The U.S. Supreme Court issued several major decisions over the course of 2024. 

Its rulings include those that have pushed back on the Biden administration's attempted change of Title IX protections for transgender students, reversed a 40-year precedent that had supported what conservatives have condemned as the administrative state in Washington, and considered the constitutionality of Republican-controlled state efforts to curtail what they define as liberal Silicon Valley biases online. 

The high court also ruled on presidential immunity at a consequential time for current President-elect Trump during the 2024 election – and sided with a Jan. 6 defendant who fought a federal obstruction charge. 

Here are the top cases considered by the justices over the past year. 

The Supreme Court on Aug. 16, 2024, kept preliminary injunctions preventing the Biden-Harris administration from implementing a new rule that widened the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity, while litigation over the rule continues.

After the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal denied the administration's request to put a stay on the injunctions, the Department of Education turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that some parts of the rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court rejected their request.

"Importantly, all Members of the Court today accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity," the court's unsigned opinion said, concluding that the Biden administration had not "adequately identified which particular provisions, if any, are sufficiently independent of the enjoined definitional provision and thus might be able to remain in effect."

In April, the Department of Education issued the new rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, arguing that expanding the definition of discrimination to include "sexual orientation and gender identity" would protect LGBTQ students. Louisiana led several states in suing the DOE, contending the new rule "violates students' and employees' rights to bodily privacy and safety." 

Title IX implemented the long-standing athletics regulation allowing sex-separate teams decades ago, and Republicans contended Biden’s new rule would have significant implications on women- and girls-only spaces and possibly legally back biological males playing in women’s sports. Separate court injunctions blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states. 

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

"I’m grateful that the Supreme Court agreed not to block our injunction against this radical rewrite of Title IX," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement at the time. "Other than the 19th Amendment guaranteeing our right to vote, Title IX has been the most successful law in history at ensuring equal opportunity for women in education at all levels and in collegiate athletics. This fight isn’t over, but I’ll keep fighting to block this radical agenda that eviscerates Title IX." 

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, kept on hold efforts by Texas and Florida to limit how Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube and other social media platforms regulate content in a ruling that strongly defended the platforms’ free speech rights.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said the platforms, like newspapers, deserve protection from governments’ intrusion in determining what to include or exclude from their space. "The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world," Kagan wrote in an opinion signed by five justices. All nine justices agreed on the overall outcome.

The justices returned the cases to lower courts for further review in broad challenges from trade associations for the companies.

While the details vary, both laws aimed to address long-standing conservative complaints that the social media companies were liberal-leaning and censored users based on their viewpoints, especially on the political right. 

The Florida and Texas laws were signed by Republican governors in the months following decisions by Facebook and Twitter (now X) to cut then-President Trump off over his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Trade associations representing the companies sued in federal court, claiming that the laws violated the platforms’ speech rights. One federal appeals court struck down Florida’s statute while another upheld the Texas law, but both were on hold pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In a statement made when he signed the Florida measure into law, Gov. Ron DeSantis said it would be "protection against the Silicon Valley elites."

When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. Social media platforms "are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely – but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas," Abbott said. "That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas."

NetChoice LLC has sued Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. 

"The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. NetChoice's decision to litigate these cases as facial challenges comes at a cost," the court wrote. "The Court has made facial challenges hard to win. In the First Amendment context, a plaintiff must show that 'a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.' So far in these cases, no one has paid much attention to that issue." 

The court said its analysis and arguments "focused mainly on how the laws applied to the content-moderation practices that giant social-media platforms use on their best-known services to filter, alter or label their users' posts, i.e., on how the laws applied to the likes of Facebook's News Feed and YouTube's homepage," but the justices said they "did not address the full range of activities the laws cover, and measure the constitutional against the unconstitutional applications."

The Supreme Court on July 1, 2024, ruled that former presidents have substantial protection from prosecution, handing a major victory to Donald Trump, the former president who at the time was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and is now president-elect.

Trump had moved to dismiss his indictment in a 2020 election interference case based on presidential immunity. 

The court did not dismiss the case, but the ruling did ensure the 45th president would not face trial in the case before the November 2024 election. 

In a 6-3 decision, the court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive." 

Trump, having won the 2024 presidential election, will take office Jan. 20, 2025.

SCOTUS HEARS ARGUMENTS IN CASE THAT COULD RESHAPE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, overruled the 1984 landmark decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Known as Chevron deference, the 40-year-old decision instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress were too ambiguous. It had been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.

Roberts, writing for the court, said federal judges must now "exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."

The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, Roberts wrote. 

The reversal makes it so executive branch agencies will likely have more difficulty regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety and other issues. 

The case came about when Atlantic herring fishermen sued over federal rules requiring them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch. The fishermen argued that the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures.

In two related cases, the fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. In that case, the court upheld an action by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan.

In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes.

The current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have questioned the Chevron decision. Ironically, it was Gorsuch’s mother, former EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, who made the decision that the Supreme Court upheld in 1984.

The Biden administration argued that overturning Chevron would be destabilizing and could bring a "convulsive shock" to the nation’s legal system.

The Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal obstruction crime.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Joseph Fischer – a former police officer and one of more than 300 people charged by the Justice Department with "obstruction of an official proceeding" in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. His lawyers argued that the federal statute should not apply, and that it had only ever been applied to evidence-tampering cases. 

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held to a narrower interpretation of a federal statute that imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly "alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding." 

The ruling reversed a lower court decision, which the justices said swept too broadly into areas like peaceful but disruptive conduct, and returned the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Justice Department argued that Fischer’s actions were a "deliberate attempt" to stop a joint session of Congress directly from certifying the 2020 election, thus qualifying their use of the statute that criminalizes behavior that "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

However, Roberts said the government stretched the law too far.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government – the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement reacting to the ruling. 

"The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision," he said.

Fox News’ Chris Pandolfo, Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, Brooke Singman, Brianna Herlihy and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

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.

PROPOSED CHICAGO POLICE RESOURCE CUTS COULD LAND CITY IN COURT UNDER CONSENT DECREE, OFFICIALS WARN

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.

BIDEN ADMIN HIT WITH FOIA SEEKING 25TH AMENDMENT-RELATED COMMS

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.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

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.

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.

A federal appeals court ruled against Texas doctors who had tried to sue President Biden's administration over its transgender policies this week.

The three judges making up the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did not rule on the merits of the case, but instead unanimously found that the doctors did not have standing to sue. The court's Monday decision asserted that the doctors had not violated the policy, nor did they face any threat of enforcement.

The Biden policy bans discrimination against transgender people in health care. Monday's ruling overturns a previous favorable decision for the doctors handed down by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.

Biden's Health and Human Services Department announced a rule change in 2021, choosing to interpret a section of the Affordable Care Act that banned discrimination on the basis of sex to also apply to transgender people. The three Texas doctors argued that interpretation goes beyond the text of the law.

SUPREME COURT CAN TAKE MASSIVE STEP IN PREVENTING TRANS ATHLETES IN GIRLS' SPORTS WITH HISTORIC HEARING

The doctors further argued that the policy could force them to administer treatments they do not support. They cited examples like prostate cancer in a transgender woman, which would require treatment based on the individual's biological sex.

The ruling comes just weeks after the Supreme Court heard arguments in its own case on transgender policy, one relating to whether the Constitution allows for state bans on transgender surgeries for minors.

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

Conservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared reluctant in oral arguments to overturn the Tennessee law in question in the case. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that state legislatures, rather than courts, are best equipped to regulate medical procedures. The Constitution leaves such questions "to the people's representatives," Roberts noted during arguments, rather than to nine justices on the Supreme Court, "none of whom is a doctor."

Justice Samuel Alito, however, cited "overwhelming evidence" from certain medical studies listing the negative consequences for adolescents that underwent gender transition treatments. Should the justices rule along party lines to uphold the lower court's decision, it will have sweeping implications for more than 20 U.S. states that have moved to implement similar laws.

Petitioners in the case were represented by the Biden administration and the ACLU, which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of the parents of three transgender adolescents and a Memphis-based doctor.

At issue during Wednesday's oral arguments was the level of scrutiny that courts should use to evaluate the constitutionality of state bans on transgender medical treatment for minors, such as SB1, and whether these laws are considered discriminating on the basis of sex or against a "quasi-suspect class," thus warranting a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. 

Fox News' Breanne Deppisch and Reuters contributed to this report.

A Washington, D.C. committee tasked with investigating bribery allegations against City Councilmember Trayon White Sr. voted on Monday to recommend the lawmaker be expelled for allegedly accepting over $150,000 in bribes.

The committee voted unanimously to recommend White be expelled, after reviewing a report that found "substantial evidence" that the councilman violated the D.C. Code of Conduct while in office.

Following the vote, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson released a statement about the committee's decision.

"Let’s cut through the legal jargon. Trayon White is accused of taking bribes," Mendelson said. "The prosecutors have established probable cause, our own independent investigation found substantial evidence that he took bribes, and public servants are prohibited from taking bribes. This is quintessential corruption.

DC COUNCILMEMBER FACING FEDERAL BRIBERY CHARGES WINS LANDSLIDE RE-ELECTION, BUT COLLEAGUES MAY OUST HIM

"There is only one remedy: to remove the corruption from our body," the councilman later added. "This incident has damaged the public trust necessary for government to function well. Anything less than expulsion will not rectify the situation."

Over the summer, White was arrested on a federal bribery charge after being accused of accepting over $150,000 from an associate in exchange for extending violence interruption contracts.

In response to the allegations, the ad hoc committee of the council commissioned an independent investigation, which was conducted by the law firm Latham and Watkins LLP.

DC COUNCILMAN STUFFED POCKETS WITH ENVELOPES OF CASH IN ALLEGED BRIBERY SCHEME, FEDS ALLEGE 

The report was provided to the council last week, and it included an in-depth analysis along with 29 supporting exhibits, FOX 5 in DC reported.

After reviewing documents, interviews, emails and texts, investigators found "substantial evidence that Councilmember White violated Council Rules and several provisions of the Code of Official Conduct."

The investigators specifically said White accepted cash from business owners in exchange for agreeing to meet with and influence government officials who approve their contracts, the station reported.

FBI ARRESTS DC COUNCILMAN WHO IN 2018 ACCUSED JEWISH FINANCIERS OF ‘CLIMATE MANIPULATION’ 

The report also claimed White had a ledger detailing the profits he intended to earn, including a kickback of 3% of the grants he helped renew.

Mendelson and White did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the matter.

The station reported that White spoke before the meeting on Monday, saying, "I do want to say that there has been no clear evidence of nobody in all these interviews saying that I tried to grab them. And so, I’m confident to that."

The council needed a five-sixths vote to adopt a resolution of expulsion, which is the most severe punishment available. A proceeding on the expulsion is to be held within 45 days, during which time White will be able to defend himself.

White’s federal bribery charge trial is on the calendar to begin in January 2026. He faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted.

Fox News Digital's Greg Norman contributed to this report.

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. 

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." 

Judge Pauline Newman, the oldest federal judge in America at age 97, is continuing to fight against a suspension from the bench by her colleagues who found her mentally not fit enough to serve. Newman is appealing her suspension and has also filed a motion to unseal documents related to an investigation which ultimately led to her being temporarily removed from the bench.

Newman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, was barred from serving in September 2023 for a year by the Federal Circuit's Judicial Council after the panel said she refused to cooperate with an investigation into "reasonable concerns" surrounding her mental fitness. The suspension was extended for another year by the panel in September. 

The Committee on Judicial Conduct conducted more than 20 interviews with court staff pointing to her "significant mental deterioration including memory loss, confusion, lack of comprehension, paranoia, anger, hostility and severe agitation," per court documents. 

FEDERAL JUDGE, 96, BARRED FROM HEARING CASES AFTER PANEL CLAIMS LACK OF MENTAL FITNESS: 'BASELESS ALLEGATIONS'

The suspension order also said Newman was slower than her colleagues in issuing opinions and had "amassed a troubling backlog of cases," which her team has said is not accurate.

The Federal Circuit Court on which Newman has served for nearly 40 years deals frequently with patent, intellectual property and copyright cases. Newman is considered a leading intellectual property jurist.

The investigation into Newman led her to file a federal lawsuit against her fellow judges.

U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper, a President Obama appointee, threw out most of Newman’s lawsuit in February, then dismissed the entire case on the pleadings in July, per Law & Crime.

In his 15-page ruling, Cooper rejected the legal challenges Newman had raised to the Judicial Conduct & Disability Act and did not focus on the factual allegations against Newman.

Newman appealed the ruling Monday and argued via counsel to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that although advanced in age, she "retains her sharp intellect," and both lay and expert witnesses have described her as an "unusually cognitively intact … woman" whose cognitive and physical abilities make her appear "20 or more years younger than her stated age," per Law & Crime.

She says she is physically and mentally fit enough to continue doing her job, and has obtained independent evaluations from doctors issuing the same opinion, court documents revealed.

REAGAN-APPOINTED JUDGE, NOW 95, FACES PROBE INTO WHETHER SHE CAN STILL DO THE JOB

In the appellate brief, cited by Law & Crime, Newman’s counsel said she was in sound mental and physical health, and argued that the only reason Newman was late in submitting written opinions is that "she takes extraordinary pains to ensure that her opinions fully reflect her views and remain consistent from case to case and year to year."

Newman is being represented in the lawsuit by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a nonprofit civil rights group that says it views the "administrative state" as an especially serious threat to constitutional freedoms.

The group says that the suspension is illegal and that Newman was removed without due process. 

"Judge Newman’s indefinite, complete suspension is unprecedented in American judicial history, exceeding sanctions imposed on judges who committed serious misconduct and improprieties," the group said in a statement. "Suspending an Article III judge from all judicial functions of her office is unconstitutional."

The group said that world-renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Aaron G. Filler recently directed a cutting-edge Perfusion Computed Tomography (PCT) scan of Newman’s brain and administered a full neurological examination that turned up "no relevant deficits, confirming that she is fully fit to perform the duties of the office."

On Thursday, Greg Dolin, who has represented Newman throughout the case, said via a statement that the entire disciplinary process against Judge Newman was "always factually baseless and legally meritless."

"But the issues are more important than Judge Newman," said Dolin, a senior litigation counsel for the NCLA. "At stake is the very independence of American judiciary and our system of checks and balances. The D.C. Circuit should put a stop to the Federal Circuit Judicial Council’s unconstitutional and ultra vires actions against Judge Newman."

Newman also filed a motion to unseal documents related to the committee’s investigation and findings that are subject to a Dec. 4 gag order, per Law & Crime.

Newman’s legal team said that Newman’s judicial colleagues have refused to abide by rules of judicial conduct and have "threatened Judge Newman and her counsel with unspecified sanctions" for making documents public.

Her team also accused the defendants of seeking to "direct the process within their own forum" in an "entirely inappropriate effort" to contradict the law.

Former senior U.S. District Judge Wesley Brown, was the oldest person to serve as a federal judge in the history of the United States, actively hearing cases until approximately one month before his death at age 104, according to the U.S. Courts. 

Fox News’ Brianna Herlihy and Elizabeth Pritchet contributed to this report. 

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.

NC OVERRIDES VETO OF ICE-TRUMP AGENCY COOPERATION

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.

NC JUDGE SENDS PROSPECTIVE JUROR TO JAIL OVER COVID MASK VIOLATION

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."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

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.

Former Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker spoke out after a county judge in Madison struck down major parts of a 2011 law geared toward public employee unions. 

Dane County Judge Jacob Frost ruled that the provisions of a law known as Act 10, which selectively exempt certain public workers from its restrictions on unionization and collective bargaining, are unconstitutional. The controversial law sought to close a budget deficit by limiting collective bargaining, thereby moderating public workers' benefits that Walker said at the time helped solve a fiscal situation he was required to address.

The original passage in 2011 led to weekslong protests inside the state Capitol, and even saw legislative Democrats flee to neighboring Illinois to prevent Republicans from reaching a quorum to vote on it. Walker later survived a 2012 recall election over the law's passage and rode his success into a decent showing in the 2016 presidential race, where he eventually bowed out of the primary that ultimately went to Donald Trump. 

On Tuesday, Walker, who currently leads the conservative-training nonprofit Young America's Foundation (YAF), said his law simply took power "out of the hands of the big union bosses and put it firmly into the hands of the hardworking taxpayers…"

"And what this court decision did as brazen political action was to throw that out and put power back in the hands of those union bosses," he said in an interview, calling collective bargaining not a right but an "expensive entitlement."

POMPEO CLAIMS TEACHERS' UNION BOSS IS AMONG THE ‘MOST DANGEROUS PEOPLE' IN US

Asked about Frost’s assertion that disparate treatment of collective bargaining rights of certain "public safety" workers and other public workers was unconstitutional, Walker said it was a "bogus political argument." 

Frost stripped more than 60 sections of the law from the books.

The law was upheld multiple times at the state and federal levels, Walker replied, adding a new issue is that of a potentially-growing "liberal activist majority" on the officially nonpartisan Wisconsin Supreme Court that may hear any appeal of the ruling.

Walker said that if appealed, the first place the case will land is in Waukesha court, which he predicted would overturn Frost. But a subsequent appeal by the left would bring it before the state’s high bench.

"It’s all the more reason why the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin this spring (2025) is more important than ever," he said.

Walker went on to discuss the roots of Act 10, and how it was his way of abiding by Wisconsin’s balanced-budget requirement. He noted the original name was the "Budget Repair Act" and that a prior Democratic administration instead chose to cut funding for municipalities, which instead resulted in layoffs.

Instead of risking job loss or Medicare cuts, Walker opted to require public workers to contribute more to their entitlements in return for keeping their pensions solvent.

WALKER SAYS WISCONSIN REPUBLICANS ARE MOTIVATED

In addition, Wisconsin Senate President Chris Kapenga echoed Walker’s claim that partisan politics played a role in the ruling:

"[I]t’s proof there is very little justice left in our justice system. Wisconsin's legislature should be discussing impeachment, as we are the only check on their power," said Kapenga, R-Oconomowoc.

"Believing Dane County judges and the liberal majority in our state Supreme Court are independent jurists is almost as far-fetched as believing the border is secure, inflation's not a problem, or [President Biden] won't pardon his son."

"The left keeps telling us, ‘Don't believe what you see’ — Wisconsinites see right through it," he said.

As for Walker’s current role as president of YAF, he said his organization is preparing for conservative leadership to return to Washington as he brought it to Madison in 2010.

Walker said he is thrilled by the prospect of seeing many YAF alumni in the new Trump administration, including Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump and formerly ex-Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Sergio Gor, a longtime aide to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was named Trump’s head of presidential personnel last month. Walker praised Gor's prior work leading YAF’s George Washington University chapter.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Four years ago, younger voters sided with Biden by 25 points," Walker said. "This election, that shrunk right down to 5 or 6 points. And most interestingly, young men four years ago went with Biden by 15 points. In this election, they shifted to Trump by 14. What we need to do is lock that in."

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 federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s gun trial terminated further court proceedings in his case on Tuesday, in the wake of President Biden’s sweeping pardon that shields his son from being prosecuted for all offenses that he "has committed or may have committed" from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024. 

U.S. Judge Maryellen Noreika, the presiding judge in Biden’s trial in Delaware, announced Tuesday the termination of all further proceedings in the case, citing the clemency grant signed by the outgoing president. 

Judge Noreika stopped short of dismissing the case outright, however, as requested by Hunter’s legal team. 

A Delaware jury found Hunter guilty this summer on all three federal felony firearm charges that had been brought before the court by prosecutors.

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

Prior to the sweeping pardon announcement, his sentencing date had been scheduled for Dec. 12. 

In announcing the pardon, President 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.

However, some critics also noted the pardon broke with Biden's longtime promises not to pardon his son and risks further eroding the public's view of the Justice Department. 

Hunter also pleaded guilty on tax evasion charges in California, which the pardon also covers. 

The judge in that case, Judge Mark Scarsi, has not yet announced whether he will terminate the proceedings against Hunter or dismiss the case in full.

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

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.

Attorneys for first son Hunter Biden filed a motion with the court arguing that the grand jury indictment against President Biden’s son be dismissed completely, though the special counsel assigned to the case says the dismissal should be denied.

President Biden pardoned his son Hunter 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."

On Monday, Special Counsel David Weiss of the U.S. Department of Justice filed a request to the judge who presided over the gun case, Judge Maryellen Noreika, seeking to deny the motion to dismiss Hunter’s indictment.

"The Government does not challenge that the defendant has been the recipient of an act of mercy," Weiss said in the filing. "That does not mean the grand jury’s decision to charge him, based on a finding of probable cause, should be wiped away because the defendant falsely claimed that the charges were the result of some improper motive or selective prosecution.

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

"No court has agreed with the defendant on these baseless claims, and his request to dismiss the indictment finds no support in the law," the special counsel added before requesting the dismissal of the indictment be denied.

In response to the request, Hunter’s attorney, Abbe Lowell of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm, Winston & Strawn LLP, argued that the majority of courts support a dismissal.

"The Special Counsel paradoxically claims that Mr. Biden’s notice is ‘without any legal support’ in suggesting that his pardon means that the Court should dismiss the indictment, at the same time, the Special Counsel acknowledges that ‘the majority of courts, when faced with such a decision, have chosen to dismiss an indictment,’" the defense team wrote. "The Special Counsel’s admission that this is the practice of the ‘majority of courts’ certainly provides legal support to Mr. Biden’s claim that dismissal is warranted."

JOE BIDEN MET WITH AT LEAST 14 OF HUNTER’S BUSINESS ASSOCIATES WHILE VICE PRESIDENT

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 Hunter 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.

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton 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. 

Lawmakers reacted with harsh criticism on Sunday after President Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden, who earlier this year was convicted in two separate federal cases.

The pardon comes after Biden and his communications team continued to insist the president’s son would not be pardoned.

Hunter pleaded guilty to federal tax charges in September, which spared him from a public trial over his failure to pay taxes while he spent lavishly on drugs, escorts, luxury hotel stays, clothing and other personal items.

The first son was also convicted of three felony gun charges in June after lying on a mandatory gun purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.

BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER BIDEN AHEAD OF EXIT FROM OVAL OFFICE

After Hunter was convicted, President Biden indicated he did not plan to pardon his son. That all changed on Sunday night.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., was quick to respond to Biden’s move to pardon his son, saying the president "has lied from start to finish about his family’s corrupt influence peddling activities."

"Not only has he falsely claimed that he never met with his son’s foreign business associates and that his son did nothing wrong, but he also lied when he said he would not pardon Hunter Biden," Comer said. "The charges Hunter faced were just the tip of the iceberg in the blatant corruption that President Biden and the Biden Crime Family have lied about to the American people. It’s unfortunate that, rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability."

KJP SAYS PRESIDENT BIDEN STILL HAS NO PLANS TO PARDON HUNTER BIDEN FOR TAX FRAUD, GUN CHARGES

Another federal lawmaker who weighed in on the matter Sunday was House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

"Democrats said there was nothing to our impeachment inquiry," Jordan said. "If that’s the case, why did Joe Biden just issue Hunter Biden a pardon for the very things we were inquiring about?"

Jordan had been one of the key figures pushing to expose Biden family business dealings and an investigation into alleged corruption that Republicans suggest could have led to an impeachment against President Biden.

POLL COMPARES WHETHER TRUMP, HUNTER BIDEN SHOULD GET PRISON SENTENCES, ACCORDING TO US ADULTS

In September 2023, Hunter filed a lawsuit against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, alleging the former Trump lawyer violated his privacy rights by illegally disseminating content from a laptop the first son dropped off at a computer store in Delaware.

The complaint claimed Giuliani was "primarily responsible" for the "total annihilation" of Hunter's digital privacy, while also naming Robert Costello, a former federal prosecutor who previously represented the former New York City mayor, as a defendant.

"Biden, who will not even meet with his granddaughter Navy, didn’t pardon his son because he’s a good father," Giuliani wrote on X after learning about the pardon. "He did so because, as his son admits on the Hard Drive, for 30 years Hunter has given half the millions he’s collected to the Boss of the Crime Family- Joe Biden."

WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS CIA 'STONEWALLED' IRS INTERVIEW WITH HUNTER BIDEN 'SUGAR BROTHER' KEVIN MORRIS: HOUSE GOP

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, also responded to the pardon on X.

"I’m shocked Pres Biden pardoned his son Hunter [because] he said many many times he wouldn’t & I believed him," Grassley wrote. "Shame on me."

IRS WHISTLEBLOWER SHAPLEY SAID HE ‘COULD NO LONGER PURSUE’ HUNTER BIDEN SUGAR BROTHER KEVIN MORRIS DUE TO CIA

President-elect Trump had previously been asked whether Biden would pardon his son, and said, "I’ll bet you the father probably pardons him. Let’s see what happens."

On Sunday, the president-elect took to Truth Social to share his reaction.

"Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?" Trump asked. Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!"

Trump's transition team also responded to the news in a statement to Fox News.

"The failed witch hunts against President Trump have proven that the Democrat-controlled DOJ and other radical prosecutors are guilty of weaponizing the justice system," Steven Cheung, who served as Trump’s campaign communications director and has since been appointed to serve as his director of communications in the White House, said. "That system of justice must be fixed, and due process must be restored for all Americans, which is exactly what President Trump will do as he returns to the White House with an overwhelming mandate from the American people."

IRS investigators Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler, who blew the whistle on political interference into Hunter’s tax crimes, released a statement after learning about the pardon.

"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," they said. "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.

"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," they continued. "Either way it is a sad day for law-abiding taxpayers to witness this special privilege for the powerful."

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment, but has not yet heard back.

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo joined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s legal defense team this week, as the Jewish leader and his former defense chief Yoav Gallant face arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court (ICC) over their ongoing response to Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack.

Cuomo, a three-term Democrat who resigned in 2021 amid harassment allegations he has personally denied, also railed against antisemitism at a recent dinner with leaders of New York’s Jewish community.

Cuomo condemned what he characterized as whitewashing Hamas kidnappings and murders in Israel, telling the National Committee for Furtherance of Jewish Education he is proud to join Netanyahu’s defense.

He condemned the "denial" that too many people and "institutions" have about the scourge of antisemitism.

Cuomo said one Jewish leader, Rabbi Zvi Kogan, who had been reported as "missing" in the United Arab Emirates was not so, and instead was kidnapped and murdered by Hamas. Cuomo suggested such incorrect characterizations should be considered antisemitic.

CUOMO TESTIFIES ON NYS COVID ORDERS AND NURSING HOME DEATHS

"This is the moment that is going to be in the history books. This is a pivotal moment and this is the moment when true friends stand shoulder to shoulder and fight for the state of Israel," Cuomo said.

"I am proud to be on the legal defense team of the prime minister against the arrest warrant at the ICC – and I’m proud to stand against antisemitism."

The ICC charged Netanyahu and Gallant with crimes against humanity and war crimes, setting off a global firestorm as signatories to the court’s jurisdiction found themselves at odds with non-party allies like the U.S.

In recognizing the ICC, member nations have a sworn duty to uphold its edicts. Netanyahu’s warrant therefore presented the swath of Western nations – including the entire European Union – with a predicament that placed them counter to the U.S. and Israel.

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts told Britain's GB News there would be "hell to pay for any international leader buying into this bulls---." That nation's leader, left-wing Prime Minister Keir Starmer, faces pressure from some members of his Labour Party who have cited an "obligation" to arrest Netanyahu, according to the outlet.

The Macron administration in France signaled Netanyahu will be treated as immune to the ICC because – while the French are signatories – Israel is not. 

CUOMO RESIGNS FROM NEW YORK GOVERNORSHIP

Separately, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot was asked if France would arrest Netanyahu, and responded that Paris is "very committed to international justice and will apply international law," according to the Jerusalem Post.

The warrants caused bipartisan outrage on Capitol Hill as Sens. John Fetterman, D-Pa., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Reps. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., and Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., found rare agreement.

Graham told "Hannity" that he and Cotton seek to pass a law sanctioning any country aiding the ICC in arresting Netanyahu, while the other listed lawmakers all condemned the warrant.

Cuomo is also rumored to be considering a 2025 mayoral run in New York City – which is home to the largest Jewish community in the U.S. 

During his remarks, he cited the 1.6 million Jews in the Big Apple and said Hamas is demonstrating in the streets with masks while Jewish people are afraid to wear yarmulkes or Stars of David in public.

"That cannot happen in the state of New York," he said, adding a relevant law he signed as governor should be properly enforced.

In 2019, Cuomo approved antisemitic-hate-crimes legislation sponsored by state Sen. Todd Kaminsky, D-Long Beach, and launched a "No Hate In Our State" campaign soon after.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A Cuomo spokesman directed Fox News Digital to video of the governor's speech and said in a statement the Democrat is proud to be part of a legal "dream team" for Netanyahu.

"As governor, Cuomo made fighting antisemitism and supporting Israel a top priority, passing landmark hate crime legislation, prioritizing security upgrades to religious institutions, creating a new hate crimes unit in the State Police and leading a state delegation to Israel when it was under attack," he said.

The ideological potpourri of the U.S., Russia, Cuba, Turkey, Vatican City and Malaysia are some of the more major nations who do not recognize the ICC.

Major U.S. allies Canada, Mexico, Australia and the United Kingdom recognize the Holland-based bench.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Netanyahu administration for comment.

Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigations into Donald Trump over the last two years – which he opted to dismiss this week – have likely cost U.S. taxpayers more than $50 million, according to Department of Justice expenditure reports.

Financial disclosures from the Special Counsel's Office show that from mid-November 2022, when Smith was appointed special counsel, until March 31, 2023, his office incurred costs of about $9.25 million. A second disclosure laying out the office's expenditures for the following six months showed the office's spending increased to roughly $14.66 million. Meanwhile, a third expenditure report, the latest available, showed that from Oct. 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, Smith's office spent roughly $11.84 million.

These costs include both direct and indirect expenses, the latter of which is provided through various Department of Justice agencies.

PAM BONDI, TRUMP'S PICK FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL, PRAISED AS ‘LOYAL’ AND ‘QUALIFIED’ FOR TOP US PROSECUTOR ROLE

Expenditure figures for the months between April 1, 2024, and Sept. 30, 2024, have yet to be released, but the average of the three reported periods is roughly $12 million. 

When that estimate is added to the numbers from the three reporting periods that have been publicly reported, the amount spent by Smith's office since he was appointed rounds to about $47.5 million.

However, this estimate does not include any expenditures from Sept. 30 to date, so the total money spent is likely more than $50 million, Newsweek reported earlier this month. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith in November 2022 to oversee the federal investigation into Trump's alleged interference in the 2020 election, and his improper handling of sensitive classified documents.

After an exhaustive, nearly two-year investigation, and other cases that saw Trump surrendering to authorities for a mugshot, Smith filed motions on Monday to dismiss the cases against the former president, citing procedural standards that preclude the prosecution of a sitting president.

TRUMP SCORES MAJOR LEGAL WINS AS JACK SMITH DROPS CASE

The judge overseeing the election interference case agreed to drop the charges, while a decision on the classified documents case was still pending as of Monday evening, according to the Associated Press.

Trump responded to the judge's decision Monday, calling the investigations he has been subjected to "empty and lawless," adding that they "should never have been brought." 

"Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before," Trump wrote on Truth Social, before laying into state prosecutors and district attorneys, such as Fulton County DA Fani Willis, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and New York state Attorney General Letitia James, who Trump said "inappropriately, unethically and probably illegally campaigned on ‘GETTING TRUMP.’" 

Fox News Digital reached out to the Department of Justice and White House for comment, but did not receive a response prior to publication.