EXCLUSIVE: A conservative legal watchdog is expected to file a brief with a Kentucky court to urge a judge against blessing a consent decree forged by Attorney General Merrick Garland and the city of Louisville and Jefferson County, Ky., that would reform police practices after the controversial 2020 death of Breonna Taylor.
The Oversight Project is placing its amicus brief on the docket of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on Friday morning as a judge prepares a schedule to rule on activating the agreement.
Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell said the consent decree includes a "laundry list of BLM-type standards that have been argued for over the years since George Floyd['s death in 2020]" and the riots that followed.
"Louisville would be a sanctuary city for gangbangers," Howell warned, adding he hopes Friday’s addition to the docket gives the court pause before agreeing to any accelerated timeline for approval.
Taylor was killed in a hail of police gunfire after Louisville officers sought to serve a drug warrant at her boyfriend Kenneth Walker’s house, when her beau fired a "warning shot" through the door and struck Officer Jonathan Mattingly in the leg.
A hail of return fire followed, fatally wounding Taylor, and five officers were later involved in legal cases where one was found guilty of deprivation of rights under the color of law for reportedly firing blindly through a window amid the chaos.
Walker later alleged he mistook the police for intruders and did not hear them announce themselves. Louisville wound up paying Taylor’s family $12 million in a wrongful death settlement.
Last week, Garland announced the consent decree with Louisville, saying it will bring about needed systemic reforms to policing to prevent a repeat of what happened to Taylor.
Howell said, however, that the decree will only hamstring the police department and also defy the will of Kentucky voters who elected new Republicans on the Louisville council on the issue of law and order.
"[The decree] basically limits the ability for officers to react quickly and in a strong way. It's very heavy on the de-escalation techniques, particularly as it relates to this category of people who they call ‘behaviorally impaired’ or something to that effect," Howell said.
Howell said there is concern over the spiking teenage murder rate – violence committed by suspects aged 11-17 – and that the decree wrongly imposes new standards for dealing with youth offenders as well as stop-and-frisk restrictions.
One of the most glaring issues with the agreement is the fact Louisville councilmen, Kentucky lawmakers and the general public will all be prevented from making further adjustments to policing policies for five years, if the judge signs the decree.
In a consent decree system, an official monitor appointed by the judge, and not the relevant legislature, is the arbiter of policies that fall under said agreement unless both parties that forged it agree to change them.
Howell said, in that regard, the Biden Justice Department and Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg, a Democrat, appear to be rushing through the legal process to head off the likelihood a Trump Justice Department will balk at the agreement.
"The most basic responsibility of government is to keep our people safe while protecting constitutional rights and treating everyone fairly," Greenberg said in a statement about the decree. "As mayor, I promised to uphold that responsibility, and I have."
"The Department of Justice saw the action we’ve already taken and our commitment to aggressively implement police reform. As a result of these improvements, we have a consent decree unlike any other city in America."
Greenberg said any decree must build on reforms made in recent years, cannot "handcuff police as they work to prevent crime" and also be financially responsible and have a clear sunset date.
"I felt comfortable signing this because our officers will have clear guidance and goals to meet, the DOJ can’t move the goalposts, and our officers can focus on good police work, not paperwork," added Louisville Police Chief Paul Humphrey.
The Oversight Project’s amicus brief is backed by law enforcement advocacy leaders like Jason Johnson, president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund.
Johnson, whose group promotes constitutional policing and studies similar consent decrees, told Fox News Digital it's clear the Biden DOJ realizes such an agreement would be "D.O.A." when President-elect Donald Trump assumes the Oval Office.
"Most of these police consent decrees are more of an activist wish list than effective means to remedy constitutional violations by police agencies. The Justice Department is trying to impose burdensome rules that far exceed their authority under law," Johnson said.
He suggested that technical assistance letters, which aim to encourage reforms without imposing a judicial arbiter, are generally preferred in most cases.
"But, the activist lawyers in the Biden administration prefer to use a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel. This approach has proven counterproductive time and again — hurting public safety, police morale, and police-community relations more than it helps."
Meanwhile, Howell said he hopes the Kentucky judge will see that Greenberg and Garland are trying to "turn him into a legislature" when it comes to law enforcement practices.
Under the consent decree system, the policy changes will be untouchable by a more hawkish Trump DOJ for up to five years, rendering the new administration’s predicted actions in the law enforcement realm moot in Louisville.
Criminals will likely endorse the decree, he said, as they will use the encyclopedia of new policing standards to their benefit.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, has filed a lawsuit against a New York doctor who allegedly prescribed abortion drugs to a woman in the Lone Star State, violating Texas law.
Paxton accused Dr. Margaret Carpenter of mailing pills from New York to a 20-year-old woman in Collin County, Texas, where the woman allegedly took the medication when she was nine weeks pregnant, according to the lawsuit.
When she began experiencing severe bleeding, she asked the baby's father, who had been unaware she was pregnant, to take her to the hospital.
The filing does not state if the woman successfully terminated her pregnancy or if she experienced any long-term medical complications from taking mifepristone and misoprostol.
Paxton's lawsuit is the first attempt to test legal protections when it comes to states with conflicting abortion laws since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending federal protection on the matter.
Texas has enacted an abortion ban with few exceptions, while New York protects access to the procedure and has a shield law that protects providers from out-of-state investigations and prosecutions, which has been viewed as implicit permission for doctors to mail abortion pills into states with restrictions.
Texas has promised to pursue cases like this regardless of the shield laws, though it is unclear what the courts may decide on this issue, which involves extraterritoriality, interstate commerce and other legal questions. New York’s law allows Carpenter to refuse to comply with Texas' court orders.
It is also unknown whether New York courts would side with protecting Texas' law, which prohibits prescribing abortion-inducing drugs by mail and prohibits treating Texas patients or prescribing medication through telehealth services without a valid Texas medical license.
Texas’ abortion laws prohibit prosecuting a woman for getting an abortion, but do allow for physicians or others who assist a woman in receiving the procedure to be prosecuted.
The lawsuit says Carpenter, the founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, knowingly treated Texas residents despite not being a licensed Texas physician and not being authorized to practice telemedicine in the state. Paxton urged a Collin County court to prohibit Carpenter from violating Texas law and impose civil penalties of at least $100,000 for each violation.
"In this case, an out-of-state doctor violated the law and caused serious harm to this patient," Paxton said in a statement. "This doctor prescribed abortion-inducing drugs — unauthorized, over telemedicine — causing her patient to end up in the hospital with serious complications. In Texas, we treasure the health and lives of mothers and babies, and this is why out-of-state doctors may not illegally and dangerously prescribe abortion-inducing drugs to Texas residents."
Carpenter also works with AidAccess, an international abortion medication provider, and helped found Hey Jane, a telehealth abortion provider.
New Jersey-based attorney Alina Habba hit the nation’s radar back in 2021, becoming President-elect Trump's fierce legal defender and then spokeswoman as he battled an onslaught of legal cases and criminal charges ahead of his decisive win against Vice President Kamala Harris last month.
Now, Habba is readying to take on a new role: counselor to the president under Trump's second administration.
"Alina has been a tireless advocate for Justice, a fierce Defender of the Rule of Law, and an invaluable Advisor to my Campaign and Transition Team," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social last week, announcing her new role. "She has been unwavering in her loyalty, and unmatched in her resolve - standing with me through numerous ‘trials,’ battles, and countless days in court."
Following the once and future president’s announcement, Fox News Digital took a look back at Habba’s legal career and meteoric rise in Trump’s orbit and, now, the White House.
Habba is the managing partner of Habba Madaio & Associates LLP, a law firm based in Bedminster, New Jersey, that also practices in New York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. Habba, 40, is a New Jersey native, born to Chaldean Catholic Iraqi immigrant parents. She attended Lehigh University in Pennsylvania as an undergraduate before earning her J.D. from Widener University.
"As a devout Catholic, a proud first generation Arab American woman, and a feisty Jersey girl who’s fed up with far-left corruption in Washington – President Trump championed my journey, empowering me to become who I am today. His unwavering support not only shaped my career but has inspired other young women with big dreams," Habba declared in her RNC speech in July from Milwaukee.
Ahead of joining Trump's legal team, Habba litigated cases related to negligent nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also earned recognition on the Super Lawyers Rising Stars List between 2016-2022, as well as a spot on the "Top 100 Lawyers in America" list, and has supported a handful of charity efforts, including a charity that benefits pregnant homeless women, Birth Haven.
Habba has seen a meteoric rise to national prominence in recent years, after Trump hired her in 2021 to help litigate a barrage of cases leveled at him ahead of the 2024 election, becoming his legal spokesperson and trusted adviser.
Habba hit the Trump legal scene when she spearheaded a lawsuit against the former and upcoming president’s niece, Mary Trump, and the New York Times for "tortiously breaching and/or interfering with his contractual rights and otherwise maliciously conspiring against him" to obtain and publish his tax records in 2018.
Habba’s legal successes for Trump include former "Apprentice" contestant Summer Zervos dropping a defamation suit against Trump in 2021 and the dismissal of another case related to New York state-level charges over allegations Trump and the Trump Organization were involved in a fraudulent marketing company. She also notched a win earlier this year when the Supreme Court dismissed ex-lawyer Michael Cohen’s appeal to revive a lawsuit against Trump as he sought monetary damages over his 2020 imprisonment related to lying to Congress and his previous work for Trump.
"Michael Cohen has exhausted every avenue of his pathetic attempt to drag my client into court time and time again. As expected, the Supreme Court has correctly denied Michael Cohen's petition and he must finally abandon his frivolous and desperate claims,"Habba told Fox News Digital in a statement in October.
Habba’s national name recognition grew as Trump battled the E. Jean Carroll cases.
Carroll, who previously worked as a columnist for Elle magazine, had filed two lawsuits against Trump since 2019, when she first accused him of raping her in an excerpt in her book "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal." Trump vehemently denied the allegation, saying, "it never happened," ultimately leading Carroll to sue Trump for defamation when he was still president. At the time, she was barred by the statute of limitations from suing him over the underlying rape allegation.
A jury would eventually find Trump had sexually abused Carroll and that, in denying it, defamed her, awarding her $5 million. But while that case was tied up in appeals, and with Trump continuing to deny ever even meeting Carroll, she filed another suit in 2022 alleging both defamation and rape. She was able to do this because earlier that year, New York had passed a law that allowed sex abuse plaintiffs to file a one-time civil case despite the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Habba joined the Trump legal team for the second case, in which the former president was accused of rape and defamation for social media posts in which Trump denied the allegations and accused Carroll of promoting a "hoax and a lie."
Trump was never criminally charged with sexual assault, and the initial jury found him liable for sexual abuse – though not rape. The jury specifically said Carroll hadn’t proven that Trump raped her.
The second case sought more than $10 million for damage to her reputation stemming from Trump’s comments in 2019, when he was still president. The jury ultimately awarded her $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages.
"I have sat on trial after trial for months in this state, the state of New York, Attorney General Letitia James and now this. Weeks, weeks. Why? Because President Trump is leading in the polls and now we see what you get in New York," Habba said earlier this year following the verdict.
"So don’t get it twisted," she continued, calling the case evidence of the "violation of our justice system." "I am so proud to stand with President Trump. But I am not proud to stand with what I saw in that courtroom."
Habba also battled New York Attorney General Letitia James’ civil fraud suit – one of Trump’s most high-profile cases that the AG has refused to dismiss after Trump’s electoral win.
James announced an investigation into the Trump Organization, claiming there was evidence indicating that the president and his company had falsely valued assets to obtain loans, insurance coverage and tax deductions.
Both inside the courtroom, during press conferences and in media interviews, Habba defended Trump against James’ case.
"Letitia James is putting her nose into private companies and private individuals' work, which is not what is meant to happen and the law that she’s using is a consumer fraud law. So that she can establish some way to have control, to not have a jury to do certain things in this case that are nonsensical and shouldn’t be happening and we have been fighting it all along the way. The problem we have is the judge is the one that’s going make those decisions and he’s proven himself to be quite motivated by the other side," Habba said on "Sunday Morning Futures" with host Maria Bartiromo last year.
Trump and his legal team charged that James had conducted a "witch hunt" against him after she explicitly campaigned on a platform to prosecute the president. Trump and his family denied any wrongdoing, with the former president saying his assets had been undervalued.
Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron ruled in September of last year in the non-jury trial that Trump and his organization had deceived lenders by overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth. Trump’s team called on James to drop the case following his election last month, which she rejected on Dec. 10.
Following the announcement that Habba will serve as counselor to the president, conservatives and supporters of Trump have touted Habba’s fiery defense of him over the last few years.
"I have sat with President Trump for years now while he has been targeted with lies and with judges, AGs, and DAs who have specifically run in this city and others on getting Trump," Habba said during a press conference in January following the Carroll verdict, rounding up the bevy of court cases Trump faced following his first administration.
"The Trump administration will fix this problem. We will stop Kamala Harris's regime – because she was there, let's not forget that, and she still is – of using officials from the White House, putting them in DAs' offices and AGs' offices, and attacking your political opponent," she continued.
Habba also delivered a powerful speech at the RNC in July – following Trump’s first assassination attempt – that has been revived this month for her emotional tone when she described her tight relationship with Trump.
"To my husband, whose family survived the Holocaust, [Trump] is a champion of the Jewish faith. To my Iraqi parents, he is a mentor to their daughter," she said from the RNC.
"But to me, he is my friend."
In Trump’s first administration, the counselor to the president role was filled by Fox News contributor Kellyanne Conway. The role entails advising the president on all legal matters related to the office of the president and the White House.
Habba joined Fox News’ Martha MacCallum last week, where she previewed that her new role will focus on "all things that we need to do to fix this country."
"First and foremost, anybody asked to serve this country in such an honorable role or any role, frankly, it's a responsibility that I take very seriously, but an honor. I told the president, I am there to do whatever it is you need me to do, and that's the truth. But I will say what a great privilege I will be there to advise. I will be there to help with policies that are important. I know that for me, obviously lawfare and all of the things that Pam Bondi is going to focus on are top of mind because of what we've lived for the last three and a half years. But I will tell you I'm ready to get to work, and that's on all things that we need to do to fix this country," Habba said.
Fox News Digital’s Anders Hagstrom, Brooke Singman and Greg Wehner contributed to this report.
A West Virginia state delegate-elect was arrested Thursday after allegedly threatening to kill multiple lawmakers, reportedly after being informed he might be dropped from his GOP caucus position.
Del-elect Joseph de Soto, a medical doctor from Gerrardstown – about 100 miles west of Washington, D.C. – allegedly threatened several other delegates, including the Speaker of the House, on Tuesday, reportedly expressing outrage over being told to step down.
De Soto was listed in state jail records for Berkeley County as having been booked as a "pretrial felon" for making terroristic threats.
Fox News Digital has learned that De Soto was advised of a vote removing him from a position for "undisclosed reasons," and that "he was upset" after hearing the news.
De Soto was reportedly being probed for potentially misrepresenting his medical and military information while running for office, and was subjected to a vote of expulsion from the GOP caucus, according to Huntington's CBS affiliate.
De Soto had threatened to kill several fellow Eastern Panhandle lawmakers as well as House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay.
"I am focused on four people who are evil … not angry, but at peace what I need to do," De Soto said, according to the criminal complaint. When an individual tried to stop de Soto from threatening people, his response was "I did say I am going to kill people. I said I am going (sic) what is necessary to put them (sic) from office."
De Soto said he had a vision from the Mormon Angel of Moroni to "destroy" Wayne Clark, R-Charles Town, and Dels. Michael Hite, Joe Funkhouser and Charles Horst, all R-Martinsburg. He also claimed to have been told by God to kill another lawmaker from Weirton.
"They play stupid games, they are getting stupid awards," de Soto wrote in an email to a person who complained to police, according to a law enforcement report obtained by Fox News Digital.
"I am upset only with the Eastern Panhandle delegates. I have only begun... and won't stop," he said in an email to another individual according to the complaint, which ends with: "they can all go to Hell. I will send them there as commanded,"
In an interview Friday, one such delegate – Clark – said he received a call early in his five-hour commute home from Charleston to Charles Town that his family should relocate immediately due to a threat.
"I was driving straight into a snowstorm. So, I didn't get to meet up with my family until almost 7 p.m., and I got the call at 3 p.m.," Clark said.
Clark praised the Charles Town Police Department and the Jefferson and Berkeley County sheriff’s offices for acting quickly to secure his family. He also said he hopes de Soto gets personal help.
"He obviously needs some sort of help because of some things that happened in his life prior. I don't know," he said.
The lawmaker said he understands that running for office means your identity and votes and comments are out in the public, but maintained that one’s family should never be.
"Having someone make threats that are now affecting my family, I don't know if you ever had that call: ‘Hey, Wayne. Get your family in a safe place’. Whoa. Okay. That's a tough one to deal with."
De Soto had been elected as a Republican in the 91st District, which includes the suburbs of Martinsburg. However, he reportedly filed to change his affiliation to Democratic just before his arrest.
That change could set up a partisan or legal fight as to how he is replaced, as West Virginia provides that if a delegate vacancy exists, the outgoing lawmaker's party’s county committee "shall appoint a member of the party" to the seat. The West Virginia State House is currently 89-11 Republican.
De Soto had reportedly been recently investigated for allegedly falsifying information about his medical career, which led to Republicans' concerns, according to Huntington's CBS affiliate.
West Virginia Democratic Party chair Del. Mike Pushkin said the party's thoughts are with the affected delegates and their families.
"No one—especially those working in public service—should ever have to fear for their safety or the safety of their loved ones," Pushkin, of Kanawha, said in a statement. "These allegations are deeply serious and should be treated with the full weight of the law."
In a statement, WVGOP Chairman Matt Herridge said the party is aware of the allegations and facts of the case, "as well as the steps the House GOP Caucus has taken toward [de Soto's] expulsion."
"Our elected officials sacrifice a lot to serve their communities, and it is a travesty for anyone to face the additional burden of threats made against themselves and their families. The West Virginia Republican Party supports our House leadership and their expulsion efforts."
"We disavow and condemn the behavior of the former Republican Delegate-elect and continue to thank all those who are willing to serve their communities and state, in spite of the serious challenges it too often poses."
Fox News Digital reached out to the West Virginia State Police for additional comment on de Soto’s arrest.
A call to a number listed for de Soto was not returned.
Former FBI source Alexander Smirnov has struck a plea agreement with the office of special counsel David Weiss, agreeing to plead guilty on several counts.
The document notes that Smirnov is agreeing to plead guilty to "Count Two of the indictment in United States v. Alexander Smirnov … which charges defendant with causing the creation of a false and fictitious record in a federal investigation … " and agreeing to plead guilty to charges of tax evasion.
Smirnov is accused of providing false information to the FBI.
He signed off on a statement of facts in support of the plea agreement, which echoes allegations that had been made against him in an indictment.
Smirnov allegedly "provided false derogatory information to the FBI about Public Official 1, an elected official in the Obama-Biden Administration who left office in January 2017, and Businessperson 1, the son of Public Official 1, in 2020, after Public Official 1 became a candidate for President of the United States of America."
The allegation apparently refers to President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, though the two are not specifically identified by name.
Smirnov had served as a "confidential human source" with the FBI.
The material also alleges that Smirnov "claimed executives associated with Burisma, including Burisma Official 1, admitted to him that they hired Businessperson 1 to ‘protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems,’ and later that they had specifically paid $5 million each to Public Official 1 and Businessperson 1, when Public Official 1 was still in office, so that '[Businessperson 1] will take care of all those issues through his dad,' referring to a criminal investigation being conducted by the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General into Burisma and to 'deal with [the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General].'"
"The events Defendant first reported to the Handler in June 2020 were fabrications. In truth and fact, Defendant had contact with executives from Burisma in 2017, after the end of the Obama-Biden Administration and after the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General had been fired in February 2016 — in other words, when Public Official 1 could not engage in any official act to influence U.S. policy and when the Prosecutor General was no longer in office," the statement of facts asserts.
"Defendant transformed his routine and unextraordinary business contacts with Burisma in 2017 and later into bribery allegations against Public Official 1, the presumptive nominee of one of the two major political parties for President, after expressing bias against Public Official 1 and his candidacy."
FIRST ON FOX: Two scholarship programs for "underrepresented" minorities are being slapped with lawsuits for allegedly discriminating against White people.
The nonprofit organization Do No Harm (DNH) is challenging the Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons' (SOMOS) E. Anthony Rankin Scholarship Program on behalf of a DNH member who said he could not continue with the application process because he is a White male.
The program, which is "meant for underrepresented medical students," matches students with a "U.S. Military host" at one of two medical centers, the complaint states. The program spans four weeks, during when students can receive up to $12,000 "to cover ‘travel, housing, and daily per diem for the duration’ of their time hosted by the military," the filing reads, quoting the program's website description.
"Member A was hurt and dismayed that SOMOS would use his race — which he cannot control — to preclude him from participating in the program and learning from some of the country’s most distinguished orthopaedic surgeons in service of our nation’s military and veteran communities," the complaint states.
DNH also named as defendants Director of the Defense Health Agency Telita Crosland and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, as well as others in their official capacities, arguing that they are violating the Fifth Amendment by operating "in partnership with SOMOS, a race-based service-learning program" for students interested in orthopedic surgery.
"But the program excludes white, male applicants," the complaint states.
DNH is asking for a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the program's requirements and, if necessary, "a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from enforcing the program’s racial requirement."
DNH is also challenging the University of Colorado's "Underrepresented Minority Visiting Elective Scholarship" on behalf of one member "who is ready and able to apply for the scholarship" but cannot because of his race. The scholarship is offered via the university medical school's Radiation Oncology Department within the school's visiting elective rotation.
The scholarship covers "up to ‘$2,000 reimbursement’ for ‘the cost of lodging, travel, and related expenses for [the] four-week elective,’" the initial complaint states. In order to apply for the scholarship, the visiting medical student must comply with several requirements, including being enrolled at an accredited medical school and being in good standing. The applicant is also required to submit a "brief statement of interest."
"Scholarship is prioritized based on the applicant’s interest in pursuing a career with underserved populations, service, leadership, and academic achievement," the filing says, quoting the scholarship description found on the school's website.
"But the scholarship is not open to everyone," the complaint states. The filing says the scholarship specifies eligibility is open to those "'who identif[y] with groups who are recognized as historically underrepresented in medicine including but not limited to African American/Black, Native American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander, LGBTQ+, or those from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background.'" The website itself says the scholarship includes but is "not limited to" those races.
The complaint states the plaintiff is a DNH member and "meets all nonracial eligibility requirements" for the scholarship.
"Although Member A meets all the nonracial eligibility requirements and would be a strong candidate for the scholarship, Member A is not eligible to apply because he is a white, straight male and does not identify as any other ethnicity," the complaint says.
DNH is seeking a declaratory judgment that the scholarship violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI, as well as a permanent injunction "barring Defendants from seeing or considering applicants’ race when selecting the recipients" for the scholarship.
"When we're all on the operating table with a broken leg, we want the best surgeon. We don't want someone based on the color of their skin, and we want merit," Dr. Jared Ross, Senior Fellow with Do No Harm, told Fox News Digital. "And unfortunately, in the name of diversity — which is a laudable goal, having people from different backgrounds — we have essentially instituted discrimination and racial quotas to get to what the other side calls ‘equity.’"
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the use of race as a factor in college admissions in a 6-3 decision in 2023.
The justices decided two separate legal challenges over just how Harvard University – a private institution – and the University of North Carolina – a public one – decide who fills their classrooms.
Student activist group Students for Fair Admissions brought cases against both universities. The group initially sued Harvard in 2014 for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance."
Fox News Digital reached out to SOMOS, the Defense Department and the University of Colorado for comment.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office filed a legal brief calling on Justice Juan Merchan to not toss President-elect Donald Trump’s guilty verdict in the Manhattan criminal case, offering alternative options to keep the case on ice until after Trump's second administration.
"President-elect immunity does not exist. And even after the inauguration, defendant’s temporary immunity as the sitting President will still not justify the extreme remedy of discarding the jury’s unanimous guilty verdict and wiping out the already-completed phases of this criminal proceeding," the Tuesday court filing from Bragg’s office states.
Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the Manhattan case in May. Bragg's office worked to prove that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.
Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of lawfare promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
Trump’s sentencing in the case has been repeatedly delayed. Trump's lawyers had asked Merchan to overturn the former president’s guilty verdict after the Supreme Court ruled in July that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts in office, but not for unofficial acts. Merchan has not yet ruled on the immunity argument.
Bragg’s office acknowledged in its Tuesday filing that Trump cannot be sentenced as president but argued Merchan has various options to keep the case on ice until 2029 and sentence Trump following his second presidential administration.
"[N]o principle of immunity precludes further proceedings before defendant’s inauguration. And even if judgment has not been entered at the time of defendant’s inauguration, there is no legal barrier to deferring sentencing until after defendant’s term of office concludes," the filing said.
The DA’s office argued that a stay of proceedings in the case would exempt the former and upcoming president "from any immediate obligations in this case during his time in office, while at the same time respecting the public interest in upholding the rule of law and preserving the meaningful aspects of the criminal process that have already taken place." The DA's office had already called for a stay in the case following the election, with Tuesday's filing doubling down on that argument.
"To be sure, the People do not dispute that presidential immunity requires accommodation during a President’s time in office. But the extreme remedy of dismissing the indictment and vacating the jury verdict is not warranted in light of multiple alternative accommodations that would fully address the concerns raised by presidential immunity," their filing said.
Trump spokesman Steven Chueng slammed the filing Tuesday as "a pathetic attempt to salvage the remains of an unconstitutional and politically motivated hoax."
"This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed, as President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt. The sooner these cases end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans," Cheung said in a comment provided to Fox News Digital.
Bragg’s office also floated that Merchan could use a legal procedure known as abatement, which is a practice used in states such as Alabama when a defendant dies after a conviction, but before sentencing. In those cases, the state can preserve the conviction but halt other court proceedings.
Following Trump’s win over Vice President Kamala Harris last month, Trump officials exclusively told Fox News Digital that the case was "effectively over" as Bragg requested a stay until 2029.
"Prosecutors are trying to save face," a Trump official told Fox News Digital. "They know this case will soon be thrown out."
Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on a case that could reshape a key environmental law and determine the future of an oil railway project in the west.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to conduct a review of environmental impacts before making any decisions and then issue a "detailed statement" of the review.
SCOTUS heard arguments in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County case, to decide whether an agency is required to study environmental impacts beyond the "proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority." Justices appeared open to reconsidering the scope of NEPA, but did not specify how they would adjust the law.
The Seven Country Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency, to build an over 80-mile transportation system to connect crude oil from Utah's Uinta Basin to a national railway.
The STB released an Environmental Impact Statement on the railway, but opponents of the project in Eagle County, Colorado, argued that the federal agency did not consider all of its environmental effects – therefore, violating NEPA.
The case was brought to a D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled that STB had violated environmental law and that a new, more thorough review be conducted before the project moves forward. In March 2024, SCIC petitioned SCOTUS in the case.
Paul Clement, the attorney backing the SCIC project, argued that it is a "straightforward case" and requested NEPA be limited to "proximate cause" principles.
"NEPA is a self-described procedural statute. It is designed to inform government decision-making, not paralyze it," Clement argued on Tuesday.
Clement called the D.C. court's request to conduct further environmental review "a recipe for turning a procedural statute into a substantive roadblock."
"All of that is not just remote in time and space but falls well outside the STB's limited remand – remit, and it falls within the jurisdiction of other agencies that can address those issues comprehensively and concretely if and when they arise," he said during the oral arguments.
Several justices appeared to agree that the D.C. court's issuing of an entirely new environmental review of the project may have been unnecessary.
"It's not a question of did it fail to look at something," Justice Sonia Sotomayer said. "So the question before us was, was it arbitrary and capricious for it not to consider something more?"
The judges questioned Clement on how his request would impact the scope of environmental reviews, such as on smaller or larger projects.
Clement replied, "If the environmental impact statement is focused on the project, it will inform – you can pick one route versus another, or the agency itself can impose mitigation measures. But, if you have to look at everything under the sun, that's outside the ambit of the agency."
"This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin Railway," Sam Sankar, Earthjustice vice president of programs, said in a statement. "The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that would blind the public to obvious health consequences of government decisions. The court should stick with settled law instead. If it doesn’t, communities will pay the price."
Justice Neil Gorsuch, on Dec. 4, dismissed himself from the case ahead of arguments.
While Washington is enveloped in battles over President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees, a different but equally raucous appointments battle boiled over this week just 300 miles down US-1 from the nation's capital.
North Carolina Republicans, seeing their veto-proof supermajority slip away by a single legislative seat in the state House, are trying to override outgoing Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s disapproval of a bill that would move gubernatorial authority over the NC Board of Elections to the State Auditor’s office.
The Senate overrode the veto but not without an uproar that led to the gallery being cleared. The House is poised to attempt its complementary override, but the GOP’s plans have hit a snag there.
The proposal was part of a bill chiefly geared toward Hurricane Helene relief, and was lambasted by Democrats as a power grab, in part due to the fact the GOP flipped the executive branch office with Auditor-elect Dave Boliek – but failed to see their gubernatorial candidate, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson best Gov.-elect Josh Stein.
However, Robinson – as the Senate’s presiding officer – moved to clear the gallery after raucous protestations and chants of "Shame, Shame, Shame!" erupted above lawmakers preparing to vote on the veto override. Robinson has thus far had to do so twice, according to Carolina Public Press.
As the eventually successful vote was about take place, a woman shouted "[the law] destroys the will of the voter – it’s voter suppression!"
"It restructures the entire state constitution."
Robinson, without raising his voice, spoke into his mic that the woman was "disrupting … the legislative process."
When a gallery-watcher shouted that the bill lacked any "reasonable relief for hurricane victims," Robinson banged his gavel and called out, "Clear the gallery."
"Everybody’s gotta go," he said, as police calmly ushered spectators out, threatening those who remained with arrest.
"You can bang that gavel," one man was heard taunting Robinson as he left.
State Sen. Natasha Marcus, D-Huntersville, was heard on video captured by the Raleigh News-Observer calling out to Robinson that he could not clear the whole gallery, because many people were respectfully watching the vote, and saying the capitol is "the people’s house."
Before he vetoed the bill, Cooper told NBC Charlotte that the legislation "really didn't provide immediate and direct funding to western North Carolina" despite being labeled as Helene relief. He called it a "massive power grab."
Jim Stirling, a research associate at the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation, has done a deep dive into the controversy, and his group filed an amicus brief with lawmakers in a recent lawsuit related to the matter.
"It is not under the purview of the governor to execute all laws. The other executive agencies of the executive branch or indeed other executive elected officials are in charge of executing law. Not just the governor," Stirling said.
"Under [Cooper’s] argument, he says effectively that all appointments must be under him because he's in charge of executing the law, and he has the power of appointment on this."
Overriding the veto, however, could render part of the lawsuit moot, he said.
The lawsuit will "probably need to be restarted based on the argument that these appointments must be under the governor, not any other executive agency (like the auditor)," he said.
Neither Cooper nor Robinson responded to a request for comment.
In moving election boards’ appointment power to the state auditor’s office, the state board’s activities would remain independent of Boliek and the executive branch, but his office would control its appointments and funding, according to NBC Charlotte.
What would change would be the current Democratic control of the elections board, an official told the outlet. The state auditor would also be able to appoint chairpersons in all 100 Tarheel State counties.
Currently, Cooper – and would-be Stein – also appoint the state board’s members, who must consist of three majority-party and two minority-party individuals.
Attempts to move appointment powers away from the governor’s office have been subject to lawsuits in recent months and years. The most recent ruling, in Cooper v. Berger, held that an attempt to move appointment powers to the legislature unlawfully infringed on the executive branch’s express power in that regard.
A prior case, McCrory v. Berger – bearing the name of Cooper’s predecessor, Republican Gov. Patrick McCrory – resulted in a state supreme court ruling holding that some appointments made by legislators violate separation of powers.
In the state House, three Republicans from the Helene-ravaged western part of the state voted against the bill, with one, Rep. Mark Pless of Canton, saying it had nothing "that was going to send money to the many needs in Western NC – it was simply moving money from one account to another."
Pless, however, said the election board appointments portion appears "allowable by the legislature," according to FOX-8. The veto-override in the lower chamber, therefore, could come up just short if the trio do not change their original positions.
Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Riverside, California, addressed a controversy involving a transgender athlete on its cross country team and a lawsuit by two girls on the team alleging their "Save Women's Sports" T-shirts were compared to swastikas by school administrators.
The school has faced criticism locally from its own students and nationally from women's athlete activists, including Riley Gaines and Jennifer Sey.
In a statement provided to Fox News Digital, the Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) says it has allowed the transgender athlete to compete on the team because it must to comply with California state law. The school said those who are upset by it should direct their anger to state and federal lawmakers.
"As these matters play out in our courts and the media, opposition and protests should be directed at those in a position to affect those laws and policies, including officials in Washington, D.C., and Sacramento," the statement said.
The statement also cited language in the California Education Code, California Code of Regulations and California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) bylaws, all of which outlined protections for transgender athletes in public schools.
"It is important to remember that RUSD is bound to follow California law which requires that students be 'permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,'" the statement said.
"While these rules were not created by RUSD, the district is committed to complying with the law and CIF regulations. California state law prohibits discrimination of students based on gender, gender identity and gender expression and specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in physical education and athletics. The protections we provide to all students are not only aligned with the law but also with our core values, which include equity and well-being."
The RUSD's statement did not address the controversy involving the "Save Women's Sports" T-shirts.
California has had state laws in effect to protect transgender athletes in women's sports dating back to 2014. That year, AB 1266 took effect, giving California students at scholastic and collegiate levels the right to "participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records."
And Martin Luther King High School is not the first public institution to blame Democrat-authored state laws for a controversial dispute with student-athletes over sharing spaces with transgender athletes.
The University of Nevada, Reno dealt with a controversy with its women's volleyball players in October, when the athletes' request to forfeit a match against a team with a transgender athlete was initially rejected by the administration.
The players made their own public statements about intending to forfeit the match and held a press conference where they accused the university of trying to pressure them into playing. Team captain Sia Liilii alleged athletic department officials told the players they "didn't understand the science" of facing a transgender athlete.
The university provided a statement to Fox News Digital, outlining that it could not fulfill the player's wishes of forfeiting the match without violating Nevada state law. The state's constitution was revised in 2022 when Nevada voted to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment, which added gender identity to the list of protections.
Nevada state Sen. Pat Spearman, a Democrat from North Las Vegas who co-sponsored the bill to get it on the ballot, said the law has helped transgender people maintain their identity.
"As a state university, a forfeiture for reasons involving gender identity or expression could constitute per se discrimination and violate the Nevada Constitution," the university's statement added.
The university ended up forfeiting the match one day before it was scheduled due to not having enough players to compete.
California and Nevada are not the only states that have faced controversy involving public school girls not wanting to face a transgender opponent in the past year.
Even states with laws in place to restrict transgender inclusion have had incidents of it happening due to decisions by liberal judges. New Hampshire and Virginia, both states with such laws in place, were affected in 2024.
Judges Landya McCafferty of New Hampshire and M. Hannah Lauck of Virginia, both appointed during the Obama administration, each issued rulings this year that enabled biological males to play on high school girls soccer and tennis teams. McCafferty issued an order that allowed two transgender athletes to compete in New Hampshire, while Lauck ruled that an 11-year-old transgender tennis player was allowed to compete against girls the same age in Virginia.
The Biden administration issued a sweeping rule that clarified that Title IX’s ban on "sex" discrimination in schools covers discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation and "pregnancy or related conditions" in April. The administration insisted the regulation does not address athletic eligibility. However, multiple experts presented evidence to Fox News Digital in June that it would ultimately put more biological men in women's sports.
The RUSD's message on Friday has given the district a chance to remind the public that it is at the mercy of the Democratic establishment on this topic.
Still, the students have fought back.
California Family Council Outreach Director Sophia Lorey revealed that more than 150 students have worn the T-shirts to school since the controversy started and alleged that students who refused to comply with the new dress code were forced to spend hours in the principal's office. Lorey says those students plan to keep doing this on a regular basis despite their school's new rule.
"I received those numbers from parents directly involved," Lorey told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview. "I then have received word on social media that the students plan to continue to do this every Wednesday."
The 2024 election cycle was rife with repeated legal battles to protect the voting processes from left-wing attorneys leveraging the courts to strip election safeguards, the chief of an election integrity nonprofit who saw a string of legal wins told Fox News Digital.
"They've been selling American people a lie," Restoring Integrity & Trust in Elections (RITE) President Derek Lyons told Fox News Digital in a Zoom interview, referring to left-wing efforts to undermine election laws. "And I think that these past two election cycles, where people have said ‘No, voting is very easy and millions, hundreds of millions of people have been doing it,’ have shown that what they're doing is misleading, at the very least."
RITE is a non-profit organization founded in 2022 following voters’ concern over the security of the 2020 election during the COVID-19 pandemic. The group was co-founded by Fox News contributor Karl Rove and includes board members such as former Attorney General Bill Barr and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy. The organization hit the ground running in 2022 to ensure its "mission of protecting the rule of law in the qualifications for, administration of, and tabulation of voting in the United States," according to the group’s website.
Lyons spoke to Fox News Digital just less than a month after Election Day, when he took a victory lap for his team’s battles against efforts to reportedly undermine election integrity, detailing the top legal tactics left-wing activists took during the election season.
Lyons, an attorney and former White House staff secretary and counselor to the president under President-elect Donald Trump’s first term, explained that Democrat activists were hyper-focused throughout the election on decrying efforts put forth by state legislatures to ensure safe elections, such as voter ID laws, frequently claiming such a policy would disenfranchise voters.
"The main thing they do is anytime anybody puts up any sort of election integrity measure, whether that's voter I.D., voter photo I.D., whether that's rationalization of cure periods – the ability of people to fix errors in their ballots sort of after the election – ballot receipt deadlines, so that we can know the result of the election quickly … they attack it and say, this is disenfranchising," he said.
"'This makes voting harder … this takes away people's right to vote.' …. They invoke federal voting rights laws that were meant to prevent the worst abuses of Jim Crow. They're sort of shameless about it. They'll throw any, any tactic at it," he explained of Democratic efforts to change voting laws.
When groups such as RITE step in to challenge claims that such voting laws are legal and protect elections from illegal activity, Lyons said left-wing activists slam them in court as holding no standing.
"They try to kick us out on procedural grounds because, ultimately, a lot of times they don't want to defend the merits of what election administrators are trying to do."
Lyons pointed to a successful case in Wisconsin back in 2022 when RITE challenged state officials from enabling what he called "re-voting" procedures, which entailed absentee voters who already submitted their ballots changing their votes mid-election. RITE challenged the practice and won to ensure that once a ballot is mailed, it cannot be changed.
"We were able to win that case on the grounds that once a ballot is put into the mail, received by the election officials, that's the end of that person's vote. There's no fishing ballots back out and putting them back in, etc. Which obviously creates a risk of errors and double voting and all sorts of other problems. And so they tried to kick us out on standing. We were able to defeat that and secure that victory in Wisconsin," he said.
Pennsylvania was again the premier battleground state this year, with both Trump, Vice President Kamala Harris and a bevy of their respective surrogates criss-crossing the state to rally support ahead of Election Day. For RITE, the group has filed and taken part in 10 different election cases since 2022, including a case revolving around potential double votes.
"In Philadelphia, we just got them to admit that they had planned to eliminate a crucial check against double voting to make sure that people weren't both voting in the mail and in person. So we had that in place for both elections [the 2022 midterms and 2024 election] to prevent that type of double voting, which does happen in Allegheny County," he said of the double vote case.
Lyons also celebrated a win in a case he described as the "crown jewel" of Pennsylvania: ensuring undated and incorrectly dated mail-in ballots were not counted in the official tally.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in September that mail-in ballots without the correct dates on ballot envelopes cannot be counted in elections.
The ruling gained widespread attention following Nov. 5, when Democratic-led election boards bucked the state high court's ruling and voted to include such ballots in a recount concerning longtime Democratic Sen. Bob Casey’s race against Sen.-elect Dave McCormick. Democrats in the state openly defied the ruling before the state Supreme Court ordered counties to not include undated ballots, and Democrats walked back their decision.
"We took it to state court and got a declaration that this had to be done under state law," Lyons said of RITE’s battle against Democratic activists over undated ballot envelopes. "They ran to federal court and said federal law prevents this. We won that case. They took it to the Court of Appeals. Democrat judges disagreed with them and said the date requirement does not violate federal law. They went back to state court and said, ‘well, this violates the state constitution.’ That case was procedurally improper. That case was thrown out. And then they tried to bring some other little case that nobody was paying attention to and use that case to revolutionize the way election administration was done in Pennsylvania. And finally, the state Supreme Court, to its great credit, said enough."
In Arizona, RITE had another win when it led a coalition of groups against a ballot initiative all the way through the Arizona Supreme Court that Lyons said would have expanded ballot harvesting.
"One of our first engagements that we're very proud of was, we quickly led a coalition of like-minded groups to litigate against a ballot initiative that was pending … in Arizona that would have eliminated things like precinct voting, would have expanded opportunities for ballot harvesting. It would have prevented efforts to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls and a host of other, I think, really bad rules for elections," he said.
"We were able to invalidate hundreds of thousands of signatures that the left, the liberal organizations that were pursuing this initiative had, quote unquote, gathered. We invalidated them. We litigated the case up to the Arizona Supreme Court. It actually went back a couple of times. And in the end, that ballot initiative was not approved. And so that meant that the 2022 election, but I think more importantly the 2024 election in Arizona, was not infected by ballot harvesting."
When asked if Democrat activists essentially cried uncle amid the avalanche of election lawsuits, Lyons pointed to Democratic Party elections attorney Marc Elias and a case originating out of Ohio as his "favorite" example of defeat over liberal attorneys.
"Marc Elias went to Ohio. Ohio passed a very sensible voter photo ID law. He started out the year in 2024 boasting and proclaiming to all who would listen on Twitter and in the media, that if Ohio passed this law, it will be sued and the law will be struck down. So he went to Ohio, and he did file that lawsuit. He followed through on his threat."
"We showed up, and we defended that lawsuit. We defended against that lawsuit alongside the state. And the victory was complete and total. A Democrat judge appointed by President Clinton, I believe, threw out his entire case, said 'you have not proven at all that there's even a remote chance that any voters are disenfranchised or burdened by this law. Case dismissed. Final judgment.' [Elias] didn't even appeal that case. Didn't even bother to try to take it up to the courts of appeals," he recounted.
Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed the voter ID bill into law in January 2023, which mandated voters provide a driver’s license, state ID, passport or military ID when casting a ballot, instead of previous forms of identification such as a bank statement.
Democrats and some residents in the state dubbed it one of the most restrictive ID policies in the nation and the "worst anti-voter" bill, arguing it would disenfranchise lower-income voters who have suspended licenses or lacked the required documentation. The Ohio Secretary of State office found over the summer that more than 8,000 voters who tried to cast ballots since the law's passage were not included in final vote tallies as they lacked the proper identification, USA Today previously reported.
Republicans have defended the law as "an elementary precaution to protect the voting process," citing that Americans cannot board a plane or buy alcohol without the same requirement.
Concerns over election integrity have been brewing for years and were underscored during the 2020 election as voters hunkered down amid stay-at-home orders, and mail-in and absentee ballot voting grew. Heading into the 2024 election, a poll from January found 46% of registered Republicans said they had no confidence ballots would be accurately counted and reported, Fox Digital previously reported. On the other hand, 81% of registered Democrats reported in the poll they are "very" confident the 2024 elections would be "fair."
Polls focused on specific measures touted by Republicans and conservatives to ensure safe elections have received widespread support across the board. A Gallup Poll released days ahead of Election Day found that 84% of respondents favored requiring voters to provide a photo ID, while 83% said they support providing proof of citizenship when registering to vote for the first time. The poll noted that voter attitudes toward these issues were similar to those seen in its July 2022 poll.
"Voter photo ID is supported by something like 80% of the country. The notion that this is somehow unconstitutional has been rejected time and time and time again," Lyons said.
Looking toward future elections, Lyons said RITE will focus on election laws surrounding left-wing efforts to "normalize" noncitizen votes in blue states before such efforts seep into red states, as well as continuing their efforts on voter ID laws, enhancing the integrity of signature matching requirements, and unraveling what Lyons said was left-wing "lies" surrounding claims of disenfranchised voters over practices such as voter ID laws.
"I think our organization was able to do and to plug into a much broader coalition of of groups ,who really care about what I call the crown jewel of the United States of America, which is our elections. That's the key. It's the foundation of our self-government. And I think today we can believe, and we can have confidence, and we can be proud of the fact that they're a little more secure today than they were two years ago and four years ago," he said.
President Biden pardoned son Hunter Biden Sunday after repeatedly vowing he would not spare him from sentencing in a pair of separate federal court cases.
Biden has just under 47 days remaining in the Oval Office before President-elect Trump’s inauguration as the 47th president.
As Biden’s term comes to an end, a handful of elected officials and others have called on the president to issue pardons for other Americans, including the suggestion of "preemptive pardons" for Democrats ahead of Trump’s second term.
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey claimed after the election he expects Trump to act in a "fascistic way" as president and called on Biden to pardon Democrats who could face prosecution under a second Trump administration.
"I think that, without question, Trump is going to try to act in a dictatorial way, in a fascistic way, in a revengeful first year at least of his administration toward individuals who he believes harmed him," Markey claimed during a local radio interview last month.
"If it’s clear by Jan. 19 that that is his intention, then I would recommend to President Biden that he provide those preemptive pardons to people because that’s really what our country is going to need next year."
Trump has long accused Democrats and the Biden administration of employing "lawfare" against him as he battled charges from racketeering to falsifying business records, with supporters such as Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., proclaiming last month that "accountability is coming" for those who targeted Trump.
Under Markey’s argument, Biden could preemptively pardon Democrats who directly prosecuted Trump on charges Trump has slammed as "shams" and "witch hunts."
A handful of congressional Democrats — most notably representatives Ayanna Pressley, Mary Gay Scanlon and James Clyburn — called on Biden last month in a letter to issue sweeping pardons to convicts in a bid to "reunite families, address longstanding injustices in our legal system, and set our nation on the path toward ending mass incarceration."
The lawmakers requested the president pardon those who have languished in prison systems for years and rectify "draconian" sentences imposed on criminals. The letter specifically called for the president to consider pardons for the "elderly and chronically ill, those on death row, people with unjustified sentencing disparities, and women who were punished for defending themselves against their abusers."
"Now is the time to use your clemency authority to rectify unjust and unnecessary criminal laws passed by Congress and draconian sentences given by judges. The grant of pardons and commutations and the restoration of rights will undoubtedly send a powerful message across the country in support of fundamental fairness and furthering meaningful criminal justice reform," they wrote in a letter to Biden last month.
Outgoing Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, a vocal critic of Trump's, said earlier this year Biden should have pardoned Trump from his indictments.
"[Biden] should have fought like crazy to keep this prosecution from going forward," Romney told MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle in May. "It was a win-win for Donald Trump.
"You may disagree with this, but had I been President Biden, when the Justice Department brought on indictments, I would have immediately pardoned him," he said. "I'd have pardoned President Trump. Why? Well, because it makes me, President Biden, the big guy and the person I pardoned a little guy."
Biden pardoning Trump is unlikely to happen and would only apply to his federal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Legal cases against Trump have stalled since his win last month.
Biden has pardoned 26 people during nearly four years in office, a review of DOJ data shows. The majority of those individuals were convicted of drug crimes, such as conspiracy to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine or conspiracy to manufacture, distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base.
In October, seven Senate Judiciary Committee members and Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock sent a letter to Biden calling on him to commute sentences for individuals who would have been handed shorter sentences under the 2018 First Step Act. The First Step Act was a criminal justice reform bill Trump signed into law following bipartisan support that reduced mandatory minimum sentences for some drug crimes.
"This Administration has the opportunity to deliver justice to incarcerated people who were sentenced under overly harsh mandatory minimums that the bipartisan First Step Act corrected," Vermont Sen. Peter Welch, who signed the letter, told Politico earlier this year. "President Biden should heed our call and use the power of executive clemency while he has it."
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is again earning support from lawmakers and others to be pardoned after years of legal woes over his publication of classified military documents leaked to him by a source in 2010.
A bipartisan effort spearheaded by representatives James McGovern, D-Mass., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., called on Biden last week to pardon Assange and "send a clear message" that his administration will not target journalistic activity.
"We write, first, to express our appreciation for your administration's decision last spring to facilitate a resolution of the criminal case against publisher Julian Assange and to withdraw the related extradition request that had been pending in the United Kingdom," the lawmakers wrote to Biden. "This brought an end to Mr. Assange's protracted detention and allowed him to reunite with his family and return to his home country of Australia."
Assange reached a deal with the U.S. Justice Department to end his imprisonment in the U.K. over charges related to publishing classified military documents. He had spent years in the U.K. to avoid extradition to the U.S.
He pleaded guilty in June to an Espionage Act charge of conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified national defense information and was sentenced to time served. He returned to his native Australia after the plea deal.
"The terms of Mr. Assange's plea agreement have now set a precedent that greatly deepens our concern," the lawmakers’ letter to Biden said. "A review of prosecutions under the Espionage Act makes clear that Mr. Assange's case is the first time the Act has been deployed against a publisher.
"A pardon would remove the precedent set by the plea and send a clear message that the U.S. government under your leadership will not target or investigate journalists and media outlets simply for doing their jobs."
Biden’s pardoning of his son Sunday followed the president saying earlier this year he would not pardon his son before and after Hunter was found guilty in a June gun trial.
"I am not going to do anything," Biden said after Hunter was convicted in the gun case. "I will abide by the jury’s decision."
Hunter Biden was found guilty June 11 of lying about his drug use when buying a gun in 2018. He was found guilty on three charges — making a false statement in the purchase of a gun, making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a federally licensed gun dealer and possession of a gun by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.
Hunter Biden had an extensive and well-documented history with addiction, which was best captured in his 2021 memoir "Beautiful Things," which walked readers through his spirals of crack cocaine use.
Hunter Biden faced another trial regarding three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses over his alleged failure to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes in a California court in September. As jury selection was about to kick off in Los Angeles federal court, Hunter entered a surprise guilty plea.
When grilled by the media about Biden pardoning his son after saying he would not take such an action, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the president will make other pardon announcements in the coming weeks but did not provide details.
"As it relates to pardoning or any clemency, the president, as you know, at the end of the year, makes announcements. He’s thinking through that process very thoroughly," Jean-Pierre said Monday.
"I’m not going to get ahead of — of the president on this. But you could expect more announcements, more … pardons and clemency at the end of … this term."
Fox News Digital's Landon Mion contributed to this report.
President Biden faced mounting criticism Monday for the "sweeping" pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, with critics citing fears that it could be used by Trump to further his views of a "politicized" Justice Department and erode the role of the judiciary as an important check on executive power.
In a statement announcing the pardon, Biden took aim at what he described as a politically motivated investigation.
"No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong," the president wrote.
That Biden used his final weeks as a lame duck president to protect his only living son from prosecution was met with less shock among legal analysts than was the sheer breadth of the pardon itself, which spans a nearly 11-year period beginning in January 2014, the year Hunter was appointed to the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and ending on Sunday, the day that the White House announced the pardon.
While that time frame includes both the federal firearm and tax evasion convictions that Hunter was convicted of this year, experts say the scope of the pardon could go much further by extending to any actions committed for more than a decade, virtually ensuring the president's son cannot be held accountable for any activity conducted during that period.
In terms of both length and scope, the Hunter Biden pardon "could really could not be more sweeping, to be honest with you," Trey Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor and member of Congress, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
The time frame included in the pardon covers "almost all federal statutes of limitations," Gowdy said. "For the vast majority of federal crimes, this covers this time period and means that charges cannot be brought."
Critics note that Biden broke his own repeated declarations that he would not pardon Hunter earlier this year. First, after he was found guilty in June on three felony firearm charges, and then in September after he pleaded guilty to separate federal charges of tax evasion.
"I am not going to do anything," Biden said this summer. "I will abide by the jury’s decision."
This week, Biden did the opposite.
White House officials insist that Biden still backs his contention this summer that "no one is above the law."
"As he said in his statement, he has deep respect for our justice system," a spokesperson told Fox News Digital. "And as a wide range of legal experts have pointed out, this pardon is indisputably within his authority and warranted by the facts of the case."
"The pardon power was written in absolute terms, and a president can even, in my view, pardon himself," George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote in an op-ed for Fox News Digital.
"However, what is constitutional is not necessarily ethical or right," Turley said, adding that in his view, Biden’s decision to pardon Hunter is "one of the most disgraceful pardons even in the checkered history of presidential pardons."
"His portrayal of his son as a victim stands in sharp contrast to the sense of immunity and power conveyed by Hunter in his dealings," Turley said.
Some lawmakers and legal analysts separately cited fears that the pardon could further erode public trust in the Justice Department, giving more credence to Trump's frequent complaints that the Department of Justice is a political apparatus capable of being "weaponized" rather than a department that strives to act independently and largely without political influence.
In granting the pardon, Biden is "essentially endorsing Trump's long-held opinion that the Department of Justice is politicized and isn't acting impartially," longtime GOP strategist and communicator Ryan Williams told Fox News in an interview.
Gowdy said Biden's pardon reflects his longtime view that the Justice Department has been too politicized in recent years and needs to be reformed, citing a swirl of investigations during recent administrations, including probes that were led by House committees, and which looked into the actions of both Biden and Trump family members.
"When I was a prosecutor, politics had nothing to do with the job," Gowdy said. "I didn't know the politics of a single one of my co-workers." The focus, he said, should be shifted back not to "targeting people, but targeting fact patterns."
"Prosecuting your political enemies, involving family members, all of this stuff is new, and all of it's really dangerous."
Special Counsel David Weiss, who brought both cases against Hunter Biden, has defended his actions against claims that the prosecutions were politically motivated, noting in a court filing Monday that Hunter Biden's team had filed "eight motions to dismiss the indictment, making every conceivable argument for why it should be dismissed, all of which were determined to be meritless."
Weiss added, "There was none and never has been any evidence of vindictive or selective prosecution in this case."
Still, some have objected to the intense investigation surrounding Hunter Biden, noting that if not for his father's presidency, he likely would not have faced charges in the gun case.
Gowdy, a former Republican House member, said he ultimately agreed with that contention.
"I prosecuted gun cases for six years," Gowdy told Fox News Digital. "I would not have taken this case."
"There's a lot of really serious federal violent crime out there, and I would not have wasted the resources on the gun part of this," Gowdy explained.
But the former South Carolina lawmaker also said that doesn't mean he would have let Biden's son off the hook.
"I definitely would have gone forward on the taxes and allegations of corruption," Gowdy said of the other allegations against Biden.
Ultimately, the Justice Department and FBI need to be "significantly reformed," Gowdy said.
"They need to get out of the business of politics."
Fox News Digital's Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.
President Biden pardoned his son, Hunter Biden, late Sunday evening, sparing him from being sentenced in a pair of separate court cases in which he was found guilty of illegally purchasing a gun and failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes — convictions the president claimed were politically motivated and a "miscarriage of justice."
A review of Hunter Biden’s yearslong legal saga, however, shows another story, and those involved in the prosecutions are making sure that side of the story is told in the aftermath of the president's decision.
"There was none and never has been any evidence of vindictive or selective prosecution in this case," special prosecutor David Weiss said in a court filing following the pardoning.
Two IRS whistleblowers who sounded the alarm on Hunter Biden's tax issues also slammed the decision to pardon Hunter Biden, saying, "No amount of lies or spin can hide the simple truth that the Justice Department nearly let the President's son off the hook for multiple felonies."
"President Biden has the power to put his thumb on the scales of justice for his son, but at least he had to do it with a pardon explicitly for all the world to see rather than his political appointees doing it secretly behind the scenes. Either way it is a sad day for law abiding taxpayers to witness this special privilege for the powerful," IRS whistleblowers Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley and Special Agent Joe Ziegler said in a statement Sunday evening.
"No amount of lies or spin can hide the simple truth that the Justice Department nearly let the President's son off the hook for multiple felonies. We did our duty, told the truth, and followed the law. Anyone reading the President's excuses now should remember that Hunter Biden admitted to his tax crimes in federal court, that Hunter Biden's attorneys have targeted us for our lawful whistleblower disclosures, and that we are suing one of those attorneys for smearing us with false accusations," they continued, referring to their $20 million defamation lawsuit against Hunter Biden’s high-profile attorney Abbe Lowell in September for claiming the IRS investigators illegally leaked Hunter Biden’s private tax information.
The guilty plea, guilty verdict and the president’s pardoning caps off a yearslong legal saga for the first son and his family, with the cases stretching back to 2018 and notably featured the IRS whistleblowers who sounded the alarm on Hunter Biden’s tax issues.
Hunter Biden was found guilty in the gun case in June, with a jury of his peers determining he made a false statement in the purchase of a gun, made a false statement related to information required to be kept by a federally licensed gun dealer, and possession of a gun by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.
He has a well-documented history of drug abuse, which was most notably documented in his 2021 memoir, "Beautiful Things," which walked readers through his previous need to smoke crack cocaine every 20 minutes, how his addiction was so prolific that he referred to himself as a "crack daddy" to drug dealers, and anecdotes revolving around drug deals, such as a Washington, D.C., crack dealer Biden nicknamed "Bicycles."
In the tax case, Hunter faced another trial regarding three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses regarding the failure to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. As jury selection was about to kick off in Los Angeles federal court in September, Hunter entered a surprise guilty plea.
The tax case investigation originally kicked off in 2018, when the U.S. attorney in Delaware opened a probe into Hunter Biden’s finances. The first son initially notified the public that he was under investigation one month after his dad won the presidential election over President-elect Donald Trump in 2020.
"I learned yesterday for the first time that the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware advised my legal counsel, also yesterday, that they are investigating my tax affairs," Hunter Biden said in a statement released in December of 2020. "I take this matter very seriously, but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisers."
After President Biden took control of the Oval Office, his administration retained David Weiss, a Trump-appointed Republican charged with overseeing the investigation into Hunter Biden in his capacity as U.S. attorney for Delaware. The Biden administration had gutted all Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys under the Trump administration, except for two individuals: Weiss, and Special Counsel John Durham, who investigated the origins of the Russia probe surrounding the 2016 election.
Last year, Hunter Biden was in the midst of hashing out a plea agreement to two misdemeanor tax counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax, as well as a pretrial diversion agreement regarding a separate felony charge of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. The plea agreement unraveled in Delaware court, however, and heightened his legal woes.
Weeks later, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Weiss as special counsel, broadening the scope of the investigation into Hunter Biden. With the plea deal officially at an impasse, Weiss subsequently charged Hunter Biden in September of last year for the gun charges, and brought forth the nine tax-related charges against Hunter Biden in December of 2023 in California court.
"The appointment of Mr. Weiss reinforces for the American people the department’s commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters," Garland said in the announcement of Weiss as special prosecutor. "I am confident that Mr. Weiss will carry out his responsibility in an evenhanded and urgent manner and in accordance with the highest traditions of this department."
Simultaneous to the investigations into Hunter Biden’s tax dealings and gun purchase scrutiny, IRS whistleblowers sounded the alarm that they gathered evidence Hunter Biden had allegedly committed "felony and misdemeanor tax charges." The whistleblowers were identified as IRS Special Agent Joseph Ziegler and his supervisor Gary Shapley.
The whistleblowers told Congress last year that prosecutorial decisions made throughout the federal investigation into the president’s son were allegedly impacted by politics, claiming the Justice Department and IRS handled its probe of Hunter Biden’s finances with kid gloves.
Ziegler said he felt the investigation into Hunter Biden was "handcuffed" and that the DOJ and Weiss slow-walked the investigation, while underscoring that he is a Democrat and worked to remove any personal political bias.
"I'm a Democrat. In the last presidential election, I actually did not vote," Ziegler told CBS News last year. "I thought it would be irresponsible of me to do so because I didn't wanna show bias one way or the other."
The whistleblowers said the tax discrepancies stretched back to 2014 and related to Hunter Biden’s employment with Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas firm. Fox Digital first reported in 2020 that Hunter Biden did not report "approximately $400,000" in income he collected from his position on the board of Burisma Holdings when he joined in 2014.
Weiss' charges against Hunter Biden ultimately only focused on his failure to pay taxes between 2016 and 2020. However, the president's pardon of his son shields him from prosecution for offenses between 2014 and 2024.
After the whistleblowers' attorney sent a letter to lawmakers in April of last year indicating they wished to "make a protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress" over claims the Biden admin was allegedly mishandling the matter, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., subpoenaed the FBI to turn over materials related to a "criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Joe Biden and a foreign national."
Comer did ultimately receive documents related to President Biden’s alleged "criminal scheme," known as the FD-1023 document, but slammed the materials as essentially useless as they were reportedly overwhelmingly redacted.
Meanwhile, the House Ways and Means Committee interviewed the IRS whistleblowers and released transcripts of their interviews last year showing claims the Biden administration slow-walked the investigation and claiming the DOJ refused to appoint Weiss special counsel status. The DOJ denied the claims.
Shapley claimed the agency obtained a message from WhatsApp dated July 30, 2017, from Hunter Biden to Henry Zhao, CEO of Harvest Fund Management, where the president's son allegedly threatened his business associate by leveraging his father’s political clout.
"I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight," Hunter Biden allegedly wrote. The message was sent after Biden’s term as vice president under the Obama administration, and before he was elected president in 2020.
"And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction," the message continues. "I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father."
The White House has repeatedly denied the president had any business dealings with his son.
As the investigations and whistleblower claims mounted, House Republicans opened an impeachment inquiry into Biden, with the House Oversight Committee, House Judiciary Committee and House Ways and Means Committee releasing a lengthy report in August that Biden engaged in "impeachable conduct" and "defrauded the United States to enrich his family."
Republicans said there was "overwhelming evidence" that Biden participated in a "conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family" to the tune of more than $27 million from foreign individuals or entities since 2014.
The inquiry has fizzled in recent months, as the presidential election took center stage on the national level.
Biden declared in his statement Sunday evening that the prosecution of Hunter was a "miscarriage of justice," apparently bolstering his reasoning for the pardon after he said at least twice he would not pardon his son.
"From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted," Biden said in his statement announcing the pardon.
"It is clear that Hunter was treated differently. The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases," he continued.
"I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice – and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision."
Similar to his dad, Hunter Biden released a statement Sunday arguing the investigations and prosecutions were politically motivated.
"I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction — mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport," Hunter Biden said in a statement to Fox News. "Despite all of this, I have maintained my sobriety for more than five years because of my deep faith and the unwavering love and support of my family and friends."
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and Weiss's office for comment, but did not immediately receive a reply.
Fox News Digital's Brooke Singman, Greg Wehner, and Charles Creitz contributed to this report.
Experts expect President-elect Donald Trump to take aim at federal agencies and Biden-era regulations after campaigning on deregulation of the administrative state.
"The first thing is that on day one of [Trump's] presidency, we'll see a lot of executive orders, which will order agencies to review the administration regulations to determine whether they should be retained, amended or repealed," Robert Glicksman, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law at George Washington University Law School, told Fox News Digital.
Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, particularly pointed to Biden-era regulations, saying they could be on the chopping block once Trump takes office, telling Fox News Digital, "the Biden administration did a lot of things that lacked statutory authority completely."
Chenoweth noted that the Biden administration has already been the target of lawsuits over its regulations and said that if Trump were to take those regulations on, "I think they'll enjoy a lot of success."
Trump has already been vocal about his intentions of cutting back on federal agency power and slashing the flow of federal dollars. The president-elect has also announced he has tapped Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The entity will act as an advisory panel, not a government agency, and will be aimed at suggesting ways to dismantle government bureaucracy and restructure federal agencies in order to save costs and improve efficiency, according to Trump's transition team.
Regarding DOGE, Glicksman stated the Trump administration will "certainly take seriously" DOGE's guidance on "cutting back on regulations, streamlining executive agencies, possibly even eliminating some agencies."
Both Chenoweth and Glicksman said they can foresee labor regulations becoming a target come January. Glicksman said climate change and environmental regulations could also come under fire.
"In the labor area, because [the Biden administration has] been so radical, they really reached well beyond what the statutory authority that was given to NLRB or the Department of Labor with a lot of what they've done. So that's one area that I could foresee," Chenoweth said.
Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to overturn the Chevron doctrine in June of this year in its Loper Bright decision. The doctrine previously gave deference to an agency's interpretation of a federal regulation. In its holding, the Supreme Court effectively scaled back administrative power in holding that "Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."
Chenoweth, whose organization litigated on the matter, applauded the Loper Bright ruling, saying it "goes back to empowering Congress rather than the administrative agencies."
"For the last 40 years, the administrative state has been burgeoning because of this ability to, kind of, write law and create law itself when there's a gap or ambiguity in the statute," Chenoweth said. "Now, they're not going to able to do that so much. And so it's going to throw it back to Congress if we need to have reform in an area or new legislation."
Glicksman, however, said Loper Bright could "boomerang" on the Trump administration instead.
"Had Chevron remained in effect, it would be Trump administration initiatives that would get the benefit of Chevron deference, but that's no longer the case," Glicksman said. "And so it's possible that courts will look more rigorously or apply greater scrutiny to Trump administration initiatives in administrative law issues in administrative ones than they would have done had Loper Bright not been decided."
Glicksman said he can foresee Republican-led legal challenges to later Biden-era actions unfolding specifically in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which notably tends to lean conservative in its rulings. Likewise, Glicksman predicts Democrat-led challenges to appear in the Ninth and D.C. Circuits.
"I think you'll see blue states led by California challenging those regulations, starting off probably in the Ninth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit, which are more friendly to agency authority than the Fifth Circuit and some other circuits. So you'll see a skewing of litigation," Glicksman said.
Chenoweth stated that because so many Biden-era regulations "are so lacking in authority," the circuit in which the lawsuit is started may very well not make much of a difference.
Roughly half the country is represented by Democratic attorneys general, and a significant number seem ready to confront President-elect Donald Trump, just as many did during his first term.
Twenty-three states plus the District of Columbia and Northern Marianas Islands have Democrats as their top law enforcement officers, and many have positioned themselves as a line of defense against a Trump administration.
The most prolific state-government-litigant last term was Washington Gov.-elect Bob Ferguson, who as attorney general filed or was party to suits against the Trump administration 99 times. He lost three times.
He litigated the Muslim "travel ban," and has expressed concern about Trump-era changes to abortion, immigration and LGBTQ policy.
Fox News Digital reached out to Ferguson, but he told the Washington Standard the state has been working "for many months … to prepare for this."
Ferguson’s team reportedly read the Heritage Foundation’s entire 900-page Project 2025 publication and prepared successor Attorney General-elect Nick Brown to continue his work.
"Obviously, Trump’s [first] administration turned out to be a train wreck for our country and his efforts to trample on the rights of Americans and Washingtonians on our environment, reproductive freedom; the list goes on," Ferguson told Democracy Docket in October.
Brown told Fox News Digital he pledged to "enforce and defend our laws, stand up for our values and protect our communities: And I intend to fully honor that commitment."
"I have no interest in needlessly creating or seeking out conflict with the incoming Trump administration," Brown said.
"But if they take actions that violate our laws or harm our people, I am ready and willing to use all available legal options to protect the residents of Washington State from such unwanted intrusions."
Ferguson said a lot of Trump’s actions may be legal and "no one will be more happy than me" if Olympia never goes to court again.
In New Jersey, then-Attorney General Gurbir Grewal participated in dozens of suits against the first Trump administration, and Gov. Phil Murphy said while he hopes to find common ground with Trump, he will "fight to the death" to defend Jersey values.
Current New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin told Fox News Digital the election was fair and that Trenton will respect the democratic process that put Trump in the White House.
"As the president, he has the right to implement the policy agenda that he sees fit for the country. What he does not have the right to do is to violate the laws of this nation [or] this state…" Platkin said, citing a focus on gun safety, health care, the environment and immigration issues.
"I do not wake up every day dying to sue the president of the United States, but I also will not hesitate to do so when it’s in the best interests of our residents."
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has been preparing for another Trump administration as his office also reportedly observes the behavior of Trump’s circle.
"President Trump has made no secret of his agenda for his second term. We’re taking him at his word when he tells us what he plans to do: whether that be rolling back environmental protections, threatening immigrant and civil rights, or restricting access to essential reproductive care," Bonta said.
"Fortunately, and unfortunately, we have four years of ‘Trump-1.0’ under our belts. We know what to expect, and we won’t be caught flat-footed: What happens next is up to the president-elect. If he doesn’t violate the law, and we hope he won’t, we won’t need to take action.
"But based on our experience with the first Trump administration and the president-elect’s own words, we expect that won’t be the case…"
In Delaware, Attorney General Kathy Jennings made opposing Trump key to her 2018 campaign.
"Donald Trump threatens our civil rights. He undermines the rule of law," Jennings said in an ad. "As attorney general, I'll stand up to Donald Trump when his agenda hurts Delaware."
Fox News Digital reached out to Jennings, who previously challenged Trump’s child migrant detention system.
Wisconsin was party to several lawsuits in Trump’s first term, and Attorney General Josh Kaul signaled he's "prepared to defend the rights of Wisconsinites if necessary."
"Let me say if the new administration infringes upon the freedoms of Wisconsinites or attempts to use our system of justice as a tool for vengeance, we will act," he said recently.
In Connecticut, Attorney General William Tong is coordinating with other attorneys general.
"I’m sad to say we are here again. But we went through this the first time with the Muslim ban and the border wall, and we are even more ready now," he said, according to WSHU.
"[W]hen they attack the American-born children of immigrants, and they talk about denying birthright citizenship, they are talking about me," said Tong.
Then-Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin succeeded in blocking Trump’s "travel ban," crediting the Aloha State as the first to launch litigation. Fox News Digital reached out to successor Anne Lopez regarding her stance toward Trump.
Fox also sought comment from the most high-profile of attorney-general-litigants. New York's Letitia James pledged to be a "real pain in the a--" and led a $450 million fraud case against Trump.
She did not respond, but recently said she’s ready to "fight back again."
The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment, but the president-elect did recently say of James, "she’s got serious Trump Derangement Syndrome."
Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith is already aiming to close both the 2020 election interference case and the classified documents case before Trump takes office. Smith is also expected to resign before Trump is inaugurated in January, according to the New York Times.
Trump's state cases, however, are on more questionable ground.
Days after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sent Judge Juan Merchan a letter requesting a stay on the criminal charges involving alleged hush money payments until 2029, Merchan granted Trump's request to file a motion to dismiss charges and removed his sentencing date from the schedule.
"I think Judge Merchan will make a decision about whether or not he's going to accept this as his opportunity to be done with the case," criminal defense attorney Philip Holloway told Fox News Digital shortly after the news broke.
"This is a political system in New York that is masquerading as a legal system. So I think politics has certainly factored into it," Holloway said. "But sometimes judges also rule with an eye towards being tactical, and so he's basically said, 'Look, I'm going to give you an opportunity to give me an opportunity to get out of this case.'"
Syracuse University College of Law professor Gregory Germain told Fox News Digital that the ruling does not signal how Merchan will ultimately rule on the motion.
"You can't read anything into a court allowing someone to file a motion," Germain said. "Allowing Trump to file a motion to dismiss does not signal how the court will rule on the motion."
Palm Beach County state attorney Dave Aronberg echoed Germain's sentiments, saying the Friday ruling was Merchan "giving the defense every opportunity to make their case."
He told Fox News Digital he predicts the sentencing will ultimately get delayed until January 2029, with Merchan agreeing to put off the sentencing but not going as far as to dismiss the case altogether.
"I think the case will continue because the case has already concluded. There's just a matter of sentencing," Aronberg said.
Despite conflicting takes on where Trump's hush money case stands, both Germain and Holloway were in agreement that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' case against Trump on alleged election interference would likely be dismissed.
Trump's team and other defendants had previously asked the Georgia Court of Appeals to hold oral arguments to determine whether Willis could continue to prosecute the case. The Court of Appeals canceled arguments on Monday, which were initially scheduled for early December.
"The Court of Appeals did not give any explanation for canceling the oral argument. So those of us who are trying to read the tea leaves think that that might mean that Willis is about to lose," Holloway said. "I think it's unlikely that the Court of Appeals would cancel the oral argument if they were going to rule against the appellants."
Aronberg, on the other hand, said he expects Willis to stay on the case and see it through.
"I think there's a better-than-even chance that she's allowed to stay on," Aronberg said. "I think that she probably is allowed to stay on because the issue is there was a conflict, and the conflict has now been resolved."
Germain noted that the case itself has yet to go to trial and that prosecution of the case cannot continue through Trump's presidency, "so the best they could do is to stay it." Germain said, however, that of the two state cases, the Georgia case is "the most likely case to be dismissed by the courts."
"Even without Trump's election, I think the Fulton County case would have been years away from any resolution," Aronberg said.
Just hours after former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz withdrew his name from consideration to be attorney general, President-elect Trump tapped former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as his AG nominee.
"For too long, the partisan Department of Justice has been weaponized against me and other Republicans – Not anymore," Trump wrote in his announcement. "Pam will refocus the DOJ to its intended purpose of fighting Crime, and Making America Safe Again.
"I have known Pam for many years – She is smart and tough, and is an AMERICA FIRST Fighter, who will do a terrific job as Attorney General!"
Bondi chairs the Center of Litigation and co-chairs the Center for Law and Justice at the America First Policy Institute.
Bondi, 59, is a Tampa native and earned her bachelor's degree in criminal justice from the University of Florida and her law degree from Stetson Law School. She was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1991.
She worked as a prosecutor out of the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office for more than 18 years, trying a variety of cases from domestic violence to murder.
Bondi made history in 2010 as the state's first female attorney general. Her campaign emphasized challenging the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and later focused on human trafficking issues once in office. She also notably shut down pill mills and tackled the state's opioid crisis.
She held the post until 2019.
Bondi worked as one of Trump's defense lawyers in 2020 after he was first impeached on allegations that he had abused his power and obstructed Congress.
"They have not charged the president with any crime because the president did nothing wrong," Bondi said when articles of impeachment were sent by the House to the Senate. "There was no crime. The transcript of that phone call speaks for itself."
Bondi also worked on Trump's Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission during his first administration. In her role on the commission, Bondi collaborated with national leaders on drug prevention and treatment.
Bondi is a partner at Ballard Partners, a Florida-based lobbying firm founded by Brian Ballard. Bondi splits her time between Florida and Washington, D.C., chairing the firm's corporate regulatory practice.
The D.C. office notably earned more than $70 million in lobbying fees during Trump's first term by representing various corporate clients, according to federal disclosures.
Trump's incoming chief of staff, Susie Wiles, also works for the firm after becoming a partner there following Trump's 2016 victory.
Bondi has been vocal in her criticism about Trump's prosecutions, going so far as appearing alongside Trump in New York City during his hush money trial.
"They make it sound like it's a first-degree murder case, and I've tried plenty of trial cases, Trace, and never seen anything like this," Bondi told Fox News host Trace Gallagher in April, shortly after Trump was issued a gag order in his New York case.
"They're trying to gag him not only of his First Amendment rights but of defending himself," Bondi said at the time.
Fox News Digital's Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.
Attorneys general from 24 states are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling and uphold an Arizona law to prohibit biological boys from competing on girls' sports teams.
The petition comes after a federal appeals court ruled that the law likely violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
"Sports teams are divided by sex to begin with to give girls a level playing field so they’re not competing against boys," South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a news release. "Arizona’s law restricting girls’ sports teams to biological females is just common sense, and it protects girls from competing against bigger, stronger males who identify as females."
In addition to Wilson, the attorneys general supporting the petition are those from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.
The petition notes that these states have laws similar to Arizona's that restrict girls' sports to biological females.
It also argues that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit states from offering separate sports teams for men, women, boys and girls.
"In sports, equal access means a level playing field," the attorneys general write in their brief. "And a level playing field usually means sports teams divided by sex so that girls can compete against other girls."
"Basing the distinction on biology rather than gender identity makes sense because it is the differences in biology—not gender identity—that call for separate teams in the first place: Whatever their gender identity, biological males are, on average, stronger and faster than biological females. If those average physical differences did not matter, there would be no need to segregate sports teams at all," they continued.
The attorneys general are asking the high court to "make it clear that the Constitution does not prohibit states from saving women’s sports from unfair competition and providing meaningful athletic opportunities for girls and women," according to Wilson’s news release.
Experts say President-elect Donald Trump's chances of appointing judges to the federal bench remain positive, despite Senate Democrats' push to confirm as many of President Biden's picks as possible.
Amid their efforts to appoint Biden's judicial picks ahead of Trump's administration and a new Congress starting in January, both parties struck a midnight deal Wednesday after Republicans planned to slow down judicial confirmations earlier this week.
The agreement would allow Democrats to hold votes on four district court judges in exchange for pulling four higher-tier circuit court judicial nominees, a senior Senate source familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital.
A Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer spokesperson told Fox News Digital the trade included four circuit nominees – all of which lack votes to get confirmed – "for more than triple the number of additional judges moving forward."
"I’m glad that Republican senators are starting to show up to vote because some of the worst nominees are still awaiting confirmation precisely because they didn't have adequate support," Carrie Severino, president of JCN, told Fox News Digital.
When asked about the deal, Devon Ombres, senior director of courts and legal policy at CAPAction said, "Frankly, I'm at a loss as to why they would get here."
"It would be nice to see Democratic leadership and the White House try and push through and fill those vacancies where possible," Ombres said.
Schumer addressed the floor Thursday, saying they had confirmed six new judges this past week alone – one circuit court judge and five district court judges, bringing Biden's total number of confirmations to 220. Trump notably secured 234 confirmations during his first term.
Despite the push, Ombres stated he predicts circuit judges appointed primarily by former president George W. Bush will take senior status, which would then give Trump additional vacancies to fill. Likewise, Ombres said those appointed by former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama will avoid taking senior status.
"[Trump will] still have a handful of vacancies that he'll be able to appoint," Ombres said. "But if the Senate Republicans maintain the blue slip process, it will be tougher sledding to appoint in those in blue states, but he will still have an opportunity to bolster where there is already strength, especially the 11th Circuit."
"When Trump comes into office, he's going to have dozens more vacancies to fill," Severino said. "And that's not even counting the judges who will take senior status over the next four years."
According to a Senate Democrat leadership aide familiar with the agreement reached, the deal allowed for the Senate to vote on cloture on nine district court judges this week and vote to confirm them when they return after Thanksgiving.
The source also noted that the new deal did not mean Republicans were going to allow the Biden district judges to sail through without opposition. GOP senators are still expected to fight and vote against the Democrat-nominated judges as they have done throughout Biden's term.
"I think certainly appellate judges are always going to be more important in our judicial system than district court judges," Ombres said. "But district court judges are still capable of instituting nationwide injunctions and striking down programs and issuing sweeping opinions."
The Senate slowdown was spearheaded by Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., who was recently elected as the next Republican Senate leader. Republicans sought to delay the confirmation process through tactical maneuvers on the floor.
Trump has previously been vocal about not wanting judicial confirmations during the lame-duck session, writing on Truth Social, "No more Judges confirmed before Inauguration Day!"
Shortly after Senate Dems began to ramp up energy to confirm Biden's judicial picks after the Nov. 5 election, Trump-Vance transition spokesperson Brian Hughes told Fox News Digital in a statement, "In his first term, President Trump appointed constitutionalist judges who interpret the law as written. He will do so again."
"He had a wonderful record last time around, and I hope he's going to have a similar track record this time of putting up principled and highly qualified nominees," Severino said.
Fox News Digital's Julia Johnson contributed to this report.
