Jeanine Pirro sworn in as interim US attorney
Former judge Jeanine Pirro was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. on Thursday. Pirro, 73, will now lead a team of attorneys in defending President Donald Trump’s administration in court as well as prosecuting local crimes in the nation’s capital. “Congratulations Judge Jeanine who will soon make DC Great Again!” Sergi Gor, the director White House Office of Presidential Personnel, wrote on social media. This is a developing story. Check back soon for updates.
House Dems open investigation into Trump’s acceptance of $400 million jet from Qatar
FIRST ON FOX: House Democrats are opening an investigation into President Donald Trump and his administration’s acceptance of a $400 million private jet from the Qatari government. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, led his fellow Democrats on the panel in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House counsel David Warrington on Thursday. They’re specifically asking Bondi to hand over a reported legal memo she wrote that is meant to assert the legality of Trump accepting the plane on behalf of the U.S. “Any legal memo purporting to make such a claim would obviously fly in the face of the text of the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which explicitly prohibits the President from accepting any ‘present [or] Emolument… of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State’ unless he has ‘the Consent of Congress,’” the letter reads. MEET THE TRUMP-PICKED LAWMAKERS GIVING SPEAKER JOHNSON A FULL HOUSE GOP CONFERENCE “Accordingly, we are writing to request that you provide the Committee on the Judiciary with these memos immediately as their analysis and conclusions are apparently the basis for the President’s decision to disregard the plain text of the Constitution.” Raskin and the other Judiciary Committee Democrats went so far as to accuse Trump or people in his orbit of soliciting a bribe from Qatar. “President Trump’s statements expressing displeasure with delays in the delivery of his new Boeing aircraft to serve as Air Force One and the timing of this ‘gift’ suggest that President Trump or a member of his Administration may have improperly solicited this ‘nice gesture’ from the Qatari government,” the Democrats said, citing Trump’s own comments. “The fact that, according to President Trump, the plane would not remain in service to the United States but would rather be donated to his presidential library after his term concludes further raises the possibility that this ‘nice gesture’ is intended as a bribe to Donald Trump.” Multiple outlets reported that Bondi and Warrington drafted a legal memo that said it was “legally permissible” for Trump to accept the plane and then have it transferred to his presidential library when he leaves office. A source familiar with the discussions told Fox News Digital the memo was drafted by the Office of Legal Counsel and signed by Bondi. But Democrats suggested the memo was likely not sufficient grounds for Trump to bypass Congress on the issue, and pointed out Bondi herself had previously lobbied on Qatar’s behalf. BROWN UNIVERSITY IN GOP CROSSHAIRS AFTER STUDENT’S DOGE-LIKE EMAIL KICKS OFF FRENZY “The Constitution is clear: Congress – not the Attorney General or the White House Counsel – has the exclusive authority to approve or reject a gift ‘of any kind whatever’ given to the President by a foreign government,” the letter said. “We would also note that, even if the Attorney General had a constitutional role to play here, Attorney General Bondi has a significant and obvious conflict of interest given her prior registration as an official agent of the Qatari government and earned no less than $115,000 per month lobbying on its behalf.” When reached for comment on the matter, a source close to Bondi said only that the letter was received by the Department of Justice (DOJ). In addition to looking for the memo itself, the Democratic letter also asked for any communications and other records regarding the Boeing plane’s transfer, and discussions of the gift’s legal justifications. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have little power to compel Trump administration officials to comply, given their status as the minority party in the chamber. But Raskin has been scrutinizing Trump and his inner circle over family foreign ties since the former president’s first term. The latest letter comes during Trump’s diplomatic visit to the Middle East, where Qatar was one of his stops. Trump has defended his acceptance of the plane on multiple occasions, arguing he would be a “stupid person” to not take it, while bashing Democrats for their criticism. “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. Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week. Senate Republicans said they knew little when asked by Fox News Digital earlier this week. Meanwhile, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., skirted the issue during his most recent weekly press conference. “I’m not following all the twists and turns of the charter jet. My understanding is it’s not a personal gift for the president of the United States, and other nations give us gifts all the time, but, I’m going to leave it to the administration. They know much more about the details,” Johnson told reporters. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately hear back.
Clinton-appointed federal judge blocks Trump admin from pulling foreign service workers’ bargaining rights
In a move that adds to an ever-growing stack of court interventions that have stymied the president’s second-term agenda, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from targeting foreign service workers’ collective bargaining rights amid an ongoing challenge against an executive order. The American Foreign Service Association, a labor union for foreign service workers, lodged a legal challenge after President Donald Trump issued an executive order earlier this year that, according to a White House fact sheet, aimed to “end collective bargaining with Federal unions in” various government entities “with national security missions.” “Certain Federal unions have declared war on President Trump’s agenda,” the release asserted. “Protecting America’s national security is a core constitutional duty, and President Trump refuses to let union obstruction interfere with his efforts to protect Americans and our national interests.” Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — who was nominated by then-President Bill Clinton decades ago — issued the order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. TRUMP’S NEWEST EXECUTIVE ORDER MOVES TO END COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AT AGENCIES SAFEGUARDING NATIONAL SECURITY The order signed by Friedman states, in part, that Trump’s executive order “is unlawful as applied to the Defendants who are heads of agencies with employees represented by the Plaintiff.” “The effect of the Executive Order was substantial: it removed collective bargaining rights from approximately two-thirds of the federal workforce,” Friedman’s opinion declared, echoing verbatim a sentence included in an opinion Friedman issued last month in a similar case. In that case, which was brought by the National Treasury Employees Union, Friedman also targeted Trump’s executive order and granted a motion for a preliminary injunction. JUDGE TEMPORARILY BLOCKS TRUMP ORDER ENDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS FOR MOST FEDERAL WORKERS American Foreign Service Association President Tom Yazdgerdi called the ruling “a significant victory—not just for our members, but for the integrity of the Foreign Service and for the accountability and transparency of our member agencies,” according to a press release issued by the union. “President Trump eliminated collective bargaining agreements that risk national security interests. He will always prioritize public safety for the American people,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement the White House provided to Fox News Digital on Thursday. JUDGE UPHOLDS TRUMP’S AUTHORITY TO DEPORT CRIMINAL MIGRANTS UNDER ALIEN ENEMIES ACT Fox News Digital also reached out to the Justice Department for comment, but they did not immediately respond.
Newark mayor arrested at ICE facility claims he was ‘targeted’ after court hearing
Ras Baraka, the Democratic mayor of Newark, New Jersey, and a candidate for governor, appeared in federal court Thursday for a status conference after being arrested at an ICE facility last week on a trespassing charge. “We believe that I was targeted in this,” Baraka told reporters after his court date that discussed the charge against him after he was arrested at the Delaney Hall facility last week. “I was the only person arrested. That’s right. You know, I was the only person identified. I was the only person, you know, they put in a cell. You know, the only person, I think that was in cuffs to the whole process that’s here this morning, going through this humiliation for these people.” In court, Baraka’s defense team contested his arrest and declined to take a plea deal while arguing that the government has not provided enough evidence to prove that he was lawfully arrested. WATCH: NEWARK MAYOR COMPARES SELF TO BIBLICAL HERO IN WAKE OF ICE PROTEST ARREST: ‘THIS IS OUR DAVID MOMENT’ The defense had been hoping to go to trial by late July, but the judge said there may be aggressive discovery and time is needed to set a trial schedule. Both the prosecution and defense will submit a schedule for the court’s consideration and no next date has been set. The defense requested all exculpatory evidence be provided by May 19 and discovery by May 22, which both parties agreed to. The trespassing charge against Baraka, a class C misdemeanor, has a statutory maximum sentence of 30 days in prison. Dozens of protesters gathered outside the federal court building where several activists railed against the arrest of Baraka during a protest at Delaney Hall attended by three members of Congress, who said they were in attendance to perform their congressionally-mandated oversight duties related to federal detention facilities. “Newark has become an epicenter for ICE’s terror and overreach,” Viri Martinez, manager of member empowerment at New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, told the crowd outside the court. AGITATORS CLASH WITH POLICE, ARRESTS MADE AS CLERGY MEMBERS DESCEND ON NEWARK ICE FACILITY “They tried their best to humiliate me and degrade me, you know, as much as they possibly can,” Baraka said after the court proceeding, explaining that he was fingerprinted and his mug shot was taken in the basement of the court. “But, I still feel. I still I feel like what we did was completely correct. Yes. We did not violate any laws. We stood up for the Constitution of this country, the Constitution, the state of New Jersey. And we stood up for the local laws, that were put together by the people of this city. And by the people of this state.” The three congressional lawmakers and Baraka were outside the ICE facility last week with a group of protesters when the gates opened to allow an ICE bus in. All four officials then allegedly rushed through the gates and past security, according to officials from the Department of Homeland Security. The arrest came as activists had been calling for access to the facility for days, which is a privately run facility that was revamped as an immigration detention facility this year. “The Mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center in Newark, New Jersey this afternoon,” U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba, who was present at the courtroom on Thursday, posted on social media after Baraka’s arrest. Protesters could be heard shouting “Shame, shame, shame” at Habba as she entered the courtroom. House Republicans are warning that consequences are in store for the three Democratic members of Congress who accompanied Baraka at the protest. “Look, there’s three possible disciplinary actions in Congress that the House can take,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters at his weekly press conference Wednesday regarding Reps. Robert Menendez, LaMonica McIver and Bonnie Watson Coleman. Fox News Digital’s Sandy Ibrahim contributed to this report
Justice Kagan snaps at Trump lawyer in major case: ‘Every court has ruled against you’
Justice Elena Kagan grilled U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer on the practicalities of ending universal injunctions on Thursday, a major sticking point in a highly watched case centered on birthright citizenship and the power of lower courts to rule against the executive branch. Kagan pressed Sauer Thursday on the practicalities of ending universal injunctions and how the higher court should then be tasked with managing the flow of lower court challenges. She also noted that the Trump administration has been “losing uniformly” in lower court cases on the “substantive question” in dealing with birthright citizenship. SUPREME COURT TAKES ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: LIBERALS BALK AT TRUMP ARGUMENT TO END NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS “If I were in your shoes, there’s no way I’d approach the Court with this case!” Kagan quipped. After he attempted to answer, she responded that “This is not a hypothetical – this is happening out there.” “Every court is ruling against you.” Justices on the High Court agreed in April to hear the case, which centers on three lower courts that issued national injunctions earlier this year blocking President Donald Trump‘s executive order on birthright citizenship. The order reinterprets the 14th Amendment to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their mother is unlawfully present or temporarily in the country, and if their father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. Trump’s action remains on hold nationwide pending Supreme Court intervention. A Supreme Court decision here could have sweeping national implications, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump’s second presidency began on Jan. 20, 2025, according to a Fox News data analysis.
On the rise: New poll indicates Trump’s approval ratings are edging up
A new national poll released this week is one of the first to indicate a bump up in President Donald Trump‘s approval ratings after a steady edging down in the president’s numbers since he returned to office in January. Trump stands at 44% approval and 52% disapproval in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Monday and Tuesday (May 12-13). The president’s approval rating edged up two points – which is within the survey’s sampling error – from the previous Reuters/Ipsos national survey, which was in the field late last month. US-CHINA TRADE TRUCE IGNITES STOCK MARKETS Likely fueling the modest increase in the president’s overall approval rating is his performance on the economy. The new poll indicates 39% of adults nationwide give Trump a thumbs up on how he is handling the economy, up three points from last month. The new poll was conducted amid this week’s surge in the stock markets following a truce between the U.S. and China in their tariff standoff, and in the wake of last week’s signing of an initial trade deal with the United Kingdom – which is the first since Trump implemented massive tariffs on friends and foes across the globe six weeks ago. WHAT’S IN THE TRADE TRUCE WITH CHINA Trump’s blockbuster tariff announcement in early April sparked a trade war with some of the nation’s top trading partners and triggered a massive sell-off in the financial markets and increased concerns about a recession. However, as Trump has partially reversed course in recent weeks by easing back on his sharpest trade moves, public concerns about recession have also slightly eased, while still remaining at heightened levels. Sixty-nine percent questioned in the new poll said they were worried about a recession, down from 76% a month ago. Additionally, concerns about the stock market dropped seven points, to 60%. Veteran Republican strategist Colin Reed told Fox News that the president has “been very clear-eyed about the fact that you are going to have to break some eggs to make an omelet and his voters will give him the latitude to do so. “We’re still less than 150 days in, he’s got some time to make the hard calls that have to be made and still give the economic plane runway to take off ahead of the midterms, which is when all of these early decisions will be graded,” Reed added. WHERE TRUMP STANDS IN THE LATEST FOX NEWS POLL Most, but not all, of the most recent national public opinion surveys indicate Trump’s approval ratings in negative territory, which is a slide from the president’s poll position when he started his second tour of duty in the White House nearly four months ago. Trump stood at 44% approval and 55% disapproval in the most recent Fox News national poll, which was conducted April 18-21. An average of the latest national surveys puts the president’s approval rating underwater by around four points, but that is a slight improvement from late last month. The economy, and inflation in particular, were pressing issues that kept former President Joe Biden‘s approval ratings well below water for most of his presidency, and which greatly contributed to Trump’s White House victory last November. They were behind Trump’s slide in the polls so far this year. “Trump’s return to office did not begin as he and his supporters had hoped. Campaign promises about inflation and interest rates appeared deferred while the daily news coverage focused on the many distractions plaguing the White House,” longtime political scientist and analyst Wayne Lesperance noted. However, Lesperance, president of New England College, said that “signs of progress may be emerging. Possible trade deals with Britain, China, and India are providing hope that some good may come from his tariff strategy. Add to that a rebounding stock market and lower gas prices at the start of summer vacation season and the president may see some calming of public nervousness.”
Dems divided on Trump’s executive order aimed at slashing drug prices
President Donald Trump‘s executive order aimed at slashing U.S. drug prices has divided Democrats on Capitol Hill, with some cautiously optimistic while others dismissed the move as a bluster. Most Democratic lawmakers who spoke with Fox News Digital about the order noted they had not read into the details, but the reactions were mostly split. “It certainly seems more bark than it is bite,” Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the House Ways & Means Committee, told Fox News Digital. Neal said it “strikes me as though it’s another example of the executive order that garners a lot of attention” with little impact, though he noted he was still looking into the details. ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ COULD SPARK HOUSE GOP REBELLION Rep. George Latimer of New York, a first-term Democrat who unseated a former member of the progressive “Squad,” ex-Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., signaled he was hopeful about the initiative. “If we can keep drug costs low, that’s a positive thing,” Latimer said. “I don’t, you know, oppose everything the president does, things that help people lower costs. If that’s what this turns into, then yes, it’s a worthwhile idea. But I have to be honest, I’ve got to read it more closely to understand it better.” Trump announced Monday that he was directing the Department of Health and Human Services to set price targets for pharmaceutical companies. The president said the order would have pharmaceutical companies set drug prices on par with the lowest prices in other developed countries. He said, “some prescription drug and pharmaceutical prices will be reduced almost immediately by 50 to 80 to 90%.” Democratic Rep. Lou Correa, D-Calif., told Fox News Digital when asked about the order, “It’s always a good thing to reduce drug costs.” “I think it’s a move in the right direction, let’s just see the details,” Correa added. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, like Neal, told Fox News Digital he was more skeptical. “My feeling is that, like his…announcements during his first term, there’s much talk and no meaningful reduction of drug prices,” Doggett said. “It remains to be seen whether any patient in America will see a price reduced on a single drug as a result of this order. So, until I see action, I will not believe that he has truly committed to reducing prices.” House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., also said he did not believe Trump was “serious” when asked. “All of this is just a disingenuous effort…on the part of House Republicans and Donald Trump, to pretend like they were looking out for people,” Aguilar said. “If they were serious about it, the policy would be placed within their reconciliation bill. It’s not. This is just a performance effort by the president.” BROWN UNIVERSITY IN GOP CROSSHAIRS AFTER STUDENT’S DOGE-LIKE EMAIL KICKS OFF FRENZY Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a House bill to make Trump’s order permanent. “I rise today, to introduce as legislation, President Trump’s executive order for the most favored nation status on drug pricing,” Khanna said on the House floor. “My legislation will codify President Trump’s executive order, which basically says that Americans should not pay more for drugs than people in other countries and other parts of the world.” In an exclusive Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, Trump argued that his executive order should offset Democrats’ concerns with his “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill being pushed by Republicans. Democrats have accused Republicans of using the bill to gut critical programs like Medicaid for millions of people who need it, while the GOP has contended it was just trying to eliminate waste and abuse within the system. “It’s the Democrats’ fault that people are being ripped off for years and years. And now I hear Democrats saying, ‘Oh, well, we’re going to not go for the bill.’ It’s going to be very hard for them not to approve of the big, beautiful bill that we’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re doing the biggest tax cuts in the history of our country because people are going to be getting a 50 to a 90% reduction on drug prices.” Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for a response.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts reins in Sotomayor after repeated interruptions
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts reined in Justice Sonia Sotomayor during argument over birthright citizenship and nationwide court injunctions on Thursday. Sotomayor dominated questioning for several minutes at the outset of Thursday’s argument after taking over from Justice Clarence Thomas. She pressed U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer for President Donald Trump’s administration on several points relating to the authority for federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, often speaking over the lawyer and interrupting him. Sotomayor argued that Trump’s order invalidating birthright citizenship violated four Supreme Court precedents, and that it was justified for a federal judge to grant an injunction against such a controversial order. “You are claiming that not just the Supreme Court, that both the Supreme Court and no lower court, can stop an executive from universally violating holdings by this court,” Sotomayor said. 100 DAYS OF INJUNCTIONS, TRIALS AND ‘TEFLON DON’: TRUMP SECOND TERM MEETS ITS BIGGEST TESTS IN COURT “We are not claiming that because we’re conceding that there could be an appropriate case only in class only,” Sauer said. “But I hear that–,” Sotomayor said, beginning to interrupt Sauer. “Can I hear the rest of his answer?” Roberts then interjected. APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN’S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT Sauer then elaborated on his statement, saying the government is arguing that federal courts can intervene on behalf of specific plaintiffs before them, but not nationwide. He said the Supreme Court has the authority to grant nationwide injunctions in certain circumstances. Sauer used the bulk of his opening arguments Thursday to reiterate the Trump administration’s view that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, noting that the injunctions “transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority,” and “create a host of practical problems.” Universal injunctions “require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions,” he said. “They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere,” and “invert,” in the administration’s view, the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review. They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments.” A Supreme Court decision here could have sweeping national implications, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump’s second presidency began on Jan. 20, 2025, according to a Fox News data analysis. The consolidated cases before the court are Trump v. CASA, Trump v. the State of Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey. It’s unclear when the justices will rule, but their decision to fast-track the case means an opinion or order could come within weeks – or even days. Fox News’ Breanne Deppisch, Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.
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
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