The Purcell County, Illinois, Coroner’s Office says former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., «passed away at his home due to natural causes.»

The brief statement was posted on the coroner’s website early Monday morning.

Hastert was 84 and one of the most ignominious figures to serve in American politics.

He was the longest-serving Republican speaker in history, wielding the gavel from 1999 to 2007. But Hastert’s career featured one of the most disgraceful falls from grace, becoming the highest-ranking U.S. official to ever do jail time.

MONICA LEWINSKY RECALLS ‘VERY DARK MOMENTS’ AFTER SCANDAL, SURVIVING JUDGMENT BY ‘BILLIONS OF STRANGERS’

The scandal involving Hastert emerged years after he left Congress — but dates back to the 1960s and 1970s when he served as high school history teacher and wrestling coach in Illinois. Hastert admitted in 2015 that he sexually abused teenage students and athletes as young as 14 — long before he entered Congress in the mid-1980s.

Hastert was an accidental speaker.

He served as chief deputy whip in the Republican hierarchy in late 1998 when House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., decided to step aside. Gingrich was controversial. Some GOP members had knives out for him and believed Gingrich overplayed his hand pushing for impeachment of President Clinton. This, coupled with Republicans nearly losing control of the House in the 1998 midterms, set the table for Gingrich to step aside.

Republicans tapped then-Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to become Speaker in 1999.

But in late 1998, as the House voted to impeach Clinton, it came to light that Livingston had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist. Hours before the House voted to approve two articles of impeachment for Clinton linked to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Livingston stepped aside and said he would not stand for speaker in the new year.

By nightfall, Republicans picked Hastert, a backbencher, to serve as speaker in 1999.

Hastert was criticized in late 2006 for not moving more aggressively to protect teenage House pages after it was discovered that then-Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., sent inappropriate text messages to the pages. The scandal led to the end of the House page program, which dates back to the beginning of the republic.

Hastert lost the speakership when Democrats seized control of the House in the 2006 midterms. Hastert did not serve in the GOP leadership in early 2007 and resigned from office later that year.

FMR DEM REP BARNEY FRANK, SHARP-TONGUED LIBERAL TRAILBLAZER AND DODD-FRANK CO-AUTHOR, DIES

Hastert was often quiet and shunned interviews and the press.

Known as «Coach» to fellow lawmakers because of his wrestling background, Hastert often proclaimed that he was more of a «listener» than a «speaker.»

But Hastert’s career took a dark turn in 2015.

US OLYMPIC HERO NANCY HOGSHEAD WINS LEGAL BATTLE AFTER VOLLEYBALL COACH’S $250M DEFAMATION SUIT IS DISMISSED

Federal banking regulators flagged Hastert’s curious withdrawals of staggering amounts of cash at peculiar intervals. Banking regulators suspected the transactions signaled that someone may be blackmailing the former Speaker.

But that’s how it came to light that Hastert was actually paying millions of dollars in hush money to the family of a student he abused in the 1970s.

Hastert admitted to sexually abusing students decades before at his trial for illegal bank transactions, saying he «mistreated athletes» and «took advantage of him.» The judge in the case called the former speaker «a serial child molester.»

Hastert served 13 of 15 months of his federal sentence for banking crimes at a facility in Rochester, Minn. However, Hastert never faced legal ramifications for sexual conduct.

Hastert is also known for the «Hastert Rule.» When Hastert served as speaker, he would not bring a piece of legislation to the floor unless it had the support of a majority of House Republicans. House GOPers continued to use that standard for bills for many years after Hastert left office.

But that terminology fell out of favor after Hastert was convicted and information about his past became public.

politics, congress, house of representatives politics, illinois, house of representatives

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The flydubai co-pilot accused of attacking his captain in an attempted terrorist act aboard an Israel-bound passenger jet allegedly planned to crash the aircraft into Ben Gurion Airport, according to new reports on the investigation.

Advertisement

Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 reported that Hamam al-Hammami told investigators he intended to continue flydubai Flight FZ1073 toward Israel as though nothing was wrong, obtain the necessary clearances to approach Ben Gurion Airport and then crash the aircraft into a building or another plane at the airport.

The information reportedly came from investigations by Saudi and Emirati authorities into the incident. Israeli investigators have not questioned al-Hammami directly, according to reporting from Channel 12 and Ynet.

FLYDUBAI CO-PILOT ACCUSED OF COCKPIT ATTACK WAS GROUNDED BY OMAN AIR BEFORE JOINING AIRLINE: REPORT

Advertisement

Israeli passenger Haim Lazarovich, who experienced an emergency landing in Saudi Arabia, during a flight on FlyDubai plane, arrives at Ben Gurion International Airport, near Tel Aviv, Israel, Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2026. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

Fox News Digital reached out to the UAE Public Prosecution and flydubai seeking confirmation of the reported findings.

Reuters separately reported Monday that a source briefed on the UAE investigation said the Omani co-pilot had planned to crash the flight into Ben Gurion Airport. Two Israeli officials with knowledge of the investigation also told Reuters that al-Hammami said during questioning that he had planned the attack before he was hired by flydubai.

Advertisement

Captain Smit Machchhar, the Indian pilot who allegedly was attacked on a FlyDubai plane heading to Israel on Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2026. (Israel Foreign Ministry)

The latest details follow last week’s dramatic incident aboard Flight FZ1073, which was traveling from Dubai to Tel Aviv when the co-pilot allegedly attacked the captain inside the cockpit.

NETANYAHU PRAISES HEROIC BYSTANDER IN BLOODY COCKPIT ATTACK FOR PREVENTING ‘ANOTHER 9/11’

UAE Attorney General Hamad Saif Al Shamsi said investigators determined that the co-pilot attempted to carry out a terrorist act by attacking the captain with a crash axe and attempting to take control of the aircraft.

Advertisement

A FlyDubai aircraft carrying Israelis who experienced an emergency landing in Saudi Arabia is seen parked at Ben Gurion International Airport, near Tel Aviv, Israel, Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2026. (Ariel Schalit/AP)

Passengers and others aboard the flight ultimately intervened, and the aircraft was diverted to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, where it landed safely.

Al Shamsi has said the UAE investigation remains underway to determine the full circumstances and motives behind the attack, as well as any potential links to others.

The UAE Public Prosecution has said the final results of the investigation will be announced after the necessary investigative procedures are completed.

Advertisement

Bradford Betz is a Fox News Digital breaking reporter covering crime, political issues, and much more. 

world, terrorism, airlines, saudi arabia, middle east, airports

The Supreme Court opens its new term Monday with cases that could reshape religious liberty, gun rights, immigration and the balance between state and federal authority.

While the last term was dominated by major cases testing presidential power — including Trump’s authority to restrict birthright citizenship, impose tariffs and fire independent agency officials — many of the court’s marquee cases this term span a wide range of issues, including federalism and individual rights.

«There’s a couple of religious freedom cases,» Carrie Severino, president of JCN, told Digital. «We have a couple cases that touch on state and federal preemption, but I’m not sure there’s an easy theme for all of them.»

The blockbuster case this term is Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, and it centers on whether Colorado officials can use state tort law to seek damages from oil giants Suncor and ExxonMobil for climate-related harms, or whether federal law blocks those claims.

SUPREME COURT CLIMATE SHOWDOWN JOLTED BY ALITO’S LAST-MINUTE DECISION

«If Colorado actually succeeds on its nuisance claims and others against these companies, the upshot would not just be these companies changing what they do in a way to protect Colorado or remedy Colorado, but rather it would affect their operations far outside of the state,» Adam White, senior fellow at American Enterprise Institute shared during a Federalist Society Panel. «And the question is, can Colorado courts reach outside of their own state and try in effect to regulate?»

Suncor and ExxonMobil argue that the Clean Air Act gives the federal government authority over interstate and international emissions, leaving Colorado unable to hold them liable for conduct outside the state. But the state argues that it is seeking damages under state law and that the Clean Air Act preserves states’ authority to enforce their own laws.

The Supreme Court will decide whether federal law blocks Boulder’s climate lawsuit and whether the justices can hear the case.

Severino said the case is an effort by «climate lawfare activists» to regulate carbon emissions.

«If the court is viewing this as an effort to weaponize one jurisdictions law to really regulate outside its borders, then I think they’re going to be not very happy about this claim,» Severino said. «If the Court really views it as an attempt by Colorado to legislate worldwide actions of these energy companies, then I think they’re going to say this is actually something that fits within the federal government’s sphere of activity, not a single state.»

The case marks the first oral arguments heard before the high court.

An Arizona election integrity measure is at the center of another Supreme Court case testing the balance of power between states and the federal government over how elections are run.

THESE 11 UPCOMING SUPREME COURT DECISIONS COULD MAKE OR BREAK TRUMP’S SECOND TERM AGENDA

Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota stems from an Arizona law requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for certain voter registrations. Voters who register without that documentation may qualify as «federal-only» voters, allowing them to vote in federal elections but not state and local races. The law also allows the state to purge noncitizens off voter rolls close to an election. The dispute centers on whether the National Voter Registration Act prevents Arizona from imposing additional requirements on voters.

The Supreme Court will also hear major cases involving gun rights and religious liberty and will determine how far states can go in limiting those freedoms.

Colorado is up to bat twice before the Supreme Court this term, with St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy testing whether the state can exclude Catholic preschools from its universal preschool program because of religious policies barring same-sex couples and LGBT students from attending the schools, which conflicts with the state’s nondiscrimination requirements.

Colorado provides funding to private preschools that participate in the program but requires them to follow state anti-discrimination rules covering sexual orientation and gender identity. The Catholic schools argue those rules clash with their religious beliefs and that they should not have to abandon their policies to receive the same funding available to other private schools.

«They don’t agree with the state on things like allowing children to use the opposite sex bathroom if they identify with the opposite sex, So this is something the Supreme Court has been very favorable to religious organizations of and for not allowing states to just cut them out of otherwise generally applicable state benefit programs,» Severino said.

EXCLUSIVE: SUPREME COURT PRAYER GROTTO CASE COULD IMPACT ‘EVERY SINGLE ZONING LAW’ IN AMERICA, ATTORNEY SAYS

But Amanda Shanor, an attorney who helped represent the gay couple who were denied a wedding cake before the Supreme Court, said during a Federalist Society Panel there is concern that the case could chip away at anti-discrimination protections by expanding when businesses and institutions can refuse to serve people based on their identity.

«The schools are not saying, like in the earlier cases — like Masterpiece Cake Shop or 303 Creative — that they want to not serve somebody because of the expression that it would express with regard to a particular event, but instead that they don’t want to have the kids or the families because of the status of the kids or the families,» Shanor said. «And will that then go spread over into other things, like will the bakery be able to say, ‘I don’t want to serve all X type of people?’»

Illinois and Connecticut have cases, with state laws restricting certain semiautomatic firearms facing challenges at the Supreme Court.

«This is important because the Supreme Court, for the first time following its landmark Bruin decision is going to be looking at how states or municipalities can limit particular types of weapons,» Severino said. «What the court said it’s going to look at is whether these are weapons that are in common use and have lawful purposes, and so this is the court’s opportunity to look at things like the popular AR-15 type rifle and decide is this something that qualifies as something that’s in common-use and therefore is protected by the Second Amendment.»

And while presidential power may not be a major theme this term, the Supreme Court will still weigh the limits of the Trump administration’s authority in a case involving its push to deport illegal immigrants to third-world countries they are not from, and that are not listed in their removal orders.

The case is not a direct test of presidential power, but instead centers on whether federal immigration law gives the administration the authority to carry out the policy.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear more than two dozen cases and still could pick up more.

supreme court, federal courts, states rights, colorado, arizona, first amendment religion us, first amendment elections, bill of rights