempt proceedings come amid soaring tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, as Trump administration officials clash with federal judges overseeing a flood of lawsuits and emergency requests to halt administration actions. While contempt findings against executive officials are rare, they are not without precedent.

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

In civil cases, a judge will often reiterate the original order and set clear steps and deadlines for the party to demonstrate compliance. If those deadlines are missed, the court can take further action to compel obedience – consistent with the basic principle that "all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly."

Boasberg sharply criticized Trump officials for failing to comply with his bench order requiring deportation flights to return to the U.S. and for refusing to provide basic information about the individuals who were removed. During last week’s hearing, it became clear the administration had not been withholding classified materials, as previously implied — a revelation that appeared to undercut its national security justification and drew further frustration from the judge. He also noted that the administration may have violated multiple court deadlines, including one that allowed sensitive information to be filed under seal.

"Can you think of one instance" where the state secrets privilege was invoked using unclassified info? Boasberg asked Ensign, who struggled to respond.

"Pretty sketchy," Boasberg said aloud in response.

The judge, visibly frustrated, pressed further. "You standing here have no idea who made the decision not to bring the planes back or have the passengers not be disembarked upon arrival?" He then continued to question Ensign about the names, locations, and agencies of the individuals involved in the removals.

"If you really believed everything you did that day was legal and could survive a court challenge, I can't believe you ever would have operated in the way you did," Boasberg said. 

Now comes Tuesday’s pivotal hearing, as Boasberg weighs whether the administration’s national security claims are justified or merely an attempt to shield misconduct from judicial scrutiny.