Hunter Biden agrees to be stripped of license to practice law in DC: court records
Former first son and convicted felon Hunter Biden agreed to be disbarred from practicing law in Washington, D.C., court records show. Hunter Biden filed an affidavit under seal on Tuesday acknowledging his “consent to disbarment,” D.C. Court of Appeals records show. Biden was “suspended immediately from the practice of law” in Washington, D.C., in June 2024 following his felony conviction in a Delaware federal court. Hunter Biden will officially be disbarred if the D.C. Court of Appeals accepts a disciplinary agency’s recommendation – and his own consent – for disbarment, according to the New York Post. The former first son’s Washington, D.C., bar member standing currently reads that he is under “Temp Disciplinary Suspension,” Fox News Digital found on Wednesday morning. Hunter Biden has been licensed to practice law in the nation’s capital since 2007. TRUMP PARDONS FORMER HUNTER BIDEN BUSINESS ASSOCIATE DEVON ARCHER Fox News Digital reached out to Hunter Biden’s attorney regarding the disbarment, but did not immediately receive a reply. Hunter Biden was found guilty in June 2024 of lying about his drug use when purchasing a firearm in 2018. The former first son has a long history of drug abuse, which was documented in his 2021 memoir, “Beautiful Things.” The book was repeatedly referenced by both prosecutors and Biden’s defense team throughout the nearly seven-day trial. The memoir walks readers through Biden’s highs and lows with addiction to crack cocaine and attempts to get sober. WEISS REPORT: HUNTER’S DRUG USE CAN’T EXPLAIN AWAY NOT PAYING TAXES ON MONEY EARNED BY ‘LAST NAME’ He was found guilty on three charges: making a false statement on a purchase application of a gun, making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a federally licensed gun dealer, and possession of a gun by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty in the case. Biden’s legal team did not dispute the former first son’s long history with substance abuse during the trial, instead arguing that on the day Biden bought the Cobra Colt .38, he did not consider himself an active drug user. HUNTER BIDEN: A LOOK AT HOW THE SAGA SPANNING OVER SIX YEARS UNFOLDED Prosecutors, however, argued Biden was addicted to crack cocaine before, during and after he bought the handgun. In addition to citing Biden’s memoir, the prosecution team also presented the jury with text messages Biden shared with family and apparent drug dealers to prove his addiction around the time period he purchased the firearm. BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER BIDEN AHEAD OF EXIT FROM OVAL OFFICE After President Joe Biden dropped out of his presidential race in July amid mounting concerns over his mental acuity and age, Hunter Biden faced another trial regarding three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses regarding the failure to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. He entered a surprise guilty plea in that case as jury selection was set to kick off in September 2024. Hunter Biden’s legal troubles, however, were aided in December by his father, who granted his son a sweeping pardon that applies to offenses against the U.S. that Hunter Biden “has committed or may have committed” from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024.
NYC Mayor Eric Adams indictment dismissed with prejudice
A judge on Wednesday dismissed the corruption indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho, of the Southern District of New York, dismissed the case against Adams with prejudice, meaning it can’t be brought back again. The Biden Justice Department alleged that Adams inappropriately used his position as mayor to solicit illegal campaign contributions and luxury travel from foreign nationals from Turkey, businessmen and others. FORMER GOV ANDREW CUOMO REPORTS EYE-POPPING FUNDRAISING FIGURE IN RACE FOR MAYOR The DOJ, now under President Donald Trump, urged the judge to drop the case, but Ho said last month he would take time to consider the motion. “The case against Eric Adams should have never been brought in the first place—and finally today that case is gone forever,” Adams’ attorney, Alex Spiro, said in a statement to Fox News. “From Day 1, the mayor has maintained his innocence and now justice for Eric Adams and New Yorkers has prevailed.” The DOJ motion notably asked the judge to dismiss the case without prejudice, arguing that “continuing these proceedings would interfere with” the mayor’s ability to govern, thereby threatening “federal immigration initiatives and policies.” “In light of DOJ’s rationales, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents,” Ho wrote in his decision Wednesday. “That appearance is inevitable, and it counsels in favor of dismissal with prejudice.” The judge noted that Adams submitted a motion of his own seeking dismissal with prejudice and the DOJ did not oppose that motion, effectively waiving any objection to permanent dismissal of this case.” Ho also pushed back on the DOJ motion’s argument that the case had been tainted by “appearances of impropriety.” “There is no evidence – zero – that they had any improper motives,” Ho wrote in defense of the prosecutors. This is a developing story; check back soon for more details.
VIDEO: Banks tells fired government worker he ‘probably deserved it’ because he seems ‘like a clown’
Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., told an individual who said he had been fired from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that he likely deserved to be dismissed because he seemed “like a clown.” The GOP senator has not backed away from his comments, which were captured on camera. Retweeting a post that featured video of the exchange, the lawmaker’s @SenatorBanks X account declared, “Hard truth!” Banks is also using a screenshot of himself from the video as his new profile photo on that account. HHS DOWNSIZING BEGINS AMID RFK JR. ‘MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN’ PUSH: ‘WIN-WIN FOR TAXPAYERS’ In the video, an individual who is not on camera can be heard saying that he was an HHS worker who had been illegally fired on February 14. The individual went on to claim that many have not been getting social services, particularly individuals with disabilities, and then asked Banks if he is going to “do anything to stop what’s happening?” Banks responded by saying, “You probably deserved it.” HHS SAYS IT WILL CUT WORKFORCE BY 10K, SAVING $1.8B ANNUALLY When the questioner asked Banks why he deserved it, the senator replied, “Because you seem like a clown.” Fox News Digital reached out to a Banks spokesperson who provided a comment from the senator. “Factory workers, mechanics, police officers, teachers and all hard working people in Indiana don’t deserve to see their tax dollars going to pay for woke and wasteful programs in Washington DC. Thank you President Trump for draining the swamp,” Banks said in the statement. GOP SENATOR THREATENS ‘REAL CONSEQUENCES’ IF UNIVERSITIES HIRE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The individual who confronted Banks in the video was Mack Schroeder, reports indicate. “It felt very childish to hear someone in a leadership position whose constituents rely on these programs to say that,” Schroeder said, according to USA Today. “I hope a lot of people in his state see the callousness that he demonstrated.” Banks, who previously served in the U.S. House of Representatives, won election to the Senate last year and joined the upper chamber early this year.
Wisconsin, Florida elections get spin treatment with fingers pointed at Trump and Musk
MILWAUKEE, Wis. — Democrats are celebrating a larger-than-expected victory in a high-profile and historically expensive election in battleground Wisconsin, in the first statewide ballot box contest since President Donald Trump’s return to power in January. Liberal-leaning Judge Susan Crawford topped conservative-leaning Judge Brad Schimel by roughly 10 percentage points – with some votes still being tabulated – to preserve the liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is likely to rule going forward on crucial issues like congressional redistricting, voting rights, labor rights and abortion. With a massive infusion of money from Democratic-aligned and Republican-aligned groups from outside Wisconsin, which turned the race into the most expensive judicial election in the nation’s history, the contest partially transformed into a referendum on Trump’s sweeping and controversial moves during the opening months of his second tour of duty in the White House. Also front and center in the technically nonpartisan showdown was someone who, along with Trump, was not on the ballot: billionaire Elon Musk, the president’s top donor and White House advisor, who inserted himself into the race. LIBERAL-LEANING CANDIDATE WINS FIRST MAJOR STATEWIDE ELECTION OF THE YEAR “The people of Wisconsin squarely rejected the influence of Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and billionaire special interests,” Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin claimed. And the DNC, looking ahead to next year’s bigger contests in the 2026 midterm elections, called the showdown in Wisconsin a “bellwether race.” But Republicans came out on top in Tuesday’s other marquee contests, holding control of two vacant congressional seats in twin special elections in red state Florida. The double-digit victories by the Republican candidates will give the GOP a little bit of breathing room in the House of Representatives, where the party is holding onto a very fragile majority as it aims to pass Trump’s agenda. REPUBLICANS HOLD CONTROL OF TWO VACANT CONGRESSIONAL SEATS IN THIS RED STATE “The American people sent a clear message tonight: they want elected officials who will advance President Trump’s America First agenda, and their votes can’t be bought by national Democrats,” Republican National Committee chair Mike Whatley argued. The Democratic candidates in the two special congressional elections vastly outraised their Republican counterparts – a sign that the party’s base is angry and energized – which forced GOP-aligned outside groups to pour money and resources into the races during the final stretch. And the Democratic candidates ended up losing by 15 and 14 points in districts that Trump carried by 37 and 30 points in last November’s presidential election. Democrats quickly spotlighted how the party “overperformed” in Florida. And the House Majority PAC, the top super PAC supporting House Democrats, touted that the results showed “that the political headwinds are firmly at our backs heading into 2026.” But Mike Marinella, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, argued that “Democrats just lit over $20,000,000 on fire in a doomed-to-fail effort to make two deep-red Florida districts competitive – and got blown out of the water in the most embarrassing way.” But the results in Florida, and especially Wisconsin, will likely give the Democrats a jolt, and validate their efforts to target Musk. Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, who has taken a buzz saw to the federal government workforce as he steers Trump’s recently created Department of Government Efficiency, dished out roughly $20 million in the Wisconsin race through aligned groups in support of Schimel. And Musk, in a controversial move, handed out $1 million checks at a rally in Green Bay on Sunday evening to two Wisconsin voters who had already cast ballots in the contest and had signed a petition to stop “activist judges.” “I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world, for justice in Wisconsin. And we won,” Crawford said in her election night victory speech. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the chamber, argued that Wisconsin voters “sent a decisive message to Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and DOGE by rejecting an extreme Republican for their Supreme Court: our democracy is not for sale.” “Anyone who counted Democrats out was dead wrong,” he emphasized. But Democrats have a serious brand issue right now. The party’s favorable rating sank to all-time lows in separate national polls conducted last month by CNN and NBC News. Those numbers followed a record low for Democrats in a Quinnipiac University survey in the field in February. Additionally, the latest Fox News National poll indicated that congressional Democrats’ approval rating is at 30%, near an all-time low. And Democratic activists are irate over their party’s inability to blunt Trump’s agenda. And when it comes to normally low-turnout off-year elections and special elections, the party in power – which in the nation’s capital is clearly the Republicans – often faces political headwinds. “We’ll get up to fight another day. But this wasn’t our day,” Schimel said in his concession speech. And Wisconsin GOP chair Brian Schimming noted that “coming off a successful November, we knew the April elections would be challenging.” Republicans note that Democrats enjoyed a slew of special election victories in 2023 and 2024 before suffering serious setbacks in last November’s elections. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP “Special elections are special for a reason, and not always useful canaries in the coal mines for what lies ahead,” veteran Republican strategist Colin Reed told Fox News Digital. “While they can be used as a barometer for energy, they are also a reflection of the individual candidates whose names are on the ballots.” Reed argued that “the bigger challenge for the Democrats looking ahead is the lack of a vision or governing agenda beyond reflexive and blanket opposition to the White House and their continued positioning way outside the mainstream on a slew of commonsense issues.”
Were Wisconsin, Florida elections referendum on Trump, Musk? And what they mean for the 2026 midterms
MILWAUKEE, WI – Democrats are celebrating a larger-than-expected victory in a high-profile and historically expensive election in battleground Wisconsin, in the first statewide ballot box contest since President Donald Trump’s return to power in January. Liberal-leaning Judge Susan Crawford topped conservative-leaning Judge Brad Schimel by roughly ten points – with some votes still being tabulated – to preserve the liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is likely to rule going forward on crucial issues like congressional redistricting, voting and labor rights, and abortion. With a massive infusion of money from Democrat-aligned and Republican-aligned groups from outside Wisconsin, which turned the race into the most expensive judicial election in the nation’s history, the contest partially transformed into a referendum on Trump’s sweeping and controversial moves during the opening months of his second tour of duty in the White House. Also front and center in the electoral showdown was someone who, along with Trump, was not on the ballot: billionaire Elon Musk, the president’s top donor and White House adviser, who inserted himself into the race. “The people of Wisconsin squarely rejected the influence of Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and billionaire special interests,” Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin claimed. And the DNC, looking ahead to next year’s bigger contests in the 2026 midterm elections, called the showdown in Wisconsin a “bellwether race.” But Republicans came out on top in Tuesday’s other marquee contests, holding control of two vacant congressional seats in twin special elections in red state Florida. The double-digit victories by the Republican candidates will give the GOP a little bit of breathing room in the House of Representatives, where the party is holding onto a very fragile majority as it aims to pass Trump’s agenda. “The American people sent a clear message tonight: they want elected officials who will advance President Trump’s America First agenda, and their votes can’t be bought by national Democrats,” Republican National Committee chair Mike Whatley argued. The Democrat candidates in the two special congressional elections vastly outraised their Republican counterparts – a sign that the party’s base is angry and energized – which forced GOP-aligned outside groups to pour money and resources into the races during the final stretch. And the Democrat candidates ended up losing by 15 and 14 points in districts that Trump carried by 37 and 30 points in last November’s presidential election. Democrats quickly spotlighted how the party “overperformed” in Florida. And the House Majority PAC, the top super PAC supporting House Democrats, touted that the results showed “that the political headwinds are firmly at our backs heading into 2026.” But Mike Marinella, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, argued that “Democrats just lit over $20,000,000 on fire in a doomed-to-fail effort to make two deep red Florida districts competitive — and got blown out of the water in the most embarrassing way.” But the results in Florida, and especially Wisconsin, will likely give the Democrats a jolt, and validate their efforts to target Musk. Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, who has taken a buzz saw to the federal government workforce as he steers Trump’s recently created Department of Government Efficiency, dished out roughly $20 million in the Wisconsin race through aligned groups in support of Schimel. And Musk, in a controversial move, handed out $1 million checks at a rally in Green Bay on Sunday evening to two Wisconsin voters who had already cast ballots in the contest and had signed a petition to stop “activist judges.” “I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world, for justice in Wisconsin. And we won,” Crawford said in her election night victory speech. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the chamber, argued that Wisconsin voters “sent a decisive message to Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and DOGE by rejecting an extreme Republican for their Supreme Court: our Democracy is not for sale.” “Anyone who counted Democrats out was dead wrong,” he emphasized. But Democrats have a serious brand issue right now. The party’s favorable rating sank to all-time lows in separate national polls conducted last month by CNN and NBC News. Those numbers followed a record low for Democrats in a Quinnipiac University survey in the field in February. Additionally, the latest Fox News National poll, indicated that congressional Democrats’ approval rating is at 30%, near an all-time low. And Democrat activists are irate over their party’s inability to blunt President Donald Trump’s agenda. And when it comes to normally low-turnout off-year elections and special elections, the party in power – which in the nation’s capital is clearly the Republicans – often faces political headwinds. “We’ll get up to fight another day. But this wasn’t our day,” Schimel said in his concession speech. And Wisconsin GOP chair Brian Schimming noted that “coming off a successful November, we knew the April elections would be challenging.” Republicans note that Democrats enjoyed a slew of special election victories in 2023 and 2024 before suffering serious setbacks in last November’s elections. “Special elections are special for a reason, and not always useful canaries in the coal mines for what lies ahead,” veteran Republican strategist Colin Reed told Fox News Digital. “While they can be used as a barometer for energy, they are also a reflection of the individual candidates whose names are on the ballots.” And Reed argued that “the bigger challenge for the Democrats looking ahead is the lack of a vision or governing agenda beyond reflexive and blanket opposition to the White House and their continued positioning way outside the mainstream on a slew of common sense issues.”
6 populist leaders facing lawfare around world
Vice President JD Vance condemned European countries last month for a lack of commitment to democracy as many of them lash out with lawfare attacks against populist leaders. Vance’s critique applies to more than just Europe, however, as populist leaders across the globe are facing legal troubles from outright election bans to criminal convictions. Here are the top populist leaders facing the most pressure. Right-wing French politician Marine Le Pen and several members of her ascendant National Rally party were convicted of embezzlement on Monday, and she herself has been banned from running in the 2027 presidential election. Populist leaders from across Europe condemned the verdict, pointing to her significant lead in the polls. “Those who fear the judgment of voters often seek reassurance from the courts. In Paris, they have condemned Marine Le Pen and would like to remove her from political life,” Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini said following Le Pen’s verdict. “We are not intimidated,” he added. “Full speed ahead, my friend!” ROMANIA ANNULS FIRST ROUND OF PRESIDENTIAL VOTE WON BY RIGHT-WING CANDIDATE Brazil’s Supreme Court accepted charges against former President Jair Bolsonaro last week over an alleged attempt to remain in office after his 2022 election defeat, ordering the former leader to stand trial. All five justices ruled in favor of accepting the charges leveled by Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet, who accused Bolsonaro and 33 others of attempting a coup that included a plan to poison his successor, current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and kill a Supreme Court judge. The former president has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and says he’s being politically persecuted. Under Brazilian law, a coup conviction carries a sentence of up to 12 years. When combined with the other charges, it could result in a sentence of decades behind bars. Calin Georgescu won the first round of Romania’s presidential elections earlier this year, only for the election to be canceled due to allegations of Russian collusion in Georgescu’s favor. Georgescu was then taken into custody and has since been banned from running in the election, despite leading in polls. ROMANIAN FAR-RIGHT PRESIDENTIAL FRONTRUNNER TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AFTER JD VANCE’S REBUKE OF EUROPEAN ELECTIONS Italian Vice Premier Matteo Salvini faced years of legal trouble due to accusations that he had illegally detained roughly 100 migrants during his term as interior minister in 2019. GERMANY BRACES UNDER COLLAPSING GOVERNMENT AND LOOMING TRUMP TRADE WAR The 2019 incident saw migrants held offshore on a humanitarian rescue ship. Italian courts dropped the charges against Slavini in December. “Protecting our country’s borders from smugglers is not a crime,” Salvini said shortly after the verdict. “This is a victory for the League and for Italy.” Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan was jailed last month on corruption charges, though many of his supporters have compared his situation to that of President Donald Trump and the charges he has faced. A Pakistani court sentenced Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, to 14 and seven years in jail after finding them guilty of corruption. They were convicted for allegedly accepting land as a bribe through the Al-Qadir Trust, which they had set up while Khan was in office. Khan, however, maintains his innocence, describing the events as a “witch hunt” in exclusive comments to Fox News Digital. It is just one of the more than 100 cases he is facing. Khan’s plight has also been highlighted by longtime Trump ally and adviser Richard Grenell, who took to social media late last year when he tweeted, “Free Imran Khan!” President Donald Trump has faced waves of legal trouble from his political opponents stretching back nearly a decade to his first administration. First he faced down the now-discredited Russia collusion claims before once again facing impeachment for negotiating aid for Ukraine. Once out of office, federal and state governments targeted his business dealings with investigations, eventually resulting in his conviction for falsifying business records, a verdict his allies say was bogus. Trump has acknowledged that populist leaders like him are facing challenges across the globe. He remarked on Le Pen’s “very important” situation in a statement Tuesday. “She was banned for five years and she was the leading candidate,” Trump said. “That sounds like this country, that sounds very much like this country.” Fox News’ Avi Kumar, Benjamin Weinthal and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Child safety must be priority of TikTok negotiations, parents group urges VP Vance
FIRST ON FOX: A group of parents is urging the Trump administration to “make the safety of America’s children a top priority” as the deadline to strike a deal to save TikTok looms. “TikTok is a breeding ground for harmful content, exposing our kids to videos promoting self-harm, eating disorders, and dangerous so-called viral challenges,” Alleigh Marré, executive director of the American Parents Coalition, said in a letter sent to Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday morning. Marré wrote that the Chinese-owned platform, which has an April 5 deadline for an American buyer to take over the company, regularly promotes “gender and sexuality content to minors” as well as suicidal ideation. ‘NO BETTER DEALMAKER’: TRUMP REPORTEDLY CONSIDERING EXECUTIVE ORDER TO ‘SAVE’ TIKTOK “This is no accident. TikTok’s design is deliberate. The Chinese-owned algorithm is being used to endanger our children. TikTok’s algorithm preys on vulnerable minds by feeding a steady stream of toxic content, and it often happens without parents realizing it,” the letter reads. “In the waning days of your negotiations I ask that you ensure this app has no connection to our country’s primary adversary. We cannot allow an adversary to have power akin to controlling all children’s television programming combined. TikTok cannot be owned, controlled, or influenced by foreign adversaries, and we must not allow those who wish to see our country fail have the power to manipulate and poison our kids.” After an app blackout that lasted roughly 14 hours just days before his inauguration, Trump said he would “save TikTok” through negotiations with American buyers. So far, several high-profile groups are vying to purchase TikTok’s U.S. operations, including former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, investor Kevin O’Leary, and a consortium featuring influencer Jimmy Donaldson, known as “MrBeast,” and entrepreneur Jesse Tinsley, the founder of Employer.com. HOSPITALS WARNED THEY MUST PROTECT CHILDREN FROM CHEMICAL AND SURGICAL MUTILATION: HHS AGENCY MEMO Perplexity, an AI firm, has also shown interest. Oracle, TikTok’s current U.S. tech partner, is also considered a top contender. ByteDance could reportedly retain a stake in TikTok, with further investments from U.S. investors like General Atlantic and Susquehanna. A bipartisan 2024 law gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be removed from U.S.-based app stores and hosting services. The Supreme Court weighed in on the ban on Jan. 17, two days before the deadline, declining to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Trump’s attorneys filed an amicus brief in the case in December, urging the Supreme Court to delay any ban until Trump took office. The court did not do so and Trump subsequently issued a 75-day delay on enforcing the ban on Inauguration Day. That delay expires at the end of Saturday. Of a possible sale of TikTok, Trump said Sunday aboard Air Force One, “We have a lot of potential buyers.” “There’s tremendous interest in TikTok,” he told reporters. “The decision is going to be my decision. I’d like to see TikTok remain alive.” Trump’s push to save TikTok is at odds with many in his own party, who have introduced legislation in recent years seeking to ban the app over national security concerns. SUPREME COURT APPEARS SKEPTICAL OF BLOCKING US BAN ON TIKTOK: WHAT TO KNOW There are roughly 170 million active American users on the social media app, the company reported. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House and TikTok for comment.
Courtroom combat: Inside the federal judiciary system where Trump’s agenda is under assault
The legal resistance to President Donald Trump’s second term is in full swing with more than 120 lawsuits filed since Jan. 20 by states, advocacy groups and individuals targeting his executive orders and policy agenda. As the lawsuits move through the judiciary, understanding the structure of the federal court system can help clarify how these challenges are likely to unfold. Article III of the U.S. Constitution establishes the Supreme Court along with “inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Constitution also states that judges shall hold their offices during a period of “good behavior.” The federal judiciary has three main levels: district courts (trial courts), circuit courts (the first level of appeal) and the Supreme Court (the final appellate authority). There are 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts and one Supreme Court. LAWSUIT TRACKER: NEW RESISTANCE BATTLING TRUMP’S SECOND TERM THROUGH ONSLAUGHT OF LAWSUITS TAKING AIM AT EOS To hear a case, a court must have personal jurisdiction (authority over the parties involved), subject matter jurisdiction (authority to hear the type of legal issue at hand) and proper venue (the correct geographic location for the case to be tried). Unlike state courts, which have broad authority, federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” which means they can only hear cases authorized by the Constitution or federal law. Each lawsuit filed against the Trump administration raises a federal question, giving federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction. Each district court has at least one United States district judge appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a life term. Plaintiffs who lose at the district court level can appeal to a federal appellate court. Appellate courts, also known as circuit courts, hear appeals from district courts within their geographic boundaries. Each circuit covers multiple states. For example, the Fifth Circuit includes Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. TRUMP’S TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN DEALT LEGAL BLOW AFTER APPEALS COURT RULING Each circuit also has multiple judges, ranging from six total judges to 29. Appeals to the circuit courts are first heard by a panel of three judges. Parties must file briefs to the court, arguing why the trial court’s decision should either be affirmed or reversed. After briefs are filed, oral arguments are scheduled during which attorneys from both sides present their case and answer questions from a panel of judges. In some instances, the full court may hear a case in what’s called an en banc session. The Ninth Circuit, due to its size, follows a modified en banc process. A circuit court’s decision is binding on all lower courts within that circuit. As such, those courts must follow that holding. Other circuits can look to that circuit’s holding as reference, but they are not bound by it. A case can generally only be appealed once a final decision has been issued. However, some issues can be appealed before a final decision is made via what’s called an interlocutory appeal. Parties can appeal a circuit court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court by filing a writ of certiorari, which is a request for the court to review the case. The Supreme Court isn’t required to take the case and denies most petitions, granting review in less than 1% of appeals. When cert is denied, the lower court’s ruling remains in place. WAVE OF COURT ORDERS BLOCKING TRUMP’S AGENDA ARE ‘JUDICIAL COUP D’ÉTAT,’ GINGRICH SAYS A circuit split is when circuits disagree on a particular legal matter. This will generally prompt the Supreme Court to grant cert in a case. If cert is granted, parties must file briefs and conduct oral arguments. Each circuit is assigned to a specific Supreme Court justice who handles certain appeals from that region, such as emergency applications and administrative requests. For example, Chief Justice Roberts oversees the D.C. Circuit, the 4th Circuit and the Federal Circuit. The assigned justice may act alone or refer the matter to the full court at their discretion. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The Trump administration has already appealed various decisions to the Supreme Court via emergency appeals. On March 28, the administration asked the court to review a temporary restraining order that blocked the administration’s use of an 18th-century wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the gang Tren de Aragua, from the United States. The appeal came shortly after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling to uphold the district court’s decision blocking the administration. Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.
Dems mum on Trump’s court fights despite trying to limit Biden-blocking judges
Democrats have remained relatively quiet while President Donald Trump and Republicans hammer federal district judges for churning out nationwide orders halting his administration’s actions. But during President Joe Biden’s tenure, they decried similar wide-ranging injunctions and even sought to remedy the issue with legislation. In 2023, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, debuted a measure to give the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sole jurisdiction over any cases with national implications. HOW TRUMP-BLOCKING JUDGES MANAGED TO GET PAST SENATE JUDICIARY HAWKS “When parties are able to choose their judges, it creates the perception that they are able to predetermine their case’s outcome, compromising the integrity of our federal justice system,” she said in a statement at the time. “Activist plaintiffs should not be able to hand-pick individual judges to set nationwide policy, which is why it’s critical we address the issue of judge shopping in our federal courts. By routing cases with national implications through the D.C. District Court, which has expertise in cases challenging federal agency action, the Stop Judge Shopping Act will strengthen trust in our federal justice system and help ensure major cases are decided based on the law, not the ideological agenda of any one judge.” The bill wouldn’t have ended nationwide injunctions as Republicans and Trump have sought, but it would give all jurisdiction on such decisions to one court, potentially reducing the probability of such orders being levied against Biden or other Democrat presidents. JOSH HAWLEY BELIEVES HIS BILL CAN STOP ‘RESISTANCE’ JUDGES FROM ‘PROVOKING A CRISIS’ The D.C. court is made up of 11 district judges appointed by former Presidents Biden and Barack Obama, and four were appointed by Trump. The court’s chief judge is Obama-appointee James Boasberg, who is at the center of a key battle with the Trump administration over deportation flights using the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime immigration law. A similar measure was proposed by then-Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., in addition to 37 other Democrats in 2024. The bill would have required cases involving broad injunctions to be randomly assigned in order to “promote uniformity and fairness.” Hirono, Schumer and Whitehouse did not provide comment to Fox News Digital when asked if they still supported legislative action and if they backed any of the Republican bills. REPUBLICANS LOOK TO ABOLISH TSA IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE SECURITY AT AIRPORTS Multiple Republicans in Congress have rolled out legislation this Congress to explicitly prevent district-level courts from issuing such wide-ranging orders, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, he wrote, “The obvious solution is to limit district courts to resolving the cases only between the parties before them.” “Under my bill, lower courts could no longer block legitimate executive action by issuing orders to nonparties to the lawsuit. The bill would also make TROs against the government immediately appealable, to make sure that prudence wins out over rash decisions handed down in the heat of a political moment,” he explained. SCOOP: TOP REPUBLICAN CHUCK GRASSLEY SETS PROMPT HEARING ON JUDGES BLOCKING TRUMP The top judiciary Republican also pointed to past grievances Democrats have had with the practice of nationwide court orders. “Two-hundred forty Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, in 2023, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief warning of the ‘perilous consequences’ resulting from a district judge’s move to block the abortion pill mifepristone,” he recalled. “Justice Elena Kagan has similarly expressed dismay.” The brief was filed to plead with the high court to overrule the nationwide injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, which suspended FDA approval of mifepristone. “The consequences of the Fifth Circuit’s decision could extend far beyond mifepristone, for it undermines the science-based, expert-driven process that Congress designed for determining whether drugs are safe and effective,” the lawmakers wrote at the time. “By permitting the district court to disrupt FDA’s current regulation of mifepristone, the Fifth Circuit has countenanced judicial interference that erroneously substitutes the district court’s judgment for FDA’s scientific determination. Hirono, Schumer and Whitehouse have not been publicly critical of nationwide injunctions during the new Trump administration as district judges across the country manage to halt actions. On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the subject as Republicans push legislation to end the practice of issuing nationwide orders.
Trump pressures 4 GOP senators ahead of anti-Canadian tariff vote, accusing them of ‘TDS’
President Donald Trump called out GOP Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, in an effort to apply public pressure before the Senate votes on a measure to scuttle his Canadian tariff policy. The joint resolution would terminate the national emergency Trump declared regarding illicit drugs and Canada — in his executive order, Trump called for slapping tariffs on America’s northern neighbor. In s lengthy Truth Social post shortly before 1 a.m. on Wednesday, the president suggested that the four GOP senators have “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” “Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rand Paul, also of Kentucky, will hopefully get on the Republican bandwagon, for a change, and fight the Democrats wild and flagrant push to not penalize Canada for the sale, into our Country, of large amounts of Fentanyl, by Tariffing the value of this horrible and deadly drug in order to make it more costly to distribute and buy,” Trump declared. TRUMP’S 11TH WEEK IN OFFICE SET TO FOCUS ON TARIFFS AS PRESIDENT TOUTS ‘LIBERATION DAY’ “They are playing with the lives of the American people, and right into the hands of the Radical Left Democrats and Drug Cartels. The Senate Bill is just a ploy of the Dems to show and expose the weakness of certain Republicans, namely these four, in that it is not going anywhere because the House will never approve it and I, as your President, will never sign it. Why are they allowing Fentanyl to pour into our Country unchecked, and without penalty,” he continued. Trump blasted the four lawmakers as “disloyal” to the GOP. “What is wrong with them, other than suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, commonly known as TDS? Who can want this to happen to our beautiful families, and why? To the people of the Great States of Kentucky, Alaska, and Maine, please contact these Senators and get them to FINALLY adhere to Republican Values and Ideals. They have been extremely difficult to deal with and, unbelievably disloyal to hardworking Majority Leader John Thune, and the Republican Party itself. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER MARK CARNEY SAYS ‘OLD RELATIONSHIP’ WITH US ‘IS OVER’ AMID TENSION OVER TRUMP TARIFFS Paul is a cosponsor of the joint resolution. Murkowski reportedly informed Politico’s Lisa Kashinsky that she will vote for the resolution, while Collins has said she is “very likely” to back it, according to the outlet. RAND PAUL ENDORSES TRUMP 3 MONTHS AFTER ELECTION DAY, ADMITS ‘I WAS WRONG’ CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP McConnell declared in an op-ed earlier this year that “tariffs are bad policy.”