A federal judge on Thursday ordered Trump administration officials involved with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to testify in a legal dispute that seeks to block DOGE's access to sensitive government databases.
U.S. District Judge John Bates said officials from the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other agencies linked to the Elon Musk-led DOGE will sit for questioning under oath by lawyers for labor unions and other groups suing to block DOGE's efforts to trim the federal bureaucracy.
The groups claim some DOGE officials and allies have already been granted access to sensitive databases and that privacy concerns of federal workers are being ignored.
"It would be strange to permit defendants to submit evidence that addresses critical factual issues and proceed to rule on a preliminary injunction motion without permitting plaintiffs to explore those factual issues through very limited discovery," the judge wrote.
Batesβ order also permits a limited set of written questions to be submitted to the agencies targeted by the lawsuit.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House.
Tennessee's ban on drag shows when children are present will remain in effect, as the Supreme Court earlier this week refused to hear a challenge to the law brought on by a drag performance group, a move the state's Republican attorney general heralded as "another big win for Tennessee."
The state's Adult Entertainment Act, passed in 2023, does not allow "adult-oriented performances" in public spaces, or anywhere where minors may see them.
"Free speech is a sacred American value, but the First Amendment does not require Tennessee to allow sexually explicit performances in front of children," Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a post on X. "We will continue to defend TNβs law and children."
A federal judge ruled that the law, which specifically targets drag shows, was "unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad," temporarily halting enforcement. However, in July, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, asserting that the Memphis-based theater company that filed the lawsuit β Friends of Georgeβs Inc. β lacked standing to challenge the law.
Another lawsuit challenging the ban filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is still underway on behalf of Blount County Pride, another LGBTQ+ advocacy group, after then-Attorney General Ryan Desmond threatened to prosecute anyone violating the ban during the 2023 pride festival.
Fox News Digital reached out to Friends of George's Inc. and the ACLU but did not receive a response by publication time.
Violators who do not adhere to the Adult Entertainment Act could be prosecuted for a Class A misdemeanor, while a second or third offense is a Class E felony. Both could result in fines and jail time anywhere from 11 months to six years.
"Iβm proud that the United States Supreme Court has upheld yet another Tennessee law protecting our children. SB 3 ensures that Tennessee children are not exposed to sexually explicit entertainment," state's Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson said in an X post. Johnson was one of the sponsors of the bill in 2023.
The Supreme Court already has another case in front of them brought by the ACLU challenging a Tennessee law prohibiting transgender medical treatments and procedures for minors.
In that case, the court is weighing whether the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, which guarantees equal treatment under the law for individuals in similar circumstances, prevents states from banning medical providers from offering puberty blockers and hormone treatments to children seeking transgender surgical procedures.
"It seems like the momentum has really shifted almost culturally on these issues. And when you see people trying to rewrite laws through creative judging, through creative regulating, that alienates the people from the laws that bind them, and it's bad for America."
"We'll know what the Supreme Court does when the Supreme Court does it," he added.
The high court is expected to rule on that case by June.
The Supreme Court appears poised to rule in favor of a straight woman's discrimination claim in a case that could overturn a line of precedent that has made "the Civil Rights Act apply unequally," according to a legal scholar familiar with civil rights litigation.
Petitioner Marlean Ames claims that she was demoted and passed over for a position in the Ohio youth corrections system in favor of two less-qualified gay employees who had neither applied for nor interviewed for the roles.
At issue in her case is a higher burden of proof some lower courts have required for those considered to be in "majority groups" β in this case heterosexuals β to prove discrimination occurred under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
During Wednesday's oral arguments, the justices β and the lawyers on both sides of the dispute β all agreed that the appeals court erred in Ames' case, which required her to provide additional "background circumstances" to "support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."
Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Wednesday all the court really needs to do is issue "a really short opinion that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether itβs because youβre gay or because youβre straight, is prohibited, and the rules are the same."
At one point during the arguments, Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser β arguing on behalf of the Ohio Department of Youth Services β perplexed liberal Justice Elena Kagan when he agreed that "the idea that you hold people to different standards because of their protected characteristics is wrong."
"I mean, it's a little bit of a peculiar situation, isn't it, because this is what the court said," Kagan said. "And you're up here, and I don't know exactly what to make of this."
Gaiser said he agreed with Ames "on that major premise point," but "we don't think Ms. Ames proved enough evidence to showcase a discrimination claim."
"I think we had six depositions under oath, if you can't show any evidence that the employer was motivated by a protected characteristic when they took the adverse action, and certainly, if you can't show an adverse action at all, that's not enough to create any burden of production for the employer," Gaiser said. "And that sample pattern approved the four elements that McDonnell Douglas lays out, courts have adapted that under this court's guidance."
The governing precedent in question is McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, a 1973 case where the high court established a four-step process for handling discrimination cases based on indirect evidence. Gaiser told the justices that Ames has not met the criteria set by those tests, even as the appeals court's application of the precedent was wrong.
The "higher burden of proof" at the center of the case, which several circuit courts choose to apply, "is not supported by the text of Title VII," GianCarlo Canaparo, senior legal expert at Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
"There was, and to some extent still is, an ideological movement which says the text of the Civil Rights Act, not just Title VII, all of it applies to everybody equally, but really it's only meant to give special protection to certain groups, and its protection doesn't apply to other groups," Canaparo said. "And that sort of logic is what underpinned the rule in the Sixth Circuit and others, that says if you're a majority group, you're presumptively entitled to less protection, and so you have this disparate standard."
Canaparo said that during oral arguments "pretty much everybody, except maybe Justice Jackson, said, 'Look, the text is what it is. It's really clear.'"
He also said Ohio's goal in the case is to raise the standard for everyone, making it more difficult to file discrimination claims. Under the current McDonnell Douglas framework, plaintiffs only need to present minimal preliminary evidence to suggest discrimination, after which the employer must prove a legitimate reason for firing the employee, Canaparo said.
"Now that sounds good in theory, but how it actually works out is that the evidentiary burden that a lot of plaintiffs have to put up in the first instance is so low that what functionally happens in a lot of cases is that the defendant, the employer, has to prove its own innocence," he said.
Gaiser's proposal, according to Canaparo, is to raise the initial burden on plaintiffs so that they must present a stronger case before the employer is required to defend itself, while maintaining an equal standard for all.
"I think Ames will win, but that means a couple things. Number one, it means that traditionally created doctrines that make the Civil Rights Act apply unequally are on the way out," he said.
This approach is expected to have significant implications in a second Trump term, especially as the president issued executive actions weeding out discriminatory DEI policies, he added.
"I think it'll have a pretty powerful effect in continuing to shape the country toward the colorblind understanding of the law," he said.
Meanwhile, Andrea Lucas, acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, wrote in a post on X that the "neutral standard that SCOTUS likely will land on in Ames" already applies "and has for decades."
"@USEEOC unanimously signed @TheJusticeDeptβs brief in Ames. Donβt wait for SCOTUSβs opinionβcomply with Title VII now," she wrote.
Lucas told Fox News Digital in a phone interview Thursday that "the EOC has never held that position" of requiring a heightened background circumstances test for a "majority" plaintiff or group.
"The EOC position is that this background circumstances test conflicts with the McDonnell Douglas standard. It conflicts with Supreme Court precedent," Lucas said. "We already had policy and enforcement positions that we've taken for decades."
Ames started working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 as an executive secretary, which oversees the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Since 2009, she was promoted several times, and by 2014, she was promoted to program administrator, according to the Supreme Court filing.
In 2017, Ames began reporting to a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is openly gay. During her 2018 performance review, Trim rated Ames as meeting expectations in most areas and exceeding them in one.
However, in 2019, after Ames applied for a bureau chief position and did not get it, she was removed from her program administrator role, the court filing states. The departmentβs assistant director and HR head, both of whom are straight, offered her the choice to return to her previous job with a pay cut. Ames chose to remain with the department and was later promoted to a different program administrator position. The department then hired a gay woman for the bureau chief role Ames had wanted, and a gay man for the program administrator position she previously held.
In a sign of apparent bipartisan agreement on the underlying controversy, Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general under the Biden administration, filed an amicus brief in December urging the Supreme Court to vacate the appeals court's ruling.
The Supreme Court is expected to release its ruling by the end of June.
The sheer scale of cuts the Trump administration is looking to carry out at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been revealed, with nearly 15,000 grants worth $60 billion set to be eliminated, according to internal documents.
The grants amount to about 90% of foreign aid contracts and come after a review on spending by the State Department.
USAID aid became an early target of the Trump administration, with the president being a longtime critic of overseas spending, arguing that it does not benefit the American taxpayer and going so far as to call those who run the top agency "radical lunatics."
Republicans argue it is wasteful, promotes liberal agendas and should be enfolded into the State Department, while Democrats say it saves lives abroad and helps U.S. interests by stabilizing other countries and economies.
In all, the Trump administration said it will eliminate 5,800 of 6,200 multi-year USAID contract awards, for a cut of $54 billion. Another 4,100 of 9,100 State Department grants were being eliminated, for a cut of $4.4 billion, according to a State Department memo reviewed by the Associated Press.
The State Department memo described the administration as spurred by a federal court order that gave officials until the end of the day Wednesday to lift the Trump administrationβs monthlong block on foreign aid funding.
"In response, State and USAID moved rapidly," targeting USAID and State Department foreign aid programs in vast numbers for contract terminations, the memo said.
The memo said officials were "clearing significant waste stemming from decades of institutional drift." More changes are planned in how USAID and the State Department deliver foreign assistance, it said, "to use taxpayer dollars wisely to advance American interests."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on Wednesday paused a federal judgeβs order that required the Trump administration to pay around $2 billion in foreign aid funds to contractors by midnight.
The ruling comes after the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order to block the release of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding, which the federal judge had required by midnight. Officials had said they would not be able to comply with the judgeβs order.
USAID was set up in the early 1960s to act on behalf of the U.S. to deliver aid across the globe, particularly in impoverished and underdeveloped regions. The agency now operates out of 60 nations and employs some 10,000 people, two-thirds of whom work overseas β though most of the on-the-ground work is contracted out to third-party organizations funded by USAID, according to a BBC report.
But the agency has come in for considerable criticism as Trump and Elon Muskβs Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) look to root out waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government.
Musk likened the agency to "not an apple with a worm in it," but "just a ball of worms."
"Youβve got to basically get rid of the whole thing. Itβs beyond repair," Musk wrote on X earlier this month.
Trump has moved to gut the agency after imposing a 90-day pause on foreign aid. The Trump administration plans to gut the agency and intends to leave fewer than 300 staffers on the job out of the current 8,000 direct hires and contractors. He has also appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio as the acting director of USAID.
The news comes as thousands of staffers were notified weeks ago about pending dismissals. Some were seen leaving Washington, D.C., offices for the last time on Friday carrying boxes scrawled with messages that seemed to be directed at President Donald Trump.
Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, the Senate DOGE Caucus Chairwoman, recently published a list of questionable projects and programs she says USAID has helped fund over the years, including $20 million to produce a Sesame Street show in Iraq.
Several more examples of questionable spending have been uncovered at USAID, including more than $900,000 to a "Gaza-based terror charity" called Bayader Association for Environment and Development and a $1.5 million program slated to "advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia's workplaces and business communities."
Fox Newsβ Bill Mears, Andrew Mark Miller, Aubrie Spady, Deirdre Heavey, Caitlin McFall, Morgan Phillips and Emma Colton as well as Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Chief Justice John Roberts has delayed an order from a lower court meant to compel the Trump administration to release funds for USAID.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Chief Justice John Roberts halted a lower court's order for Donald Trump to release USAID funds.
The stay was issued Wednesday night ahead of a midnight deadline to disburse $2 billion in aid.
USAID was one of the Trump administration's first targets to cut spending.
Chief Justice John Roberts has halted an order that required President Donald Trump to release funding for the US Agency for International Development.
Roberts issued the stay on Wednesday night after Sarah Harris, the acting solicitor general, appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the order's end-of-Wednesday deadline, which she called "imminent and arbitrary," made "full compliance impossible."
Harris added that the order, issued in a lower court by District Judge Amir Ali, required the administration to disburse "nearly $2 billion by 11:59 p.m," when doing so would require "multiple weeks."
The halt allows Trump to continue freezing foreign-aid money allocated by USAID, whose spending has been a target of the president in his cost-cutting drive.
The earlier order related to two cases brought by aid organizations including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council.
Roberts did not provide a reason for the stay, which gives the Supreme Court time to evaluate and rule on the Trump administration's request. He gave the plaintiffs until Friday to respond.
In an executive order issued on Inauguration Day, Trump ordered a 90-day freeze on foreign aid. That and other actions have affected thousands of US workers.
Ali's order was not the first ruling that complicated the Trump team's attempts to dismantle USAID.
On February 7, Judge Carl Nichols issued a temporary restraining order meant to pause the administration's USAID staff reductions. But USAID suffered a major court loss Friday when Nichols allowed headcount cuts to go ahead, reversing his previous order.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on Wednesday paused a federal judgeβs order that required the Trump administration to pay around $2 billion in foreign aid funds to contractors by midnight.
The ruling comes after the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order to block the release of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding, which the federal judge had required by midnight. Officials had said they would not be able to comply with the judgeβs order.
The Trump administration said U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali's order had created "an untenable payment plan at odds with the Presidentβs obligations under Article II to protect the integrity of the federal fisc and make appropriate judgements(sic) about foreign aid β clear forms of irreparable harm."
Any response from the groups that are fighting the Trump administration is due before Friday at 12 p.m., meaning the pause could potentially be relatively short-lived.
The Trump administration said it was eliminating more than 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall U.S. assistance around the world, putting numbers on its plans to eliminate the majority of U.S. development and humanitarian help abroad.
The cuts detailed by the administration would leave few surviving USAID projects for advocates to try to save in what are ongoing court battles with the administration.
Wednesday's disclosures also give an idea of the scale of the administration's retreat from U.S. aid and development assistance overseas, and from decades of policy that foreign aid helps American interests by stabilizing other countries and economies and building alliances.
The memo said officials were "clearing significant waste stemming from decades of institutional drift." More changes are planned in how USAID and the State Department deliver foreign assistance, it said, "to use taxpayer dollars wisely to advance American interests."
President Donald Trump and ally Elon Musk have hit foreign aid harder and faster than almost any other target in their push to cut the size of the federal government. Both men say USAID projects advance a liberal agenda and are a waste of money.
The administration has filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in one other case so far, arguing that a lower court was wrong to reinstate the head of a federal watchdog agency after Trump fired him.
Donald Trump's lawsuits against publishers carry new weight with his new term in office.
Jim WATSON / AFP
Donald Trump is threatening publishers again.
A New York Times editor who's out with a new book says we need to take him seriously.
A landmark free speech case could be at risk.
Donald Trump, who is used to suing journalists and media companies about stories he doesn't like, says he's going to do more of it.
In a post published on his Truth Social platform Wednesday, Trump vowed to "sue some of these dishonest authors and book publishers, or even media in general," arguing that they make up stories about him and "a big price should be paid for this blatant dishonesty."
"I'll do it as a service to our Country," Trump added. "Who knows, maybe we will create some NICE NEW LAW!!!"
Complaining about people who say or publish unflattering things about him, threatening to sue them, and actually suing them are nothing new for Trump. And up until recently, it was relatively easy for media companies and journalists to shrug off those complaints and threatened suits. Even when Trump did lodge a claim, he rarely won in court.
And while Trump's threat to create a law about defamation seems like a reach β in the US, laws are hard to pass, even when the same party controls the White House, the House, and the Senate β the direction he's headed is worth taking very seriously.
That's the underlying message of "Murder the Truth," a coming book from The New York Times' editor David Enrich, which details an ongoing push to tear down the legal underpinnings that support freedom of speech in the US. Enrich is specifically focused on New York Times v. Sullivan, a 1964 Supreme Court ruling that established the basic framework for defamation law in the US: In short, it should be very hard to successfully sue someone because you don't like what they say.
As Enrich notes in his book, this was both a landmark ruling and a popular one, cherished by free speech advocates across the political spectrum. But that has started to change in recent years.
There are multiple reasons for that, but the main one is Trump himself, Enrich told me on this week's episode of my "Channels" podcast.
On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump mused about wanting to "open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." Which, again, was easy to dismiss at the time, for multiple reasons. But Trump kept coming back to the idea β and as we're seeing now, he has already had success on the payments front.
And those stories unsettle me and other observers. But they're ultimately about access, not about limiting what the press β who, as Elon Musk likes to remind us, is everyone now β actually says, writes, and publishes. Threatening lawsuits, filing lawsuits, and extracting settlements from lawsuits are very much about that. Actually changing the law to make those suits that much more powerful is something that should alarm all of us.
The family of murdered Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese told Fox News Digital they are "confident" Richard Glossip will once again be found guilty after the Supreme Court tossed out his conviction and ordered a new trial.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a majority opinion Tuesday that "the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony" in court proceedings against Glossip, who was convicted and sentenced to death following the 1997 killing. Prosecutors alleged that it was a murder-for-hire scheme.
"The family remains confident that when that new trial is held, the jury will return the same verdict as in the first two trials: guilty of first-degree murder," Derek Van Treese, Barryβs son, said in a statement to Fox News Digital provided by the familyβs lawyer, Paul Cassell.
"The burning issue here is of process and procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that one small bit of impeachment evidence should have been presented at Glossipβs trial and has remanded for a new trial," he continued. "Two juries have shown that the issue at hand isn't one of guilt or innocence, Glossip is clearly guilty of first-degree murder."
Derek Van Treese added that "For the last 10,276 days, we've been waiting for justice for the murder of Barry Van Treese."
"As difficult as it may be to start fresh on a 28-year-old case, I hope that the Attorney General and the Oklahoma County District Attorney's office can begin to show the perseverance that our family has shown throughout this process," he also said. "We pray that they exhibit the fortitude to take politics out of the equation and process this case as it is, a death penalty case, and not take the easy road of a lesser charge. If they find themselves unable to shoulder the burden, they should recuse themselves and allow someone with the aptitude and skill necessary to prosecute this case so it can finally be laid to rest, once and for all."
Don Knight, Glossip's attorney, told the Associated Press that the Supreme Courtβs ruling "was a victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system."
"Rich and I opened the decision together on the phone this morning, knowing it would be a life-changing moment," his wife said in a text message to the AP following the Supreme Courtβs announcement. "To say that we are overcome with emotion is an understatement. We are deeply grateful. Today is truly an answered prayer."
Glossip, 62, is currently being held at the maximum-security Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, according to the AP.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond was quoted by the news agency as saying that Glossip will remain in custody, and he will now consult with the Oklahoma County district attorney over whether to try Glossip again and if the state should seek the death penalty or lesser charges.
"I do not believe Richard Glossip is innocent," Drummond reportedly added, noting that "I have conferred with several members of the Van Treese family and given them my heartfelt sadness for where they are, where they find themselves."
Fox Newsβ Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, spoke out against a proposed resolution that condemns the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges gay marriage ruling.
The resolution declares that "the Michigan House of Representatives reaffirms the definition of marriage as put forth by the Michigan voters and enshrined in our Constitution: a union between one man and one woman."
The state's constitution stipulates "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
The opinion asserts "same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them."
The proposed resolution is being pushed by state Rep. Josh Schriver and multiple other Michigan state lawmakers.
"Has Obergefell v. Hodgesnot widened a portal, where gays, queers, transsexuals, polygamists, minor-attracted persons, and other perverts advance attacks on our children?" Schriver asked.
"Now is the time to do the right thing. Now is the time to reassert the sovereignty of Christ as our king. Now is the time to restore the authority of God and submit our will to He who knows what's best," he declared.
Whitmer decried the effort in a video, saying that "some extreme members" are requesting for the nation's high court "to overturn marriage equality."
"Here's my response to that: Hell no," she declared in the video posted to social media on Tuesday.
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case involving an Ohio woman who claims she was unfairly discriminated against for being straight, while she watched her less-qualified LGBT colleagues in Ohio's youth corrections system climb the career ladder.
Marlean Ames, the woman at the center of the case, argued she was discriminated against because of her heterosexuality at the Ohio Department of Youth Services and contends that her demotion and pay cut constitutes a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision of the case could have a significant impact on employment law.
Ames' case is before the Supreme Court after lower courts dismissed her claim in light of the precedent in the 1973 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green decision. In that case, the high court created a three-step process for handling discrimination cases based on indirect evidence, with the first step being the key issue in the case.
At this first step, plaintiffs in such cases must present enough evidence to make a basic case of discrimination. This requirement applies to all plaintiffs, whether they are from minority or majority groups.
Thus, Ames is challenging the legal standard used by lower courts, which requires her to provide additional "background circumstances" to "support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." The majority in this case appears to be Ames, since she is straight.
Ames' attorney, Edward Gilbert, argued in a Feb. 7 court filing that this additional evidence burden is inappropriate and that discrimination should be assessed equally.
"Judges must actually treat plaintiffs differently, by first separating them into majority and minority groups, and then imposing a 'background circumstances' requirement on the former but not the latter," the filing read. "In other words, to enforce Title VII's broad rule of workplace equality, courts must apply the law unequally."
Ames started working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 as an executive secretary, which oversees the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Since 2009, she was promoted several times, and by 2014, she was promoted to program administrator, according to the Supreme Court filing.
In 2017, Ames began reporting to a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is openly gay. During her 2018 performance review, Trim rated Ames as meeting expectations in most areas and exceeding them in one.
However, in 2019, after Ames applied for a bureau chief position and did not get it, she was removed from her program administrator role, the court filing states. The departmentβs assistant director and HR head, both of whom are straight, offered her the choice to return to her previous job with a pay cut. Ames chose to remain with the department and was later promoted to a different program administrator position. The department then hired a gay woman for the bureau chief role Ames had wanted, and a gay man for the program administrator position she previously held.
After assuming Ames' role, the co-worker "expressed to Ames an βimpatient attitude towards climbing the ranks within the Department,β βclaim[ed] that he could manipulate people to get what he wanted on the basis of being a gay man,β and βacknowledge[d]; that he had βbeen angling for Amesβs position for some time, stating in front of their coworkers that he wanted the PREA Administrator position,'" according to the filing.
In an amicus brief filed by Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general under the Biden administration, the federal government supports Marlean Ames' argument. Prelogar said the "background circumstances" requirement imposed by the lower court has no basis in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and goes against the Court's past rulings, which allow all plaintiffs to be judged by the same standards, SCOTUS Blog reported.
On the other hand, the Ohio Department of Youth Services disagrees with the idea that Ames was held to a higher standard because she is straight. The department argued that the "background circumstances" rule is not an additional burden on plaintiffs, but rather a "method of analysis" to examine cases like Ames' without creating a new legal precedent.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case Wednesday morning, with a ruling expected by the end of June.
The case's hearing before the high court comes amid a second Trump administration that is working to dismantle Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the federal sector while pressuring private sectors to do the same.
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administrationβs move to suspend refugee admissions into the United States in response to a lawsuit from refugee aid groups.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office suspending refugee resettlement and ordering the Department of Homeland Security to report back in 90 days on whether resuming resettlement would be in the interests of the U.S.
But District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a Biden appointee, said Trumpβs actions were an "effective nullification of congressional will" in setting up the nationβs refugee admissions program.
"The president has substantial discretion ... to suspend refugee admissions," Whitehead told the parties, according to The Associated Press. "But that authority is not limitless."
The case had been brought by refugee groups, including International Refugee Assistance Project, HIAS, Lutheran Community Services Northwest and individual refugees. The groups argued their ability to provide services to refugees had been damaged by the Trump order.
The order was one of a number of orders attempting to limit both illegal and legal immigration, including the use of parole to allow in migrants by the Biden administration. Trump had limited refugee resettlement in his first term, but President Joe Biden made moves to take in more refugees, including by increasing the refugee cap.
"The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees," Trump said in his Jan 20 order.
"This order suspends the USRAP until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States."
The plaintiffs argued that the suspension is in violation of federal law, and any such change should have been subject to the notice-and-comment period as laid out in the Administrative Procedures Act. They also argued that the suspension, as well as a suspension of funding, was "arbitrary and capricious."
The ruling marks a blow for the Trump administration after a federal judge last week declined to block the suspension in a similar case brought by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The conflicting rulings could mean the case ultimately ends up before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has tossed out the murder conviction and death sentence of Oklahoma's Richard Glossip, ordering a new trial.
Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death in the 1997 killing in Oklahoma City of his former boss, motel owner Barry Van Treese, in what prosecutors have alleged was a murder-for-hire scheme. Prosecutors in Oklahoma twice convinced separate juries to send him to death row.
The justices heard arguments in October in a case that produced a rare alliance in which lawyers for Glossip and the state argued that the high court should overturn Glossipβs conviction and death sentence because he did not get a fair trial.
"We conclude that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a majority opinion.
"The Court stretches the law at every turn to rule in his favorβ¦ On the merits, it finds a due process violation based on patently immaterial testimony about a witnessβs medical condition," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion. "And, for the remedy, it orders a new trial in violation of black-letter law on this Courtβs power to review state-court judgments."
Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, voting to uphold the conviction and death sentence, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett would have allowed a state appeals court to decide how to proceed.
At issue was whether Glossip's constitutional rights were violated when possibly exculpatory evidence was not turned over to his lawyers at trial. And whether Oklahoma's highest criminal court should have upheld the conviction and sentence, even after that new evidence came to light.
The case against Glossip, now 62, essentially rested on the testimony of Justin Sneed, in what prosecutors had originally said was a murder for hire.
The state claimed Glossip, who was employed at the Best Budget Inn, hired co-worker Sneed for $10,000 to kill their boss. The motive-- Glossip allegedly feared he would be fired for skimming money from the business.
Sneed later admitted to beating Van Treese to death with a baseball bat and received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony.
In 2023, Republican Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond ordered an outside independent review of Glossip's case.
Drummond, citing "troubling evidence of grave prosecutorial misconduct," then formally "confessed error" by the state, and said Glossip deserved a new trial.
Among Drummondβs concerns are that prosecutors knew Sneed lied on the witness stand about his psychiatric condition and his reason for taking the mood-stabilizing drug lithium.
The Supreme Court's syllabus of the case said "evidence of Sneedβs bipolar disorder, which could trigger impulsive violence when combined with his drug use, would have contradicted the prosecutionβs portrayal of Sneed as harmless without Glossipβs influence."
Drummond has also cited a box of evidence in the case that was destroyed, including motel receipts, a shower curtain and masking tape that Glossipβs attorney, Don Knight, said could have potentially proven Glossipβs innocence.
Glossip has always maintained his innocence. He was initially convicted in 1998 but won a new trial ordered by a state appeals court. He was convicted again in 2004.
Meanwhile, the victimβs relatives had told the Supreme Court that they wanted to see Glossip executed.
If Glossip were to be tried again, the death penalty would be off the table, Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Zemp Behenna has said.
Then as now, the state still believes Glossip may be at least guilty of aiding and abetting a crime after the fact, which would not mean a death sentence.
Fox News' Shannon Bream and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
In an ad promoting herself as a tough on crime judge, and her opponent as "too extreme," the Democrat-aligned candidate in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race touted the endorsement of a local sheriff who has a long history of promoting sanctuary immigration policies and opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"Take it from a sheriff," Dane County Sheriff Kalvin Barrett said in a recent 15-second ad, paid for by candidate Susan Crawford, criticizing the Republican-aligned candidate Brad Schimel of being too "extreme" for the Wisconsin Supreme Court and for "letting rapists walk free" in a claim involving a backlog of rape kits being processed that Schimel has pushed back on.
Barrett has faced his own share of criticism for policies labeled soft on crime, specifically on illegal immigrant crime, where his office has a history of refusing to cooperate with ICE.
Earlier this year, Barrett withdrew his county from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program that ICE uses to locate criminal illegal immigrants in jail, which earned him praise from the ACLU.
"At this point, we will no longer be taking part in the SCAAP grant program, and it is due to the recent change in administration and our understanding, listening, and hearing our community here in Dane County," Barrett told Channel 3000 at the time.
Barrett has also pledged that his department will "not be proactively involved in any sort of round-ups, any sort of immigration enforcement."
ICE listed Dane County as a jurisdiction that was "non-cooperative" in a June 2024 report, as Barrettβs office released individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants out on bail after committing crimes that were in some cases violent.
In 2024, two Republican congressmen in Wisconsin released a statement demanding answers from Barrett on Alejandro Jose Coronel Zarate, a suspected member of the Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua, having a warrant for his arrest in Dane County when he was then arrested for allegedly sexually and physically assaulting a woman and her child.
"Sanctuary policies undermine both the rule of law and the safety of American communities," Matt OβBrien, director of investigations at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, told Fox News Digital. "To begin with, states, counties, and municipalities cannot simply ignore any federal laws they dislike. But thatβs exactly what sanctuary jurisdictions are doing."
"Secondly, law enforcement officials who are tough on crime and serious about protecting their communities seize every available opportunity to neutralize threats to public safety. Police chiefs and sheriffs in sanctuary jurisdictions actually do the exact opposite. They shield foreign criminals from federal immigration enforcement. And, in so doing, they encourage criminals to take up residence in the very communities they are responsible for protecting. Simply put, it is impossible to be a sanctuary police chief or sheriff and be tough on crime β because the very essence of being a sanctuary jurisdiction is giving preferential treatment to illegal alien bad guys."
Another sheriff featured in the ad, former Dane County Sheriff David Mahoney, has also publicly pushed backagainst ICE raids.
Schimel, who has been endorsed by over 80 Wisconsin sheriffs and previously served as the stateβs attorney general, will face Crawford in an election on April 1 for a 10-year term on the stateβs supreme court to replace retiring Judge Ann Walsh Bradley.
Although the Supreme Court seats are considered nonpartisan, Crawford, currently a circuit court judge, has earned the endorsement of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which received $1 million from George Soros in January before then sending $2 million to Crawford and various liberal activist groups.
Schimel, currently a Waukesha County judge, has the backing of the Wisconsin GOP, several top Republican donors, including Chicago Cubs co-owner Joe Ricketts and Elon Muskβs Building Americaβs Future PAC.
The race is expected to have significant implications on the future of Wisconsin politics given that the courtβs current 4-3 liberal majority would essentially be set in stone through 2028 or, if Schimel were to win, become a conservative-leaning court with Justice Brian Hagedorn serving as a key swing vote.
"In November, Wisconsin voters chose common sense above a far-left agenda. Now, Dangerous Democrat Susan Crawford, wants to be a liberal activist from the bench of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Crawford and Democrats are already plotting to redraw Congressional seats to attack President Trumpβs America First Agenda," Wisconsin GOP Executive Director Andrew Iverson told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"While Brad Schimel has a record of protecting Wisconsinβs most vulnerable, Crawford has a record of coddling criminals and has attached herself at the hip with anti-ICE and defund-police Democrats. On April 1, Wisconsin voters will flock to the ballot box to vote for Schimel β to save Wisconsin and save America."
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Schimel campaign spokesperson Jacob Fischer said, "Susan Crawford is backed by George Soros, and sheβs not trying to hide it."
"If Crawford wins, she would continue to force-feed us her dangerous, Soros-backed agenda. We must stop her from destroying Wisconsin."
Fox News Digital reached out to both Barrett and Crawford for comment but did not receive a response.
FIRST ON FOX: GOP Rep. Darrell Issa has introduced a bill aimed at preventing federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions with the sole purpose of derailing a presidentβs political agenda, which Issa says has been the case since President Donald Trump was sworn in.
The legislation, known as the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), amends Chapter 85 of title 28, United 5 States Code by adding a "Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief."
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court," the legislation states.
Dozens of activist and legal groups, elected officials, local jurisdictions and individuals have launched more than 50 lawsuits against the Trump administration since Jan. 20 in response to his more than 60 executive orders, as well as executive proclamations and memos, Fox News Digital reported earlier this month.
Issa says NORRA would limit the scope of nationwide injunctions by preventing federal judges from issuing injunctions that extend beyond parties directly involved in a case, while also ensuring that any injunction restricts only the specific parties requesting relief, regardless of whether the injunction involves outright enforcement of actions or policy actions.
"The founders could never have envisioned judges and part of the legislative branch teaming up to tie down the executive and disempower the people," Issa told Fox News Digital, adding that the current judge-shopping climate in the United States amounts to "judicial tyranny" and a "weaponization of courts."
Issa's office told Fox News Digital they are optimistic that this is a bill that will pass through Congress with Republican support and be signed by President Trump, adding that the bill has "maximum momentum."
"Nowhere in our Constitution is a single federal judge given absolute power over the President or the people of the United States," Issa posted on X last week.
Issa's bill comes as the Trump administration has publicly pushed back against the flurry of injunctions from courts across the country.
"Many outlets in this room have been fear mongering the American people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the White House," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a press briefing last week. "I've been hearing those words a lot lately, but in fact, the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch, where district court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority."
"We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law and they have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past 14 days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits," she continued. "This is part of a larger concerted effort by Democrat activists, and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump."
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a pro-life challenge against protest restrictions around abortion clinics in Illinois, as activists argued the laws infringe on their First Amendment rights, a decision met with a fiery dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The court rejected appeals from Coalition Life, which describes itself as "America's Largest Professional Sidewalk Counseling Organization" in New Jersey and Illinois, which had challenged previous lower court rulings that dismissed their lawsuits.
Pro-life activists in the case argued that "buffer zones" β which were established after a previous Supreme Court decision in Colorado to shield patients from harassment β around abortion clinics violate their First Amendment rights to free speech.
Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito dissented, with Thomas arguing SCOTUS should have taken up the case, Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois. Alito did not explain his reasoning in writing.
The votes of four justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari to bring a case up for review.
Thomas said Hill v. Colorado "has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty." He added that he would've used the Coalition Life case to override the Hill decision.
"This case would have allowed us to provide needed clarity to lower courts," Thomas wrote in his dissent.
In that case, decided in 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a Colorado statute that prohibited individuals from "knowingly" approaching within eight feet of another person within 100 feet of a healthcare facility entrance, without consent, for purposes such as passing out literature, displaying signs, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling.
The court determined this law was a content-neutral regulation of the time, place and manner of speech, serving the state's interest in protecting individuals entering healthcare facilities from unwanted communication. The decision was 6-3, with Justices Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy dissenting.
The City of Carbondale, in southern Illinois, saw an uptick in pro-life protests after two clinics opened following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. As such, the city passed ordinances modeled after Colorado's statutes.
Urging the court to revisit the Hill precedent, Thomas quoted from an excerpt in Alito's majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center β the case that overturned Roe v. Wade β where he noted that abortion-related cases on other legal precedents had "distorted First Amendment doctrines."
One key case that followed Hill v. Colorado is McCullen v. Coakley, where the Supreme Court ruled in 2014 on a Massachusetts law that established a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. The high court found that while the state had a legitimate interest in protecting patients and staff from harassment, the law was overly broad, included too much space and infringed on free speech rights.
The court struck down the law, distinguishing it from the Hill decision.
In 2019, New York upheld a 15-foot buffer zone law outside of clinics, and similar laws have been debated in states like California, Maryland and Washington.
Fox News Digital has reached out to Coalition Life for comment.
The US Supreme Court is slated to hear a case Tuesday that could expand prisoners' access to jury trials.
Alyssa Schukar/for Business Insider
The Supreme Court is set to hear a case Tuesday that could expand prisoner access to jury trials.
The case relates to the PLRA, a 1996 law requiring prisoners to pursue a prison grievance before filing suit.
The petitioner says expanding access to juries would leave courts "inundated" with meritless suits.
When US lawmakers introduced legislation nearly 30 years ago to curb the "frivolous" prisoner lawsuits they said were inundating the courts, they insisted it wouldn't affect prisoners with legitimate claims.
That law, the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act, created something of a catch-22. Under the PLRA, any lawsuit, however serious the claim, can be dismissed if the prisoner didn't first exhaust their prison's internal grievance process. Yet prisoners say grievances can be stymied by the very guards they've accused of wrongdoing.
In these cases, a prisoner's claim of abuse or retaliation can be intertwined with their failure to properly file grievances.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments Tuesday about whether prisoners have a right to argue these complex cases before a jury.
The case the justices will hear centers on a Michigan prisoner named Kyle Brandon Richards, who said in a legal complaint he filed in April 2020 that Thomas Perttu, a resident unit manager at the Baraga Correctional Facility, had "engaged in a pattern of prolific and repetitive sexual abuse." Richards said that when he tried to file written grievances reporting the abuse, Perttu retaliated against him by destroying them and threatening to kill him.
The Michigan Department of Corrections declined to comment on the claims against Perttu and did not confirm whether he still worked at the prison, citing the pending litigation. Michigan's attorney general's office, which represents Perttu, did not respond to queries.
A judge dismissed Richards' lawsuit over his failure to exhaust Baraga's grievance process under the PLRA. An appeals court reversed course. A panel of 6th Circuit judges found that because Richards' First Amendment retaliation claims against Perttu were intertwined with a factual dispute over whether he'd properly exhausted the grievance process, those contested facts should be decided by a jury, not a judge, under the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
Perttu appealed, and the question of whether prisoners in these situations have a right to a jury trial will now be heard by the Supreme Court.
"Holding that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury decision on this question would be significant," said Michael Mushlin, an emeritus professor at Pace University's law school, who wrote an amicus brief with law professors in support of Richards' claims. "It's not earth-shattering, but it's significant in trying to soften the horrible blow of the PLRA."
A contested law
Though the PLRA was pitched as a common-sense reform to curb trivial lawsuits, Business Insider found, in a six-part series published in December, that the law has largely stymied prisoner lawsuits claiming serious harm β including retaliatory beatings, stabbings, sexual assaults, and egregious forms of medical neglect.
Exhausting an internal grievance system before filing suit, as the PLRA requires, is often a convoluted ordeal.
In one case BI uncovered that was dismissed by a judge over the failure to exhaust, a New Jersey prisoner said he'd been beaten by prison guards while he was in restraints and then missed a grievance deadline while in solitary confinement. In another, a Virginia prisoner who said he was sexually abused by a prison psychologist filed a grievance that was not considered specific enough. In Indiana, a prisoner who said he attempted suicide after a guard told him to "go for it" lost in court because his grievance didn't contain the guard's full name.
In Richards' case, he argued that he was unable to meet the PLRA's exhaustion requirement because Perttu had destroyed his grievance forms β the same set of circumstances at the heart of his retaliation claim.
"The disputed facts," said Lori Alvino McGill, a lecturer at the University of Virginia's law school who is representing Richards before the Supreme Court, "will be critical to both the retaliation claim and to whether administrative remedies were available."
The PLRA has faced intense criticism since it was first enacted. Members of Congress have tried to reform the law and failed. And the Richards case is not the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to review aspects of the law.
Margo Schlanger, a law professor at the University of Michigan who is a leading researcher on the PLRA's effects and who helped guide BI on its research methodology, said that if the justices decide in favor of Richards, it would mean, at the very least, "a few more cases" filed by prisoners would make it before juries.
BI found that such outcomes are unusual. Of nearly 1,500 Eighth Amendment prisoner cases BI analyzed for its series β including every appeals court case that reached a decision over a five-year period β only 2% were decided by a jury.
Plaintiffs who got a jury trial fared far better than those who did not: Less than 1% won their cases before a judge, while 18% of plaintiffs whose cases reached a jury prevailed.
ACLU, Cato, counties weigh in
Richards' case has attracted support from the ACLU and the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank, which both filed amicus briefs on Richards' behalf. Groups including the National Sheriffs' Association and the International Municipal Lawyers Association filed briefs supporting Perttu.
The Cato Institute argued in its brief that the constitutional right to a civil jury trial is "fundamental to American liberty."
"For Richards, and those similarly situated to him," Cato's Clark Neily III wrote, "a jury trial at the exhaustion stage is essential to ensure that their claims are fairly heard."
According to Jennifer Wedekind, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU's National Prison Project who was an author of the ACLU's brief, credibility determinations often come down to an officer's word against a prisoner's. "Those are precisely the type of determinations that juries are supposed to be making," she told BI.
The Supreme Court could decide broadly that every incarcerated plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial when there are disputes over exhaustion. Or the justices could rule more narrowly, as Mushlin expects β granting access to a jury trial only to plaintiffs in cases in which the factual discrepancies over exhaustion are inseparable from the substantive issues of the case.
Perttu's lawyers argued that if the justices uphold the circuit court's decision, federal courts will be "inundated" with "meritless lawsuits that they must allow to go to a jury" and effectively "erase nearly 30 years of progress in reducing frivolous lawsuits."
A brief filed by the International Municipal Lawyers Association and the National Association of Counties echoed those points, arguing that the 6th Circuit ruling "undermines the PLRA's goal of saving costs by reducing the volume of frivolous inmate suits."
BI found that claims of a tide of frivolous lawsuits were largely a myth. While a few dozen of the claims in BI's sample appeared to center on minor matters, the vast majority clearly involved claims of substantive harm. The effects of the law have been dramatic: Of the roughly 1,400 federal prisoner cases that BI examined filed by people who were imprisoned β rather than by former prisoners or their families β 27% failed because of the PLRA's requirements. Among cases decided in district courts, 35% failed because of the law.
Research by Schlanger found that within five years of the PLRA's passage prisoner suits dropped by 43% even as the prison population grew. The filing rate, she later found, never rebounded.
In BI's sample of prisoner suits, plaintiffs prevailed less than 1% of the time β indicating a near evisceration of protections for this country's 1.2 million prisoners, thanks to the combined impact of the PLRA and a set of legal standards established by the Supreme Court at the height of the war on drugs.
"Recent reports from Business Insider show that many prisoners have been denied their basic legal rights," Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois said in response to BI's series. "Any abuse that happens inside our prisons must be allowed to reach the light of day."
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday paused the Trump administration's efforts to dismiss the head of an independent agency charged with investigating whistleblower claims as the president seeks to remake the federal government.
The decision allows Hampton Dellinger, a Biden appointee, to remain as head of the Office of Special Counsel at least through Feb. 26. The high court kept that deadline in place and won't take any further action until then.
The Trump administration asked the court to overturn a lower court's temporary reinstatement of Dellinger. A district court hearing is scheduled to consider whether to extend the pause on Dellingerβs firing.
Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson voted to outright deny the administrationβs request to OK the firing.
Conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented, saying the lower court overstepped, and they cast doubt on whether courts have the authority to restore to office someone the president has fired. While acknowledging that some officials appointed by the president have contested their removal, Gorsuch wrote in his opinion that "those officials have generally sought remedies like backpay, not injunctive relief like reinstatement."
The dispute over Dellinger is the first legal challenge to reach the Supreme Court after several firings under the Trump administration.
Dellinger sued the Trump administration in Washington, D.C., federal court after his Feb. 7 firing.
"I am glad to be able to continue my work as an independent government watchdog and whistleblower advocate," Dellinger said in a statement after Friday's proceedings. "I am grateful to the judges and justices who have concluded that I should be allowed to remain on the job while the courts decide whether my office can retain a measure of independence from direct partisan and political control."
He has argued that, by law, he can only be dismissed from his position for job performance problems, which were not cited in an email dismissing him from his post.
Trump began his second term in the White House with a flurry of executive orders and directives that have since been targeted by a flood of legal challenges.
Since Jan. 20, dozens of lawsuits have been filed over the administration's actions, including the president's birthright citizenship order, immigration policies, federal funding freezes, federal employee buyouts, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and legal action against FBI and DOJ employees.
New Hampshire is following President Donald Trump's executive order to prohibit transgender athletes from competing against girls and women.
Prior to the order, according to New Hampshire Public Radio, the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association deferred to athletes and their districts on their eligibility.
But the association reversed course, citing a potential lack of federal funding.
"In light of these developments, the NHIAA has consulted with legal counsel and determined that it would be prudent to further clarify the NHIAAβs requirements," association Executive Director Jeffrey Collins wrote, adding schools have a responsibility to "comply with state and federal law."
WCAX noted that a statement from the Department of Education "commend[ed] the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association for changing its policies that allowed students to play on a team that matched their gender identity, not biological sex."
Former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu signed the state's Fairness in Womenβs Sports Act in July, but a lawsuit filed by the families of trans athletes followed and remains active.
The suit alleges the New Hampshire law Sununu signed violates constitutional protections and federal laws because the teens are being denied equal educational opportunities and are being discriminated against because they are transgender.
The teenage plaintiffs, Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, originally filed the lawsuit last year to challenge the law. Earlier this month, though, a federal judge granted a request to add the Trump administration to the list of defendants due to the president's recent executive order.
The situation involving the two transgender athletes has also prompted a second lawsuit after parents wore wristbands that said "XX" in reference to the biological female chromosomes and were allegedly banned from school grounds.
Trump signed the "No Men in Women's Sports" executive order Feb. 5, which prohibited any federal funding for educational institutions that allow biological males to compete on women's or girls sports teams.
New Hampshire was already one of 25 states with a law in place to enforce similar bans on transgender inclusion, but Tirrell and Turmelle have been allowed to compete on girls teams anyway due to a ruling by a federal judge in their state.
Representatives from California, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Maine have all said they would continue to follow state law and ignore Trump's order, which has resulted in Title IX investigations.
Fox News' Jackson Thompson contributed to this report.
A jury has been selected in the trial of Charlie Javice.
Luiz C. Ribeiro for NY Daily News via Getty Images
A lawyer for Charlie Javice told jurors JPMorgan Chase didn't do enough to vet her startup.
Prosecutors said Javice defrauded JPMorgan Chase before it bought Frank.
In openings, prosecutors painted her as a fraud. Her lawyer called her an "incredible young woman."
Prosecutors told a federal jury Thursday that Frank's founder Charlie Javice and her second in command, Olivier Amar, earned millions by defrauding JPMorgan Chase.
The bank purchased the company in 2021 for $175 million after the then-executives said Frank had more than 4 million users.
Prosecutors say that those numbers were dramatically inflated.
"They had nothing close to that," US Attorney Rushmi Bhaskaran said on Thursday. "Through these lies, the defendants became multimillionaires."
Bhaskaran added that the duo "made up fake data" to bolster their user base and then tried to cover it up.
Attorneys for Javice and Amar, who were charged separately, painted a different picture.
Jose Baez, one of Javice's attorneys, said JPMorgan didn't do enough due diligence before purchasing Frank, calling it a "business deal that went wrong."
He called Javice an "incredible young woman" who, at age 28, was savvy enough to secure a one-on-one meeting with Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's CEO.
Baez added that the acquisition was more about acquiring Javice herself than Frank's users.
"They saw something in Charlie, a young female CEO breaking the glass ceiling," Baez said. "That's what JPMorgan negotiated for, and that's what they got."
Meanwhile, Amar's attorney, Jonathan Cogan, referred to his client as an "innocent man" who was dragged into his boss' problems after the prosecution "lumped them together."
Amar, who appeared stoic through much of the proceedings, nodded subtly while Cogan reminded the jury that he's innocent until proven guilty.
"Sometimes, our government gets it wrong," Cogan said. "Sometimes, prosecutors can be overzealous. Sometimes, innocent people get swept up."
Opening statements in the lower Manhattan trial came after nearly two days of jury selection.
Before being selected, jurors were questioned at hushed sidebars about their personal lives, including whether they had ever worked in finance, been a victim of fraud, or had close personal or business relationships with people such as Dimon.
Some prospective jurors were excused after saying that they worked for JPMorgan or other banks. Another was excused after saying she enjoyed watching shows about scams and thinking about the psychology that motivates fraudsters.
"This is not an easy procedure. It was difficult. It took longer than I expected," District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said after the 12 jurors and 4 alternates were selected Thursday.
The jury and its alternates include people who told the judge they worked in sales management or IT, as well as some who worked for the city of New York. Others worked in healthcare or had no job.
Throughout the voir dire process, Javice β dressed in a blouse and pencil skirt β smiled in the direction of jurors and took frequent notes. She appeared personable and chatted with the attorneys on each side of her, playing with her hair while talking.
The trial of Javice and Amar continues Friday.
Correction: February 21, 2025β Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story misspelled the name of a defendant. Olivier Amar is on trial, not Oliver Amar.
FIRST ON FOX: President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Wednesday that will require federal agencies to evaluate all of their regulations that could violate the Constitution, in the latest effort from his administration to prioritize slashing red tape.
The executive order β which senior administration officials are calling a first of its kind and an attempt to ensure the government isn't weaponized against the American people β will require agencies to submit a list to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within the next 60 days of all regulations that could violate the Constitution or could cause harm.
OMBβs Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will spearhead the effort and evaluate regulations across the federal agencies, senior administration officials told Fox News Digital Wednesday.
DOGE officials at federal agencies will gather an inventory of regulations that could violate the Constitution and then share them with OMB. After the 60 days, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will go through the list of regulations and make individual decisions on which regulations are unconstitutional and will launch the process of repealing the regulations on a case-by-case basis, the senior administration officials said.
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs oversees executive branch regulations, while the newly created DOGE aims to eliminate government waste, fraud and spending.
The order comes as the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled against federal agencies whoβve sought to broadly enforce their own regulations outside the scope of their jurisdiction, including when the Supreme Court ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in May 2023 in the case Sackett v. EPA.
In that case, Mike and Chantell Sackett purchased a residential lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, in 2005 to build a home. However, the EPA stepped in as the Sacketts kicked off leveling the ground and told them to halt plans to start construction β or face massive fines β because the property fell on federally protected land covered under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act of 1972.
The law sets standards for regulating pollutants into "waters of the United States," and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that the EPA sought to classify the wetlands on the Sackettβs property as "waters of the United States" because they were "near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake."
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Clean Water Act applies only to waters that are "relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water."
"Understanding the (Clean Water Act) to apply to wetlands that are distinguishable from otherwise covered 'waters of the United States' would substantially broaden (existing statute) to define 'navigable waters' as 'waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands,'" Alito wrote.
Wednesday's executive order will build on the Trump administrationβs efforts to cut down on regulations.
For example, Trump signed an executive order in January ordering that federal agencies eradicate 10 regulations for every new one implemented.
Trump said at the World Economic Forum Jan. 23 that his administration would launch the "largest deregulation campaign in history, far exceeding even the record-setting efforts of my last term."
Previous steps Trump took during his first term to cut regulations included ordering federal agencies to nix two regulations for every new regulation issued. The White House has touted that agencies ultimately cut five and half regulations for every new one introduced during Trumpβs first term.
