Just days after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared in a "queer" Broadway spinoff of "Romeo and Juliet," critics are questioning whether her involvement could compromise her impartiality as the court considers a landmark case about banning transgender surgical procedures for minors.

"I think it's a huge mistake for federal judges, especially Supreme Court justices, to engage in activities that clearly put the stamp of approval on an ideological position regarding issues that could come before the court, which is practically the definition of a threat to their impartiality, the appearance of impropriety," Heritage Foundation senior legal counsel Thomas Jipping told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

"It's unusual for judges to do this sort of thing under any circumstances. But I suppose if this was ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ if this was some recognized, established classic or something, it might be different. But this is obviously an advocacy production, so for a Supreme Court justice to participate in advocacy on an issue that is currently in the courts, and at least broadly speaking, before her, I think it's a huge mistake," he said.

LIBERAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAKES ‘CRINGE’ CAMEO PERFORMANCE ON BROADWAY

The musical, called "& Juliet," features prominent LGBTQ+ themes and nonbinary characters. The musical begins where Shakespeare's original ends. Instead of dying by suicide for love, Juliet chooses to forge her own path, challenging traditional gender roles. On its website, "& Juliet" is described as a "hilarious new musical" that "flips the script on the greatest love story ever told."

Juliet's best friend, May, is a nonbinary character whose queer relationship is prominently featured and explored throughout the musical.

Jackson joined the Broadway cast, which includes TikTok star Charli D’Amelio and other Broadway performers, for a one-time performance at New York’s Stephen Sondheim Theatre on Saturday night, becoming the first Supreme Court justice to perform on Broadway.

"& Juliet" was written by David West Read, best known for his work as a writer and producer on the TV show "Schitt’s Creek." The musical premiered in November 2019, at the Shaftesbury Theatre in London's West End. Its Broadway debut followed in November 2022, at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre in New York City.

LEFT-LEANING JUSTICES COMPARE SEX CHANGES FOR KIDS TO TAKING ASPIRIN DURING SCOTUS ARGUMENTS

Liberals have criticized several conservative Supreme Court justices in recent years over ethical concerns, fueling calls for stricter oversight. 

Justice Clarence Thomas has faced scrutiny over his wife’s political activism. Justice Samuel Alito has been criticized for failing to disclose luxury trips funded by wealthy donors with business before the court, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett has drawn attention for her ties to religious groups and their potential influence on cases involving LGBTQ+ issues and abortion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has also faced criticism over his confirmation process and past financial disclosures.

"For two, three years now, liberals have been complaining about actions by Supreme Court justices that they say undermine the public's confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary," Jipping said. "Liberals in Congress want an enforceable code of conduct. I wonder what they say about this."

"Participating in an advocacy, in an exercise of advocacy, for a position on issues that come before the Supreme Court is an egregious violation of that principle in the code of conduct regarding impartiality. I don't think there's any question about that," he said.

Jackson wore jeans and an all-blue costume with a corset and a flowery hat. In one clip of the performance posted by the production's social media account, her character excitedly exclaims, "Female empowerment, sick!," and in another, she sings the Backstreet Boys’ "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely."

The "& Juliet" marketing team said in an Instagram post announcing the cameo that Jackson’s performance fulfilled a lifelong fantasy of her "becoming the first Black, female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage."

'THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING': EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON HISTORIC SCOTUS TRANSGENDER CASE AMID ORAL ARGUMENTS

"She should stay on her side of the bench, and judges should protect their impartiality and the appearance of impartiality more, not less. And this, this was really reckless, in my view," Jipping added.

This isn’t the first time a Supreme Court justice has stepped into the spotlight of the performing arts. In 1994, Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared as supernumeraries – non-speaking, background roles – in a Washington National Opera production of "Ariadne auf Naxos." 

The two, known for their ideological differences but close personal friendship, shared a love of opera.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Earlier this month, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the U.S. v. Skrmetti case. The court's decision could have sweeping implications, potentially shaping future legal battles over transgender issues, such as access to bathrooms and school sports participation. The court will resume arguments in January and a decision is expected by July 2025.

The Supreme Court's press office did not respond to Fox News Digital's request by press deadline.

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

President Biden made history last week when he granted clemency to more than 1,500 people with a sweeping list of commutations and pardons. 

However, the move was met with fierce backlash from critics pointing out various names on the clemency list included individuals who cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars through their fraudulent actions.

Among those covered in what the Biden White House is calling the largest single-day act of clemency by a U.S. president was Rita Crundwell, a former comptroller in Dixon, Illinois. Crundwell was convicted and sentenced to nearly 20 years behind bars for using her position to steal nearly $54 million from the small town best known for the boyhood home of Ronald Reagan.

Also on the list was former New York law partner Paul M. Daugerdas, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for his role in a multibillion-dollar tax fraud scheme described by prosecutors as one of the largest criminal tax fraud cases in U.S. history, as well as Toyosi Alatishe, who abused his position as a caretaker for patients with severe mental deficiencies and physical disabilities by using their personal information to file fraudulent tax returns. 

BIDEN CLEMENCY ANNOUNCEMENT GETS MIXED REVIEWS ON CAPITOL HILL: ‘WHERE’S THE BAR?'

In response to Biden's decision to grant clemency to Crundwell, Republican Illinois state Sen. Andrew Chesney called the move "nothing short of a slap in the face to the people of Dixon." 

"Her crimes did not only affect the taxpayers of Dixon, but they also had a rippling effect across the region and state, as communities became subject to stricter, more tedious regulations," Chesney said in a statement following the commutation of Crundwell's sentence. "First, it was the pardoning of his son, and now Biden is apparently extending clemency to anyone with political connections, including corrupt government employees. It’s sickening."

Illinois Republican Rep. Darin LaHood echoed Chesney's remarks about the commutation being a "slap in the face" to those impacted by Crundwell's crime, adding that "while many families in Dixon were living paycheck to paycheck, [Crundwell] took advantage of their trust in government and used her access to live an unearned life of luxury."

In addition to schemes that defrauded public funds, many of the commutations Biden handed out went to white-collar criminals accused of defrauding their clients out of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, Biden also commuted the sentence of Michael Conahan, a former judge who imposed harsh sentences against juveniles in exchange for $2.8 million in illegal payments in what became known as a "kids for cash" scandal.

"I want to see [Conahan's] name removed because that's just… another slap in the face, another injustice, on top of all of the grief that everybody in this community has already endured," said Sandy Fonzo, whose son Edward committed suicide after being sent to a juvenile detention center for eight months after getting caught drinking underage.

MOTHER RIPS BIDEN FOR COMMUTING SENTENCE FOR ‘KIDS-FOR-CASH’ JUDGE: ‘DEEPLY UPSETTING’

The administration commuted sentences for inmates who were on home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic and who "have successfully reintegrated into their families and communities," according to the announcement. 

This includes verification that the person’s primary or a prior offense was not violent, a sex offense, or terrorism-related; ensured a low or minimum recidivism risk; and confirmed that the person was not engaged in violent or gang-related activity while incarcerated. All were on good behavior, and the decisions were not made on an individual basis.

Between 2017 and 2021, then-President Trump granted just 143 pardons and 93 sentence commutations – amounting to just 2% of the clemency applications that his administration received, according to available Justice Department data.

President Biden made history last week when he commuted the sentences of nearly 1,500 prisoners and pardoned another 39 people – sparking mixed reactions from lawmakers, including Democrats, who noted that his actions far outpace the clemency actions of any other U.S. president serving his first term in office.

In a statement last week announcing the new clemency actions, Biden said America "was built on the promise of possibility and second chances."

"As president, I have the great privilege of extending mercy to people who have demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation, restoring opportunity for Americans to participate in daily life and contribute to their communities, and taking steps to remove sentencing disparities for nonviolent offenders, especially those convicted of drug offenses," Biden said.

Biden's lengthy list sparked mixed reaction from some lawmakers and criminal justice reform advocates, who questioned the administration's decision-making in determining prisoners that were eligible for clemency. 

BIDEN CLEMENCY ANNOUNCEMENT GETS MIXED REVIEWS ON CAPITOL HILL: 'WHERE'S THE BAR?'

The Biden administration told CNN that the decisions on who could be included were not made on an individual basis, but rather, was a "uniform" decision granted to people with a record of good behavior while on house arrest. 

That includes former Illinois city comptroller Rita Crundwell, who, in 2012, pleaded guilty to a nearly $55 million embezzlement scheme, and former Pennsylvania judge Michael Conahan, who was convicted in 2011 for his role in a "Kids-for-Cash" scheme, in which children were sent to for-profit detention centers in return for millions of dollars of kickbacks from the private prisons. 

A full list of individuals included in Biden's most recent clemency action can be found on the Justice Department website. The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News's request for comment on its decision-making in issuing presidential pardons.

Biden's decision to include Conahan on his list of prisoners granted clemency was sharply criticized Friday by Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat who had been considered on Vice President Kamala Harris' short-list for running mate earlier this year.

Shapiro said Friday he thinks Biden got it "absolutely wrong" in granting clemency to Conahan, saying the decision has "created a lot of pain here in northeastern Pennsylvania." 

"Some children took their lives because of this. Families were torn apart," Shapiro said of the for-profit detention center scandal.

BIDEN STIRS OUTRAGE IN SCRANTON BY COMMUTING 'KIDS FOR CASH' JUDGE'S SENTENCE

Before leaving office in 2017, President Barack Obama granted clemency to 1,927 individuals during his two terms as president – the highest total of any modern president going back to former president Harry Truman, also a Democrat, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Justice Department data. 

Truman, who served as president from 1945 to 1953, granted clemency to 2,044 individuals during his two terms in office – slightly outpacing Obama's list. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected president four times, granted a total of 3,687 pardons, sentence commutations and other acts of clemency during his time in the White House. After Roosevelt died in office during his fourth term, the U.S. Constitution was ratified to limit all future presidents to two terms in office.

Others noted the differences between individuals included on Biden's clemency list and those who saw reduced or pardoned sentences under Obama.

The vast majority of Obama’s clemency actions focused on commuting the sentences of federal inmates who met certain criteria outlined under his administration’s Clemency Initiative, a program that ended in 2017 when Trump took office.

But critics have noted the stark differences between the number of individuals selected for clemency under each president – and any relationship to a sitting commander in chief.

The Obama administration, for example, largely focused its commutations and reductions on nonviolent drug offenders, including many who had been sentenced under mandatory minimum sentencing laws passed by Congress in the late 1980s. 

These clemency grants came under sharp criticism by some Republicans, who accused Obama of imposing his political will to end certain mandatory minimum sentences – which many argued at the time minimized the "lawmaking authority" of Congress.

But Biden’s clemency grants also far outpace his predecessor, Donald Trump, during his first term in office. 

Between 2017 and 2021, Trump granted just 143 pardons and 93 sentence commutations – amounting to just 2% of the clemency applications that his administration received, according to available Justice Department data. 

Some noted that the individuals selected for clemency during Trump's first term also appear to bear a very different list of criteria compared to former presidents.

An analysis conducted by Lawfare found that 29 of the 34 pardons granted by Trump were not based on recommendations of the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney. 

Such recommendations are not necessary for clemency, but presidents in recent memory have relied on the DOJ for input into worthy recipients for pardons and commutations.

In the wake of President-elect Donald Trump's 2024 win, some federal judges have opted to make a rare move and unretire by changing their previously stated plans to move to senior status, which would have created vacancies that Trump would have the opportunity to fill on the federal bench. The move is being met with outrage by some Republicans in the Senate. 

U.S. Circuit Judge James Wynn of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided not to seek senior status this month as he had originally planned, instead retaining his role on the court. His choice came after Senate Democrats agreed to allow Trump to appoint his choices to several circuit court vacancies, including the seat being left by Wynn. 

The move angered Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., whose state is under the circuit's jurisdiction. "Judge Wynn's brazenly partisan decision to rescind his retirement is an unprecedented move that demonstrates some judges are nothing more than politicians in robes. Judge Wynn clearly takes issue with the fact that Donald Trump was just elected President, and this decision is a slap in the face to the U.S. Senate, which came to a bipartisan agreement to hold off on confirming his replacement until the next Congress is sworn-in in January," he said in a statement.

RFK JR SET TO FACE ABORTION, VACCINE SCRUTINY IN SIT-DOWNS WITH SENATORS ON CAPITOL HILL

"The Senate Judiciary Committee should hold a hearing on his blatant attempt to turn the judicial retirement system into a partisan game, and he deserves the ethics complaints and recusal demands from the Department of Justice heading his way."

A spokesperson for incoming Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News Digital, "Senator Grassley looks forward to working with President Trump to fill judicial vacancies with constitutionalist judges, and will work with committee Republicans to respond to inappropriate partisanship on the bench," when asked about potential hearings.

The same was done by lower level appointees U.S. District Judges Max Cogburn and Algenon Marbley, who changed their plans last month. 

BIDEN CLEMENCY ANNOUNCEMENT GETS MIXED REVIEWS ON CAPITOL HILL: 'WHERE'S THE BAR?'

While the district judges were not included in the agreement to leave certain vacancies to Trump, it had become increasingly unlikely that President Biden and Democrats would be able to fill the roles in time. 

In early December floor remarks on the rare decisions by the judges, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, "They rolled the dice that a Democrat could replace them and now that he won’t, they’re changing their plans to keep a Republican from doing it."

GOP ATTORNEYS GENERAL OFFER SUPPORT FOR TRUMP FBI PICK KASH PATEL, URGE SENATORS TO DO THE SAME

"It’s a brazen admission. And the incoming administration would be wise to explore all available recusal options with these judges, because it’s clear now that they have a political finger on the scale," he added. 

McConnell noted that the agreement made prior to Thanksgiving between Republicans and Democrats stated that the GOP would "forego our available procedural roadblocks on the remaining nominations to district courts—which have the votes to be confirmed—and in exchange the Democratic Leader won’t bring any of the remaining nominations to circuit courts to the floor—because they don’t have the votes to be confirmed." 

Trump's transition office did not immediately provide comment to Fox News Digital. 

The House passed a once-bipartisan bill on Thursday that authorizes 63 new permanent district judgeships over the next 10 years, 22 of which President-elect Trump can fill during his next term. 

The White House released a statement earlier this week that President Biden would veto the bill if it came to his desk. 

The Senate in August passed the "Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act" or the "JUDGES Act of 2024," which staggers the 63 new permanent judgeships the president may choose over the next 10 years. Citing how courts are burdened by heavy caseloads, the bill says the president shall appoint 11 of those permanent judgeships in 2025 and 11 more in 2027. The president would tap another 10 judges in 2029, 11 in 2031, 10 in 2033 and 10 more in 2035, the bill says. 

BIDEN, DEMOCRATS BACK AWAY FROM BILL THAT WOULD GIVE TRUMP MORE FEDERAL JUDGES TO APPOINT

Now, however, key Democrats are backing away from the bill after Trump won the presidency, decrying how it was not voted on until after Election Day. 

"Today, the House passed the JUDGES Act to authorize additional federal judges to ensure the American people receive timely and fair justice," House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in a statement. "This important legislation garnered broad, bipartisan support when it unanimously passed the Senate in August because it directly addresses the pressing need to reduce case backlogs in our federal courts and strengthen the efficiency of our judicial system." 

"At that time, Democrats supported the bill — they thought Kamala Harris would win the Presidency," he added. "Now, however, the Biden-Harris Administration has chosen to issue a veto threat and Democrats have whipped against this bill, standing in the way of progress, simply because of partisan politics. This should not be a political issue — it should be about prioritizing the needs of the American people and ensuring the courts are able to deliver fair, impartial, and timely justice."

The proposal passed the House on Thursday by a 236 to 173 vote, with 29 Democrats voting in favor of it. 

DC COUNCILMAN A STEP CLOSER TO FACING EXPULSION AFTER LAW FIRM FINDS HE VIOLATED CODE OF CONDUCT

The bill's Democratic co-sponsor in the House, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said in a floor speech Thursday before the vote that he now opposes the measure. 

"You don’t get to pick the horse, after that horse has already won the race. But that’s exactly what my Republican colleagues are seeking to do today," he said. 

On Tuesday, the White House said while "judicial staffing is important to the rule of law," the JUDGES Act is "unnecessary to the efficient and effective administration of justice." 

"The bill would create new judgeships in states where Senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies," the statement said. "Those efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now. In addition, neither the House nor the Senate fully explored how the work of senior status judges and magistrate judges affects the need for new judgeships."

"Further, the Senate passed this bill in August, but the House refused to take it up until after the election. Hastily adding judges with just a few weeks left in the 118th Congress would fail to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the judges are allocated," the White House added. 

Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Todd Young, R-Ind., co-sponsored the bill in the Senate. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"In a bipartisan vote, the House just passed my JUDGES Act to address the shortage of federal judges and the severe delays Americans are experiencing. I urge President Biden to do the right thing for our judicial system and sign it into law," Young wrote Thursday on X. "The legislation is widely supported by leading legal organizations and advocates across our country." 

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. 

President Biden and key Democrats are now opposing a once bipartisan bill that would have authorized 63 new permanent district judgeships now that President-elect Donald Trump would be the one to fill 21 of those slots once he takes office.

The Senate in August passed the "Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act" or the "JUDGES Act of 2024," which staggers the 63 new permanent judgeships the president may choose over the next 10 years. Citing how courts are burdened by heavy caseloads, the bill says the president shall appoint 11 of those permanent judgeships in 2025 and 11 more in 2027. The president would tap another 10 judges in 2029, 11 in 2031, 10 in 2033 and 10 more in 2035, the bill says. 

Democrats are decrying how the bill did not come to a vote in the House before the election – when control of the next presidency, and therefore which party would choose those next 21 judges, still hung in the balance. 

The White House released a statement on Tuesday saying Biden would now veto the bill if it came to his desk. 

"While judicial staffing is important to the rule of law, S. 4199 is unnecessary to the efficient and effective administration of justice," the White House said. "The bill would create new judgeships in states where Senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies. Those efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now." 

TRUMP WILL APPOINT 'DOZENS' OF JUDGES, EXPERTS SAY, DESPITE DEMS RAMMING THROUGH NOMINEES IN LAME-DUCK SESSION

"In addition, neither the House nor the Senate fully explored how the work of senior status judges and magistrate judges affects the need for new judgeships," the White House continued. "Further, the Senate passed this bill in August, but the House refused to take it up until after the election. Hastily adding judges with just a few weeks left in the 118th Congress would fail to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the judges are allocated." 

During a House Rules Committee hearing on Monday, Rep. Chip Roy, R-N.C., and House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, made the argument that a significant number of districts in states, regardless of their political make-up, have sounded the alarm about staffing shortages worsening the backlogs of cases. However, despite the significant need, they argued, the appointment process has become politicized.

"We need the number of judges," Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, admitted. "However, President Trump has shown, he bragged that by his three appointments, he overturned Roe v. Wade. He said he was going to do it. He did it. So don’t tell me it’s not political." 

"Under this legislation, we all promised to give the next three unknown presidents a certain number of judges," Nadler said. "Because no one can tell the future we were all at an equal disadvantage, but for this deal to work, the bill had to be passed before Election Day."

The bill text cites how as of March 31, 2023, there were 686,797 pending cases in the district courts across the country, with an average of 491 weighted case filings per judgeship over a 12-month period.

Shortly before the White House released its statement signaling Biden would veto the bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., gave a speech noting how the JUDGES Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent in August.

TRUMP NAMES ALINA HABBA AS COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT; REVEALS SEVERAL STATE DEPARTMENT PICKS

The bipartisan support, McConnell argued, proved "that the right to a speedy trial still enjoys overwhelming popularity." 

"I was particularly encouraged by the vocal endorsement of our friend, the Democratic leader, who recognized the measure as, quote, ‘very responsible, bipartisan and prudent bill that would lead to a better functioning judiciary.’ Soon, we expect the House to take up and pass the JUDGES Act with similar overwhelming support," McConnell said. "And normally, we could rest assured that such popular action would be signed into law without further ado. But maybe not this time." 

"Last week, the White House seemed to suggest, through anonymous comment that President Biden has concerns with the bill. I, for one, would be curious to hear the president's rationale. It's hard to imagine a justification for blocking the JUDGES Act that doesn't smack of naked partisanship," McConnell, who did lead the GOP effort to block former President Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, said. "It's almost inconceivable that a lame duck president would consider vetoing such an obviously prudential step for any reason other than selfish spite."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Litigants across America deserve their day in court," he said. "They deserve to know the federal judiciary has the bandwidth to carefully and thoroughly consider their cases. The president, former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is well equipped to appreciate this fact, and I hope he acts accordingly." 

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a high-profile case involving the right of transgender minors to receive gender transition care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, in one of the most closely watched, potentially impactful cases slated to come before the high court this year.

The case, United States v. Skrmetti, centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for adolescents in the state. The law also takes aim at health care providers in Tennessee who continue to provide gender-transition treatments to transgender minors, opening them up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.  

The petitioners in the case are the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of parents of three transgender adolescents, and a Memphis-based doctor who treats transgender patients. The petitioners were also joined by the Biden administration earlier this year under a federal law that allows the administration to intervene in certain cases certified by the attorney general to be of "general public importance." 

The petitioners argue the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The state has responded by insisting the law does not discriminate based on gender, arguing it sets parameters on age- and use-based restrictions on certain drugs and is therefore not a violation of the Constitution.

BIDEN'S SWEEPING HUNTER PARDON AT ODDS WITH LONGTIME RHETORIC ON EXECUTIVE POWER: 'NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW'

According to the U.S. Supreme Court website, the key question posed in the case is "whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SBl), which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow 'a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex' or to treat 'purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity,' Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Wednesday's oral arguments mark the first time the Supreme Court will consider restrictions on puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors, giving the case importance in Tennessee and in other states across the country. 

Tennessee passed its law, Senate Bill 1, in March 2023. But it is just one of at least 25 U.S. states that has banned gender transition care for transgender adolescents, making the case — and Wednesday's oral arguments — one of the most high-profile cases to be heard this session.  

The oral arguments have been anticipated for months. The controversial case comes at a time in Washington when Republicans will regain control of the White House and both chambers of Congress next month, giving them heavy influence and, some fear, more control over the federal judiciary. 

Here's what you need to know ahead of Wednesday's oral arguments.

Who's arguing the case?

The petitioners will be represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and Chase Strangio, an ACLU attorney who represented the original parties in the lawsuit.

Strangio, the deputy director for transgender justice for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, will be the first openly transgender person to argue before the Supreme Court.

The respondents in the case, namely the state of Tennessee, will be represented in court by Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice and the state attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti. 

In a court filing submitted ahead of Wednesday's oral arguments, Prelogar's office argued the Tennessee law has a deliberate focus on "sex and gender conformity," asserting Senate Bill 1 "declares that its very purpose is to ‘encourag[e] minors to appreciate their sex' and to ban treatments ‘that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.'"

"That," the federal government wrote, "is sex discrimination."

Counsel for the petitioners will argue that the Tennessee law imposes "differential treatment based on the sex an individual is assigned at birth," triggering a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

HUNTER BIDEN GUN CASE TERMINATED AFTER PARDON, BUT FEDERAL JUDGE STOPS SHORT OF FULL DISMISSAL

They will also argue that upholding the ban will represent a "dangerous and discriminatory affront" to transgender minors not just in Tennessee, but across the country, a point that has been emphasized by Strangio.

The state argued in a court filing that the law "contains no sex classification" warranting the heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, it said, it "creates two groups: minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes."

The question of scrutiny 

The Supreme Court has determined three different levels of scrutiny that help determine whether a law is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution: Strict scrutiny, heightened scrutiny and rational basis. The highest level, strict scrutiny, requires a law be passed to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to minimize harm. 

The second level of scrutiny, or "heightened scrutiny," requires the governmental body to prove its actions further an "important government interest" by using means "substantially related to that interest." 

The lowest bar, rational basis, is the most deferential of the tests and requires the law only serve a legitimate interest with a "rational connection" to the means and goals of the statute.

Overview of the arguments

Wednesday's oral arguments will center on whether banning gender transition care for minors violates protections under the Equal Protection Clause, either via gender discrimination or discrimination against their transgender status.

The petitioners in the case will argue that the Tennessee law discriminates against individuals and their right to receive the same medical treatments based on their sex. Under the law, the petitioners argued in their court filing, "an adolescent assigned female at birth cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live as a male, but an adolescent assigned male at birth can."

TRUMP'S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’

Separately, they will argue that discriminating against individuals based on their transgender status is also sufficient to trigger higher scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, noting that transgender individuals "satisfy all of the hallmarks of a quasi-suspect class," including being subject to discrimination, representing a "discrete and identifiable minority" and other components outlined by the Supreme Court, thereby necessitating that heightened scrutiny be applied.

The respondents will argue that Senate Bill 1, places age- and use-based restrictions on certain drugs and, therefore, is not an example of unconstitutional discrimination. 

Further, they will argue that the law easily passes even the test of heightened scrutiny. The state contends it has "compelling interests" to protect the health and safety of minors in the state and "in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession."

Case history

U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, a Trump appointee, granted a preliminary inunction for part of the Tennessee ban in June, siding with the petitioners' assertion that "parents have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children, which naturally includes the right of parent[s] to request certain medical treatments on behalf of their children[.]"

He said the ban on most types of gender care for transgender minors would likely not survive the heightened scrutiny test under the Equal Protection Clause, since the same treatments were not banned for their non-transgender peers. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit later overturned the district court's decision and reinstated the full ban, using the lowest test of rational basis. The petitioners appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed in June to review the case.

The petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to remand the case to the 6th Circuit Court to hear it again, this time using the test of heightened scrutiny.

Strangio has repeatedly stressed the wide-ranging impact the Supreme Court decision could have on "countless transgender youth" of current and future generations and has described the bans as a "dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country."

Next steps

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on United States v. Skrmetti by July 2025. The Supreme Court typically issues summer decisions on cases argued during the October term.

The Senate GOP leader on Monday slammed decisions by two federal judges to reverse their announced retirements after Republican former President Trump won re-election in November.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized the pair of "partisan Democrat district judges" after they announced plans to "unretire" after "the American people voted to fire Democrats last month." 

"Looking to history, only two judges have ever unretired after a presidential election. One Democrat in 2004 and one Republican in 2009. But now, in just a matter of weeks, Democrats have already met that all-time record. It's hard to conclude that this is anything other than open partisanship," McConnell said in remarks delivered on the Senate floor.

In mid-November, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley of Ohio informed President Biden of his intention to stay on the bench after Biden had failed to nominate a replacement for him.

DEMOCRATS ADVANCE 5 MORE BIDEN JUDICIAL NOMINEES

Marbley, who was appointed by President Clinton, said that because a successor had not been confirmed, "I have therefore decided to remain on active status and carry out the full duties and obligations of the office." 

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn of North Carolina, who was appointed by President Obama, has also withdrawn plans to retire, Reuters reported.

Both Marbley and Cogburn had announced plans to take senior status before the election, which would have allowed them to take reduced caseloads until the president appoints a successor. 

McConnell said their decisions to rescind their retirements after Trump won points to "a political finger on the scale." He urged the incoming Trump administration to "explore all available recusal options with these judges." 

FEDERAL JUDGE IN OHIO RESCINDS RETIREMENT AFTER TRUMP VICTORY, WITH BIDEN YET TO NOMINATE A SUCCESSOR

He also warned two sitting circuit court judges, who have announced retirements and have vacancies currently pending before the senate, against making similar decisions to "unretire." 

"Never before has a circuit judge unretired after a presidential election. It's literally unprecedented. And to create such a precedent would fly in the face of a rare bipartisan compromise on the disposition of these vacancies," McConnell said.

He was referring to a bipartisan agreement on judicial nominations last month that secured Trump's ability to appoint four crucial appellate court judges after he assumes office in January.

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR FACES PRESSURE TO RETIRE AHEAD OF TRUMP TAKING OFFICE: REPORT

Republicans agreed to halt procedural delay tactics and permit Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to vote on cloture on nine of Biden's district court judges before Thanksgiving and vote to confirm them when they return after the holiday. In exchange, Democrats would pull four circuit court nominees who lack the votes to get confirmed, allowing Trump to fill those vacancies next year. 

However, a Democratic source familiar told Fox News Digital that only two of the circuit court vacancies are certain, and the other two may ultimately decide against taking senior judge status.

McConnell threatened that "significant ethics complaints" would follow swiftly if any retiring judge reversed their decision to take senior status because Trump won.

"As I repeatedly warned the judiciary in other matters, if you play political games, expect political prizes. So let's hope these judges do the right thing and enjoy their well-earned retirement and leave the politics to the political branches." 

Fox News Digital's Julia Johnson and Kelly Phares 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."

SPECIAL COUNSEL, IRS WHISTLEBLOWERS SAY DON'T BUY BIDEN 'SPIN' ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN LEGAL SAGA

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.

BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER BIDEN AHEAD OF EXIT FROM OVAL OFFICE

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."

PRESIDENT BIDEN'S PARDON OF SON HUNTER A POLITICAL GIFT FOR TRUMP GOING FORWARD

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 Joe Biden faced mounting criticism Monday for his decision to issue a sweeping pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, with detractors not only citing the breadth of the pardon itself but also the degree to which it breaks with the president's history of extolling the virtues of the judiciary as a bulwark against executive abuses of power.

In fact, Biden took aim at these very abuses during a speech in July, in which he warned of a "dangerous precedent" created by the Supreme Court's decision that expanded the view of presidential immunity. 

"This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America," Biden said in July. "No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States."

Biden's remarks were a response to the Supreme Court's July 1 ruling that expanded the view of presidential immunity, and which he criticized as fundamentally changing the separation of powers.

"With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed," Biden said in July.

"For all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do," he added.

PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR: HOUSE REPUBLICANS' SMALL MAJORITY COULD MAKE ATTENDANCE A PRIORITY 

In their decision, justices writing for the 4-3 Supreme Court majority said that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from any actions taken within the scope of "core constitutional powers" of the office. 

A presumption of immunity also applies to other actions taken while holding office, they said.

Biden strenuously objected to that ruling, citing deep concerns over the risks of unchecked power in the executive branch — and the erosion of what he described as necessary parameters for a sitting president. 

The presidency, Biden said then, "is the most powerful office in the world. It’s an office that not only tests your judgment. But perhaps even more importantly, it’s an office that can test your character."

"You not only face moments where you need the courage to exercise the full power of the presidency," Biden said in his speech. "You also face moments where you need the wisdom to respect the limits of the power of the office of the presidency."

TRUMP'S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’

Six months later, Biden is facing sharp criticism from some lawmakers and legal analysts for his decision to pardon Hunter, an about-face from his earlier promises, and a sweeping protection that covers any federal crimes Hunter Biden "has committed or may have committed" from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024. 

In announcing the pardon, Biden criticized the unfair investigation and prosecution of his son, a process he said was "infected" by politics and led to a "miscarriage of justice."

"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 said in a statement Sunday.

But some critics also cited fears that Biden's pardon could further erode the public's view of the Justice Department — giving 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. 

Biden is "essentially endorsing Trump's long-held opinion that the Department of Justice is politicized and isn't acting impartially," longtime Republican strategist and communicator Ryan Williams told Fox News Digital of the pardon.

 Fox News Digital's Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

The White House today defended President Biden's declaration in May that "no one is above the law" amid criticism of his sweeping pardon Sunday evening for son Hunter Biden following a yearslong legal saga revolving around two criminal cases. 

"Yes," a White House official told Fox News Digital on Monday when asked if Biden still believes "no one is above the law" after pardoning his son. "As he said in his statement, he has deep respect for our justice system. 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."

Biden posted a message to X back on May 31, one day after President-elect Donald Trump was found guilty in the Manhattan criminal trial in May, that "No one is above the law." 

BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER BIDEN AHEAD OF EXIT FROM OVAL OFFICE

Following his pardon of Hunter Biden from a gun case and a tax case, conservatives and others resurrected the post on social media, with Reps. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., and Eli Crane, R-Ariz., for example, quipping that the rule of law applies to all Americans, "Unless your last name is Biden."

REPUBLICANS HAMMER BIDEN'S 'NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW' CLAIM FOLLOWING HUNTER PARDON: 'AGED LIKE FINE MILK'

"You've been lied to every step of the way by this Administration and the corrupt Biden family. This is just the latest in their long coverup scheme. They never play by the same rules they force on everyone else. Disgraceful," Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., declared in response to the old Biden post.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, posted, "This aged like fine milk."

Biden's May message that "no one is above the law" came as his son was preparing for his first criminal trial in Delaware, where he was accused of illegally purchasing a firearm. He was also facing another trial regarding the failure to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. 

LAWMAKERS HARSHLY CRITICIZE BIDEN'S DECISION TO PARDON HUNTER: ‘LIAR’

Biden was found guilty on June 11 of lying about his drug use when purchasing a firearm 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 with crack cocaine use. 

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 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. 

Earlier this year, President Biden had publicly pledged at least twice that he would not pardon his son over the charges. 

"Yes," President Biden told ABC News when asked if he would rule out pardoning Hunter ahead of his guilty verdict in the gun case. 

TRUMP ASKS ABOUT ‘J-6 HOSTAGES’ IN RESPONSE TO BIDEN'S PARDON OF HUNTER: ‘SUCH AN ABUSE’

Days later, following a jury finding Hunter guilty in the firearm case, the president again said he would not pardon his son. 

"I am not going to do anything," Biden said after Hunter was convicted. "I will abide by the jury’s decision."

While conservatives lambasted Biden for pardoning his son after vowing he would not take that step, some attorneys came to Biden's defense over the pardon, including Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder. 

Biden wrote in his statement announcing the pardon that the prosecution of his son was politically motivated.

"It is clear that Hunter was treated differently," Biden wrote in his statement. 

"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."

"For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They’ll be fair-minded. Here’s the truth: 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," the president added. 

Fox News Digital's Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report. 

Senate Republicans faced criticism over several vote absences this week that allowed Democrats to confirm judges or agree to end debate on nominees that otherwise could have been blocked if each of the missing GOP lawmakers were there. 

One particularly crucial vote was on Monday for a lifetime appointment to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court, a coveted appeals court slot to which Democrats did not have the votes to confirm President Biden's nominee, since outgoing Sen. Joe Manchin, I-W.Va., voted against. 

However, since Sens. Mike Braun, R-Ind., Steve Daines, R-Mont., Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., JD Vance, R-Ohio, and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., did not vote, the nominee was confirmed by 49 votes to 45 votes. 

DSCC HOPEFUL GILLIBRAND SAYS DEMS SHOULD HAVE PUT IMMIGRATION FIX ON TABLE '2 YEARS AGO'

"This leftist judge would have been voted down and the seat on the important 11th circuit would have been filled by Donald Trump next year had Republicans showed up," wrote Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., on X. "Now, the leftist judge will have a lifetime appointment and the people of FL, AL and GA will suffer the consequences."

Mike Davis, the former chief counsel for nominations to former Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News Digital, "A senator’s only job is to show up and vote."

"President Biden is jamming through bottom-of-the-barrel radical left-wing judges for lifetime appointments to the federal bench after the American people voted for dramatic change. Senate Republicans must do everything they can to stop this lame-duck conveyor belt of radicals. But if these Senate Republicans cannot even show up to vote, let alone debate for four hours on each judge, why should we vote for these deadbeat senators?"

Davis is also founder and president of the Article III Project. 

GOP SENATOR DEBUTS BILL TO ABOLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING TRUMP CAMPAIGN PROMISE

A senior Senate source confirmed to Fox News Digital that there was irritation among the Republican conference about their colleagues' absences. The most vocal about it was Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., they said.

In a statement, Vice President-elect Vance said, "As a co-chairman of the transition, it’s vital that I’m focused on making sure President Trump’s government is fully staffed with people who support his America First agenda and will be ready to hit the ground running on January 20th."

"However, it’s also important to me to do everything in my power to block more radical judges from getting confirmed. So while it may be outside of the norm for an incoming VP to take Senate votes in the lame duck period, if my colleagues here in the Senate tell me that we have a real chance of beating one of these nominees, I’ll move heaven and earth to be there for the vote," he added. 

SENATE SHOWDOWN: GOP SECURES DEAL WITH SCHUMER TO SAVE COVETED APPELLATE JUDGES FOR TRUMP

In a separate statement, Brian Hughes, Trump-Vance Transition spokesman said, "We cannot allow Chuck Schumer to play games with the transition’s ability to staff the incoming administration. Under no circumstances should we allow radical left judges to be jammed through the Senate at the 11th hour, but the Vice President-elect is needed for the transition to continue working ahead of schedule." 

Vance is notably the first senator in over a century to vote on a judicial nomination after being elected to be vice president. 

The vice president-elect was at the Capitol during the latter part of the week facilitating meetings between senators and Trump selections for key administration posts. 

Vance was in attendance for pivotal votes on Wednesday, while some Republicans were still absent. 

A spokesperson for Daines pointed Fox News Digital to an X post from the senator, in which he detailed travel issues he ran into on his way to Washington, D.C. "Runway closed due to ice, then prolonged de-icing, then a medical emergency…then Delta flight attendants timed out. Landed DC at 10 pm and voting until ~ midnight," he said. 

Daines' office said he went immediately to the Senate floor to vote once he finally landed in the capital. 

The offices of Braun, Hagerty and Rubio did not provide comment to Fox News Digital in time for publication. Rubio was recently selected by Trump to be his nominee for Secretary of State.

While the circuit court confirmation was the most important vote that GOP absences helped to advance, it wasn't the only case of it happening this week. 

Braun, Hagerty, Vance, Rubio and Sens. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas were absent for a vote on a district court nominee on Tuesday that was ultimately confirmed, despite Manchin opposing and Democrats not otherwise having enough votes. 

Cruz was in Texas on the day of the vote with Trump and billionaire Elon Musk for the launch of a SpaceX rocket. The senator is the soon-to-be chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and told reporters this week that space legislation "will be a significantly higher priority of the full committee." 

DEMOCRAT TAMMY BALDWIN DETAILS RECIPE FOR RUNNING IN A SWING STATE AFTER VICTORY IN TRUMP-WON WISCONSIN

He cited his trip to the launch, saying, "My number-one priority is jobs. And commercial space generates tens of thousands of jobs across Texas and across the country."

Cramer's office did not provide comment in time for publication. 

On Wednesday, both Cruz and Braun missed another district judge confirmation that Manchin opposed, handing Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Biden another accomplishment. 

Braun further missed another Wednesday vote on a district judge that was opposed by outgoing Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., allowing the nominee to be confirmed. 

On Wednesday, Tillis spoke on the Senate floor on the subject. "Schumer's trying to ram through Biden's liberal judicial nominees. We can block some of them, but it requires ALL GOP senators to be here. VP-elect [Vance] is a busy man right now, but he's still here on the Senate floor holding the line, and so should all of our GOP colleagues," he wrote on X. 

The outgoing Indiana senator returned on Wednesday evening before Republicans managed to make a deal with Schumer on further judicial confirmation votes, securing four vacancies on valuable circuit courts for Trump in exchange for allowing votes on a number of district court judges without further stalling. 

One GOP senator told Fox News Digital that Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., who was recently elected to be the next GOP Senate leader, applied pressure to absent senators such as Vance, Rubio and Braun, which resulted in the ultimate deal with Schumer. 

A senior Senate Republican source familiar told Fox News Digital that Thune underscored the importance of attendance at the GOP conference, especially concerning judicial confirmation votes. 

Five more of President Biden's judicial nominees advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday and will proceed to the Senate floor in the coming days.

Senate Democrats confirmed Biden's 220th federal court appointment on Wednesday and are hoping to add to that number before the Thanksgiving holiday. Republicans have fought several of these nominees on grounds that they are too left wing, but a number of Biden's appointments were confirmed after GOP senators missed votes.

President-elect Trump accused Democrats of attempting to "stack the Courts" with radical appointees and urged Republicans to "Show Up and Hold the Line." 

"No more Judges confirmed before Inauguration Day!" Trump posted on Truth Social.

SENATE SHOWDOWN: GOP SECURES DEAL WITH SCHUMER TO SAVE COVETED APPELLATE JUDGES FOR TRUMP

Democrats are in a mad rush to confirm as many of Biden's nominees as possible before Trump returns to the White House and Republicans install their incoming Senate majority. 

The nominees advanced Thursday include Anthony Brindisi, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York; Elizabeth Coombe, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York; Sarah Davenport, nominated to the District Court for the District of New Mexico; Tiffany Johnson, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; and Keli Neary, nominated to the U.S. District court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The committee also advanced Miranda Holloway-Baggett, a nominee to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Alabama. 

Senators reached a bipartisan agreement on judicial nominations late Wednesday that secured Trump's ability to appoint four crucial appellate court judges after he assumes office in January.

SENATE GOP INITIATES THUNE-ENGINEERED SLOWDOWN AS SCHUMER LOOKS TO STACK JUDICIAL VOTES

Republicans agreed to halt procedural delay tactics and permit Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to hold votes on four district court judges in exchange for pulling four higher tier circuit court judicial nominees, a Senate source told Fox News Digital.

Trump will be able to fill those higher court vacancies while Democrats confirm judges to the lower courts.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Senate will vote to end debate on the Biden nominees this week and will vote to confirm several judges when the Senate reconvenes after Thanksgiving, a Democratic source familiar told Fox News Digital.

The nomination of Amir Ali to the District of Columbia was confirmed Wednesday night. The Senate voted on cloture on four other nominations as well. The Senate will vote Thursday on cloture on two further nominations, Noel Wise of California to be District Judge for the Northern District of California and Gail A. Weilheimer to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and vote on confirmation of one District Court Judge, Sharad Desai to be District Judge for Arizona. 

SPRINT TO CONFIRM TRUMP NOMINEES KICKS OFF IN JANUARY

The deal was primarily motivated by a Senate slowdown initiated by Republicans through procedural maneuvers on Monday night, which was spearheaded by Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., who was recently elected as the next Republican Senate leader. The delay tactic plan came in response to Schumer's efforts to stack additional judicial confirmation votes on the calendar ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday. 

"If Sen. Schumer thought Senate Republicans would just roll over and allow him to quickly confirm multiple Biden-appointed judges to lifetime jobs in the final weeks of the Democrat majority, he thought wrong," Thune told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement at the time. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

By objecting to Democrats' unanimous consent requests in order to file cloture on the Biden nominees, Republicans were adding additional votes to the schedule, taking up a substantial amount of time and forcing senators to spend all night at the Capitol.

The source noted to Fox News Digital 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. 

Fox News Digital's Haley Chi-Sing and Julia Johnson contributed to this report. 

Matt Gaetz, the former Florida representative and Trump nominee for Attorney General, announced Thursday that he is withdrawing as Trump's pick for the top prosecutor, citing what he described as the "distraction" his nomination had caused due to a swirl of allegations about paying underage women for sex. 

"While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition," Gaetz said.

"There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I'll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General. Trump's DOJ must be in place and ready on Day 1."

The news comes amid a swirl of allegations surrounding Gaetz, who for months had been under investigation by the House Ethics Committee until his resignation last Wednesday from the current congressional session.

The panel had subpoenaed him as recently as September for an ongoing investigation into alleged sexual misconduct with a minor. Gaetz in response told the panel he would "no longer voluntarily participate" in their probe.

Gaetz’s decision to step down eight days after his nomination now leaves open the role of attorney general—a position for which Trump had been considering a wide-ranging list of candidates, including former DOJ officials, members of Congress, and outside officials.

Those on the short list included Former White House attorney Mark Paoletta, who served during Trump’s first term as counsel to then-Vice President Mike Pence and to the Office of Management and Budget; Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who was tapped in 2022 to be the state’s top prosecutor after then-state Attorney General Eric Schmitt was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Since taking over the state AG’s office, Bailey has led dozens of lawsuits against the Biden administration and sought to defend the state on a number of conservative issues as well. 

The one position all had in common was loyalty—for which Trump praised Gaetz for in his nomination. 

Trump confirmed the news in a post on Truth Social Thursday afternoon. "I greatly appreciate the recent efforts of Matt Gaetz in seeking approval to be Attorney General," the president-elect said."He was doing very well but, at the same time, did not want to be a distraction for the Administration, for which he has much respect," Trump added. "Matt has a wonderful future, and I look forward to watching all of the great things he will."

DEPARTMENT LOOKING TO WIND DOWN TRUMP CRIMINAL CASES AHEAD OF INAUGURATION

In a Truth Social post announcing Gaetz's nomination, Trump said Gaetz "has distinguished himself in Congress through his focus on achieving desperately needed reform at the Department of Justice."

Regardless of who Trump picks, "He's going to want someone who he knows, likes and trusts," former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker told Fox News about the role earlier this month. "He's going to want someone who was there from the beginning."

The House Ethics Committee deadlocked Tuesday on whether to release their report on their investigation into the former congressman, which kicked off following a Justice Department investigation in 2021 stemming from allegations related to sex trafficking.  The DOJ did not press charges in the matter, and attorneys for Gaetz said in 2023 that the Justice Department had dropped the investigation. 

"We have just spoken with the DOJ and have been informed that they have concluded their investigation into Congressman Gaetz and allegations related to sex trafficking and obstruction of justice, and they have determined not to bring any charges against him," Gaetz attorneys Marc Mukasey and Isabelle Kirshner said in a statement last February reported by multiple news outlets.

Gaetz has vehemently denied all accusations. 

Lawmakers responded to the news with a range of reactions Thursday. 

Gaetz faced an uncertain path to Senate confirmation, even in a Republican-controlled chamber— and it was unclear whether he would have secured the votes needed to serve in the key Cabinet role.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he respects the former congressman’s decision to withdraw his name from consideration, and "appreciate his willingness to serve at the highest level of our government." 

"He is very smart and talented and will continue to contribute to our nation’s wellbeing for years to come," Graham said.

"I think it's a positive development.," Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) told reporters of Gaetz’s decision to take himself out of the running. He declined to answer any follow-up questions as to why he thought that, but looked at reporters and smiled.

Sen. Joe Manchin, I-WV, said of the news, "Smart man." Asked to clarify, he added: "He did that?" 

"Very smart," he told reporters in response. "Very smart move."

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

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee filed a lawsuit Monday over the counting of dozens of provisional ballots in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, alleging that rejecting the ballots violates both the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution and other protections for voters.

The lawsuit, which the DSCC filed in state court against the Bucks County Board of Elections on behalf of Sen. Bob Casey, is the latest in a flurry of legal action in the Keystone State as it begins its official Senate election recount. 

The case centers on 74 provisional ballots in Bucks County that were disqualified because they lacked an inner "secrecy envelope" required for provisional ballots in the state.

REPUBLICANS FILE 12 PENNSYLVANIA LAWSUITS IN 'AGGRESSIVE' PUSH TO END RECOUNT

Lawyers for the Democratic Party argued in the court filing that the provisional ballot errors were the "direct result" of inaccurate instructions from poll workers, rather than the voters themselves, and therefore violated both the due process clause and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which states that "an individual's provisional ballot "shall be counted... in accordance with state law" if election officials determine that the individual is eligible to vote.  

By excluding these provisional ballots that were the result of poll worker errors, lawyers argued, the Bucks County Board of Elections "unlawfully disenfranchises" voters and harms Casey’s electoral prospects.

The lawsuit centers on just 74 ballots, making it unlikely it will have any significant impact on the recount in Pennsylvania. 

But it comes amid a flurry of recent lawsuits in the Keystone State, where Republican candidate David McCormick narrowly edged out Casey by just 17,000 votes, according to unofficial data from the Department of State – putting Casey well within the 0.5% margin of error required under Pennsylvania law to trigger an automatic recount. 

BATTLEGROUND STATES' RECOUNT RULES VARY WIDELY. HERE'S A LOOK AT HOW THEY WORK

The Senate recount began Monday, and will continue through Nov. 26.

Republican Party officials have argued that the results have been decisive and that Casey lacks any achievable path to victory.

They have also criticized Casey for declining to waive the recount, noting that it will cost taxpayers an estimated $1 million. 

McCormick, for his part, called for a recount of his own in 2022 after he was beaten in the Republican Senate primary by TV celebrity Dr. Mehmet Oz.

News of the lawsuit comes after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Monday that mail-in ballots with incorrect or missing dates cannot be counted in the 2024 election, delivering a victory to Republican Party officials as they moved to aggressively defend their narrow Senate victory.

Casey's campaign used news of the DSCC lawsuit to reiterate their criticism of the many Republican-led lawsuits that have been filed in the commonwealth, and which they have suggested risk disenfranchising voters.

"Thousands of Pennsylvanians’ votes are in question across the commonwealth as David McCormick and national Republicans work to throw out ballots cast by eligible voters and accepted by county election boards," a spokesperson for the campaign told Fox News Digital.

Casey will "continue to fight back against efforts to disenfranchise voters to ensure Pennsylvanians’ voices are heard and that eligible voters can participate in our democracy," the spokesperson added.

The DSCC did not immediately respond to Fox News's request for comment on the lawsuit.

The Manhattan district attorney said a Bloomberg report on Tuesday morning claiming that Donald Trump's sentencing for 34 criminal charges had been "adjourned" was incorrect.

The wire was based on an automated schedule alert sent out by the court that stemmed from a court email from last week saying that all future dates had been stayed, according to the DA's office.

District Attorney Alvin Bragg is still slated to file a recommendation to Judge Juan Merchan on how to proceed. 

Merchan can move to either delay Trump's sentencing until after he leaves the White House, can dismiss the conviction outright, or can grant a sentence of unconditional discharge, which would leave the conviction intact but free Trump from any prison time, fines, or probation.

Trump was convicted in May by a Manhattan jury on 34 counts of falsifying business records, stemming from a case about payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels, which could have landed him a maximum sentence of up to four years in prison. 

But the presidential race — and Trump’s victory — had thrown the timeline for court proceedings into a fog of uncertainty.

Merchan granted a request from prosecutors earlier this month to stay all deadlines associated with the New York case, including a planned sentencing date of Nov. 26, in wake of Trump's election victory.

REPUBLICANS FILE 12 PENNSYLVANIA LAWSUITS IN 'AGGRESSIVE' PUSH TO END RECOUNT

"The People agree that these are unprecedented circumstances," prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said in their request, which he added  would allow for prosecutors to better evaluate the impact of his election as president.

Trump's attorneys, who have pushed to vacate the charges against him completely, also backed the stay. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in July that presidents should enjoy presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for most actions taken as president, further complicating the path forward in the New York case.

EVERY DECISION JUDGE MERCHAN HAS MADE HAS 'FAVORED THE PROSECUTION,' SAYS THINK TANK PRESIDENT

The high court ruled that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from any actions taken within the scope of "core constitutional powers" as commander-in-chief. 

A presumption of immunity also applies to other actions taken while holding office, they said.

It is not clear whether a president is to be afforded the same level of constitutional protection for state convictions, however, and the matter has never been tested in court.

Bragg's office has insisted its case is focused solely on Trump's personal behavior, not his actions as president. 

Trump, for his part, has repeatedly characterized the case as a politically motivated "witch hunt," a refrain frequently used by the president-elect in an attempt to discredit his critics, political opponents, and prosecutors at the state and federal level. 

Even if Trump’s convictions were to be upheld, the president-elect has myriad ways to appeal the case or get the charges against him dismissed before the Nov. 26 sentencing hearing — making it all but certain he will face no time behind bars.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This story has been updated to note that the Manhattan DA has confirmed the sentencing had not been adjourned.