Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Year: 2025

Supreme Court takes on birthright citizenship: Liberals balk at Trump argument to end nationwide injunctions

Supreme Court takes on birthright citizenship: Liberals balk at Trump argument to end nationwide injunctions

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Thursday in a challenge to President Donald Trump‘s effort to end birthright citizenship, a case that could more broadly call into question the powers of lower courts to block executive branch actions.   U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer used the bulk of his opening arguments Thursday to reiterate their 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 Sonia Sotomayor questioned Sauer on what authorities the courts, under their argument, would have in this scenario – an important line of questioning likely to be revisited again. 100 DAYS OF INJUNCTIONS, TRIALS AND ‘TEFLON DON’: TRUMP SECOND TERM MEETS ITS BIGGEST TESTS IN COURT “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. “If that’s true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn’t have that power,” she noted later. Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, noted the purely practical problems that the high court would face in trying to weigh in on all the issues heard now by the lower courts, which have already been hit by hundreds of federal lawsuits in Trump’s second term. She also noted the adminstration’s poor track record with the lower courts.  “This is not a hypothetical; this is happening out there,” she told Sauer. “Every court is ruling against you.” APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN’S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT          As expected, several conservative justices on the court expressed skepticism on the use of 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 Samuel Alito, for his part, expressed a somewhat surprising degree of skepticism.  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?” 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.  The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court in March to review the case, arguing that the three lower courts in question had exceeded their authority in issuing the universal injunctions. SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS REINS IN SOTOMAYOR AFTER REPEATED INTERRUPTIONS “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,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer told justices on the high court in a filing before arguments began.  “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.”  Plaintiffs told the high court that there is no reason for them to intervene here, objecting both to the executive order in question, which one lawyer described in a brief as “citizenship stripping,” as well as any effort to block the nationwide injunctions. The lower court orders “preserve the status quo that has existed for more than a century, and the federal government suffers no harm, much less irreparable harm, by continuing to follow long-settled laws while the appeals proceed,” Nicholas Brown, the Attorney General of Washington state, said in its filing.  Oral arguments are expected to focus not only on the lower courts that blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship order – but also on whether federal judges can issue universal injunctions halting executive actions nationwide. The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the practice, though several conservative justices, including Justice Thomas, have raised concerns.   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.

Espionage, constitutional concerns abound from Trump detractors, allies over Qatari jet offer

Espionage, constitutional concerns abound from Trump detractors, allies over Qatari jet offer

Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized President Donald Trump after he announced the Department of Defense plans to accept a jumbo jet from the government of Qatar, arguing the gift is riddled with both espionage concerns and constitutional questions. But as one expert tells Fox, the latter concern is likely overblown. Trump ally Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, for example, said during an interview on Tuesday that the acquisition of the plane poses “significant espionage and surveillance problems,” while Democrats such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., declared, “Trump cannot accept a $400 million flying palace from the royal family of Qatar. Not only is this farcically corrupt, it is blatantly unconstitutional.” Reports spread Sunday morning that the Trump administration was expected to accept a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar’s royal family, setting off concerns that Trump would personally take ownership of the plane and violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution. ABC News reported that Trump would use the jet until the end of his term, when it would be given to his presidential library.  Trump confirmed and clarified in a Truth Social post later on Sunday that the Department of Defense was slated to receive the gift, while slamming Democrats for their criticism of the offer.  HOUSE DEMOCRAT CALLS FOR ‘IMMEDIATE’ ETHICS PROBE OF QATARI PLANE GIFT TO TRUMP “So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane,” Trump wrote. “Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!! MAGA.” At the heart of Democrats’ concern over the matter is the emoluments clause in the Constitution, which states: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” “Trump is literally trying to fly around on a plane from a foreign government while serving as president. That’s a violation of the Constitution. The Emoluments Clause wasn’t a suggestion. It’s the LAW,” Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said Monday morning following the announcement.  Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that it’s questionable if the emoluments clause even applies to the president, as the Constitution typically stipulates when a clause specifically affects a president and cites the title, such as in the impeachment clause.  “The clause was specifically inserted because of concerns by the Founders at the Constitutional Convention over corruption of our foreign diplomats, especially by the French government. It is questionable whether the emoluments clause even applies to the president since he is not named and the Constitution usually names the president when a provision applies to him. That is why the impeachment clause specifically provides that it applies to the ‘president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States.’ If ‘officers’ of the U.S. included the president, there would be no need for him to be separately listed,” von Spakovsky explained.  He added that the president is the individual “who appoints the ‘officers’ who are subject to the emoluments clause.” “Antonin Scalia, when he worked at the Justice Department, certainly agreed since he issued an opinion in 1974 pointing out that when the Constitution refers to an ‘officer,’ ‘it invariably refers to someone other than the President or Vice President,’” he continued.  FLASHBACK: DEM CRITICAL OF TRUMP’S QATARI JET GIFT RODE CAMEL IN EXPENSES-PAID 2021 TRIP TO GULF EMIRATE The jet offer comes after Trump railed against Boeing for pricey government deals to construct a new fleet of Air Force Ones. Even ahead of his first administration, Trump posted on social media in December 2016 that the Boeing “costs are out of control, more than $4 billion” to build the two aircraft. Trump in 2018 awarded Boeing a $3.9 billion fixed-price agreement to manufacture two new jets. The construction of the jets, however, is not expected to be completed until 2029.  “We’re very disappointed that it’s taking Boeing so long to build a new Air Force One,” Trump said during a press conference on drug prices Monday morning. “You know, we have an Air Force One that’s 40 years old. And if you take a look at that, compared to the new plane of the equivalent, you know, stature at the time, it’s not even the same ballgame.”  TRUMP CLARIFIES OWNERSHIP OF AIRCRAFT IN DEFENSE OF QATAR’S GIFT “When I first came in, I signed an order to get (the new Air Force One fleet) built,” he continued. “I took it over from the Obama administration, they had originally agreed. I got the price down much lower. And then, when the election didn’t exactly work out the way that it should have, a lot of work was not done on the plane because a lot of people didn’t know they made change orders. That was so stupid, so ridiculous. And it ended up being a total mess, a real mess.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also brushed off concern over the Qatari royal family donating a Boeing jumbo jet to the U.S. Department of Defense, arguing on Monday there will be no quid pro quo arrangement and that the donation is under legal review to ensure full compliance with the law.  Von Spakovsky said that if the plane is in fact a government-to-government gift – and not a personal gift to the president – the Trump administration is likely in the legal clear to accept the gift.  “If this gift is being considered as a gift to the government of the U.S., there is no legal issue to consider, since there is no constitutional or legal problem with such

Dem senator says ‘no doubt’ Biden declined cognitively during presidency

Dem senator says ‘no doubt’ Biden declined cognitively during presidency

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Politico that there is no question that President Joe Biden declined cognitively during his White House tenure. “There’s no doubt about it,” Murphy said when the outlet asked whether Biden had undergone cognitive decline while serving as president. “The debate is whether it was enough that it compromised his ability to act as chief executive,” the senator said, according to Politico. Fox News Digital reached out to Murphy’s office to request additional comment from the senator but did not receive a response by the time of publication. BIDEN MADE HARRIS CAMPAIGN A ‘NIGHTMARE,’ DESTROYED HER CHANCES BY STAYING IN 2024 RACE TOO LONG, AIDES CHARGE During an appearance on “The View” last week, Biden pushed back against the idea that he suffered significant cognitive decline during the last year of his presidency. RAHM EMANUEL SAYS BIDEN IS ‘NOT WHERE WE NEED TO BE AS A PARTY,’ ADDS HIS COMMENTS ARE UNHELPFUL Fox News Digital reached out to the Office of Joe and Jill Biden but did not receive a response by the time of publication. During an interview on CNN last year before Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential contest, Murphy said that Biden’s debate performance had “raised questions for voters” regarding whether he was “still the old Joe Biden.” Murphy suggested during that interview that Biden should “show the country that he is still the old Joe Biden,” saying that he took Biden “at his word” that he was still able to do his job.  “I have seen him do this job at an absolutely exceptional level. No president has had this level of legislative accomplishment in their first four years as Joe Biden,” Murphy said. Politico also reported that Murphy said it would have helped the Democratic Party if Biden had not run in 2024. CHUCK TODD BLAMES SCHUMER, DEMOCRATS’ SILENCE ON BIDEN DECLINE FOR PARTY’S CREDIBILITY COLLAPSE “I mean, isn’t that self-evident? We lost,” he said, according to the outlet. “Obviously, in retrospect, we should have done something different. The likelihood is the odds were pretty stacked against us no matter what, but clearly people were looking for change and neither Biden nor Harris were going to be able to offer a real message of change.”

GOP reps, advocacy group to target competitive House districts in Trump tax-cut push

GOP reps, advocacy group to target competitive House districts in Trump tax-cut push

EXCLUSIVE: Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is hosting a day of action on Saturday in competitive congressional districts as House Republicans iron out the details of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” AFP is teaming up with GOP Reps. David Schweikert and Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, Ashley Hinson of Iowa, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania for door-knocking, phone banks and grassroots organizing in a show of support for extending Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).  Canvassers will encourage constituents in Arizona, Iowa, Michigan and Pennsylvania to urge their senators and representatives to extend Trump’s tax cuts as a key component of his “big, beautiful bill.” “Working families and small businesses throughout the country are counting on Congress to act as soon as possible to renew President Trump’s tax cuts,” AFP Managing Director Kent Strang said in a statement to Fox News Digital ahead of the day of action.  CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS TARGETING DOZENS OF HOUSE REPUBLICAN-HELD SEATS IN 2026 MIDTERM BATTLE FOR MAJORITY “With support from AFP’s activists bringing their unmatched energy and drive this weekend, we can ensure we extend pro-growth tax policy and help Republicans prevent the largest tax hike in history from crushing the middle class.” REPUBLICANS TO TAKE AIM AT THESE 26 DEMOCRAT-HELD HOUSE SEATS IN 2026 MIDTERMS AFP is launching their day of action in conjunction with their $20 million “Protect Prosperity” campaign, which the conservative advocacy group has called the single largest investment of any outside group dedicated to preserving the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. As House Republicans searched for alternative ways to offset an extension of the 2017 tax cuts and Trump’s ambitious goals to cut taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security, AFP urged Republicans to offset budget cuts by eliminating former President Joe Biden’s “Green New Deal giveaways.”  The House Energy and Commerce Committee debated green energy cuts during their lengthy markup on Capitol Hill this week as part of the House budget reconciliation process.  Meanwhile, House Republicans debated potentially raising taxes as Trump indicated his support for a small tax hike to fund his “big, beautiful bill.” While rumors swirled among House Republicans for weeks that the White House was floating a tax hike on millionaires, Trump confirmed on Friday he would be “OK if they do.” However, House Republicans seemed to drop their plans for a new millionaire’s tax hike as the reconciliation began. The House Ways and Means Committee released nearly 400 pages of legislation on Monday that did not include a tax hike.  It’s no coincidence that AFP is focusing its attention on competitive districts in Arizona, Iowa, Michigan and Pennsylvania, as contentious races are expected in 2026.  In Arizona’s sixth congressional district, Ciscomani won his House seat in 2022 with just over 50% of the vote. Schweikert narrowly won Arizona’s first congressional district by less than 2% of the vote in 2022 and 2024, as one of the most expensive House races in the country last year.  And while Hinson won by a much larger margin in Iowa’s second congressional district, Democrat Kevin Techau has already announced his campaign to unseat Hinson.  Both Barrett in Michigan and Mackenzie in Pennsylvania managed to pick up Republican House seats in 2024, flipping their congressional districts from blue to red. Democrats will likely seek to win those seats back in 2026. 

Trump highlights potential pay raise for troops, touts military reforms in Qatar speech

Trump highlights potential pay raise for troops, touts military reforms in Qatar speech

President Donald Trump blasted President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and cited his wish to give troops a pay raise in an address to U.S. service members on Thursday. Trump made the comments during an address to troops at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar during his extended trip to the Middle East. “My 2026 budget includes across the board – maybe you don’t want to look for the good of the country, you don’t have to take it – pay raises for each and every one of you. Substantial pay raises,” Trump said. “You are without a doubt the greatest fighting force in the history of the world. That’s the way it is. I said it last night. I said it’s strong. We have the strongest military in the world. It’s not even a contest. We have the best equipment, nobody has equipment like us, nobody has the planes or the missiles or anything else,” he continued. RUBIO TAKES SOMBER TONE ON RUSSIA-UKRAINE PEACE DEAL: ‘CLOSE BUT NOT CLOSE ENOUGH’ “And as your commander-in-chief, I’m here to say that America’s military will soon be bigger, better, stronger and more powerful than ever,” he added. Trump went on to criticize Biden, noting the deaths of 13 U.S. troops during the evacuation from Kabul, Afghanistan. TRUMP CONSIDERS JOINING RUSSIA-UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS IN TURKEY, UNCLEAR IF PUTIN WILL SHOW Trump’s speech came less than a day after he on Wednesday signed a series of agreements with Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Doha, Qatar. The agreements involved a purchasing agreement by Qatar for Boeing aircraft, as well as letters of intent and “joint cooperation” between Qatar and the U.S. The emir also signed an intent agreement to purchase MQ-9 drone aircraft. TRUMP SAYS HE’LL DROP SANCTIONS ON SYRIA IN MOVE TO NORMALIZE RELATIONS Al Thani said he had a “great” conversation with Trump prior to the signing ceremony on Wednesday, adding that the agreements have elevated the U.S.-Qatar relationship to “another level.” U.S. relations with Doha have come a long way since 2017, when Trump accused Qatar of harboring terrorism: “The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level,” Trump said at the time. From there, Qatar became a major non-NATO ally to the U.S. in 2022 under Biden and is home to Al Udeid Air Base, one of the U.S.’s largest Middle Eastern bases and a key hub for U.S. Central Command operations.  Fox News’ Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.

Trump warns Iran faces ‘violence like people haven’t seen before’ if nuclear deal fails

Trump warns Iran faces ‘violence like people haven’t seen before’ if nuclear deal fails

President Donald Trump attended a breakfast with business leaders at the St. Regis Doha hotel in Qatar on Thursday morning where he remained firm that Tehran must choose between never having a nuclear weapon or dealing with “violence like people haven’t seen before.” Just days before, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had made comments that calls to dismantle Tehran’s nuclear facilities were “unacceptable,” and that “Iran will not give up its peaceful nuclear rights under any circumstances and will not back down from its rights in the face of pressure.” Trump suggested Iran may now be informally moving toward compliance with international demands to halt its nuclear weapons ambitions, but emphasized that a final agreement has not yet been reached. TRUMP OFFERS IRAN CHOICE: DROP NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR FACE ‘MAXIMUM PRESSURE’ “I want them to succeed. I want them to end up being a great country, frankly, but they can’t have a nuclear weapon. That’s the only thing. It’s very simple,” Trump said. “It’s not like I have to give you 30 pages’ worth of details. There’s only one sentence. They can’t have a nuclear weapon. And I think we’re getting close to maybe doing a deal without having to do this.” He went on to state simply that there were limited options when it came to the deal and that he personally would rather go the more amicable route. “There’s two steps. There’s a very, very nice step, and there’s a violent step. There’s violence like people haven’t seen before, and I hope we’re not going to have to do this. I don’t want to do the second step. Some people do. Many people do. I don’t want to do that step,” he said. REPUBLICANS URGE TRUMP TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON HIS PLAN TO DISMANTLE IRAN’S NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES Congressional Republicans are urging Trump to remain committed to a hardline Iran strategy, calling for the complete dismantlement of the regime’s nuclear enrichment capabilities in a letter that drew wide support.  Trump said at the breakfast that he is working toward a long-term solution that will bring peace to a country that he says “is a very special place with a special royal family.”  “So we’ll see what happens, but we’re in very serious negotiations with Iran for long-term peace. And if we do that, it’ll be fantastic. And for this country in particular, because you’re right next door. You’re a stone’s throw away, not even right here, a foot away. You can walk right into Iran. Other countries are much further away, so probably it’s not quite the same level of danger, but we are going to protect this country. It is a very special place with a special royal family,” Trump said. “And the head of the royal family is two heads of the royal family, really, if you think. Great people. And they’re going to be protected by the United States of America. And I think we’re not going to have to do it because I believe very strongly in peace.”