The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Maine state legislature to revoke its censure of GOP state representative Laurel Libby on Tuesday.
Libby has been censured since Feb. 15 for a social media post that identified a transgender Maine high school athlete who won a girls' pole vault competition. Democrat majority leader and Maine Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau told Libby that the censure would be revoked if she apologized for the social media post, but Libby has firmly refused.
Instead, the state representative filed a lawsuit to have the censure overturned, but was ruled against by Rhode Island U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose, who was appointed by former President Biden in January. DuBose presided over the case after every district judge in Maine refused to take the case.
Libby then filed an appeal to First Circuit Court of Appeals, but was ruled against there too. So she took her case to the Supreme Court in April.
Libby had the support of the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Pam Bondi, who filed an amicus brief supporting Libby in her lawsuit, and Bondi has personally spoken out in support of the embattled Republican state representative.
"The Department of Justice is proud to fight for girls in Maine and stand alongside Rep. Libby, who is being attacked simply for defending girls in her home state. As our lawsuit against the state of Maine illustrates, we will always protect girls’ sports and girls’ spaces from radical gender ideology," Bondi told Fox News Digital.
The Milwaukee judge accused of helping an illegal immigrant evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement is back in the spotlight — this time because of the liberal federal judge presiding over her trial.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, 85, was randomly assigned to preside over the jury trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who was indicted earlier this month for allegedly shielding an illegal immigrant from ICE in her courtroom. Adelman, a former Democratic lawmaker and outspoken judge, faces mounting criticism and scrutiny of his record as he handles the high-profile case.
Adelman spent 20 years as a Democrat in the Wisconsin state Senate before then-President Bill Clinton nominated him in 1997 to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Though the judge hasn’t been active in politics for years, critics note recent rulings and writings in which he’s taken aim at President Donald Trump, Chief Justice Roberts and others.
Some fear this continued political bias could risk his impartiality in presiding over Dugan's trial — or at least the perceptions of it, in the eyes of Trump allies. Adelman did not respond to a request for comment.
In 2020, Adelman published an article for Harvard Law & Policy Review, titled, "The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy" that set off a torrent of criticism from Trump allies and court commentators alike.
The article accused Chief Justice John Roberts of breaking with his Senate confirmation testimony in 2005 — instead ushering in a "hard-right majority" on the Supreme Court, and "actively participating in undermining American democracy."
Adelman also took aim at Trump, whose temperament he said "is that of an autocrat," but who he said "is also disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party."
Adelman used the article to advocate for "righting the ship" of the high court, in part by embracing an approach similar to the Warren Court — known both for its landmark civil rights rulings and a slew of other progressive decisions.
Adelman was later admonished by the Civility Committee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for his remarks in the article.
They found his remarks did not violate prohibited political activity under the Canons of Judicial Conduct, but issued the following rebuke:
"The opening two sentences regarding the Chief Justice and the very pointed criticisms of Republican Party policy positions could be seen as inconsistent with a judge's duty to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and as reflecting adversely on the judge's impartiality," the committee said.
Adelman later issued a public apology for those remarks.
Adelman was also at the center of a major case involving Wisconsin's voter ID law, which sought to make it harder for citizens to vote.
He blocked the law from taking force ahead of the elections — a decision that was later reversed by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which again issued a sharp rebuke of his ruling.
In "our hierarchical judicial system, a district court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional just because he thinks (with or without the support of a political scientist) that the dissent was right and the majority wrong," the appeals court said, noting that Adelman did not rely on any Supreme Court precedent to base his decision.
In light of his previous remarks and progressive rulings, court-watchers expect his behavior here to be closely scrutinized.
It's unclear whether his behavior could assuage the concerns of longtime critics — among them, Mike Davis of the Article III Project, and conservative scholar Josh Blackman, who took aim at Adelman's 2020 remarks in a blog post at the time.
This is due in part to the canons of judicial ethics, Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley noted in an op-ed for The Hill.
"Because of these ethical principles, judges are usually highly restrained in their public comments, particularly about political or ideological matters," he said.
Dugan's trial comes at a time when Trump and his allies have blasted so-called "activist" judges who they see as acting politically to block his agenda — suggesting her trial, and Adelman's behavior — will be under especially close scrutiny.
But others noted that federal judges often take great caution to avoid the appearance of political bias, even more so in public remarks, understanding that doing so could violate the canons for judicial behavior.
Many also see their roles on the court as a serious job that requires them to be impartial arbiters of the law — looking to precedent, rather than politics — as their guide.
In presiding over Dugan's case, experts hope Adelman will do the same.
"When I have served on panels with sitting federal judges, they often balk at even discussing the scope of constitutional rights out of concern for these canons," Turley noted in the an op-ed. "Federal judges are expected to speak through opinions in court decisions rather than in editorials or law review articles."
President Donald Trump is considering Justice Department official Emil Bove, his former defense attorney, for a U.S. appeals court vacancy — a controversial nomination that would come as he continues to attack so-called "activist" judges for blocking his agenda.
Bove, 44, is among those Trump is considering for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.
There are currently two vacancies on the court — increasing the odds that Bove's name could be floated by Trump. If confirmed, he would serve a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.
Bove's name is not the only one being considered, familiar sources say, and conversations are believed to be in the early stages.
Prior to his installation at the Justice Department, Bove spent nearly 10 years as a U.S. prosecutor for the Southern District of New York.
He also defended Trump in two of his criminal trials following his first term in the White House.
In each of these roles and at DOJ, Bove's hard-charging tactics have solidified his reputation as a fierce, loyal and, at times, aggressive leader.
At the Justice Department, Bove has emerged as the man behind some of the administration's most contentious actions — prompting some officials to resign rather than carry out his marching orders.
Shortly after taking office, he sent a memo threatening state and city officials with criminal charges or civil penalties if they failed to comply with the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration or slow-walked their orders on enforcement.
"Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands," Bove said in the memo.
It was Bove who ordered federal prosecutors for the Southern District of New York to file a motion to dismiss charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
That order prompted a string of resignations from personnel, including acting U.S attorney for the section Danielle Sassoon to leave DOJ rather than drop the case.
Bove, along with Edward Sullivan from the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, eventually signed on to the motion themselves.
Fox News also reported earlier this year that Bove was behind an exhaustive questionnaire sent to FBI agents detailing their roles in the Jan. 6 investigations.
Questions ranged from agents' participation in any grand jury subpoenas to whether the agents worked or responded to leads from another FBI field office or if they worked as a case agent for investigations.
Former Justice Department officials have cited concerns that the probe or any retaliatory measures carried out as a result could have a chilling effect on the work of the FBI, including its more than 52 separate field offices.
The group cited in particular the order from acting then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to terminate the entire FBI senior leadership team and the assistant director in charge of the Washington Field Office.
Bove would face a highly uncertain path to confirmation if nominated. The news comes at a time when Democrats have sharply excoriated what they argue are Trump's attempts to install loyalists to head up the DOJ and FBI.
The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to lift a lower court injunction that blocked President Donald Trump's decision to terminate the protected legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants living in the U.S., in a win for the administration as it looks to deliver on its hard-line immigration enforcement policies.
The decision clears the way for the Trump administration to move forward with its plans to terminate Biden-era Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for roughly 300,000 Venezuelan migrants living in the U.S. and allows the administration to move forward with plans to immediately remove these migrants, which lawyers for the administration argued they should be able to do.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued as much when he asked the Supreme Court to lift the injunction this month, arguing in an emergency appeal that a lower court judge had overstepped their authority by blocking the administration from ending the program for certain Venezuelans.
"The district court’s reasoning is untenable," Sauer told the high court, adding that the program "implicates particularly discretionary, sensitive, and foreign-policy-laden judgments of the Executive Branch regarding immigration policy."
At issue was the TPS program, which allows people from certain countries to live and work in the U.S. legally if they cannot work safely in their home country due to a disaster, armed conflict or other "extraordinary and temporary conditions."
The protections were extended during the end of the Biden administration, shortly before Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in February abruptly terminated the program for a specific group of Venezuelan nationals, arguing they were not in the national interest.
In March, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California agreed to keep the protections in place, siding with plaintiffs from the National TPS Alliance in ruling that the termination of the TPS program, which is extended in 18-month increments, is "unprecedented" and suggested that the abrupt termination may have been "predicated on negative stereotypes" about Venezuelan migrants.
Sauer disputed this in the appeal to the Supreme Court. In it, he also accused the lower court judge of improperly intruding on the executive branch’s authority over immigration policy.
"Forceful condemnations of gang violence and broad questioning of the integrity of the prior administration’s immigration practices, including potential abuses of the TPS program, do not evince discriminatory intent," Sauer said, describing Chen's descriptions as "cherry-picked" and "wrongly portrayed" as "racially tinged."
Fox News's Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis excoriated Trump administration lawyers Friday in a remarkable status hearing centered on Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the Salvadorian migrant and alleged MS-13 member who was deported from Maryland to El Salvador in March in what administration officials have acknowledged was an administrative error.
The heated back-and-forth was full of eye-popping exchanges between the judge and the Justice Department, as she took umbrage with their attempts to invoke the state secrets privilege to shield details concerning Abrego Garcia from the court.
"What world are we living in," Xinis asked in disbelief after more than two hours of proceedings. "What sort of legal world are we living in?"
She sparred multiple times with DOJ lawyers over their assertion that Abrego Garcia was lawfully detained and deported.
"He was lawfully detained? No he wasn’t!" Judge Xinis objected. "There was no order of removal, there was no warrant for removal – there was nothing."
She cut off Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn again when he attempted to continue with a different argument. "You didn’t even respond to what I just said," she told him. "A DHS attorney came in at the first hearing and confirmed that there was no lawful basis to arrest Abrego Garcia."
"Why are we skipping over that – as part of the misconduct at issue, in light of the pattern I'm currently faced with on this day?" she asked, in disbelief.
For at least 30 seconds, the courtroom fell completely silent.
The judge said she would issue an order later Friday outlining next steps, after the two sides huddled for a closed portion of the case.
Xinis, who, despite her mounting frustrations, seemed likely to grant the government another deadline extension, described the hours-long hearing as beating a "frustrated and dead horse."
At one point, she rebuked the Justice Department for trying to invoke the state secrets privilege via a footnote referencing a filing in a separate case before a different court, noting that this would not pass muster in her courtroom.
Most of the public hearing was marked by similar sharp exchanges over whether the Trump administration had taken any steps to comply with court orders to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return – a point Xinis reiterated was already settled by both her court and the Supreme Court last month.
At another contentious moment, she laughed in apparent disbelief at the lack of evidence and disclosures from the government. "I can’t count the number of ‘I don’t knows’ my wonderful clerks and I have heard," she said of depositions from Trump administration officials.
Xinis told the government lawyers they had not presented her with a sufficient affidavit to invoke the state secrets privilege – which the Trump administration has asserted is necessary in this case to protect sensitive diplomatic and foreign policy matters from being made public in court.
Pointing to a prior admission from the Trump administration, Xinis also said Abrego Garcia was removed from the U.S. "without lawful authority."
"You’ve conceded it. There’s witness testimony," she said. Any attempt to revise this "would be exceptionally difficult."
"Respectfully, your honor, he was removed lawfully," Guynn replied.
"No," an incredulous Xinis shot back. "He was removed unlawfully."
"His removal from the U.S. was lawful," the Justice Department attorney insisted.
"Well no – no it wasn’t," Xinis said, visibly stunned.
"Because there's actually the [Immigration and Naturalization Act], which says that if the United States elects to remove someone to a third country, there's a process. Congress has set out that process, the executive has to follow that process.," she said. "So it is not determined yet whether removal to a third country would be appropriate, which is why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did."
Ultimately, she said, the government will likely have extra time to file additional declarations to allow it to seek the state secrets privilege.
Still, she said she "has to point out" that the unlawful removal of Abrego Garcia from the U.S. "is a foregone conclusion."
"He was removed in error. He was sent to El Salvador when there was a notice of withholding of removal, and so that was not lawful."
Plaintiffs noted that the government had labeled 1,140 documents related to Abrego Garcia’s case as privileged – but in contrast, they were sent just 164 documents – 132 of which were photocopies of their own court filings and interrogatories sent back to them.
"Your Honor, a life is in the balance," Abrego Garcia's lawyers said, urging the court to move faster.
Xinis previously criticized the administration for failing to comply with her court’s requests for information in the case – accusing officials in a blistering eight-page order of submitting "vague, evasive and incomplete" responses that she said demonstrated "willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations."
The Supreme Court on Friday decided in favor of an appeal by a group of Venezuelan migrants who asked the high court to halt their deportation under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
The decision, similar to others it has made in the past on the matter, revolved around the alleged illegal immigrants not having enough time to reasonably file a challenge to their deportations. Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented.
President Donald Trump has been using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to try and speed up the deportation processes of illegal immigrants, but the Supreme Court's Friday ruling presents another blow to those attempts after the court ruled against the Trump administration in their effort to remove men already in immigration custody in a northern region of Texas.
"Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster. But it is not optimal for this Court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case. We remand the case to the Fifth Circuit for that purpose," the ruling from the court reads.
The court did not rule on Friday on whether the AEA was lawful, but rather sent the matter back to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18," the Supreme Court's ruling said.
Last month, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court's order barring the government from deporting migrants under the AEA. However, that decision also made clear that anyone the government wants to deport must be given proper notice. A few weeks after that decision, the Court halted deportations of illegal immigrants in Texas that the Trump administration was trying to proceed with under the AEA.
The Supreme Court's Friday decision to once again halt deportations by the Trump administration comes a day after the High Court's justices heard oral arguments in a case on birthright citizenship, which is also tied to whether federal judges can use their power to block the president's executive actions nationwide. Several lower court federal judges have sought to stop the Trump administration from rapidly deporting illegal immigrants under the AEA.
Including the birthright citizenship case, there are five other pending emergency appeals dealing with challenges to Trump executive actions.
Those include cases related to temporary protected status (TPS) for Venezuelan migrants, immigrant parole programs, independent agency member firings, DOGE access to Social Security Administration data and federal workforce-reduction efforts — the last of which was filed on Friday afternoon.
"THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform after news of the ruling.
The president followed up with a subsequent post on the platform, as well.
"The Supreme Court has just ruled that the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane, who came into our Country illegally, are not allowed to be forced out without going through a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person, and one that will allow these people to commit many crimes before they even see the inside of a Courthouse," he wrote.
"The result of this decision will let more CRIMINALS pour into our Country, doing great harm to our cherished American public. It will also encourage other criminals to illegally enter our Country, wreaking havoc and bedlam wherever they go. The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do. Sleepy Joe Biden allowed MILLIONS of Criminal Aliens to come into our Country without any ‘PROCESS’ but, in order to get them out of our Country, we have to go through a long and extended PROCESS. In any event, thank you to Justice Alito and Justice Thomas for attempting to protect our Country. This is a bad and dangerous day for America!"
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett sparred with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer Thursday, pressing him on whether the Trump administration would follow federal court precedent. The exchange quickly became one of the day’s most talked-about moments and could reignite criticism of Barrett from Trump allies.
The back-and-forth took place Thursday during oral arguments in a case related to President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship with a specific focus on whether lower courts should be able to block executive actions from taking effect nationwide.
Justice Barrett, a Trump appointee, grilled Sauer about the administration's stance toward lower court rulings, which followed similar lines of inquiry from her colleagues on the bench.
"I want to ask you about a potential tension," she began, before stopping to correct herself. "Well, no, not a potential tension, an actual tension that I see in answers that you gave to Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Kagan."
Barrett then asked Sauer if the Trump administration "wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a Second Circuit precedent, say, in New York, because you might disagree with its opinion?"
"You resisted Justice Kagan when she asked you whether the government would obey" such a precedent, she said.
Sauer responded, "Our general practice is to respect those precedents. But there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice, and that is not …"
Barrett interrupted, asking if that is the Trump administration’s practice or "the long-standing practice of the federal government?"
Sauer replied that it is "the long-standing policy of the Department of Justice."
"Yes, as it was phrased to me, we generally respect circuit precedent, but not necessarily in every case," Sauer said. "Some examples might be a situation where we are litigating to get that circuit precedent overruled and so on," he added later.
"That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this week," Barrett stressed, pointing to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that Trump's birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional.
"And what do you do the next day, or the next week?" she asked.
"Generally, we follow this," Sauer said, which provoked a somewhat incredulous response from the justice.
"So, you're still saying generally?" she asked him. "And you still think that it's generally the long-standing policy of the federal government to take that approach?"
The remarks sparked divided political reactions on social media, with Democratic strategist Max Burns noting, "Trump Solicitor General D. John Sauer tells Justice Amy Coney Barrett that Trump 'generally' tries to respect federal court decisions but he has the 'right' to disregard legal opinions he personally disagrees with. Coney Barrett seems to be in disbelief."
"John Sauer just said the quiet part out loud: unless the Supreme Court tells them directly, Trump’s team might ignore lower court rulings," said Seth Taylor, a 2024 DNC delegate. "That’s not governance – that’s constitutional brinksmanship."
"Amy Coney Barrett (ACB) is proving once again she may the the worst SCOTUS pick ever by a Republican," conservative commentator and podcast host Cash Loren said on social media.
"She has a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. … Yet you can hear her disdain for the Trump administration."
Earlier this year, Barrett sided with three of the Supreme Court's liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts in rejecting, 5-4, the Trump administration's request to block billions in USAID money for previously completed projects.
The decision sparkedfierce criticism from Trump supporters, who have attempted to label Justice Barrett an "activist" justice and someone who has been insufficiently loyal to the president who tapped her for the high court.
Others have pointed out her track record as a reliably conservative voter and the fact the court has lifetime appointments to allow justices to ostensibly act without undue political interference.
Trump later said he had no knowledge of the attacks against her, telling reporters, "She’s a very good woman."
"She’s very smart, and I don’t know about people attacking her. I really don’t know." Trump added.
The court ruling could come in a matter of days or weeks. But it will likely hinge closely on the votes of two Trump appointees, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Friday.
Overall, he said of the hearing, "it got pretty sporty in there."
"There were some lively moments, at least lively for the Supreme Court," he said, before noting the justices to watch are Gorsuch and Barrett.
"Justice Barrett is probably the greatest concern right now for the Trump administration," Turley said.
With the Supreme Court hearing its first case Thursday relating to nationwide injunctions – federal district court judges issuing rulings that affect the entire country – several proponents of a plan to end the practice are speaking out.
Senate Judiciary Committee member John Kennedy, R-La., said it appears to be a case of the "tail wag[ging] the dog," in that it is the judiciary’s job to adjudicate the law, not create it.
"When Congress makes a law, the federal judges are supposed to follow it. When the president exercises his power under Article II, judges are supposed to follow it, so long as it's lawful," Kennedy said.
"They can't just overturn it because they don't agree with it, and that's what a lot of these federal judges are doing."
In a Fox News Opinion piece this week, Kennedy noted "universal injunctions" have been around since the 1960s, when judges began enjoining the government from enforcing certain policies against "anyone, anywhere" – adding they let a judge say "sayonara" to laws, regulations or even whims of a president they don’t like.
Kennedy noted that there have only been 27 such injunctions from JFK through Y2K.
A review showed none was lodged against Presidents George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton – but began to creep in during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.
With nearly 100 rulings against President Donald Trump in his one-and-an-eighth terms, Kennedy said some judges seem to want to "rewrite the Constitution every other Thursday, to advance some social or economic agenda that they can't get by the voters: But the law is the law."
"And a universal injunction was created out of whole cloth. There's no statutory basis for a universal injunction," the Louisianan said, echoing the analysis in his op-ed.
Given his penchant for often colorful and probing questions of judiciary appointees, Kennedy was also asked how an unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court could affect nominee choices and further politicize the process.
"All the nominees in front of us are going to be asked about universal injunctions, I can tell you. And if they try to dodge and bob and weave and run like a hound on the treeline, when it's my turn to question them I'm not going to let them. I'm not asking how they would rule in a particular case, but I want to know what they think the legal basis is for a universal injunction, because there is none: I want to hear what they had to say."
Sen. Tommy Tuberville – who joined Kennedy and others in supporting Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley’s Judicial Relief Clarification Act (JCRA) to end the practice – said such "woke" judges should consider retiring their robes.
"President Trump campaigned on a promise to deport dangerous criminals and won in a landslide. In just four months, he has already delivered the most secure border in American history," Tuberville told Fox News Digital.
"Unfortunately, we have radical left judges who are allowing their personal beliefs to supersede the will of 77 million Americans who voted for President Trump and his agenda," the former Auburn football legend added.
"If a judge wants to make political decisions, they should run for office. Otherwise, they should focus on upholding the Constitution and enforcing the law."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, also said he supports the JCRA, calling nationwide injunctions "a real problem."
"[A] single federal judge can essentially stop a popularly elected president dead in his tracks by a temporary restraining order, which doesn't just deal with the parties in front of the judge, but literally the whole nation."
"If the Supreme Court doesn't do it in the context of this birthright citizenship case, then Congress needs to continue to pursue this via Senator Grassley’s bill and other means."
While the case argued Thursday involves an injunction with regard to the interpretation of birthright citizenship in the law, Cornyn said that the court will determine the scope of that particular order, but that the idea of nationwide injunctions is being abused.
For his part, Grassley previously told Fox News Digital that such injunctions "are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power."
President Donald Trump weighed in on the birthright citizenship case being argued in front of the Supreme Court Thursday, insisting the law originally was intended to benefit the descendants of slaves, not illegal immigrants.
"Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!" Trump wrote in a post Thursday morning on his Truth Social platform as the arguments were being heard. "The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows – But the drug cartels love it!"
Trump added that birthright citizenship, which was adopted as a constitutional amendment in 1868, was primarily intended to benefit the babies of slaves.
"It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years," Trump said in his post. "It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection. Please explain this to the Supreme Court of the United States."
Trump cited the birthright citizenship issue as "yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America."
"We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America."
While the case being heard Thursday resulted from disputes against the president's effort to end birthright citizenship, which is the right for any child born in the U.S. to automatically acquire citizenship, the issue of whether it is permissible for lower courts to permanently block Trump's executive actions will hinge on the justices' decision.
Through universal injunctions, lower federal courts can bar authorities from enforcing a Trump executive order.
The birthright citizenship case was set in motion after Trump signed a Day One executive order, meant to go into effect Feb. 19, reinterpreting the 19th-century amendment. But shortly after the order was signed, legal challenges ensued and Democratic-appointed federal judges began blocking the president's action.
Meanwhile, appeals of those decisions from the Trump administration failed before the Supreme Court decided to take up the case.
It is unclear when the high court's justices' final ruling on the birthright citizenship case will come out. It could take weeks, or it could take just several hours if they decide to issue an emergency ruling right away.
President Donald Trump weighed in on the birthright citizenship case being argued in front of the Supreme Court Thursday, insisting the law originally was intended to benefit the descendants of slaves, not illegal immigrants.
"Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!" Trump wrote in a post Thursday morning on his Truth Social platform as the arguments were being heard. "The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it!"
Trump added that birthright citizenship, which was adopted as a constitutional amendment in 1868, was primarily intended to benefit the babies of slaves.
"It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years," Trump said in his post. "It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection. Please explain this to the Supreme Court of the United States."
Trump cited the birthright citizenship issue as "yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America."
"We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America.
While the case being heard Thursday resulted from disputes against the president's effort to end birthright citizenship, the issue of whether it is permissible for lower courts to permanently block Trump's executive actions will hinge on the justices' decision.
Through universal injunctions, lower federal courts can bar authorities from enforcing a Trump executive order.
It is unclear when the justices' final ruling will come out. It could take weeks or it could take just several hours if they decide to issue an emergency ruling.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan grilled U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer on the practicalities of ending universal injunctions on Thursday, a major sticking point in a highly watched case centered on birthright citizenship and the power of lower courts to rule against the executive branch.
Kagan pressed Sauer on Thursday on ending universal injunctions and how the higher court should then be tasked with managing the flow of lower court challenges.
She also noted that the Trump administration has been "losing uniformly" in lower court cases on the "substantive question" in dealing with birthright citizenship.
"If I were in your shoes, there's no way I'd approach the court with this case!" Kagan quipped.
After he attempted to answer, she responded, "This is not a hypothetical — this is happening out there.
"Every court is ruling against you."
Justices on the high court agreed in April to hear the case, which centers on three lower courts that issued national injunctions earlier this year blocking President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship.
The order reinterprets the 14th Amendment to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their mother is unlawfully present or temporarily in the country, and if their father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. Trump's action remains on hold nationwide pending Supreme Court intervention.
A Supreme Court decision here could have sweeping national implications, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump's second presidency began on Jan. 20, according to a Fox News data analysis.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts reined in Justice Sonia Sotomayor during argument over birthright citizenship and nationwide court injunctions on Thursday.
Sotomayor dominated questioning for several minutes at the outset of Thursday's argument after taking over from Justice Clarence Thomas. She pressed U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer for President Donald Trump's administration on several points relating to the authority for federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, often speaking over the lawyer and interrupting him.
Sotomayor argued that Trump's order invalidating birthright citizenship violated four Supreme Court precedents, and that it was justified for a federal judge to grant an injunction against such a controversial order.
"You are claiming that not just the Supreme Court, that both the Supreme Court and no lower court, can stop an executive from universally violating holdings by this court," Sotomayor said.
Sauer then elaborated on his statement, saying the government is arguing that federal courts can intervene on behalf of specific plaintiffs before them, but not nationwide. He said the Supreme Court has the authority to grant nationwide injunctions in certain circumstances.
Sauer used the bulk of his opening arguments Thursday to reiterate the Trump administration's view that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, noting that the injunctions "transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority," and "create a host of practical problems."
Universal injunctions "require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions," he said. "They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere," and "invert," in the administration’s view, the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review. They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments."
A Supreme Court decision here could have sweeping national implications, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump's second presidency began on Jan. 20, 2025, according to a Fox News data analysis.
The consolidated cases before the court are Trump v. CASA, Trump v. the State of Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey.
It’s unclear when the justices will rule, but their decision to fast-track the case means an opinion or order could come within weeks – or even days.
Fox News' Breanne Deppisch, Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.
The Supreme Court struggled to reach consensus Thursday in oral arguments involving President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship, in a case that could more broadly call into question the powers of lower courts to block executive branch actions.
It’s unclear when the justices will rule, but their decision to fast-track the case means an opinion or order could come within weeks – or even days.
The focus in the courtroom ostensibly was the birthright citizenship executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office. But arguments largely focused on whether lower courts that issued universal injunctions blocking the order acted beyond the scope of their authority, as the Trump administration argued in its Supreme Court appeal earlier this year.
Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared to agree Thursday that the use of universal injunctions has surged in recent years under both Democratic and Republican presidents. But after more than two hours of oral arguments, they seemed split on how, exactly, to proceed.
"As far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told U.S. Solicitor General D John Sauer, noting that blocking or limiting lower court injunctions could invite hundreds or thousands of new individual lawsuits.
Others on the court suggested that federal judges have been given too much runway to halt the orders of a sitting president.
"The practical problem is that there are 680 district court judges, and they are dedicated and they are scholarly," said Justice Samuel Alito.
"And I'm not impugning their motives in any way," he added. "But, you know, sometimes they're wrong."
Kelsi Corkran, representing private plaintiffs and advocacy groups, proposed a middle-ground approach: allowing universal injunctions when government actions violate fundamental constitutional rights.
If lower courts do get "ahead of their skis," she said, appeals courts can still rein them in, just as they do now.
No easy solution to resolve the thorny legal problem presented itself, and justices grappled with a litany of related procedural questions in debating whether to scale back nationwide injunctions – and if so, what legal standards should be applied.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer used the bulk of his opening arguments Thursday to reiterate the government's view that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, noting that the injunctions "transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority," and "create a host of practical problems."
Universal injunctions "require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions," he said. "They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere," and "invert," in the administration’s view, the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review. "They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments."
During a five-minute rebuttal period, Justice Sotomayor questioned Sauer on what authorities the courts, under their argument, would have in this scenario.
"Your theory here is arguing that Article III and principles of equity [clause] both prohibit federal courts from issuing universal injunctions to have your argument," she said, adding: "If that's true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn't have that power."
Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, pointed out the practical challenge of expecting the Supreme Court to weigh in on every issue now handled by lower courts, which have already faced hundreds of federal lawsuits during Trump’s second term.
Kagan also noted to Sauer that the Trump administration has lost every federal lawsuit challenging the birthright citizenship executive order, including under judges Trump appointed during his first term.
"This is not a hypothetical; this is happening out there," she told him. "Every court is ruling against you."
"If I were in your shoes there’s no way I’d approach the Supreme Court in this case," said Kagan, who in fact had previously served in Sauer’s exact role as U.S. solicitor general.
As expected, several conservative justices on the court criticized the universal injunctions.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who in 2018 described their use as "legally and historically dubious," noted Thursday that it was not until 1963 that the first universal injunctions were used, appearing to agree with the government's assertion that they could survive without them.
But Justice Alito, for his part, appeared split. He asked Sauer about the possibilities of plaintiffs seeking emergency class certification, and de facto nationwide relief via other avenues, to highlight the point that blocking universal injunctions would not resolve the practical problems raised by the government.
And if that’s the case, he said, "then what is the point of this argument about universal injunctions?"
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing the states, acknowledged that there could be alternative remedies for federal courts other than nationwide injunctions – though he suggested that in certain cases, the class action alternative presented by the Trump administration may not move fast enough to grant relief in certain cases.
"We are sympathetic to some of the concerns the United States has about percolation, about running the table in particular cases," he said. "We just don't think that that supports a bright line rule that says they're never available."
He suggested they should be available in certain cases, including the one currently before the court on birthright citizenship – a case where the "alternative ways of remedying the harm for the parties are not practically or legally workable."
Roberts and Sotomayor questioned Feigenbaum more in depth on how to determine in what cases universal injunction should not be the preferred remedy and how to ensure district courts are following that.
Justices on the high court agreed in April to hear the case, which centers on three lower courts that issued national injunctions earlier this year blocking Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. The order reinterprets the 14th Amendment to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their mother is unlawfully present or temporarily in the country, and if their father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at time of birth. Trump's action remains on hold nationwide pending Supreme Court intervention.
President Donald Trump also weighed in on the case directly in a post Thursday on Truth Social. "Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America," he said, arguing that the law is about the "babies of slaves" and has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
As it turned out, the oral arguments had very little to do with the merits of the birthright citizenship challenge and focused instead on nationwide injunctions.
A Supreme Court decision here could have sweeping national implications, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump's second presidency began on Jan. 20, 2025, according to a Fox News data analysis.
The consolidated cases before the court are Trump v. CASA, Trump v. the State of Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday on a challenge to President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship, and crucially, whether lower courts that have blocked Trump's policies from taking force nationwide have acted beyond their authority.
Any decision from the 6–3 conservative majority could have sweeping implications for Trump's presidency as his lawyers spar against an onslaught of lawsuits in federal courts nationwide.
The Supreme Court arguments are expected to focus on lower court judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state who issued "universal" injunctions against Trump's birthright citizenship executive order earlier this year.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court in March to intervene and limit the scope of three lower court rulings to cover only individuals directly impacted by the relevant courts (or potentially, the 22 states that challenged Trump's executive order). But that's unlikely to be the primary theme at the center of Thursday’s high-profile debate.
Rather, justices are expected to use the oral arguments to weigh the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide, or "universal" injunctions blocking presidential policies — teeing up a high-stakes showdown that pits Trump's Article II powers against Article III courts.
The hearing comes as Trump and his allies have railed against so-called "activist" judges, whom they have accused of overstepping their powers and acting politically to block Trump's policies. The president even suggested that a federal judge in Washington, D.C., be impeached for his ruling earlier this year, which prompted a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.
Trump has signed more than 150 executive orders in his second term, inviting a seemingly unrelenting wave of challenges in court. Many of these orders have been blocked by federal judges across the country, who have restricted Trump's use of a 1798 wartime immigration law to deport certain migrants, ordered the administration to reinstate certain government personnel and sought to impose limits on Elon Musk's government efficiency organization, DOGE, among other orders.
While Trump allies accuse these judges of political bias and overreach, others critical of the administration say the courts have not gone far enough to rein in Trump's attempts to expand the executive branch's powers.
"The second Trump administration has taken the guardrails off of the norms that historically governed the rule of law, and is undertaking steps to enhance the perceived power of the executive branch to the detriment of the two other co-equal branches," Mark Zaid, a D.C.-based attorney who has sued Trump in several high-profile cases, told Fox News Digitial in an interview to mark his first 100 days in office.
Justices on the Supreme Court will consider a trio of consolidated cases involving nationwide injunctions handed down by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that blocked Trump's ban on birthright citizenship from taking force.
But the policy remains widely unpopular. More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants' rights groups have sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and "unprecedented."
And to date, no court has sided with the Trump administration's executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship, though multiple district courts have blocked it from taking effect.
The case on the Supreme Court's docket this week ostensibly deals with a challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship.
But overriding that important constitutional debate is a more immediate and potentially far-reaching test of judicial power: the ability of individual federal judges to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, preventing temporary enforcement of President Donald Trump's sweeping executive actions.
That will be the focus when the nine justices hear oral arguments Thursday morning about how President Trump's restrictions on who can be called an American citizen can proceed in the lower federal courts.
Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office that would end automatic citizenship for children of people in the U.S. illegally.
Separate coalitions of about two dozen states, along with immigrant rights groups, and private individuals — including several pregnant women in Maryland — have sued.
Three separate federal judges subsequently issued orders temporarily blocking enforcement across the country while the issues are fully litigated in court. Appeals courts have declined to disturb those rulings.
Now the three consolidated cases come to the high court in an unusual scenario, a rare May oral argument that has been fast-tracked for an expected ruling in coming days or weeks.
The executive order remains on hold nationwide until the justices decide.
But the cases will likely not be decided on the merits at this stage, only on whether to narrow the scope of those injunctions. That would allow the policy to take effect in limited parts of the country or only to those plaintiffs actually suing over the president's authority.
A high court decision could be sweeping, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 — and counting — federal lawsuits against White House actions filed since Jan. 20, according to a Fox News data analysis.
Of those, more than 200 judicial orders have halted large parts of the president's agenda from being enacted, almost 40 of them nationwide injunctions. Dozens of other cases have seen no legal action so far on gateway issues like temporary enforcement.
While the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the use of universal injunctions, several conservative justices have expressed concerns over power.
Justice Clarence Thomas in 2018 labeled them "legally and historically dubious," adding, "These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system – preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch."
And it comes to the Supreme Court as part of the so-called emergency or "shadow" docket, time-sensitive appeals known officially as "applications" that usually arrive in the early stages.
They seek to temporarily block or delay a lower court or government action that, despite its procedurally narrow posture, can have immediate and far-reaching implications.
Things like requests for stays of execution, voting restrictions, COVID vaccine mandates or access to a federally approved abortion medication and, since January, Trump's sweeping executive reform plans.
Some members of the court have expressed concern that these kinds of appeals are arriving with greater frequency in recent years, high-profile issues leading to rushed decisions without the benefit of full briefing or deliberation.
Justice Elena Kagan last year said the shadow docket's caseload has been "relentless," adding, "We’ve gotten into a pattern where we're doing too many of them."
The pace this term has only increased with the new administration frustrated at dozens of lower court setbacks.
"We've seen a lot of justices critical of the fact that the court is taking an increasing number of cases and deciding them using the shadow docket," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department lawyer and a top appellate advocate.
"These justices say, 'Look, we don't have to decide this on an emergency basis. We can wait.'"
Many progressive lawyers complain the Trump administration has been too eager to bypass the normal district and intermediate appellate court process, seeking quick, end-around Supreme Court review on consequential questions of law only when it loses.
The debate over birthright citizenship and injunctions is expected to expose further ideological divides on the court's 6-3 conservative majority.
That is especially true when it comes to the 13 challenges over Trump policies that have reached the justices so far, with six of them awaiting a ruling.
The court's three more liberal justices have pushed back at several preliminary victories for the administration, including its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport scores of illegal immigrants suspected of criminal gang activity in the U.S.
Dissenting in one such emergency appeal over the deportations to El Salvador, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law."
"Our job is to stand up for people who can't do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes," Sotomayor separately told an American Bar Association audience last week. "But, right now, we can't lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight."
Trump has made no secret of his disdain for judges who have ruled against his policies or at least blocked them from being immediately implemented.
He called for the formal removal of one federal judge after an adverse decision over deporting illegal immigrants. That prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public statement, saying, "Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."
And in separate remarks last week, the chief justice underscored the judiciary's duty to "check the excesses of Congress or the executive."
The first section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Trump said last month he was "so happy" the Supreme Court will hear arguments, adding, "I think the case has been so misunderstood."
The president said the 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to people born in the U.S., was ratified right after the Civil War, which he interpreted as "all about slavery."
"If you look at it that way, we would win that case," the president said in Oval Office remarks.
Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," would deny it to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are illegal immigrants. And it bans federal agencies from issuing or accepting documents recognizing citizenship for those children.
An estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 are living with an unauthorized immigrant parent, according to the Pew Research Center. There are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, 3.3% of the population. Although some census experts suggest those numbers may be higher.
But in its legal brief filed with the high court, the Justice Department argues the issue now is really about judges blocking enforcement of the president's policies while the cases weave their way through the courts, a process that could last months or even years. The government initially framed its high court appeal as a "modest request."
"These injunctions exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III [of the Constitution] and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II," said Solicitor General John Sauer, who will argue the administration's case Thursday. "Until this Court decides whether nationwide injunctions are permissible, a carefully selected subset of district courts will persist in granting them as a matter of course, relying on malleable eye-of-the-beholder criteria."
The plaintiffs counter the government is misguided in what it calls "citizenship stripping" and the use of nationwide injunctions.
"Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay," said Nicholas Brown, the attorney general of Washington state. "If this Court steps in when the applicant [government] is so plainly wrong on the law, there will be no end to stay applications and claims of emergency, undermining the proper role and stature of this Court. This Court should deny the applications."
The consolidated cases are Trump v. CASA (24a884); Trump v. State of Washington (24a885); Trump v. New Jersey (24a886).
Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday urged Georgetown Law’s newest graduates to collaborate across ideological lines, commenting that on the Supreme Court, it's necessary for those who disagree strongly to work past their differences.
Speaking to the dean of Georgetown Law, William Treanor, at a fireside chat Monday, Roberts lamented current political divisions, and though he was careful not to be specific, his comments came as President Donald Trump has sharply criticized judicial decisions that have set back his second-term policy agenda.
It's "really too bad," Roberts said of the environment facing aspiring lawyers. "We’re developing a situation where a whole group of young people is growing up having no real sense about how our system of justice works."
He also noted that some of the harshest criticisms of Supreme Court rulings, past and present, often come from fellow justices on the bench. But he also urged the importance of keeping these relationships above the fray and maintaining a sense of decorum.
Though Supreme Court justices may "disagree a lot," such differences have not strained their relationships. "We have to work together on these things that are difficult," Roberts said. "You find a way to get along."
"It’s a long job. If you’re sort of really at each other’s throats with bad feelings and stuff like that, it’s just not a good way to function," Roberts said, adding that the justices work to avoid the "toxic" relationships seen in earlier generations of the court.
At times, the issues that frustrate the life-time appointed justices aren't quite as high-minded, Roberts acknowledged. "There's also the matter of the little things," he said. "I mean, if you're sitting next to somebody, and you just can't stand the way he or she kind of taps the chair, you're thinking, 'OK, we'll be here together for 20 years.'
"And you know, you've got to decide, am I going to tell her to stop doing that, or am I going to just get over it, or what? And on a small level, that's kind of the way we across the board have to make those decisions and move on," he said.
His remarks come as the Supreme Court is slated to hear a number of high-profile cases and emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration in the next few months.
Alongside its regular docket – which already includes important cases on education, religious liberty and election redistricting – the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on several Trump-era executive actions. These include the ban on transgender military service, efforts to reinstate fired federal employees and the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations.
On Thursday, the court will hear arguments over Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, including whether lower courts overstepped by issuing nationwide injunctions blocking the order, as the administration claims in its appeal.
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia urged a Maryland judge Monday to reject the Trump administration’s bid to withhold information under national security claims, arguing senior officials, including President Donald Trump, have already compromised any potential harm.
In a new court filing, attorneys for Abrego Garcia argued that Trump and top officials have publicly opposed his return from a Salvadoran prison – despite court orders – citing remarks in testimony, interviews and on social media. The contradictions could weigh heavily Friday, when a federal judge considers next steps in the high-profile case.
"Plaintiffs have sought discovery to uncover the truth as to the Government's efforts (or lack thereof) as well as its abilities to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return – the essential issue in this case. Over and over, the Government has stonewalled Plaintiffs by asserting unsupported privileges – primarily state secrets and deliberative process – to withhold written discovery and to instruct witnesses not to answer even basic questions," lawyers for Abrego Garcia told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who ordered his return to the U.S. last month.
"Even as the Government speaks freely about Abrego Garcia in public, in this litigation it insists on secrecy," they added.
Their filing comes one month after the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S., upholding the orders of the lower court judge.
Since then, the government and Abrego Garcia's attorneys have sparred in court over what exactly it means to "facilitate" his return. Trump officials have alleged Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, though any formal ties have not been proven.
Xinis ordered expedited discovery in April to determine whether the administration was complying with her directive to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. On Tuesday, she also ordered the Trump administration to submit a previously requested privilege log related to its invocation of the state secrets privilege.
She gave the administration until 3 p.m. Tuesday to comply, warning that failure to file the log – or otherwise respond – would be considered an "intentional refusal" to follow the court's orders.
Last week, the Trump administration appears to have invoked both the state secrets and deliberative process privileges, according to a court order from Xinis. The order granted both parties an extra week to submit new filings on the asserted claims.
The state secrets privilege is a national security tool that allows the government to withhold certain information from the courts, so long as it can prove a "reasonable danger" to national security and foreign affairs as a result of the information being made public.
Lawyers for Abrego Garcia told the court that the administration's assertion of state secrets privileges is just another attempt by senior Trump administration officials to "stonewall" the return of their client, who was deported in March due to what administration officials acknowledged was an administrative error.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys on Monday pointed to public remarks made by Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and President Donald Trump stating they do not plan to return Abrego Garcia. These statements, they said, undercut any invocations of privilege in court.
"Over and over again, official statements by the Government – in congressional testimony, television interviews and social media – confirm that producing this information would not imperil national security," lawyers for Abrego Garcia told Judge Xinis on Monday, urging her to consider the administration's decision to invoke state secrets privilege with a careful and "skeptical" eye.
"On its face, there is little reason to believe that compliance with a court order to facilitate the release and return of a single mistakenly removed individual so that he can get his day in court implicates state secrets at all," they said.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, told the court that it had already provided Abrego Garcia's attorneys with "robust" responses to discovery requests ordered by Judge Xinis last month, noting Monday that granting the new requests for additional information or supplemental documents "would not advance any legitimate end of expedited discovery."
This isn't the first time the Trump administration has attempted to use state secrets privileges to shield against sharing certain information in court.
In March, the Trump administration told U.S. District Judge James Boasberg it was invoking the state secrets privilege in a case challenging its early deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, after repeatedly refusing to provide the court details about those flights.
Administration lawyers declined to disclose how many individuals were deported "solely on the basis" of the act, where the planes landed, what time they departed, and from which locations, citing national security concerns. (The case is now pending before the Supreme Court.)
It’s not the first time comments from senior Cabinet officials have intensified scrutiny of the government’s legal arguments.
Last week, Boasberg pressed Justice Department attorneys in a related case brought by a broader class of plaintiffs, citing public remarks by Trump and Noem about CECOT – the maximum-security prison in El Salvador where the U.S. has deported hundreds of migrants. He also questioned DOJ lawyers about the White House’s role in securing prisoner releases.
"Is the president not telling the truth?" Boasberg asked Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli during the hearing. "Or could he secure his release?"
On Monday, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers argued there’s little evidence to justify the Trump administration’s use of the privilege, noting no military or intelligence operations are at issue. They wrote it "defies reason to imagine that the United States’ relationship with El Salvador would be endangered by any effort to seek the return of a wrongfully deported person who the Government admits never should have been removed to El Salvador in the first place."
Xinis will hear from both sides at a status conference scheduled for Friday afternoon in Greenbelt, Maryland.
The Pentagon is immediately halting all gender transition treatments for transgender troops as it moves to remove them from the military, according to a new memo.
"I am directing you to take the necessary steps to immediately implement this guidance," Stephen Ferrara, the acting assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, wrote in a memo dated May 9.
Now the Pentagon will only cover mental health and counseling for gender dysphoria. All other gender dysphoria-related treatments will be referred to the private sector.
All scheduled and planned transgender surgeries will be canceled, but cross-sex hormone therapy for service members that began prior to the memo may be continued until they separate to prevent health complications.
Last week transgender troops were given between 30 and 60 days to leave or risk being removed "involuntarily."
Active duty service members have until June 6, one month after the court’s ruling, to leave the military. Reservists have until July 7.
The development followed a Supreme Court order that allowed a previously blocked ban on transgender military service to move forward.
The Supreme Court’s decision effectively paused a lower court's injunction, clearing the way for the Defense Department to implement the policy. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the ruling allows the department to resume policies centered on "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness."
Secretary Pete Hegseth added in that memo that those diagnosed with, or showing symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria may choose to leave voluntarily. If they do not, they may face mandatory separation.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the underlying legal arguments but allowed President Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order barring transgender individuals from military service to take effect.
A lower court had temporarily blocked the policy, but Trump administration officials argued that delaying its implementation could harm operational readiness.
Officials defending the policy have said it supports the military’s need for unit cohesion, readiness, discipline, and cost efficiency.
Trump’s executive order also directed the Pentagon to revise its medical standards to emphasize combat preparedness and eliminate the use of gender identity-based pronouns within the department.
The blanket ban on transgender individuals serving in the military had previously been lifted under President Barack Obama in 2014.
The latest policy shift comes as Pentagon leadership under Hegseth moves to dismantle most diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Just last month, he stated that 99.9% of DEI-related policies had been removed. He also announced changes to fitness standards to ensure male and female troops are held to the same requirements for combat readiness.
President Donald Trump and his allies have railed against federal judges for blocking key executive orders in his second term, accusing so-called "activist" judges of overstepping their authority and blocking him from delivering on some of his top policy priorities.
Some of Trump’s most sweeping executive orders and actions have been blocked or paused by federal courts to allow for a full hearing on the merits. But the system of checks and balances also means these rulings can be reviewed – either through appeals to the Supreme Court or by Congress, which has the power to pass laws or expand certain executive branch authorities.
It's all part of an expressly designed system of government that affords each branch, including the presidency, plenty of options for review.
The Framers "made clear that no one in our system of government was meant to be king– the president included – and not just in name only," U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia said in a ruling earlier this year.
But that's not to say Trump is without options. Here's how he could seek to push back against the wave of court actions.
Since taking office, Trump's executive orders have been challenged by hundreds of lawsuits in federal court, though not all have been successful, and some remain in the earlier stages of review.
Plaintiffs have sought to block the dismantling of certain federal agencies, to restore board heads and inspectors general fired by Trump, and to restrict the access of Elon Musk's government efficiency agency, DOGE, among other things.
But like the groups filing the lawsuits, the Trump administration also has the ability to appeal any lower court decisions it views as unfavorable or going beyond the scope of the federal court.
In the interim, it can seek an emergency stay to restore the executive order until the case can be heard on its merits.
The Supreme Court has agreed to do so in several major cases. It sided with Trump in removing two federal board members he had fired earlier this year, and which a lower court had reversed.
Last week, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court order that paused Trump's ban on transgender military members from taking effect – allowing his order and related policies to proceed, at least for now.
The Trump administration can seek more lasting change by working with the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress to codify its biggest policy priorities, shielding the level of review currently afforded to the courts in the absence of any legislation.
According to the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, a president’s executive order can be revoked or modified only by the president or via the legislative branch, if the president was acting on authority that had been granted by Congress.
Plaintiffs in federal court have alleged that Trump's recent executive actions are beyond the scope of what has been authorized by Congress – and, in the absence of clearly written laws, federal judges do have broad authority to interpret the lawfulness of the executive's actions.
Critics of the courts have pushed for Congress to curtail this power – either by stripping the funding for federal courts, impeaching judges or eliminating judicial seats, among other things.
"When federal judges take off their judicial robes and climb into the political arena and throw political punches, they should expect powerful political counterpunches from the Article III project," Mike Davis, the founder and president of the Article III Project, or A3P, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
"And when the federal judiciary loses its legitimacy, it loses everything," Davis said.
But these steps are highly controversial, and it's unclear if they could garner the broad support needed from both the House and Senate.
Options available to the White House are more limited by the Constitution. The president can appoint federal judges, but he cannot fire them. The executive branch is also responsible for enforcing court rulings and may either slow-roll or de-prioritize decisions the president disagrees with.
Meanwhile, Trump allies have also sought to push back on the power of the courts in other, more unorthodox ways.
The America First Legal Foundation, a pro-Trump legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller in between Trump's first and second terms, filed a lawsuit against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, and Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, earlier this month.
The lawsuit accuses both parties of performing certain regulatory actions that go beyond the scope of the "core functions" of the judiciary – and which they argue should put them under the thumb of the executive branch.
"An American president is not a king – not even an 'elected' one – and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute," Howell said in a case involving the reinstatement of two fired federal board members earlier this year.
Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter died Thursday at his home in New Hampshire at the age of 85, the Court announced Friday.
"Justice Souter was appointed to the Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, and retired in 2009, after serving more than 19 years on the Court," it said in a statement.
"Justice David Souter served our Court with great distinction for nearly twenty years. He brought uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service. After retiring to his beloved New Hampshire in 2009, he continued to render significant service to our branch by sitting regularly on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for more than a decade. He will be greatly missed," Chief Justice John Roberts said.
Souter was described by the Associated Press as a "reliably liberal vote on abortion, church-state relations, freedom of expression and the accessibility of federal courts."
Souter then rose up the ranks to become Attorney General of New Hampshire in 1976.
"In 1978, he was named an Associate Justice of the Superior Court of New Hampshire, and was appointed to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire as an Associate Justice in 1983. He became a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on May 25, 1990," the Supreme Court said Friday.
"In addition to hearing cases on the First Circuit, Justice Souter participated in civics education curriculum reform efforts in New Hampshire during his retirement," it also said.
Fox News' Bill Mears and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.
