INTERNACIONAL
Supreme Court’s emergency docket delivers Trump string of wins as final tests loom
Supreme Court lifts limits on LA ICE raids
Acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli discusses the Supreme Court’s decision to lift restrictions on I.C.E. raids in Los Angeles on ‘America Reports.’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump has an almost flawless record on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket this year, a streak that has delivered crucial moments of relief to the government as it fights hundreds of lawsuits challenging the president’s agenda.
The Supreme Court has ruled in Trump’s favor on government cuts, nationwide injunctions, immigration policies and more, leading the White House to tout what it recently counted as 21 victories before the high court.
Those victories are, however, temporary. The upcoming term, which begins Monday, will allow the justices to begin weighing the full merits of some of these court disputes and ultimately cement or undo key parts of the Trump agenda.
Jonathan Adler, a William & Mary Law School professor, attributed the interim wins to the Supreme Court’s desire to narrow the judicial branch’s role in policymaking.
TRUMP’S CONTROVERSIAL PLAN TO FIRE FEDERAL WORKERS FINDS FAVOR WITH SUPREME COURT
President Donald Trump greets Chief Justice John G. Roberts as he arrives to deliver an address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Speaking during a Federalist Society panel this week, Adler said the high court’s thinking might be that «lower courts are doing too much. We’re going to scale that back because it’s not our place, and it’s for the executive branch and the legislative branch to figure that out.»
The Trump administration has only challenged about one-fifth of the adverse rulings it has received from the lower courts. Adler said Solicitor General John Sauer, who represents the government, is strategically selecting which cases to bring to the high court.
«If you go through them, setting Humphrey’s Executor stuff slightly to the side, what they all have in common is that there’s a kind of clear argument that … district courts were a little too aggressive here,» Adler said.
He acknowledged that some might have a different view, that the Trump administration has been «too muscular» and that court intervention is a necessary check.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TORPEDOES SCOTUS WITH EMERGENCY REQUESTS AND SEES SURPRISING SUCCESS
The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (Valerie Plesch/picture alliance via Getty Images)
The emergency docket, sometimes known as the shadow or interim docket, allows the Trump administration or plaintiffs to ask the Supreme Court to quickly intervene in lawsuits and temporarily pause lower court rulings. The process can take a couple of days, weeks or months, and is viewed as a much speedier, albeit temporary, way to secure court relief than when the high court fully considers the merits of a case, which can include a long briefing schedule and oral arguments.
The Supreme Court’s emergency docket this year has been extraordinarily active. Attorney Kannon Shanmugam, who has argued dozens of cases before the high court, said Trump’s high volume of executive actions is partly the reason for that.
«[An increase in emergency motions] coincides with the rise of executive orders and other forms of unilateral executive action really as the primary form of lawmaking in our country with the disappearance of Congress, and that has posed enormous challenges for the court,» Shanmugam said during the panel.
Through the emergency docket, the Supreme Court has greenlit Trump’s mass firings of career employees and high-profile terminations of Democratic appointees. It has curtailed nationwide injunctions and cleared the way for controversial deportations and immigration stops. The high court has said the government can, for now, withhold billions of dollars in foreign aid and discharge transgender service members from the military.
In other instances, parties on both sides have construed Supreme Court outcomes as wins.
In one such order, the Supreme Court said the Trump administration must attempt to return Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the government admitted in court to improperly deporting to a Salvadoran prison. But at the same time, the high court noted that district court judges must also be deferential to the executive branch’s authority over foreign policy.
Similarly, the high court said the administration must allow deportees under the Alien Enemies Act a reasonable chance to fight their removal through habeas corpus petitions. The justices have not yet weighed in on the merits of Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, one of his most aggressive deportation tactics, which the president employed to swiftly remove alleged Tren de Aragua members.
KAVANAUGH CITES 3 PRESIDENTS IN EXPLAINING SUPREME COURT’S BALLOONING EMERGENCY DOCKET
Kilmar Abrego Garcia and his wife, Jennifer, speak to supporters outside of an ICE Field Office in Baltimore. (Fox News Digital/Breanne Deppisch)
Conservative lawyer Carrie Severino, president of the legal watchdog JCN, told Fox News Digital one criterion the Supreme Court considers when making fast decisions is whether parties are at risk of irreparable harm.
As an example, Severino pointed to the Supreme Court recently allowing Trump to fire Biden-appointed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a case that the high court is now using as a vehicle to revisit in the coming months the 90-year precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
Severino said, «If one assumes, ‘Okay, if Trump’s right,’ then this is a serious burden on the government to have a good chunk of their four years being taken up with not being able to actually staff the government as they want to. If Trump’s wrong, then Commissioner Slaughter should have been in that position, and they can remedy that by providing her back pay.»
«When you’re balancing those types of harms, this is the kind of case where the government’s going to have a leg up,» Severino said.
In a small defeat for Trump on Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to allow the president to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and instead said it would hear her case in January. The move was a deviation from the court’s typical posture and underscored its unique view on the Federal Reserve compared with other agencies.
The Supreme Court’s majority has often split along ideological lines and offered little reason for its emergency decisions. This differs from final orders from the court, which can be lengthy and include numerous concurring opinions and dissents.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Attorney Benjamin Mizer, who served as a top DOJ official during the Biden administration, cautioned during the panel that the Supreme Court could reverse its shadow docket positions down the road.
«As cases reach the court on the merits, we shouldn’t presume that the administration will win them all,» Mizer said.
supreme court,donald trump,judiciary,politics,law
INTERNACIONAL
Nebraska Senate candidate restructures campaign after complaint over payments to family: report
Democrats unveil new 2028 election playbook
After 2024 losses, Democrats unveil a 2028 playbook focused on voter connection, progressive policies and wealth taxes. Bernie Sanders senior advisor Faiz Shakir and Fox News contributor Karl Rove debate the agenda’s viability for future elections.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
U.S. Senate candidate in Nebraska Dan Osborn is reportedly restructuring his campaign following complaints he has been improperly steering funds for personal use to his relatives, including his wife, who, a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleges, received funds illegally via the Osborn campaign, a web of political action committees and consulting firms.
While paying family members is not illegal under federal election law, there are certain guidelines that must be followed, including that the services rendered are bona fide campaign services, and that they are paid at fair-market value. Fox News Digital reported last month that conservative watchdog Americans for Public Trust filed a complaint with federal election officials alleging the Osborn campaign and two political action committees were engaging in an illegal «scheme» to pay nearly half-a-dozen of his relatives.
Osborn’s wife was among the relatives at the center of the complaint, having been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from her husband’s campaigns and his affiliated PACs, both directly and via two political consulting firms she was working for, or had an ownership stake in, according to the complaint. But, on Thursday, Osborn and his wife informed the Omaha-World Herald that she would be stepping away from her roles with the two consulting firms and would be joining her husband’s campaign as its full-time operations manager.
U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn speaks during his campaign stop at Sly’s Family Bar and Grill in Neligh, Neb. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMPLAINT ALLEGES AOC MISUSED CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR PSYCHIATRIST SERVICES
«I am not going to let Pete and his cronies dictate who runs my campaign,» Osborn told the Omaha-World Herald. «No one works harder than my wife. Along with running our household and raising our kids, she has been instrumental in running my campaign.»
In a statement to Fox News Digital, campaign spokesperson John Dolan called the concerns about Osborn’s campaign spending «a joke.»
«Why is a billionaire like Pete Ricketts so afraid of a mechanic?» Dolan questioned, referring to incumbent GOP Nebraska Sen. Pete Ricketts, whom Osborn is challenging. «Ricketts and his allies are doing what they always do: throwing mud to distract voters from the fact that they’re getting rich while bankrupting the country.»
Osborn has been steadfast that his wife, reportedly a former bar manager, has been an instrumental part of his campaign and that payments have been in line with fair-market value rates. In some cases, Megan has gotten money directly from her husband’s campaign, and in other cases she has received it from two firms, one called Independent Campaigns LLC, which Megan has a one-third ownership stake in, and Dark Forest LLC, which official candidate disclosures show Megan gets compensation from. The firms were being paid for campaign services as well.
Just two days after Independent Campaigns was set up, Osborn’s Working Class Heroes Fund (WCHF) made its first $50,000 payment to the firm, according to the Lincoln-Journal Star. Per Americans for Public Trust’s FEC complaint, Independent Campaigns has received nearly $200,000 from Osborn’s principal campaign, WCHF and another PAC called the League of Labor Voters (LLV), which Americans for Public Trust also alleges is controlled by Osborn.
In total, per the Americans for Public Trust complaint letter, Osborn’s wife has been able to rake in close to $300,000 for herself for things like «strategy consulting» and work reimbursements.
OMAR CALLS GOP PROBE INTO HUSBAND’S $30M BUSINESS SURGE A ‘POLITICAL STUNT’ AS RECORDS DEADLINE PASSES
Meanwhile, the complaint against Osborn’s campaign also includes payments made to two of Osborn’s sisters-in-law, his brother-in-law and his daughter.
Placards for U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn are seen as he speaks during his campaign stop at the Handlebend coffee shop in O’Neill, Neb. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Osborn’s daughter, Georgia, a part-time dancer who Osborn says still needs help paying her bills, was given $4,200 from Osborn’s first failed campaign that was defunct at the time. The payment came between when Osborn’s first 2024 campaign lost and before launching his 2026 bid. The money was for «assistant services» from the then-dormant campaign.
«Perhaps the Osborn family is teeming with previously undiscovered, dynastic political talent, akin to the Kennedys or Roosevelts,» states the Americans for Public Trust complaint to the FEC. «Or perhaps Mr. Osborn has realized his ability to funnel large amounts of unchecked campaign cash to his own family.»
Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn chats with attendees after speaking during his campaign stop at the Handlebend coffee shop in O’Neill, Neb., on Oct. 14, 2024. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
According to the Omaha-World Herald, Osborn’s wife will not only no longer be working for the consulting firms she was with previously, but would also be divesting her stake in Independent Campaigns. The outlet also reported that Osborn and his wife indicated she would be paid a salary of $8,000 per month, which is slightly lower than the $9,000 per month that Osborn said his wife was making from multiple income sources prior to beginning work with her husband’s first failed campaign in 2024.
«Dan Osborn only restructured how he pays his wife after we filed a complaint with the FEC that he was running afoul of campaign finance laws,» Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, told Fox News Digital on Friday. «However, questions still remain regarding his payments to his daughter, his brother-in-law, and two sisters-in-law, and his control over two federal PACs. Rest assured, Osborn may have changed tactics, but he isn’t off the hook in his attempt to funnel campaign cash to his entire family.»
Osborn, who is running as an Independent, has also been criticized for his affiliations with Democrats despite committing to not caucusing with either major party if elected. Osborn is looking to unseat incumbent Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., after losing his 2024 challenge against Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.
elections, banking finance, nebraska, midterm elections, politics, elections disputes
INTERNACIONAL
Estados Unidos duplicó a USD 40.000 millones su reaseguro para buques en el estrecho de Ormuz
Estados Unidos duplicará, hasta alcanzar los 40.000 millones de dólares, su compromiso de proporcionar garantías de reaseguro a los buques que transiten por el estrecho de Ormuz, con la incorporación de nuevos socios aseguradores, entre ellos AIG y Berkshire Hathaway.
Esta medida, anunciada el viernes, representa el último esfuerzo estadounidense por aliviar la preocupación por esta vía marítima vital y fomentar la reanudación del tráfico, a pesar del bloqueo iraní y la persistencia de las hostilidades en la guerra que ya dura cinco semanas.
La Corporación Financiera de Desarrollo Internacional de Estados Unidos (DFC) anunció el mes pasado un programa de reaseguro de 20.000 millones de dólares. El viernes, la agencia informó que Travelers, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Berkshire Hathaway, AIG, Starr y CNA se unirán a Chubb para aportar 20.000 millones de dólares adicionales en reaseguro para su programa marítimo.
El anuncio del viernes constituye la primera información relevante que la DFC ha revelado públicamente sobre su programa de reaseguro desde la creación del proyecto hace casi un mes. El cierre efectivo del estrecho, por donde normalmente transita aproximadamente una quinta parte del flujo mundial de petróleo y gas natural licuado, ha convulsionado los mercados y desencadenado una amplia crisis energética.
“Junto con Chubb, estas aseguradoras estadounidenses líderes aportan una amplia experiencia en la suscripción de pólizas marítimas y de guerra marítima, lo que fortalece nuestros esfuerzos para ayudar a restablecer la confianza en el comercio marítimo”, declaró Ben Black, director ejecutivo de la DFC, en un comunicado.
El viernes, Trump reiteró su frustración por el cierre del estrecho y la falta de apoyo de sus aliados para reabrir la vía marítima.
“Con un poco más de tiempo, podemos abrir fácilmente el estrecho de Ormuz, extraer el petróleo y hacernos ricos”, publicó Trump en redes sociales. No quedó claro de inmediato qué medidas estaba considerando el presidente.
Sin embargo, las navieras siguen mostrándose escépticas ante un regreso generalizado al estrecho de Ormuz, incluso después de la promesa de Trump de proteger a los buques y su discurso del miércoles en horario estelar, en el que reiteró que la guerra pronto terminará. La principal preocupación sobre el tránsito por esta ruta marítima es que pone en riesgo la vida de las tripulaciones, ya que Irán continúa amenazando a los buques con ataques de drones, misiles y minas acuáticas.
La DFC también indicó en el comunicado que la agencia y sus socios aseguradores determinarán qué buques son elegibles para el programa de reaseguro. Para calificar, la DFC exige a los solicitantes que proporcionen, entre otros datos, el país de origen y destino del buque; los principales beneficiarios finales del buque y su domicilio; el propietario de la carga y su domicilio; e información sobre las entidades financieras que financian los buques.
Recuperar la confianza de los transportistas dispuestos a transitar por el Estrecho de Ormuz es uno de los objetivos más urgentes de Estados Unidos. Los precios mundiales de la energía han aumentado debido a la escasez de una línea de suministro de petróleo esencial para los países. India, el tercer mayor consumidor de petróleo del mundo y un importante comprador de gas, se ha visto particularmente afectada por la crisis.
En Estados Unidos, los precios de la gasolina han superado los 4 dólares por galón por primera vez desde 2022, lo que agrava aún más la situación de los consumidores estadounidenses, que ya enfrentan dificultades económicas.
Si bien duplicar el compromiso de reaseguro amplía las garantías financieras, el programa aún carece de la promesa de escoltas navales que, en teoría, brindarían protección a las tripulaciones de los buques. E incluso así, podría no ser suficiente para convencer a los buques de reanudar las expediciones a través del estrecho.
“Las primas de los seguros bajarán —y la disposición de los operadores comerciales a asegurar y enviar cargamentos a través del estrecho aumentará— solo después de que se debiliten las capacidades militares de Irán», declaró Bob McNally, presidente de Rapidan Energy Group, una consultora con sede en Washington, a Bloomberg News a principios de esta semana.
(Bloomberg)
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Attorneys in Colorado are claiming that the state’s court e-file system is requiring them to certify they won’t share personal information to assist ICE or federal immigration enforcement.
Multiple attorneys on X reported an electronic notification citing the Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status Act, a state law passed in 2025 that prohibits collection or disclosure of information pertaining to immigration status in health care, education and government.
Covenant Law founder Ian Speir posted screenshots of an alleged electronic form that he was required to accept to access Colorado’s court filing system.
BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE
The page in question is not public-facing and appeared to be only accessible by attorneys registered in Colorado, Fox News Digital’s review of the website revealed.
«I certify under penalty of perjury that I will not use or disclose personal identifying information, as defined by [the act] obtained from this database for the purpose of investigating for, participating in, cooperating with, or assisting in federal immigration enforcement, including enforcement of civil immigration laws and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325 or 1326, unless required by federal or state law or to comply with a court-issued subpoena, warrant, or order,» the message says, asking attorneys to «accept» or «decline.»
MINNESOTA SUES TRUMP ADMIN OVER SWEEPING IMMIGRATION RAIDS IN TWIN CITIES
«Colorado is now requiring lawyers in the state, as a condition of logging into its court e-filing system, to promise not to cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing federal immigration law,» Speir said in response on X.
Speir added he doesn’t practice immigration nor criminal law, and nothing in his cases would be relevant to the law. But he «cannot log into the state’s official e-filing system without saluting ‘The Resistance’.»
DHS TORCHES NEW JERSEY’S PROFANE ‘F— ICE ACT’ AS ASSAULTS ON AGENTS SKYROCKET 1,300%
«I now cannot represent my clients, file lawsuits, access cases, file documents in existing cases,» he said, adding he chose the «accept» option «under protest.»
«The bottom line here is that Colorado seems to be unlawfully coopting private attorneys across the state to further its anti-federal sanctuary policies,» Speir told Fox News Digital later Friday.
Attorney and former law professor Matt Barber added on X that the oath the state expects lawyers to take is «indefensible.»
The announcement Barber received said the the Colorado Judicial Department deployed an «updated certification process» as of March 30 to comply with the new law.
TRUMP ADMIN SUES ILLINOIS GOV. PRITZKER OVER LAWS SHIELDING MIGRANTS FROM COURTHOUSE ARRESTS
Department of Homeland Security police officers patrol around the Edward Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles. (Frederic Brown/Getty Images)
The original implementation was paused in September amid «additional review,» the agency said in its notice.
«The majority of CCE information remains public; this requirement only impacts access to nonpublic personal identifying information as defined by statute,» the agency said in its new terms, adding that attorneys who choose to decline the agreement must complete a «brief certification» to proceed.
«Democrats going back to their Confederacy roots,» another critic quipped, citing a screenshot of the 1956 law outlining «seditious conspiracy» as opposing federal authority by force or «hinder[ing] … execution of any law of the United States.»
Fox News contributor Guy Benson added, «Big lawsuits: Now.»
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital reached out to the Colorado Judicial Department, Gov. Jared Polis and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for comment.
The 2025 law, authored by Sen. Julie Gonzales, D-Denver, and Sen. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora, also prevents civil arrests of people present at courthouses and «military force[s]» from other states from entering Colorado without executive permission unless acting upon federal orders.
And it repeals requirements that applicants for college admission or driver’s licenses must sign an form pledging they’ve applied for lawful presence in the U.S.
immigration, immigrant rights, law, colorado, justice department
Nebraska Senate candidate restructures campaign after complaint over payments to family: report
Una figura del fútbol argentino desafió al Dibu Martínez y el arquero de la Selección le respondió: “Después te mando”
Con un comunicado, la embajada de Rusia rechazó la acusación sobre una presunta campaña de desprestigio contra Milei
Jimena Barón mostró el susto que sufrió en el campo al querer recolectar huevos de gallina: “Me atacan”
Carrefour, Jumbo y ChangoMás liquidan camperas desde $6.000 con hasta 50% de descuento
Sandra Pettovello echó a su jefe de gabinete, Leandro Massaccesi
Dos jubiladas que le habrían prestado dinero a Manuel Adorni negaron conocerlo
El Gobierno reevalúa la estrategia de comunicación por el caso Adorni y mide el impacto en la imagen de Milei
Milei se pone al frente de la defensa de Adorni y lo suma a un acto por Malvinas en una nueva muestra de respaldo
Oriana Sabatini sorprendió al elegir a una famosa como madrina de Gia, su hija con Paulo Dybala
POLITICA3 días agoEl Gobierno reevalúa la estrategia de comunicación por el caso Adorni y mide el impacto en la imagen de Milei
- POLITICA2 días ago
Milei se pone al frente de la defensa de Adorni y lo suma a un acto por Malvinas en una nueva muestra de respaldo
- CHIMENTOS1 día ago
Oriana Sabatini sorprendió al elegir a una famosa como madrina de Gia, su hija con Paulo Dybala
