Trump admin reaffirms Abrego Garcia won’t go free in the US: ‘Horrific crimes’
Top Trump administration officials maintain that Kilmar Abrego Garcia will continue to go through the legal system in the United States before he is deported again, as the administration maintains he will not walk free in the U.S. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers successfully asked the judge on Friday to keep him behind bars to avoid any possibility of an immediate deportation, according to NewsNation. However, the plan is to try Abrego Garcia in the U.S. on the Tennessee-based human smuggling charges before deporting him, according to the Department of Justice. And if he is convicted, the White House says he will spend time behind bars in the U.S. before being deported. JUDGE SETS STRICT CONDITIONS FOR ABREGO GARCIA’S RELEASE AS TRUMP OFFICIALS PURSUE CASE AGAINST HIM “This defendant has been charged with horrific crimes including trafficking children and will not walk free in our country again,” DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin told Fox News Digital in an email. The White House further clarified the Executive Branch’s stance following an Associated Press report on the comments from federal prosecutors about possibly deporting him to a third country sooner. “This is fake news. Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States to face trial for the egregious charges against him. He will face the full force of the American justice system – including serving time in American prison for the crimes he’s committed,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson said in an X post. RETURNED SALVADORAN MIGRANT KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA ARRAIGNED ON FEDERAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING CHARGES IN TENNESSEE DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the 29-year-old will not be freed in the U.S. at any point. “Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a dangerous criminal illegal alien. We have said it for months and it remains true to this day: he will never go free on American soil,” she wrote. CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE Abrego Garcia, who was living in Maryland, was deported to El Salvador amid accusations of being an MS-13 gang member, as it is a designated foreign terrorist organization. He then spent time detained at the country’s terrorism confinement center. While detained in the country, it sparked a political firestorm in which Democrats raised concerns about due process, with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-M.D., even meeting with him in the Central American nation. During his El Salvador detainment, past records alleging domestic abuse surfaced, as well as reports that he allegedly had taken part in human smuggling, which ultimately led to the federal charges brought forth earlier this month that resulted in his return to American custody. DEMOCRATS CELEBRATE RETURN OF SUSPECTED HUMAN TRAFFICKER KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA “Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the time. “A grand jury in the Middle District of Tennessee returned a sealed indictment charging him with alien smuggling and conspiracy.” However, critics blasted the charges as a political move. “After weeks of the Trump administration saying they either couldn’t or wouldn’t return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the US, the timing of these charges are clearly designed to cover up their negligence and the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously called them out on the egregious ways they are ignoring due process,” the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition said in a statement at the time. “Still, Mr. Abrego Garcia will now be able to have his day in court, which The Constitution guarantees for everyone in our country regardless of citizenship.”
Mamdani’s primary win exposes Democrat divide as top leaders withhold endorsements
Zohran Mamdani’s primary night success shocked the political establishment this week, exposing a generational divide among New York Democrats. New York Democrat Rep. Tom Suozzi endorsed former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the race for City Hall on Tuesday night. The moderate Democrat confirmed Wednesday that he “had serious concerns about Assemblyman Mamdani before [Tuesday], and that is one of the reasons I endorsed his opponent. Those concerns remain.” While fellow self-described democratic socialist, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., threw her political weight behind Mamdani ahead of his primary win, national congressional Democratic leaders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, did not outright endorse Mamdani after he declared victory. “He ran an impressive campaign that connected with New Yorkers about affordability, fairness, & opportunity,” Schumer said Wednesday. When pressed by reporters about his non-endorsement, Schumer refused to elaborate on what Mamdani’s win meant for the Democratic Party’s future. CITY-RUN GROCERY STORES, DEFUNDING POLICE, SAFE INJECTION SITES: WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT NYC’S NEXT POTENTIAL MAYOR Jeffries congratulated Mamdani on his “decisive primary victory,” and confirmed his plan to speak with the presumptive nominee the day after he declared victory. Yet, the House Democratic leader refused to formally endorse Mamdani. NEW YORK DEMOCRAT SAYS MAYORAL CANDIDATE ZOHRAN MAMDANI ‘TOO EXTREME TO LEAD’ Mamdani, whose campaign galvanized supporters on the ground and on social media, has proposed what conservatives deem radical ideas, like government-run grocery stores, free bus service, tuition-free city universities, rent freezes and free childcare, among others. Schumer and Jeffries did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s inquiry about their non-endorsements and whether the New York Democrats plan to rally behind Mamdani in November. Moderate New York Democrats, including Sen. Kristen Gillibrand and Reps. Ritchie Torres, Adriano Espaillat and Pat Ryan, are also yet to endorse Mamdani. Those congressional Democrats, as well as Suozzi, did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital inquiry about whether they planned to endorse Mamdani. Torres had also endorsed Cuomo in the primary. And Espaillat congratulated Mamdani on Wednesday but did not outright endorse him. Rep. Dan Goldman, who endorsed state Sen. Zellnor Myrie in the Democratic primary, has not yet endorsed Mamdani since his primary win, and did not immediately respond to an inquiry about whether he would. Meanwhile, longtime New York Democratic congressman, Jerry Nadler, clearly endorsed Mamdani on Wednesday, comparing his victory Tuesday to President Barack Obama’s political rise. “Zohran is someone who will be a partner with me in Washington to take on Donald Trump. I’ve spoken to him today about his commitment to fighting antisemitism, and we’ll work with all New Yorkers to fight against all bigotry and hate,” Nadler said, in an apparent reference to accusations that Mamdani is antisemitic, particularly over his refusal to condemn the controversial rallying cry, “Globalize the intifada.” Like Suozzi, New York Democrat Rep. Lauren Gillen refused to endorse Mamdani, writing on social media Wednesday, “Socialist Zohran Mamdani is too extreme to lead New York City.” “His entire campaign has been built on unachievable promises and higher taxes, which is the last thing New York needs. Beyond that, Mr. Mamdani has called to defund the police and has demonstrated a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments which stoke hate at a time when antisemitism is skyrocketing. He is the absolute wrong choice for New York.” Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani for comment. Sources confirmed to Fox News Digital Thursday that Cuomo is not dropping out of the race. The former governor will keep the spot he secured earlier this year on the “Fight & Deliver” ballot line. But the sources said that Cuomo had not committed yet to running an active general election campaign through the summer and into the autumn. And Mayor Eric Adams announced his re-election campaign Thursday on the steps of New York City Hall. He decided to run as an independent amid low approval ratings and his since-dropped federal corruption charges. Former federal prosecutor Jim Walden is also running as an Independent, and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa will once again be the Republican nominee in November’s mayoral election.
Supreme Court decides whether to allow parents to shield children from LGBTQ books in school
The Supreme Court held Friday that a group of Maryland parents are entitled to opt their children out of school lessons that could violate their beliefs in a case centered on religious freedom. The justices decided 6-3 along ideological lines in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can exclude their children from a Maryland public school system’s lessons that contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel it conflicts with their religious faith. “A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.” Montgomery County Public Schools began incorporating books into their preschool through 12th grade language arts curriculums a few years ago that featured “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer characters,” the school district’s attorneys told the Supreme Court. The attorneys said the school district did this as part of an effort to be “culturally responsive” and teach lessons that encourage “equity, respect, and civility.” PROTESTS ERUPT AS SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS CASE ON LGBT BOOKS IN SCHOOL The Maryland parents who sued said in their petition to the high court that the school board introduced books to their elementary school students that promoted “gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance.” The parents said the school board initially allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons involving those books but then ceased doing that. They also said the presence of the books created “indirect pressure to forgo a religious practice,” which created enough of a burden to violate their religious freedom rights. KEY SCOTUS PARENTAL RIGHTS CASES DRAW MCMAHON, MOMS FOR LIBERTY TO RALLY ON COURT STEPS The parents who brought the suit span a range of religious backgrounds. Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat are Muslim, while others fall under different denominations of Christianity. During oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned an attorney representing Montgomery County schools about whether the books simply existed in the classroom or were actively introduced to the students. The attorney indicated that teachers gave lessons to the students involving the books in question five times during the school year. Rosalind Hanson, a member of the conservative group Moms for Liberty, told Fox News Digital during a recent interview in front of the Supreme Court that she and other parents who helped bring the case were “not trying to change the curriculum” for parents who did support their children being exposed to the books. “The majority of states across the country have said you can have an opt-out for these very sensitive issues and topics, especially because of the religious component, but also because of the age appropriateness,” Hanson said. This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.
GOP senator invites Trump to ‘an appreciation event like you’ve never seen’ in deep-red state
FIRST ON FOX: Every year, the small town of Sturgis, South Dakota, explodes from just a few thousand residents to hundreds of thousands of people making the pilgrimage to the Buffalo Chip campground. There, they participate in the nation’s largest motorcycle rally, where camaraderie, motor oil and rock ‘n’ roll permeate the dusty campground. And one Republican senator wants President Donald Trump to be the headlining guest. ‘THE MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PUSH BACK AGAINST LEAKED REPORT ON IRAN STRIKES Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., extended an invitation exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital to the president to attend his home state’s Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. Rounds left the door open for Trump to either come to the rally’s 85th anniversary this year, or to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary next year. “South Dakota is Trump Country,” Rounds said. “We’d love to introduce you on stage during one of our premier concerts, in front of tens of thousands of fans, and we’re thoroughly convinced you’ll be impressed with the reception.” ‘PRESIDENTIAL INCAPACITY’: SENATE REPUBLICAN SEEKS PAPER TRAIL OF BIDEN’S AUTOPEN USE “This year, the event is our 85th anniversary – which will draw rally-goers from every corner of the country and throughout the world,” he continued. “Next year, the 250th anniversary of our country will also be a blow-out event. We’d be honored to host you whenever it may work in your schedule.” To Rounds’ point, South Dakota is indeed “Trump Country.” The president has won the state each cycle that he has run, averaging a roughly 30-point victory margin over his opponents. FURY ERUPTS AS UNELECTED SENATE ‘SCOREKEEPER’ BLOCKS TRUMP’S AGENDA This year’s rally will take place from Aug. 1 to 10 and will feature a number of artists, including ZZ Top, Jason Aldean, Jefferson Starship, Nickleback and others. “We’re biased, but it’s an experience every red-blooded American should witness, or better yet, participate in,” Rounds said. “Thank you for leading our great country. We’d love to honor you with an appreciation event like you’ve never seen,” he continued. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.
Nearly 200 House Dems reject resolution condemning violent anti-ICE riots in LA
Nearly 200 House Democrats voted against a resolution condemning the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles earlier this month. The resolution was led by Rep. Young Kim, R-Calif., and the rest of the Golden State’s Republican congressional delegation. 215 members of the House of Representatives, which included seven House Democrats, voted in favor of the resolution. “Peaceful protests are a constitutional right, but vandalism, looting, violence, and other crimes are not. Protecting public safety shouldn’t be controversial, which is why I am leading the California Republican delegation in a resolution to support law and order as we continue to see unrest,” Kim stated when introducing the resolution. “I hope Governor Newsom can come together with President Trump to stop the riots, lower the temperature, and keep our communities safe,” she added. ‘SOCIAL CHAOS’: GOP, DEM LAWMAKERS SOUND OFF ON LOS ANGELES UNREST “Let’s be clear: the riots escalated before the National Guard was sent in and were enabled by California’s soft-on-crime policies – peddled for years by Governor Newsom, Sacramento, and local prosecutors – that have allowed for lawlessness and endangered public safety of hardworking Californians,” Kim continued. It was introduced on June 17, and it acknowledges that peaceful protests should be welcomed in the United States, but calls out the criminal elements that unfolded in the area earlier this month. “These protests quickly escalated into violent riots across Los Angeles, where acts of arson, widespread looting, property destruction, and vandalism were committed, blocking streets and highways, lighting streets on fire, throwing rocks at law enforcement vehicles, and assaulting Federal and local peace officers,” the resolution states. CONGRESS STEPS IN AMID ‘OUT-OF-CONTROL’ LOS ANGELES RIOTS AS DEMOCRATS RESIST FEDERAL HELP Earlier this month, Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman said that the protest was an excuse for bad actors to commit crimes, such as stealing from businesses, committing property damage and assaulting law enforcement. “This group wanted to commit crimes,” Hochman said at the time. “They looked at the protest as a cover, an opportunity to go ahead and ply their illegal trade and commit a whole variety of crimes that, in many ways, has done a huge disservice to the legitimate protesters out there.” CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE Some Democrats criticized the resolution, as a legal battle ensured whether President Donald Trump was able to send in the National Guard as the civil unrest went on. Many Republicans have argued it was necessary, while many California Democratic leaders like Gov. Gavin Newsom said troop deployment was an instigator. CALIFORNIA LT. GOVERNOR SAYS LOS ANGELES RIOTS ARE ‘GENERATED BY DONALD TRUMP’ “This resolution ignores those facts to score political points,” Rep. Nanette Díaz Barragán, D-Calif., said on the House floor in opposition to the resolution, saying troop deployment “only escalated tensions and further unrest” while adding that Democrats have called for prosecutions of those who have acted violently. “Your daily reminder that Trump still has 4,946 troops sitting around LA doing nothing. Meanwhile, he has weakened our border safety operations — slashing the National Guard’s fentanyl and drug interdiction force by 32 PERCENT. He is actively endangering our communities by keeping these troops in LA,” Newsom posted to X on June 25. Meanwhile, debate ensues about the ICE operations and deportation efforts nationwide, as ICE agents face a 500% increase in assaults, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
$94 million in grants awarded to Jewish faith-based organizations to prevent ‘violence and terrorism’: DHS
FIRST ON FOX: Secretary Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) awarded a staggering $94.4 million in federal grants through the National Security Supplemental (NSGP-NSS) to 512 Jewish faith-based organizations on Friday. The grants, which are allocated through the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, are part of a pre-designated fund to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under DHS with the purpose of providing “support for target hardening and other physical security enhancements.” “DHS is working to put a stop to the deeply disturbing rise in anti-Semitic attacks across the United States,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “That this money is necessary at all is tragic. Anti-Semitic violence has no place in this country.” NOEM UNCOVERS AND KILLS MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR, BIDEN-ERA DEI, LGBTQ PROGRAM “However, under President Trump and Secretary Noem’s leadership, we are going to do everything in our power to make sure that Jewish people in the United States can live free of the threat of violence and terrorism.” Sources at DHS tell Fox News Digital that similar grants have been used for improved security measures like cameras, physical barriers, and other enhanced safety initiatives. Anti-Semitic attacks in the US have been on the rise since Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and the continuous war between the Jewish state and neighboring countries. SUSPECT IN BOULDER TERROR ATTACK TARGETING PRO-ISRAEL DEMONSTRATORS CHARGED WITH FEDERAL HATE CRIMES American college campuses, including Columbia and NYU, have erupted with Israel and Palestine protests since 2023. Two Israeli embassy staffers were murdered in Washington, D.C., in May and a group of pro-Israel demonstrators were “targeted” with Molotov cocktails in Boulder, Colorado just this month. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found that 2024 marked a record high 9,354 anti-Semitic incidents, which is an increase of 344% over the past five years. The Nonprofit Security Grant Program website states that all faith-based organizations must first apply through the Department of Homeland Security to receive funding, and sources at DHS also tell Fox News Digital that these are just the first of many grants to be sent. TIMELINE: TRUMP’S ISRAEL-IRAN CEASEFIRE NEARLY COLLAPSES HOURS AFTER ANNOUNCEMENT The Trump administration has firmly backed Israel throughout tensions in the Middle East, and recently negotiated a ceasefire between the Jewish homeland and Iran, mitigated by Qatar, on Tuesday. Though conflict and hostility are still high among Israel and neighboring countries, the Trump administration has touted a win for peace abroad, while antisemitism still remains on the rise at home.
Top moments from the Trump-Biden debate that changed the course of the 2024 election
Former President Joe Biden’s disastrous presidential debate with now-President Donald Trump one year ago Friday changed the course of the 2024 election. The octogenarian Delawarean appeared on-stage tired and with a raspy voice, while some of his responses were at times unintelligible, leading to Trump landing several wisecracks in response. While giving a response about wealthy Americans paying sufficient taxes, Biden said there are at least 1,000 billionaires – first muttering “1,000 trillionaires” – in the U.S. and that they purportedly pay only 8.2% in taxes. “If they just paid 24%; 25%, either one of those numbers, they’d raise $500 million – billion I should say in a 10-year period. We’d be able to wipe out the debt,” and “all those things we need to do [with] child care, elder care.” ONE YEAR LATER: HOW JOE BIDEN’S DISASTROUS DEBATE PERFORMANCE FORCED HIS MEDIA ALLIES TO TURN ON HIM His response went on for several more seconds, transitioning into a sidewinder about making every person eligible for “what I’ve been able to do with COVID,” before mumbling for several seconds and declaring, “We finally beat Medicare.” When moderator Jake Tapper turned to Trump for a response, he said: “Well, he’s right, he did beat Medicare, he beat it to death.” STATE DEMOCRATIC OFFICIALS RALLY BEHIND BIDEN AS A DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIR SUGGESTS REPUBLICANS PULL TRUMP Biden also claimed to have reduced illegal immigration at the southern border by 40% over the course of his term. “It’s better than when [Trump] left office. And I’m going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the total initiative relative to what we can do with more Border Patrol and more asylum officers,” Biden said. “I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don’t think he knows what he said either,” Trump replied. OLBERMANN LEADS LEFT-WING MELTDOWN AGAINST CNN, CALLING TO ‘BURN IT DOWN’ AFTER BIDEN’S PERFORMANCE Trump also sharply criticized Biden for “destroy[ing] our country,” and that he came out with a “nothing” border plan to score a few political points. The current president also labeled Biden “a Palestinian” – a title he also bestowed on Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is Jewish – in relation to how they have responded to the Israel-Gaza conflict, after Biden accused him of disrespecting the military. Biden said his late son, former Delaware Attorney General Joseph Beau Biden III, contracted glioblastoma from being stationed near burn pits in Iraq. He went on to accuse Trump of the widely-debunked “suckers and losers” line about World War I casualties buried in a French cemetery. “My son was not a loser, he was not a sucker – you’re the sucker, you’re the loser,” Biden fumed, speaking sternly through gritted teeth. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP “First of all, that was a made-up quote – suckers and losers – they made it up; it was in a third-rate magazine,” Trump replied. The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg cited multiple anonymous sources in publishing the bombshell allegations in September 2020. Fox News Digital’s Kiera McDonald and Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.
Trump exerted ‘maximum pressure’ on Iran and Israel to ‘deliver peace’: Leavitt
President Trump exerted “maximum pressure” on Israel and Iran in an effort to “deliver peace” after his historic and decisive strikes decimated the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities. The president vowed throughout his 2024 campaign to reach “peace through strength,” and he has taken steps in recent days to do just that, with an added pressure campaign on both Israel and Iran. IRAN, ISRAEL AND US AGREE THAT ISLAMIC REPUBLIC NUCLEAR SITES WERE ‘BADLY DAMAGED’ DESPITE LEAKED INTEL REPORT “President Trump directing the perfect execution of the most secretive and successful military strikes in history – and then negotiating a ceasefire to the war within 48 hours – is the epitome of peace through strength,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital. “Nobody knows how to exert maximum pressure to deliver peace better than Donald Trump.” Trump, this week, participated in the NATO Summit in the Netherlands, where he was praised by allies for his decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte praised Trump as a “man of strength” and a “man of peace.” “I just want to recognize your decisive action on Iran,” Rutte said at the start of his joint remarks with the president. “You are a man of strength, but you are also a man of peace. And the fact that you are now also successful in getting this ceasefire done between Israel and Iran – I really want to commend you for that. I think this is important for the whole world.” Rutte, on his social media, also congratulated the president for his “extraordinary” action in Iran, saying it was “something no one else dared to do.” “It makes us all safer,” Rutte said. The president also brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, announcing Monday that the “12-Day War” was coming to an end – just over a week after Israel launched a preemptive strike, citing fears that Tehran was dangerously close to obtaining a nuclear weapon. TRUMP SAYS US WOULD STRIKE AGAIN IF IRAN REBUILDS NUCLEAR PROGRAM The two countries subsequently traded rocket fire over the following days, and over the weekend, the U.S. launched its own airstrikes on three of Iran’s key nuclear facilities. Iran responded by shooting rockets at a U.S. air base in Qatar on Monday, but not without giving advance notice to U.S. and Qatari officials. No injuries were reported in that attack. The ceasefire had gotten off to an uncertain start, with the president unleashing frustration with both countries. “I’m not happy with Israel. You know, when I say, OK, now you have 12 hours, you don’t go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran either, but I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning,” Trump said on Tuesday. He continued, “We basically have two countries that have been fighting for so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f— they’re doing.” “I’m gonna see if I can stop it,” he added. “ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS. IF YOU DO IT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION. BRING YOUR PILOTS HOME, NOW!” Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly after boarding Marine One. Minutes later, he announced that Israel was canceling its plans for an attack on Tuesday morning. “ISRAEL is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly ‘Plane Wave’ to Iran. Nobody will be hurt, the Ceasefire is in effect! Thank you for your attention to this matter!” he wrote. Israel did not attack. From the NATO summit, the president warned that the U.S. will strike Iran again if it attempts to rebuild its nuclear program. And Trump’s historic strikes in Iran have the Islamic Republic admitting that their nuclear facilities were decimated. Assessments from the U.S., Israel and Iran agree the strikes were successful.
SCOTUS rules on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, testing lower court powers
The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a major victory in President Donald Trump‘s quest to block lower courts from issuing universal injunctions that had upended many of his administration’s executive orders and actions. Justices ruled 6-3 to allow the lower courts to issue injunctions only in limited instances, though the ruling leaves open the question of how the ruling will apply to the birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case. The Supreme Court agreed this year to take up a trio of consolidated cases involving so-called universal injunctions handed down by federal district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. Judges in those districts had blocked Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship from taking force nationwide – which the Trump administration argued in their appeal to the Supreme Court was overly broad. The Supreme Court’s arguments in May focused little on the merits of those universal injunctions – and on Friday, the court made clear that it is not ruling on whether the birthright citizenship orders are constitutional. 100 DAYS OF INJUNCTIONS, TRIALS AND ‘TEFLON DON’: TRUMP SECOND TERM MEETS ITS BIGGEST TESTS IN COURT Instead, it instructed the lower courts to “move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.” They also stayed any enforcement of the orders from taking effect for 30 days. “The applications do not raise – and thus we do not address – the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. “The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.” “A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power,” she added. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the case. Sotomayor, in a scathing dissent, characterized the decision as “nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.” “The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals’ constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully. Until the day that every affected person manages to become party to a lawsuit and secures for himself injunctive relief, the Government may act lawlessly indefinitely. Not even a decision from this Court would necessarily,” she said. In a separate dissent, Jackson wrote that the decision from the majority “will disproportionately impact the poor, the uneducated, and the unpopular – i.e., those who may not have the wherewithal to lawyer up, and will all too often find themselves beholden to the Executive’s whims.” The Supreme Court agreed in April to hear the consolidated cases, which focused on three lower court judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state who issued “universal” injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. But that wasn’t the main focus of the appeal, or the May 15 oral arguments before the high court. NINTH CIRCUIT REJECTS TRUMP’S BID TO REINSTATE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER Rather, the justices weighed whether lower courts should have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions at all, or whether doing so exceeds their authority, as argued by Trump officials. The ruling is expected to have sweeping implications for U.S. district courts, and comes at a time when presidents, including both Democrat and Republican administrations, have sought to use executive orders as a means of sidestepping a clunky, slow-moving Congress. Trump praised the statement on social media Friday, which he described as a “GIANT WIN” in the Supreme Court. He also said he plans to hold a press conference on the decision at 11:30 a.m. “Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,” he said on Truth Social. “Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.” Federal judges across the country have blocked Trump’s ban on transgender persons serving in the U.S. military, ordered the reinstatement of core functions of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and halted Elon Musk’s government efficiency organization, DOGE, from oversight and access to government agencies, among other things. Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared to agree during oral arguments this month that the use of universal injunctions has surged in recent years – but after more than two hours, remained split on how to proceed. No easy solution emerged to the thorny legal problem, as the justices wrestled with a tangle of procedural questions over whether to scale back the use of universal injunctions and what legal standard should govern them. Sauer argued that lower court judges have used universal injunctions to act beyond their authority and block the lawful powers of a sitting president. But Sotomayor noted that blocking or limiting lower court injunctions could invite hundreds or thousands of new individual lawsuits. “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 later, adding: “If that’s true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn’t have that power.” 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. APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN’S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT She 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. As expected, several conservative justices on the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed criticism of 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 –
Justice Department investigating University of California over alleged DEI-based hiring
The Justice Department has announced it is investigating the University of California (UC) for alleged Title VII discrimination violations in its hiring practices. The agency announced Thursday that its Civil Rights Division is looking into the university’s individual campuses regarding potential race- and sex-based discrimination in employment practices. The university’s “UC 2030 Capacity Plan” directs its campuses to hire “diverse” faculty members to meet race- and sex-based employment quotas, the Justice Department said. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, LAW JOURNAL SUED FOR ALLEGEDLY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST STRAIGHT WHITE MALES “These initiatives openly measure new hires by their race and sex, which potentially runs afoul of federal law,” the Justice Department said in a press release. “The Civil Rights Division’s Employment Litigation Section will investigate whether the University of California is engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race, sex, and other protected characteristics, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said. “Public employers are bound by federal laws that prohibit racial and other employment discrimination,” Dhillon said. “Institutional directives that use race- and sex-based hiring practices expose employers to legal risk under federal law.” The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division wrote to the university on Thursday, informing it of the investigation. “Our investigation is based on information suggesting that the University of California may be engaged in certain employment practices that discriminate against employees, job applicants, and training program participants based on race and sex in violation of Title VII,” the letter reads. “Specifically, we have reason to believe the University of California’s ‘UC 2030 Capacity Plan’ precipitated unlawful action by the University of California and some or all its constituent campuses.” TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TARGETS IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL, LAW JOURNAL FOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION UC said it will work in good faith with the Justice Department as it conducts its investigation. “The University of California is committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programs and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws,” a UC statement provided to Fox News Digital reads. “The University also aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported.” The university’s UC 2030 Capacity Plan lays out a goal of becoming a national model as a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) and Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) system. The plan outlines a pipeline strategy to diversify faculty and researchers through expanded graduate enrollment and outreach to institutions that serve underrepresented students. The DOJ, however, claims these initiatives may violate Title VII by functioning as de facto employment quotas. In March, UC dropped diversity statements from its hiring practices amid President Donald Trump’s threats that schools could lose federal funding. The university’s provost, Katherine S. Newman, sent out a letter to the system’s leaders informing them that diversity statements are no longer required for new applicants. Newman wrote that while some programs and departments have required them, the university has never had a policy of diversity statements and believes it could harm applicant evaluation. “The requirement to submit a diversity statement may lead applicants to focus on an aspect of their candidacy that is outside their expertise or prior experience,” the letter obtained by Fox News Digital reads. She added that employees and applicants can still reference accomplishments related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) on their own, but requiring stand-alone diversity statements is no longer permitted. Fox News’ David Spunt and Lindsay Kornick contributed to this report.