Latest Judiciary News | Fox News

WATCH: Soros prosecutor’s hearing devolves into angry chaos over illegal immigrant rape case: 'Be quiet!'

Fri, 15 May 2026 13:20:50 -0400

A House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing devolved into chaos Thursday as a North Carolina lawmaker demanded Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Stephen Descano "be quiet" while the prosecutor was reamed out over cases including the alleged rape of a 4-year-old girl by an illegal Guatemalan national.

Descano and Sheriff Stacey Ann Kincaid, a fellow Democrat accused of lax enforcement involving illegal immigrant suspects, sparred with lawmakers during the hearing as many invoked the prosecutor’s written policy and campaign pledge to account for immigration-related "consequences" in prosecutorial discretion decisions.

Descano, however, objected to characterizations of the policy from Rep. Brad Knott, R-N.C., and later Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, who both lit into the Soros-backed attorney in charge of prosecuting crimes in Virginia’s largest municipality.

Knott asked Descano if he believes he prosecutes cases in a way that defends the people of Fairfax and erupted at the attorney when he answered in the affirmative.

HOUSE PANEL SUMMONS SOROS-BACKED FAIRFAX PROSECUTOR OVER RELEASES TIED TO VIOLENT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CASES

"When we prosecute… we are constrained by the evidence. We're constrained by the law. And I will tell you, Congressman, you know, I think what is happening here with the number of cases that we're talking about --," Descano began before Knott became angry.

Knott recounted the case of Honduran national Hyrum Baquedano-Rodriguez – who was "caught-and-released" by an immigration judge in Eloy, Arizona, during the Biden administration – and who was later accused in a graphic case involving the 4-year-old Annandale girl.

Knott noted how the girl’s mother woke up to the child screaming and appearing bruised on her buttocks and torso as the suspect "dropped" the girl and fled in what the lawmaker characterized as a potential attempted abduction.

FAMILY DEMANDS FAR-LEFT PROSECUTOR BE OUSTED FROM OFFICE AFTER SISTER KILLED BY REPEAT OFFENDER

Knott said Fairfax County Police obtained a warrant based on evidence of attempted murder, rape, robbery or arson, which he said carries a maximum penalty of 20 years, while intent to defile a youth carried a maximum life sentence.

"Once it was handed over to your office, inexplicably so, you immediately reduced the burglary offense to a misdemeanor, which capped the sentence at 12 months. You then reduced the abduction charge to an offense that was a lower degree and capped the sentence at 10 years."

"A disgusting, perverted individual preying on children that you dismissed the case — As the father of two young girls. One of them's five. That is as shameful as anything I have seen," Knott said as Descano became angry as well:

"Please don't talk to me like I don't care about people in my community," he said, before Knott responded, calling him a "coward."

Knott, himself a former Raleigh-area prosecutor, lit into Descano over the added fact that a "liberal" judge appointed by then-Gov. Mark Warner — now a top Democratic senator — rejected Descano’s plea deal.

"This was not a right-wing judge," Knott fumed as Descano attempted multiple times to interject while tensions rose.

"Overwhelming evidence," Knott said — "Can we talk about the evidence — I know it and you don’t," Descano cut in.

"Quit talking!" Knott hollered. "He yanked a four-year-old girl out of her bed with the intent to harm her. And you wanted to give her a cap of two years?"

"Sir," Descano attempted.

GUATEMALAN MAN CHARGED WITH CHILD PORN POSSESSION RELEASED BY FAIRFAX COUNTY DESPITE ICE DETAINER, DHS SAYS

"[Let] me ask Mr. Miyares about this," Knott said as he turned to the former Virginia Republican attorney general seated to Descano’s right, while Descano continued trying to plead his case to the Carolinian.

"Be quiet!" Knott said as he asked Miyares what happens to a suspect after a case dismissal. "He walks free," Miyares said.

Things did not improve for the Fairfax Democrat when Chairman Thomas McClintock, R-Calif., gave Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, the floor next – as Gill lit into Descano over a written policy that "prosecutors shall consider the collateral immigration consequences of the specific crimes the defendant is charged with and the detrimental impact the deportation removal has on the families and communities."

Originally, Descano defended against critiques by saying an earlier reference to the policy was part of a campaign pledge, while Gill pressed him further on the issue.

Gill asked about the case of Guatemalan national Jose Cortez-Mendez, accused of "carnal knowledge" of a teenager, which Descano said essentially meant sexual contact under Virginia terminology.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"[A]n illegal alien who raped an underage American: Your office reduced those charges to a misdemeanor charge of consensual sex with a child 15 years and older. You offered him a 90-day suspended jail sentence, is that correct?"

"How did you weigh the defendant’s immigration status," Gill added, with Descano replying that he was not the lead prosecutor in that case – which the lawmaker noted meant his office still was involved.

In the case of Baquedano-Rodriguez, ICE Washington Field Office Removal Operations Director Russell Hott said his agency was eventually able to arrest the suspect after Descano’s failed case resulted in his release.

"Every one of his convictions represents another one of our neighbors that Baquedano-Rodriguez has victimized. ICE Washington, D.C. will continue to prioritize public safety by arresting and removing criminal alien offenders from our Washington, D.C. and Virginia communities," Hott said in a statement.

Fetterman weighs in after PA Supreme Court justice apparently splits from Democratic Party over antisemitism

Tue, 12 May 2026 11:47:53 -0400

After a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice appeared to indicate that he had ditched the Democratic Party, declaring in a statement that he is "no longer registered within any political party," U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., noted that he understood the man's decision.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice David Wecht, who ran as a Democrat when he was elected in 2015, indicated that the Democratic Party has an issue with antisemitism.

"From 1998 to 2001, years that preceded my judicial career, I served as Vice-Chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. In the quarter century that has passed since then, the Democratic Party has changed. Nazi tattoos, jihadist chants, intimidation and attacks at synagogues, and other hateful anti-Jewish invective and actions are minimized, ignored, and even coddled. Acquiescence to Jew-hatred is now disturbingly common among activists, leaders and even many elected officials in the Democratic Party," he asserted in part of his statement, which Fox News Digital obtained.

DEMOCRATS KEEP PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT CONTROL AFTER 3 JUSTICES WIN RETENTION RACES

"I can no longer abide this. So, I won’t. I am no longer registered within any political party," Wecht declared in the statement. "It is my hope that Pennsylvanians, and Americans, of all viewpoints and backgrounds will oppose and resist the scourge of Jew-hatred before it undermines what our ancestors have built here."

The justice, who began serving on the state's high court in 2016, was retained in a 2025 election.

FETTERMAN SAYS DEMOCRATS HAVE BECOME 'ANTI-MEN,' WARNS OF YOUNG MALE VOTER EXODUS

Fox News Digital reached out to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party for comment.

"I know David and his legendary father, Cyril. As I’ve affirmed, I’m not changing my party — but I fully understand David’s personal choice," Fetterman wrote in a post on X.

FETTERMAN RIPS DEMS FOR HATING ANYTHING TRUMP DOES, SAYS PARTY CAN'T RESIST WORST IMPULSES

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"The Democratic Party must confront its own rising antisemitism problem," he added.

Alabama's congressional map hinges on US Supreme Court

Mon, 11 May 2026 10:23:45 -0400

Alabama's Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation Friday that would demand the governor call special primary elections for impacted U.S. House districts if the Supreme Court allows the state to utilize district lines its legislature approved in 2023 but has been blocked from using.

The governor also signed similar legislation pertaining to state Senate districts approved in 2021.

"With this special session successfully behind us, Alabama now stands ready to quickly act, should the courts issue favorable rulings in our ongoing redistricting cases," Ivey said in a statement. "I thank the Legislature for answering my call to address the issue in fast order. I am grateful to Speaker Ledbetter and Pro Tem Gudger for their strong leadership and focus this week. Alabama knows our state, our people and our districts best."

GOP SPEAKER CLAPS BACK AFTER BOOKER STUMPS AGAINST BID TO ERADICATE RED STATE'S DEMOCRAT-HELD DISTRICTS

A federal court on Friday denied an emergency motion for a stay in the congressional redistricting case.

"Quite simply, we do not have the authority to issue an order that upends Alabama's status quo, especially in the middle of an election, while our injunction establishing that status quo is well under review in the nation's highest court," the order declared.

SEN TOMMY TUBERVILLE, MORGAN MURPHY: REPUBLICANS MUST WIN THE MAP WAR ONCE AND FOR ALL

The state is pressing the U.S. Supreme Court to take action to allow it to utilize the 2023 congressional map.

"I will continue to fight for Alabama to be able to use the congressional map the people’s elected representatives enacted," state Attorney General Steve Marshall said Friday.

TRUMP CRITICIZES 2 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES BY NAME OVER TARIFF RULING

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"Alabama drew a map based on lawful policy goals, not race, and the Supreme Court’s recent ruling vindicates that approach. We were punished for doing the right thing, and we are asking the Court to correct that now," the official noted.

JONATHAN TURLEY: Angry Left plots to purge Virginia's high court

Sun, 10 May 2026 15:24:20 -0400

After the Virginia Supreme Court rejected the results of the recent Democratic effort to effectively wipe out Republican representation in the state, Democratic pundits and activists have latched onto a proposal by Michigan State law professor Quinn Yeargain to gut the court by forcing the retirement of the current justices, appointing liberal activists, and then reversing the opinion. It is extremely telling that some are pushing the raw muscle play to retake power in Washington, particularly in light of the calls to pack the United States Supreme Court once the party is back in control.

Professor Yeargain declared on Substack that there is "a simple – and lawful – solution: Send the entire court into early retirement." Under this plan, Virginia Democrats would adopt an absurdly low age for retirement in a gut-and-pack scheme: Yeargain suggested that they could set "the mandatory retirement of justices and judges after they reach a prescribed age, beyond which they shall not serve, regardless of the term to which elected or appointed."

The current retirement age is 73.

Yeargain dismisses that number as "arbitrary" and says that the Democrats need only to "Make it 54 for Supreme Court justices – the age of the youngest justice, Stephen McCullough, who joined the majority opinion – and make it take effect immediately."

MORNING GLORY: END THE FILIBUSTER, PACK THE COURT, KISS THE CONSTITUTION GOODBYE

The fact that such an abusive plan is described as "simple" captured the logic of an age of rage. I recently wrote a column in which I warned that "the reversal of fortunes for the party could lead to an even more dangerous agenda" with Democrats pushing for packing the Supreme Court.

In the unlikely chance that this could pass the General Assembly (I am assuming that there remain some things that certain Democratic members just will not do), it would be difficult to engineer before the midterm elections, given the likely challenges. However, it is the inclination of some to try such measures that is chilling.

I noted that Virginia showed how "an independent court can unravel the best-laid plans." Various politicians and professors have advocated radical changes to the political system to ensure the party retains power indefinitely. They acknowledge, however, that the court could likely declare these moves as unconstitutional unless they first take control through a packing scheme.

OUTSPENT BUT NOT OUTGUNNED, REPUBLICANS AIM TO SINK DEMOCRATS' 'POWER GRAB' REDISTRICTING PUSH

The new proposal for the gut-and-pack scheme is even more cynical and brutal. Ironically, the Virginia Supreme Court declared the redistricting effort by the Democrats as not only unconstitutional but "wholly unprecedented in Virginia’s history."

It characterized the state’s position as "a story of the tail wagging the dog that has no tail."

The response of Yeargain and Democratic activists is now to suggest just shooting the dog and adopting a type of politically modified puppy bred to serve.

SOCIAL MEDIA ERUPTS AFTER DEMOCRATS 'BURNED $64M' ON FAILED VIRGINIA GERRYMANDER

Such radical proposals are being rationalized with open disinformation. Pundits regularly fail to mention that the Democrats previously gerrymandered states such as Illinois, Massachusetts and New York while claiming the right to win by any means necessary.

Others just deny reality. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., lashed out at the Virginia Supreme Court and demanded to know why they waited so long to rule on whether there were fundamental flaws in the Democratic plan.

Kaine either never read the opinion or sought to mislead voters. The opinion has an entire section on the timing, noting that it was the Democrats and the commonwealth that demanded that the court wait to rule on the merits until after the election. After "successfully" seeking that delay, they are now accusing the court of something untoward in doing what they demanded.

SPANBERGER DENIES ‘DEAL’ WITH SWING-DISTRICT DEMOCRAT AS GERRYMANDERING CLAIMS ABOUND STATEWIDE

Notably, the gut-and-pack scheme sets aside any pretense of principle. The Democrats would simply adopt a ridiculously low retirement age for the sole purpose of populating the court with reliable and robotic justices. The fact that an academic and various pundits would expressly float such an idea is another chilling reminder of the growing radicalization on the left.

These are the "new Jacobins" discussed in my book "Rage and the Republic," figures echoing the radical concepts or means used in France before what became known as "The Terror." "By any means" has become a rallying cry on the left.

Law professors Ryan Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale have called for the nation to "reclaim America from constitutionalism." Last December, they published a column titled "It’s Time to Accept that the U.S. Supreme Court is Illegitimate and Must be Replaced."

SPANBERGER-BACKED REDISTRICTING VOTE CULMINATES DEM ‘POWER GRAB’ IN KEY SWING STATE, SAYS REPORT

Democratic strategists know that the public will not approve of such measures.

Democratic strategist James Carville stated matter-of-factly, "They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people." He added recently, "Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it."

What is striking about the Virginia proposal is that it is being pushed so openly and unapologetically. Democrats realize that they have alienated half of Virginia already. Republicans and independents are not likely to forget that every major Democrat in their state, including Gov. Abigail Spanberger, sought to erase their very political existence. It is not partisan, it is personal.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In destroying bridges to cross-over voters in the purple state, what is left is raw political brutality. You must dump-and-pump in seeking radical measures to grab power. In the process, no court or institution is sacred in the cause of social and political change.

It is all part of the Nike School of Constitutional Law: Just do it.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY

Supreme Court’s junior justice goes on solo tear as Trump fights put her at odds with the bench

Sun, 10 May 2026 08:00:26 -0400

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood out from her colleagues this week when she broke with them to rail against the high court's decision to fast-track its landmark order dismantling a key provision in the Voting Rights Act.

But Jackson's solo dissent was far from the first time the Biden-appointed justice has been on an island, as she has routinely blasted the court for not asserting more judicial authority over President Donald Trump's executive actions and drawn rebukes from her colleagues for taking what they have viewed as flawed positions.

Ideological divides over high-profile cases have been common. The trio of liberals has remained unified against the Trump administration by opposing decisions, including on the interim docket, to curb universal injunctions, allow states to ban transgender medical treatments for minors, permit Trump to fire members of independent agencies, authorize the government to cancel immigrants' temporary protected status and more.

But even in some of those cases, Jackson goes on solo diatribes, highlighting a deeper internal divide within the liberal bloc.

WHY JUSTICE JACKSON IS A FISH OUT OF WATER ON THE SUPREME COURT

Below are five recent times Jackson gave lone opinions.

1. Louisiana redistricting judgment

The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's map last month, finding 6-3 it contained an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Upon request, the Supreme Court also decided 8-1 to fast-track the landmark decision — handing it down immediately rather than in roughly a month like it usually does — allowing several red states to more quickly attempt to implement new congressional lines after the high court weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by limiting the role race may play in congressional redistricting.

Jackson, the bench's most junior justice, broke with her eight colleagues in that decision, saying the court improperly "[dove] into the fray" of active elections by handing its judgment down immediately.

"Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation," Jackson wrote.

LATEST SCOTUS LEAK A GIFT TO LIBERALS ‘SALIVATING’ OVER CONTROL OF HIGH COURT NARRATIVE: EXPERTS

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a scathing concurrence for the sole purpose of ripping apart Jackson's dissent, saying her claims were "groundless and utterly irresponsible."

2. Universal injunctions

The Supreme Court is still weighing Trump's signature plan to severely limit birthright citizenship, but it first entertained the subject last year by addressing how lower courts across the country uniformly issued nationwide injunctions against the plan. The high court decided 6-3 to ban such injunctions but left room for judges and plaintiffs to deploy other methods when seeking widespread relief.

Jackson gave a rogue, separate dissent in the case, drawing eyebrow-raising jabs from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

"We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," Barrett wrote in the court's opinion in 2025. "We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

Jackson wrote that nationwide injunctions should be permissible because the courts should not allow the president to "violate the Constitution."

Barrett disagreed.

"She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush," Barrett wrote.

3. National Institutes of Health grants

The high court fractured last August in dual 5–4 decisions that allowed the National Institutes of Health to cancel nearly $800 million in research grants.

Jackson, in one of her most memorable one-person dissents, appeared to boil over with frustration, observing that the majority "bends over backward to accommodate" the Trump administration.

"This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules," Jackson wrote. "We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins."

Some of the canceled grants were geared toward research on diversity, equity and inclusion; COVID-19; and gender identity. Jackson argued the grants went further and that "life-saving biomedical research" was at stake.

4. Colorado conversion therapy case

When the Supreme Court sided 8-1 with a Christian counselor who challenged Colorado’s ban on counseling minors about sexual orientation and gender identity — which the state barred as conversion therapy — Jackson was the lone dissenter, warning that "to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now."

Jackson said the key free speech decision defied "treatment standards" and bucked the medical profession, leading an unlikely colleague, Justice Elena Kagan, to openly reject her dissent.

Kagan, an Obama appointee, said Jackson’s view "rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions."

5. Reasonable suspicion for police

In a lower profile case about police stops, Jackson conspicuously found in April that the high court overstepped its authority by improperly meddling in a lower court's assessment of how Washington, D.C., police decided to stop a man in a suspicious vehicle.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision by the lower court, saying it should have weighed the "totality of the circumstances" surrounding the vehicle and approved of an officer's decision to briefly detain the man.

The decision was 7-2, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor opposed the ruling while also opting against joining Jackson's dissent. Jackson accused the majority of trying to "wordsmith" and interfere with a typically routine evaluation of a police stop.

"I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court," Jackson wrote.

Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor and Fox News contributor, said in an op-ed this month that Jackson has "quickly developed a radical and chilling jurisprudence."

Despite establishing herself as an outlier, Jackson also has a swathe of supporters from civil rights groups to celebrities. She has been showered with praise on "The View," nominated for a Grammy for her audiobook and drawn encouragement from Democratic lawmakers.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Jackson said during her appearance this year on "The View" that "criticism is part of the job."

"Dissents are an opportunity for the justices who disagree with the majority to really describe their view of the law but also their concerns," Jackson said, adding that "you hope that your view will prevail in the long run."

Fox News Digital reached out to the Supreme Court's press office for comment.

Utah Supreme Court justice resigns amid probe into alleged relationship with redistricting attorney

Fri, 08 May 2026 17:54:46 -0400

A Utah Supreme Court justice has resigned amid a probe into an alleged relationship with an attorney who worked on a redistricting lawsuit.

Justice Diana Hagen appeared to reference the investigation and the toll it has taken on her loved ones in a resignation letter to Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, which was obtained by Fox News Digital.

"As a public servant for twenty-six years, I am keenly aware that public service requires sacrifice," Hagen wrote. "I have willingly accepted those sacrifices for the privilege of holding a position of public trust, where I could do my part to uphold the rule of law and protect the constitutional rights of every Utahn.

UTAH SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RESIGNS AMID PROBE INTO ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP WITH REDISTRICTING ATTORNEY

"I also understand that public officials are rightly held to a higher standard and must accept a greater degree of public scrutiny and diminished privacy," she said. "But my family and friends did not choose public life. They do not deserve to have intensely personal details surrounding the painful dissolution of my thirty-year marriage subjected to public scrutiny."

The resignation was effective immediately, a spokesperson for Utah's Administrative Office of the Courts said.

Hagen was accused by her former husband of sending "inappropriate" text messages to an attorney who helped challenge a Republican-friendly map that maintained four red congressional seats in Utah.

David Reymann, who worked on behalf of progressive voting rights groups in the case, was named as the lawyer in a complaint that an attorney for Hagen's husband submitted to Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission, according to local outlet KSL.

RED STATE JUDGE CHOOSES NEW CONGRESSIONAL MAP IN FIGHT THAT COULD RESHAPE HOUSE CONTROL

Hagen and Reymann previously denied the allegations.

The Judicial Conduct Commission, described on its website as an independent body comprising several state lawmakers, judges and members of the public, conducted a preliminary investigation based on the complaint and chose not to pursue the matter further, KSL reported.

A statement issued by the Utah Supreme Court on behalf of Hagen in April said she took "prompt, prudent, and transparent steps" in response to the allegations by her ex-husband.

"My last involvement in the redistricting case was October 2024," Hagen said. "I voluntarily recused myself from all cases involving Mr. Reymann in May 2025, and my recusal was reflected in the Court’s September 15, 2025, opinion in League of Women Voters."

In her resignation letter, Hagen stated she would love to continue serving on the bench.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"But I cannot do so without sacrificing the privacy and well-being of those I care about and the effective functioning and independence of Utah’s judiciary," she wrote.

Cox will be tasked with naming Hagen's replacement. Fox News Digital has reached out to the governor's office.

Fox News Digital's Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

Gorsuch says ideological divides on Supreme Court come down to ‘how you read law,’ not politics

Fri, 08 May 2026 12:51:11 -0400

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said differences among his colleagues on the high court are often less about politics than they are about diverging approaches to constitutional interpretation — a dynamic, he said, that influences both the court’s rulings and its internal relations.

"That has nothing to do with politics," Gorsuch told Fox News Digital in a recent interview. "That has to do [with] how you read law. Interpretive methodologies."

Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Donald Trump in 2017, has described himself as a "textualist," noting his approach focuses on interpreting legal texts based on the ordinary meaning of the words as written. The philosophy is linked to originalism — or the view that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original public meaning when it was adopted.

Other justices have different interpretations, including ones that allow for evolving interpretations over time. Gorsuch stressed that differences, while significant, are not inherently personal.

JUSTICE THOMAS WARNS PROGRESSIVISM IS A THREAT TO AMERICA IN RARE PUBLIC REMARKS

"At the end of the day, you’re trying to get to the right answer under the law," he said, adding that disagreement is an expected, and healthy, part of the process.

His remarks come as the federal judiciary and members of the Supreme Court have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, including by Trump and his allies, who have criticized the courts for impinging on what they see as the duties of the executive branch.

Trump took to Truth Social last month to criticize the Supreme Court’s conservative majority for showing him "very little loyalty" in blocking his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs in February.

He also suggested they might block his executive order seeking to end so-called "birthright citizenship" in the U.S.

"Certain 'Republican’ Justices have just gone weak, stupid, and bad, completely violating what they ‘supposedly’ stood for," Trump said.

JUSTICE GORSUCH HIGHLIGHTS HUMANITY, HISTORY IN CHILDREN'S BOOK CELEBRATING AMERICA'S 250TH ANNIVERSARY

He contrasted this with liberal justices on the court, whom Trump said "stick together like glue, totally loyal to the people and ideology that got them there."

Gorsuch, for his part, stressed that the justices often share plenty of common ground, even if their interpretation of the Constitution prompts them to reach different conclusions.

That approach, he suggested, carries over into how the justices work together behind closed doors — where collaboration and debate are central to the high court to perform its constitutional duties.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS

"The framers understood that people would come to the table with different views," Gorsuch told Fox News Digital. "The goal is to reason together."

While ideological divides can be sharp, Gorsuch emphasized that culture at the high court is built on mutual respect.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"If you sit and listen to someone long enough, you’re going to find something you can agree on," he added. "Maybe you start there."

MIKE DAVIS: Supreme Court gives states a map to constitutional sanity

Thu, 07 May 2026 14:44:08 -0400

Last week, the Supreme Court correctly put an end to DEI districts that had existed thanks to an erroneous interpretation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). On Monday, the justices again acted correctly, immediately issuing the judgment of the court and thus permitting Louisiana to redraw its congressional map that, in its current form, is unconstitutional. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, refused to join the issuance of the judgment, instead writing a laughable dissent that attacked her colleagues’ integrity. Justice Jackson is a gift to judicial conservatives, uniting the six Republican-appointed justices more than anyone or anything, and we should hope for many more years of her presence (and presents).

In the 1960s, there was a serious problem in that segregationist states racially redistricted to disenfranchise minority voters. In response, Congress passed the VRA, which it amended and extended in 1982 and 2007. Section 2 of the VRA requires that minority voters be given the opportunity to have the representation of their choice. For decades, in large part thanks to the Supreme Court’s awful decision in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), courts interpreted Section 2 to require majority-minority districts no matter what and to require proportional minority representation. So, for instance, if Louisiana has approximately a 30% African American population, then it must have two majority-minority districts out of six (a third) rather than none or one. Under this erroneous interpretation of the VRA, legislators must use race to carve out these districts, even in states where one party has an overwhelming advantage; for instance, the South is overwhelmingly Republican but has many solidly blue districts.

Callais righted an egregious wrong. Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito held that the VRA requires racial remedies only to combat intentional racial discrimination. In other words, if states revert to the behavior of the 1960s, the VRA allows for the drawing of districts to ensure minority representation. The VRA does not, however, allow for such drawing simply because states, for example, engage in partisan gerrymandering, a constitutional practice that the Supreme Court upheld in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, would have gone even further, effectively putting an end entirely to Section 2 of the VRA.

In light of Callais, Louisiana’s congressional map is plainly unconstitutional. The Louisiana primaries are coming up; indeed, early voting has begun. As such, it is essential that Louisiana be allowed to redraw its map immediately to comport with the U.S. Constitution. The justices thus granted a commonsense motion to expedite issuance of the judgment in Callais. This procedure seems formal, but it is simple. Under Supreme Court Rule 45, the court generally waits 32 days after it announces the opinion in a case to issue its judgment; this delay gives the losing party the opportunity to seek rehearing. The court has discretion to expedite issuance of the judgment, as it did in Trump v. Anderson (2024), the case in which leftists absurdly used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in a pathetic attempt to throw President Donald Trump off of state ballots because, they pretended, he was an insurrectionist. (How many insurrectionists go into a Capitol unarmed?)

The decision to issue the judgment on Monday was a no-brainer. A lower court had ordered Louisiana immediately to brief how the state would comply with Callais. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry has suspended the primary election, but time is needed to redraw the map and reschedule the primary. Waiting nearly a month for a formality—the issuance of the judgment according to the normal schedule as prescribed by Rule 45—would have been an utter waste of time. Leftist Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both of whom dissented in Callais, indicated no opposition to the issuance of the judgment. Jackson, however, could not resist writing another absurd dissent. She could not articulate a substantive reason to withhold issuance of the judgment; rather, she claimed that doing so would make the court appear partisan. Alito issued a blistering concurrence, characterizing Jackson’s attack as "insulting." Does Jackson believe that her fellow leftist justices, who declined to join her opinion, are somehow partisan against Democrats? The only plausible meaning of her use of the term "partisan" is that she believes that the court’s decision would be viewed as partisan against one party. In light of the other leftist justices’ apparent assent to the court’s decision, however, no reasonable person could draw this conclusion.

Alito—as well as Thomas and Gorsuch, who joined his concurrence—obviously has had enough of Jackson’s smears. Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to reach that point last term in Trump v. CASA, the case in which the Supreme Court reined in out-of-control inferior court injunctions. Sotomayor’s dissent in CASA was wrong, but it stayed within normal legal bounds. Jackson’s dissent, by contrast, ignored centuries of precedent in favor of an imperial judiciary, as Barrett correctly characterized it.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Joe Biden promised to fill Justice Stephen Breyer’s seat with our first Black woman justice. The president had three options: California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger; Judge Michelle Childs, then a federal judge in the U.S. District of South Carolina and now a judge on the DC U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; and Jackson. As usual, Biden chose unwisely. Kruger and Childs, while liberal, are more in the mold of Kagan. They are not flame-throwers and try to reach consensus where they can. When they cannot persuade colleagues to vote with them, they work diligently to minimize the reach of decisions. Jackson is a different type of justice. She writes dissents, some of which the other leftists will not join, that burn bridges. She has little prospect of picking off conservative justices to eke out occasional liberal victories. She would rather attack her colleagues, and this approach has alienated potentially persuadable justices. As judicial conservatives, we should pray that Jackson never mellows. Her vitriol will only lead to more conservative victories.

CLICK FOR MORE FROM MIKE DAVIS

Supreme Court chief justice pinpoints what Americans misunderstand about him and his colleagues

Thu, 07 May 2026 08:14:42 -0400

Political critics of Supreme Court decisions fundamentally do not understand the role of the institution, according to Chief Justice John Roberts.

It is to interpret the law, not make it, he told a judicial conference in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

"I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we're saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides," Roberts said Wednesday night. "I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do."

The decision reviewing the unconstitutionality of race-based gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act has resurfaced rebukes of the political ideology of the Court. Three conservative justices, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, were placed on the bench by President Donald Trump during his first term, giving Republican-nominated justices a 6-3 majority.

BARRETT SAYS JUSTICES 'WEAR BLACK, NOT RED OR BLUE' IN RESPONSE TO PARTISAN CRITICS IN FOX NEWS INTERVIEW

Justices, however, are making decisions based on the law and contextual readings of the Constitution, not their personal policy preferences, Roberts stressed to the conference of judges and lawyers from the 3rd U.S. Circuit in Pennsylvania.

"I think considered criticism is a very good thing," Roberts said. "You hope it’s intelligent criticism, but it doesn’t have to be. It’s a free country and I certainly don’t object to it, and I don’t think my colleagues do either."

FOX NEWS POLL: APPROVAL OF SCOTUS AT 5-YEAR HIGH, REBOUNDING FROM RECORD LOW IN 2024

The Supreme Court has also expanded gun rights and overturned the constitutional right to abortion in recent years. Public confidence in the Supreme Court was at a low of 40% after the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization abortion ruling, showing the politics of rulings determines perception as the words of the Constitution remain unchanged.

The rulings are "based on our best effort to figure out what the Constitution means and how it applies" to the existing law, Roberts said.

SUPREME COURT’S 2026 RULINGS COULD DEFINE AMERICA FOR DECADES TO COME

"We’re not simply part of the political process, and there’s a reason for that, and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate," Roberts said, stressing that "one thing we have to do is make decisions that are unpopular."

"On the other hand," Roberts said, "there is a point where it changes from criticism of the opinion to criticism of the judge and it can lead to some very serious problems."

JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH BREAKS SILENCE ON VIOLENT THREATS AGAINST JUDICIARY, SUPREME COURT LEAKS

Heated political rhetoric, potentially fueled by violent protest groups, can endanger judges.

In June 2022, an armed suspect was caught outside Kavanaugh's home. Nicholas John Roske pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 97 months in prison and lifetime supervised release after admitting to the attempted assassination.

"There’s a lot of hostility that’s publicized about judicial decisions and which judge wrote those decisions," Roberts warned. "I think we have to be a little more careful and make sure people, to the extent you can, are more careful about that."

TRUMP REVEALS HE HAS MULTI-PICK SCOTUS PLAN READY AS RETIREMENT SPECULATION HEATS UP

Judges bowing to the pressures of political ideology from the American public would have devastating effects, according to Roberts.

"If you do it cavalierly, overrule precedent just because you think it’s wrong, then the whole system begins to suffer," he said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The advanced ages of Thomas and Alito have raised questions of whether they might consider retirement either before the midterms -- which could change Congress' ability to get through another conservative justice nominee under Trump -- or before 2028, where a flip of the White House and/or Congress could shift the court back away from a conservative majority.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

California immigration judge sues DOJ, alleging she was fired for being a registered Democrat, a woman over 40

Wed, 06 May 2026 20:34:28 -0400

A California immigration judge who was terminated by the Trump administration is alleging in a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) that she was fired because she is a registered Democrat and because of her affiliations with immigrant-rights groups.

The 14-page lawsuit, filed by Kyra Lilien, names the DOJ and acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants.

Lilien claims she was not retained past her probationary period due to a number of factors, including being a woman over the age of 40, being fluent in Spanish and her associations with the Hispanic community.

JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S MASS DISMISSALS OF PROBATIONARY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Kevin Owen of Gilbert Employment Law in Maryland, one of Lilien's attorneys, told FOX San Francisco she didn't fit their mold and that the actions taken against her were impermissible and unlawful.

The lawsuit alleges that her termination violated Lilien's civil and First Amendment rights.

Lilien was initially appointed to serve at the San Francisco Immigration Court on July 23, 2023, before being transferred to the Concord Immigration Court in February 2024. In total, she served nearly two years, which is the standard probationary period immigration judges serve under Justice Department policy before their appointments are typically converted to permanent roles.

The lawsuit names nearly 30 other immigration judges from around the country who were either fired or not converted from probationary periods, including 14 from the Concord and San Francisco immigration courts.

The filing states that immigration judges who were not converted or were terminated around the same time as the plaintiff were overwhelmingly female. Fox News Digital has reached out to Lilien's attorney, the DOJ and the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

GROUP OF DEI WORKERS SUE TO STOP TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Throughout her employment and during her probationary period, Lilien met or exceeded all performance standards, according to the lawsuit.

She received satisfactory assessments — the highest possible rating — in her probationary period reports for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. As a judge, Lilien denied 34% of asylum claims brought before her, according to data from TRAC Immigration.

On July 11, 2025, Lilien received a notice that her probationary period would not be converted permanently, and the message said the attorney general had decided not to extend her term or convert it to a permanent appointment pursuant to Article II of the Constitution.

The suit also alleges that Sirce Owen, who was serving as the acting EOIR director at the time, issued controversial memoranda in early 2025 that demonstrated hostility toward immigrant advocacy groups and certain hiring practices.

Owen allegedly characterized these groups in a memo as "extremist leftist organizations" that promote illegal immigration and attempt to undermine immigration courts.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

He also issued another memo criticizing the appointment practices under the Biden administration.

Lilien's suit states that these memoranda together laid bare management's hostility toward hiring individuals with immigrants' rights backgrounds, women, ethnic minorities and others who may be considered "DEI" hires.

Justice Neil Gorsuch breaks silence on violent threats against judiciary, Supreme Court leaks

Wed, 06 May 2026 20:00:08 -0400

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch spoke out against rising threats targeting judges, breaking his silence on violence against the judiciary in a sit-down interview with Fox News Digital.

Gorsuch’s remarks come amid heightened security concerns for members of the Supreme Court after the 2022 leak of the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which sparked protests outside justices’ homes and intensified fears about their safety, particularly after the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Gorsuch emphasized that the current environment — marked by increasingly heated public discourse and breaches of court confidentiality — poses broader risks to the institution.

"We have to be able to hear one another," Gorsuch said. "And violence is never the answer."

JUSTICE GORSUCH HIGHLIGHTS HUMANITY, HISTORY IN CHILDREN'S BOOK CELEBRATING AMERICA'S 250TH ANNIVERSARY

His remarks come as members of the federal judiciary have faced heightened security risks in recent years, including an assassination attempt targeting Kavanaugh during the lead-up to the Dobbs decision, when the court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion.

On June 8, 2022, Nicholas John Roske, a transgender individual from Simi Valley, California, traveled to Kavanaugh’s Maryland home with a gun and ammunition in a checked suitcase. Authorities later found a gun, tactical knife, zip ties, duct tape, a hammer, crowbar, lock-pick tools and other items in Roske’s belongings, according to the Department of Justice.

After seeing deputy U.S. Marshals outside the home, Roske walked away and called 911, telling a dispatcher about having homicidal and suicidal thoughts and had come from California to kill a Supreme Court justice.

Before the incident, Roske searched online for information about how to harm people — one search read "Does twisting or dragging a knife cause more damage" — and expressed a desire to affect the outcome of the Dobbs decision. Roske was sentenced to eight years in prison and a lifetime of supervised release for the assassination attempt.

Though Gorsuch stopped short of weighing in directly on specific incidents, he stressed to Fox News Digital that maintaining civil discourse and institutional boundaries are critical to preserving the Supreme Court's role and the independence of the federal judiciary.

"There’s a balance between transparency and [the] confidentiality in our work, right?" Gorsuch said. "I mean, it's wonderful, I think, that we have the opportunity for people to listen in to our own arguments. You can listen to every word uttered in arguments from the bench today, in real time.

"At the same time, we also have to be able to talk with one another privately and discuss our views candidly around the conference table."

Gorsuch suggested these breaches of confidentiality — including the high-profile Dobbs leak, and more recent leaks of confidential Supreme Court memos exchanged by justices in 2016 — risk further eroding public trust in the judiciary.

JUSTICE BARRETT TEASES NEW MEMOIR IN ABRUPT CONFERENCE EXIT

"You think about how robust our system is, where everybody, all factions come into making laws," Gorsuch said. "That makes our decisions wiser than you are ever gonna get in a dictatorship or a monarchy or an oligarchy. They're much more fragile, aren't they?"

At the same time, Gorsuch underscored that maintaining boundaries for the court’s internal deliberations is critical, particularly after high-profile leaks.

"There’s a balance between transparency on the one hand … and confidentiality in our deliberations," he said. "You can read every word I think about a case at the end of the day. … But do we need some confidentiality? Of course."

He warned that losing that balance could undermine both trust in the court and the ability of justices to engage in candid debate behind closed doors, a practice he noted dates back to the nation’s founding.

"The framers thought it was very important that they lock the doors when they were discussing the Constitution," Gorsuch said, adding that James Madison later believed there "would have been no Constitution" without that privacy.

Gorsuch tied those concerns to the broader constitutional principle of judicial independence, arguing the judiciary’s role depends on its insulation from political pressure and public backlash.

"Why do we have an independent judiciary?" Gorsuch said. "The framers did not want [judges beholden to political forces]. … They said you have to have independent judges so that when you come to court, no matter how unpopular you are, you’re going to get fair, neutral application of the law."

JUSTICE BARRETT OPENS UP ABOUT 'AWKWARD' START ON SCOTUS, SHADOW DOCKET AND MORE IN FORTHCOMING MEMOIR

Despite ideological differences among the justices, Gorsuch said there remains a shared respect for the Constitution, a dynamic he suggested is essential in an era of growing polarization.

"When I sit around the table with my colleagues, and we disagree, the one thing I know is that the person across from me loves this country … as much as I do," he said.

Still, Gorsuch made clear that the tone of public debate — and the rejection of violence — will ultimately shape whether that system endures.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"We can debate, we can disagree," he said. "But we have to be able to do it in a way that respects one another."

Ashley Oliver and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

California man sentenced to prison for using pickaxe to kill teen brother with cerebral palsy

Wed, 06 May 2026 02:50:41 -0400

A California man was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison after pleading guilty to the pickaxe murder of his teenage half-brother, who had cerebral palsy and used a wheelchair.

Zuberi Sharp, 26, was sentenced on Tuesday after pleading guilty in March to the second-degree murder of his 15-year-old half-brother, Zayde, according to the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office.

He also admitted to several special allegations and aggravating factors, including that he inflicted great bodily injury, that he used a weapon in the commission of the crime and that the victim was vulnerable.

On Dec. 5, 2024, deputies were called to a home on the 400 block of Jeanne Court in Newbury Park shortly after 8 p.m. following his mother's 911 call from Zayde’s mother, who reported that her son had been struck in the head with an object.

BELOVED TEACHER KILLED AS SHE SLEPT, DAUGHTER STABBED IN ATTACK AS MOTIVE REMAINS UNCLEAR: DA

The victim's mother reported that Sharp had attacked Zayde with a pickaxe inside a shed in the backyard.

The teen's uncle heard a loud thud and rushed to the shed to check on the two brothers. He observed Sharp standing over Zayde while holding a pickaxe.

Zayde was rushed to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead shortly after arriving.

Meanwhile, Sharp fled the scene and was later found at nearby Newbury Park High School, where deputies took him into custody after receiving reports of a man acting erratically on the football field, authorities said.

The incident forced a lockdown, as student-athletes were on the field when he arrived.

"This sentence reflects the seriousness of a violent and senseless act against a vulnerable victim," Senior Deputy District Attorney David Russell said in a press release. "While nothing can undo this loss, it ensures the defendant is held accountable and that the victim’s family has been spared the trauma of a trial."

Investigators never released a motive for the attack, but family members told KTLA they believed Sharp was having a manic episode at the time.

CALIFORNIA MAN PAROLED UNDER 'YOUTHFUL OFFENDER' PROVISION FOR 2 MURDERS KILLS AGAIN LESS THAN A YEAR LATER

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"It’s hard," Zayde’s mother previously told the outlet at a ceremony to honor her son. "It’s been really hard. Pain every day."

Sharp is also the son of convicted killer Calvin Sharp, who killed a 6-year-old boy with a meat cleaver in 2007. He pleaded guilty to the murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Sharp's legal team. The Ventura County District Attorney’s Office directed inquiries to Tuesday's press release.

Kentucky man accused of kidnapping, killing woman and keeping her body under trailer before disposal

Wed, 06 May 2026 01:11:32 -0400

A Kentucky man is set to go to trial next year after he allegedly abducted and killed a woman, wrapped her body, stored it under his trailer and dumped it on the side of a road seven years ago, according to authorities.

Ryan "Todd" Crawley had his trial date set for May 17–28, 2027, in connection with the 2019 death of April Arnett, the Scott County Circuit Court said, according to WKYT.

He was indicted earlier this year on charges of murder, kidnapping and evidence tampering. Crawley pleaded not guilty to the murder and kidnapping charges after he previously pleaded guilty to evidence tampering and abuse of a corpse.

TEEN SUSPECT IN MURDER OF TWO BANK EMPLOYEES IN KENTUCKY LEADS POLICE ON WILD 130 MPH CHASE

Crawley has pleaded not guilty to the murder and kidnapping charges, and those charges remain pending. His attorneys have argued that the timing of the new charges — nearly seven years after Arnett’s death — raises questions about the case. Court documents allege Crawley was involved in Arnett’s kidnapping and killing.

His lawyers, who have sought to maintain their client’s innocence on the more serious charges, have highlighted that the murder and kidnapping charges were filed nearly seven years after the 2019 incident.

On Aug. 17, 2019, at about 9 p.m., Kentucky State Police were notified about a body later identified as Arnett that was found off KY Highway 2328, also known as Old Lexington Road, in Madison County.

Police say the discovery was made four days after Arnett’s alleged death in Scott County.

Crawley allegedly wrapped up Arnett’s body before storing it under his trailer, court documents say, according to WLEX.

Four other people, including the defendant's cousin Ronald Crawley, were charged with helping kidnap Arnett.

Authorities said the two Crawleys drove into Madison County over the Old Clays Ferry Bridge with Arnett's body wrapped in a tarp with cinder blocks attached. The pair attempted to toss her body into the water, but it became stuck on a guy wire, at which point the men put Arnett’s body back into the vehicle and dumped it off the side of the road, where she was ultimately found.

HOUSTON RESTAURATEUR SUSPECTED OF KILLING PREGNANT WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN BEFORE TAKING HIS OWN LIFE

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Ronald Crawley was arrested in Oregon in 2019 after allegedly fleeing to the state.

Arnett was a mother of three, according to her obituary, which said she "will forever be known for her big heart and infectious smile."

South Carolina inmate who believes he is immortal cannot be executed due to mental illness, judge rules

Tue, 05 May 2026 22:41:17 -0400

A South Carolina inmate convicted of killing a state trooper more than 25 years ago cannot be executed due to a mental illness that has him believing he is immortal, a judge ruled.

John Richard Wood, 59, lacks the ability to rationally communicate with his lawyers and does not have a rational and factual understanding of his crimes, why he is being punished or the nature of his punishment, Judge Grace Knie found based on the opinions of three mental health experts, according to WSPA and the South Carolina Daily Gazette.

A psychiatrist with the prosecution as well as a psychiatrist and a psychologist with Wood’s legal team all agreed that he failed this two-pronged legal standard for competence to be executed.

With this ruling, the judge upheld his attorneys' claim that the debilitating effects of his schizophrenia prevent him from facing the death penalty at this time.

SOUTH CAROLINA COURT MOVES FORWARD EXECUTION OF COP KILLER WHO SAYS MOST LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Knie’s ruling must be reviewed by the state Supreme Court, which could determine whether to uphold or overturn her decision.

The judge said Wood believes that he is immortal, has already died three times on death row and will be resurrected again if the state executes him, citing the mental health experts’ testimony during a hearing in March, the South Carolina Daily Gazette reported.

Wood also believes he has already received a pardon from South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEATH ROW INMATE SAYS JUDGES ARE LED BY SATAN AS COURT WEIGHS IF HE IS COMPETENT FOR EXECUTION

The experts have said that while Wood understands why he received the death sentence, he mistakenly believes law enforcement officers were "trying to frame him for a brutal rape."

Additionally, Wood believes the judge at his 2002 trial and courtroom personnel were working against him because they were agents of "Beloved Kevin Rudolph," a deity that he thinks is part of a battle to rule the planet, according to the South Carolina Daily Gazette. Wood also believes he was given wings and immortality to win this fight.

He is the first inmate on death row in South Carolina found to be not competent to be put to death since the state restarted executions in September 2024 after a 13-year pause because the state was struggling to obtain lethal injection drugs. The state added the firing squad as an execution method during that hiatus. Seven executions have been carried out in the state since capital punishment was resumed, including three men who chose to die by firing squad.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Wood was convicted of killing South Carolina State Trooper Eric Nicholson in December 2000 during a traffic stop in Greenville County. Wood shot Nicholson five times during the traffic stop, according to authorities.

During a subsequent pursuit, he shot at police and hit one officer in the face with a bullet fragment. Wood was eventually taken into custody after he hijacked a truck.

He was sentenced to death in February 2002. He was among death row inmates in line to receive a death warrant after exhausting regular appeals.

While his death warrant is paused, Wood's original conviction and sentence still stand.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the South Carolina Department of Corrections and Knie’s office for comment.

JONATHAN TURLEY: Justice Jackson just showed why Democrats are desperate to pack the Supreme Court

Tue, 05 May 2026 15:32:05 -0400

Since her appointment by President Joe Biden, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has quickly developed a radical and chilling jurisprudence. Her frequent sole dissents and accusatory rhetoric have drawn not just the ire of her conservative colleagues but also that of her liberal colleagues. This week, that tension deepened with a stinging rebuke from Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

At issue is the finalization of the court’s opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, where the court ruled 6-3 to bar racial gerrymandering. The court reaffirmed the use of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to ban intentional racial discrimination in the design of voting districts but effectively found many districts to be unconstitutional in their current form.

There is no reason why the decision should not be finalized except for a blatantly partisan effort to protect Democrats from losing seats in the midterm elections. After all, if these districts are unconstitutional, why shouldn’t states guarantee that voters are given representatives chosen free of racially discriminatory preferences?

That question is even more confusing given the long wait for this opinion. Not only was the case reargued, but there were growing complaints about the delay in releasing the opinion.

MEDIA OUTRAGE OVER SUPREME COURT’S VOTING RIGHTS ACT DECISION COLLIDES WITH REALITY

Complaints increased after a recent book allegedly reported that Justice Elena Kagan had a vocal confrontation with her colleague, retired Justice Stephen Breyer, over his push to release the dissents in Dobbs after the leaking of that opinion. Breyer reportedly agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts that the conservative justices were facing increased death threats due to the delay. Kagan allegedly wanted to further delay the release.

In the Callais decision, the delay was curious since there were six solid votes for the majority and little fracturing among the opinions. Indeed, the majority opinion's references to the Kagan dissent are relatively brief. Nevertheless, the delay has made it very difficult for states to make changes. A few are moving to delay their primaries or draw new maps under extremely tight calendars.

Regardless of the delay, there is no cognizable or principled reason to withhold the opinion to preserve unconstitutional districts. The case has already been on the docket for an unusually long time due to reargument.

KAGAN SCREAMED SO LOUDLY AT LIBERAL ALLY AFTER DOBBS LEAK THE ‘WALL WAS SHAKING,' BOOK CLAIMS

In its one-paragraph order, the court acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s clerk normally waits 32 days after a decision to send a copy of the opinion and the judgment to the lower court. However, it noted that the defenders of the challenged districts had "not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment." Conversely, the other parties raised the need for states to address the impact of the ruling with the approaching elections.

Jackson stood alone in demanding that the unconstitutional districts be effectively preserved for the purposes of this election — guaranteeing Democratic seats in the midterms that could be lost in nonracially discriminatory districts. Neither Kagan nor Justice Sonia Sotomayor would join her in the dissent, despite dissenting from the Callais decision itself.

However, it was her language again that drew the attention of her colleagues.

JONATHAN TURLEY: JUSTICE JACKSON PLAYS PUNDIT TO DISMAY OF SCOTUS COLLEAGUES

Justice Jackson lambasted the court’s ruling, stating that it "has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana." In an Orwellian twist, Jackson suggested that others were playing politics as she sought to effectively protect unconstitutional Democratic districts. She suggested that the case exposed "a strong political undercurrent."

In arguably the most insulting line, she lectured her colleagues that this case "unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide election, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle among state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties."

She further said that, rather than avoid "the appearance of partiality," the court’s action "is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map."

JUSTICE BARRETT DEFENDS JACKSON JABS AS ‘WARRANTED’ IN RARE PUBLIC APPEARANCE

Justice Alito had finally had enough. He noted that her reliance on the 32-day period was a "trivial" objection that put form above substance since no party had asked for reconsideration. It would be waiting for 32 days for no purpose, while the other parties had stated a reasonable and pressing need to finalize the opinion.

He chastised Jackson for a dissent that "lacks restraint." He denounced the dissent as making "baseless and insulting" claims. He particularly objected to the charge that her colleagues were engaging in "an unprincipled use of power," calling it "a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

What is even more chilling than Jackson's jurisprudence is the fact that she is often cited as the model for Democrats seeking to pack the court with an instant majority if they retake power. This and other Jackson judicial dissents show why Democrats are so confident that packing the court will yield lasting control of the government.

Jackson recently told ABC News that "I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

For some of her colleagues, that cathartic benefit is coming at too high a cost for the court.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY

Justice Gorsuch highlights humanity, history in children's book celebrating America's 250th anniversary

Tue, 05 May 2026 11:27:49 -0400

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is releasing a children’s book this month aimed at teaching young Americans about the Declaration of Independence and the nation’s founding ideals.

The book comes as the U.S. approaches its 250th anniversary and amid declining civic knowledge among students, a trend Gorsuch said he hopes to help reverse.

In "Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration," Gorsuch highlights the ideals America was founded on — including independence, self-governance and separation of powers. The book weaves together stories both from well-known revolutionaries and everyday patriots, whose little-known acts of bravery paved the way for the country we know today.

"If parents are tired of 'Goodnight Moon,' how about 'Goodnight, Ben Franklin?'" Gorsuch quipped of his forthcoming book in a sit-down interview with Fox News Digital.

JUSTICE BARRETT OPENS UP ABOUT 'AWKWARD' START ON SCOTUS, SHADOW DOCKET AND MORE IN FORTHCOMING MEMOIR

The book, written by Gorsuch and his former colleague, Janie Nitze, seeks to share the nation's hard-fought history with younger generations by highlighting the individuals at the center of America's founding.

Gorsuch said the idea to write the book came out of a shared desire to address the steep decline in civic education in the United States among school-aged children and adults alike. "Only about 13% of kids today in eighth grade are proficient in American history — [and just] 22% in civics," he said.

"One thing we could all agree on is the importance of learning American history," Gorsuch said. "Because how else are you going to carry this thing forward? Somebody has to run the zoo, right?"

Ultimately, "Heroes of 1776" chronicles the individual stories of people who put their lives on the line to secure America's independence.

At the time, Gorsuch noted, independence was considered a deeply radical notion. The book emphasizes the hardships that the Declaration's signers endured — often, at grave personal cost.

"You have to remember that only about 40% of the colonists supported independence," Gorsuch told Fox News Digital. "Even in July 1776, another 30% were opposed. They were loyalists. The rest were kind of undecided. And it split up families."

SUPREME COURT RULES ON KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE AS REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS WAGE REDISTRICTING WAR

The book is striking both for its detailed, hand-painted artwork — developed in close collaboration with illustrator Chris Ellison, whose work Gorsuch said "deserves a prize" — and the captivating stories it shares about the founders and lesser-known patriots who risked their lives for freedom.

This includes many young people as well. The book recounts the stories of 16-year-old Joseph Plum Martin, who defended Philadelphia from the British troops, and 18-year-old Emily Geiger, who worked as a spy.

"Young people have been remarkable contributors to our country throughout history," Gorsuch said in the interview.

By exploring the individuals whose sacrifices and bravery defined the fight for America's independence, Gorsuch said, he hopes the new book can offer a "touch of humanity" for children and adults alike, adding little-known details and color to an otherwise well-documented history.

JUSTICE BARRETT TEASES NEW MEMOIR IN ABRUPT CONFERENCE EXIT

"At the heart of it all were ordinary people willing to do extraordinary things and risk all they had to secure a better life for themselves, their children, and generations to come," Gorsuch wrote of the fight for independence, as America approaches its 250th anniversary.

"And a wise old judge once told me, if you sit and listen to someone long enough, you're going to find something you can agree on," he told Fox News Digital. "Maybe you start there."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"That's what we do," Gorsuch said of his relationship with his colleagues on the Supreme Court. "And that is what the framers did, too."

Climate seminars for judges face funding trail probe amid fears of outside influence on courts

Tue, 05 May 2026 09:42:32 -0400

FIRST ON FOX: A government watchdog group is pursuing a new possible paper trail to find out who is funding climate presentations for judges, filing public records requests for financial information that could reveal how outside advocacy groups influenced the presentations.

Government Accountability & Oversight (GAO), a nonprofit, made recent Freedom of Information Act requests, reviewed by Fox News Digital, for emails and financial records held by the Treasury Department that GAO says could show whether funds connected to the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) moved through the Federal Judicial Center Foundation.

The effort comes as Republican lawmakers and legal critics scrutinize whether the seminars exposed judges to one-sided climate presentations from figures they say are connected to the broader plaintiffs-side climate litigation network, raising concerns about whether the programs created an appearance of partiality for judges who could later hear related lawsuits.

CLIMATE JUSTICE GROUP HAS DEEP TIES TO JUDGES, EXPERTS INVOLVED IN LITIGATION AMID CLAIMS OF IMPARTIALITY

The FOIA requests were significant, GAO legal counsel Chris Horner told Fox News Digital, because they opened up a new path for his group and congressional investigators to pursue as they probe what role the Federal Judicial Center, which is a research arm of the taxpayer-funded judicial branch, had in hosting the seminars.

While it is not necessarily subject to FOIA requests, Horner said that records belonging to the Federal Judicial Center Foundation, created by Congress as a 501c1, are public. That means the foundation, which is authorized to take donor money to support events, should have a public paper trail, Horner said.

Fox News Digital reviewed ELI's tax records, including 990 forms beginning in 2019, which showed multimillion-dollar lump sums designated, in part, for educating judges. Horner said his group was looking to understand the "mechanics" behind that funding.

"Judges are getting from the courtroom to the resort. How does that happen?" Horner asked, questioning if the Federal Judicial Center, a public, impartial entity, was improperly using ELI's money to facilitate judges' attendance at the controversial seminars.

The seminars at issue were climate-related judicial education programs involving the Federal Judicial Center and ELI's Climate Judiciary Project, which ELI launched in 2018 to provide judges with instruction on climate science, climate impacts and climate-related litigation.

The Federal Judicial Center previously told Fox News Digital it held a series of small, one-day seminars with ELI for fewer than 100 judges in 2019 and early 2020, before the programs became the subject of scrutiny from Republican lawmakers, conservative legal critics and energy industry advocates. The Federal Judicial Center said last year it stopped working with ELI in 2020. Fox News Digital reached out to ELI and the Federal Judicial Center for comment on the current status of the seminars.

Nick Collins, an ELI spokesperson, said in a statement that ELI's climate project began because courts were seeking out education on the topic. He denied that the project had ties to current climate litigation that judges might be presiding over.

"[The Climate Judiciary Project] partners with leading educational institutions to provide those courses which are no different than other judicial education programs providing training on legal and scientific topics that judges voluntarily choose to attend," Collins said. "CJP does not participate in litigation, coordinate with parties related to any litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule on any issue or in any case."

GAO argued in its FOIA requests that the Federal Judicial Center Foundation is a government agency and that the statute that established the foundation authorized it to maintain a fund with the Treasury, where all the foundation's donations could be held. GAO said the public should have access to those account statements showing deposits and disbursements.

The FOIA requests targeted records spanning multiple years, including the potential Treasury-held data dating back to 2015, as well as records from 2019 to 2021 tied to the climate seminars specifically.

The requests did not establish that any funds were improperly used, but GAO said the records could clarify how outside money was handled by a public institution.

Horner called it a "big gap in the stone wall," referencing what he viewed as an opening to learn more about what has long been a murky understanding of financial ties between the Federal Judicial Center and private entities helping to bring the climate lawsuits.

Horner noted ELI's well-documented connections to plaintiffs who have brought numerous lawsuits against major oil companies like Shell, BP and ExxonMobil in the name of addressing climate change.

"The judiciary has been caught in bed with the plaintiffs, and the judiciary apparently wants to hide the evidence rather than be transparent about it, which certainly does not inspire confidence," Horner said.

MAJOR 'CLIMATE DECEPTION' LAWSUIT AGAINST BIG OIL VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED

ELI is connected to litigators involved in the uptick in recent years in the lawsuits against oil companies, including through its former board member Ann Carlson. ELI's Climate Judiciary Project maintains that it is a "neutral, objective" resource for judges, but its curriculum has been fossil fuel-averse. The Climate Judiciary Project educates the very judges who could end up presiding over cases against the oil companies.

ELI "intends to accomplish via the courts what it cannot get enacted into law: a radical environmental agenda," Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, alleged in a 2024 letter.

GAO lawyers argued in their FOIA requests that the foundation's financial information was of great public interest because judges were effectively being lobbied on how to handle climate cases through these seminars, and the foundation could have had a role in funding them.

"These seminars were arranged by parties affiliated with the plaintiffs’ legal team yet presented as the objective background which judges should know about climate science," the GAO lawyers wrote in the FOIA requests. "The Federal Judicial Center Foundation is authorized to accept gifts to underwrite such seminars."

Critics like Cruz and GAO have long contended that the seminars were not neutral and instead part of a broader climate litigation ecosystem. Judges attending seminars on any given topic would normally be a nonissue, but the concerns have zeroed in on who may be influencing the judges and whether they are part of the same network advancing the climate lawsuits.

Like GAO, Congress has been probing the financials as part of its oversight of the judicial branch. In January, the House Judiciary Committee said ELI, and its Climate Judiciary Project, appeared to target judges in jurisdictions where climate cases would be heard. The letter noted that ELI has said its Climate Judiciary Project began in 2018 "in coordination with" the Federal Judicial Center.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

GAO's FOIA letters signal that the Federal Judicial Center Foundation could be a missing link in understanding who paid for the seminars and how the Federal Judicial Center was involved with the privately funded programs, which lawmakers say could be at odds with policies that the U.S. courts are required to follow.

Fox News Digital reached out to Carlson, as well as the Federal Judicial Center, the Federal Judicial Center Foundation and the Treasury Department for comment on the FOIA requests.

Wyoming official faces backlash after posting 'hang bad judges' comment on abortion ruling

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 22:11:30 -0400

A Wyoming city councilman is facing backlash after posting a comment suggesting the state should "hang bad judges" in response to a court ruling on abortion, later insisting the remark was "not a threat."

State Rep. Mike Yin, a Democrat, shared a post from Wyoming Public Radio & Media on Facebook regarding a Natrona County judge temporarily blocking the state’s six-week abortion ban, allowing abortions to resume while the law faces ongoing legal challenges.

"The legislature should obey the Constitution and the freedom to make your own healthcare choices. Instead we keep making it harder to keep doctors in Wyoming and kids in this state," Yin wrote in the post. "The only way that changes is at the ballot box."

Troy Bray, a city councilman in Powell, Wyoming, commented on the post about a judge blocking the state’s so-called "heartbeat" abortion law.

MAINE REP. LAUREL LIBBY'S LAWSUIT OVER CENSURE FOR TRANS ATHLETE POST GOES TO FEDERAL COURT

"In order for Wyoming to find justice, we will have to hang bad judges," Bray wrote.

The comment quickly drew criticism from other users, some of whom described the remark as dangerous and inappropriate given the role of elected officials.

Bray later addressed the backlash in a lengthy Facebook post, saying his comment was "a statement of my beliefs, NOT a threat," and not intended as a call for others to act.

MORNING GLORY: MANY FEDERAL JUDGES ARE OVERSTEPPING THEIR POWER, BUT 'IMPEACHMENT!' IS NOT THE ANSWER

"That is a statement of my beliefs, NOT a threat, as some have characterized it, nor is it a call for others to act," Bray wrote.

Bray added that he is working to address what he sees as systemic issues "by any means necessary," a phrase that has drawn additional scrutiny, though he said he intends to pursue peaceful solutions.

"I will exhaust every peaceful means I can find," he wrote.

JUDGES BACKING OUT OF RETIREMENT AHEAD OF TRUMP TERM LEAVE GOP SENATORS FUMING

He also argued that Wyoming’s judicial system is "broken" and accused judges of overstepping their authority, writing that courts are often the "last place you will ever find justice."

Bray expanded on that point in his follow-up post, arguing the legal system is often inaccessible to ordinary people.

"Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits intended to use the system as a punishment, financially draining their adversaries with a process that is formatted to require a specialist lawyer just to participate," he wrote. "Show up without a lawyer, and you aren't even allowed to present an argument. Justice is denied to anybody who doesn't pay for it."

SCOOP: HOUSE REPUBLICANS REVIVE PUSH TO IMPEACH 'ACTIVIST' JUDGES AFTER JOHNSON'S GREEN LIGHT

He also pointed to historical and international examples of public unrest, arguing that people will "fight" for justice when they believe it is being denied.

The comment came as legal battles over Wyoming’s abortion laws continue to play out in court.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Bray, who serves on the Powell City Council, is one of several local officials who have weighed in publicly on the issue, which has drawn strong reactions from both supporters and opponents of abortion restrictions.

Fox News Digital reached out to Bray for additional comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Cultural groups ask federal judge to halt Trump's renovations of Kennedy Center

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 02:34:58 -0400

A group of cultural and historic preservation groups on Wednesday called on a federal judge to block President Donald Trump from making major renovations to The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which has undergone significant changes since the president returned to office last year.

The groups asked U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent any construction ahead of the scheduled July 6 project launch, saying they worry the president and the center's board of trustees will ignore historic preservation rules that aim to maintain the building.

Attorney Greg Werkheiser said after the hearing that the laws that govern the process "go to the very fundamental question of: Do we slow down and take stock before we make changes to properties that define the American experience?"

Justice Department attorneys, representing the president and board, argued that the administration's plans for the building are limited in scope and well within the authority of the board as they claimed extra approvals were not needed.

TRUMP KENNEDY CENTER'S BOARD VOTES UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE $257M RENOVATIONS AND TWO-YEAR CLOSURE

After returning to the White House, Trump ousted the center's previous leadership and replaced it with a handpicked board of allies who named him chairman, a move that sparked backlash from many artists. Trump's name was also later added to the building’s facade so that it reads: "The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts."

Trump announced the scheduled renovations for the center earlier this year.

The hearing on Wednesday came after a separate one the day before regarding the future of the center.

Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, has also filed a lawsuit to stop renovations as an ex officio member of the board, and Cooper is also overseeing that case.

The center's executive director, Matt Floca, a former facilities manager who was bumped up to the Trump-selected board, testified that the scheduled renovations are simply to repair decades of wear and tear, including extensive water damage to a part of the building that was nicknamed "the swamp."

"The most efficient and effective way to complete the magnitude of projects we need to complete is to close the center," Floca said.

Attorneys for the preservation groups questioned claims about the limited scope of the project, citing Trump's statements that he would "fully expose" the building's steel skeleton.

Justice Department attorney Yaakov Roth said those concerns have been blown out of proportion.

"There’s no risk that there will be unilateral changes … that we’ll wake up and the building will be gone," Roth said.

TRUMP KENNEDY CENTER'S NEW LEADER REVEALED AS RIC GRENELL EXITS TOP ROLE

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The lawsuits regarding the Kennedy Center's fate come amid other fights against Trump's efforts to change historical landmarks in the nation's capital.

Since he returned to office last year, Trump has frustrated preservationists, including by paving over the White House’s Rose Garden. Last year, the White House tore down its East Wing to make room for the president's proposed $400 million ballroom, although construction of the ballroom has been halted by a judge as litigation continues.

Trump also has plans to erect a 250-foot "triumphal arch" to commemorate the nation's 250th anniversary.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

New York woman convicted for throwing dynamite at boyfriend, blowing off his hand as he tried to get rid of it

Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:22:06 -0400

A New York woman was convicted after authorities said she threw a handmade stick of dynamite at her boyfriend while he was sleeping, causing his hand to be blown off as he attempted to get rid of the explosive.

Keyonna Waddell, 35, of Deer Park on Long Island, was found guilty by a jury on Friday of first-degree assault and first-degree criminal possession of a weapon in connection with the March 2024 incident.

Waddell had threatened the victim with dynamite several times in the months leading up to the incident, according to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office.

WOMAN CHARGED IN MAN'S FATAL STABBING OUTSIDE UPSCALE LONG ISLAND YACHT CLUB

"Domestic violence can escalate to deadly levels, and this case is a sobering reminder of that reality," Suffolk County District Attorney Raymond Tierney said in a statement.

On March 22, 2024, Waddell and her boyfriend were involved in an argument inside his apartment, according to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office.

After the dispute, the man left the apartment and told Waddell to leave. When he arrived back home, Waddell did not appear to be there, and he went to sleep.

He was later woken up by a hissing sound and noticed a flame on the floor of his bedroom. He then realized that a stick of dynamite had been thrown into his bedroom and attempted to toss the explosive device out of the window, but it detonated and blew off most of his hand before he was able to throw it out of harm's way.

The victim then ran out of his home to the driveway, at which point he saw Waddell running away.

He was subsequently rushed to the hospital, where the remainder of his hand and part of his arm were amputated.

MAN CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER AFTER ALLEGEDLY SHOOTING VICTIM IN FACE WITH CROSSBOW: POLICE

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Waddell was arrested the following day, officials said. Her sentencing is scheduled for May 27, and she could face up to 25 years in prison.

"Thanks to the outstanding work of our prosecutors and the Suffolk County Police Department, a dangerous individual has been held accountable and will face a lengthy prison sentence for this horrific act," Tierney said in his statement.

Florida prisoner laughs as judge sentences him to life for killing cellmate with pen: 'You are amusing'

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 21:40:36 -0400

A Florida man convicted of killing his cellmate with a pen smiled and laughed as a judge sentenced him to life in prison Tuesday.

Marcus Terry, 43, was found guilty of second-degree murder in December 2025 for killing his cellmate inside the Dade Correctional Institution in Homestead in 2021 by stabbing him in the head with a pen, according to NBC Miami.

During a court appearance on Tuesday, Terry's lawyer, Steven Yermish, asked Judge Ellen Sue Venzer to grant his client a new trial, arguing that inadmissible evidence was presented at trial at the end of last year, the outlet reported.

GUARDS AT 'ALLIGATOR ALCATRAZ' BEAT, PEPPER-SPRAYED DETAINEES, LAWYER SAYS

Venzer rejected Yermish's motion for a new trial and sentenced his client to life behind bars without the possibility of parole, as she described how Terry fatally pushed a pen into the brain of his cellmate, 64-year-old Ray Matos.

"He shoved a pillowcase into his mouth. When the guards came in to find out what was going on, he was standing on top of this man, and his hand was bloodied," Venzer said.

As the judge was detailing the murder, Terry began smiling and laughing.

"I'm not sure why you're laughing," Venzer said to him.

"You are amusing," Terry responded.

The judge replied that she "found nothing amusing about your behavior or the death of this gentleman."

"God have mercy on your soul," Venzer said while handing down his sentence.

Terry may now appeal his sentence, according to NBC Miami.

FLORIDA DOCTOR CHARGED AFTER ALLEGEDLY REMOVING WRONG ORGAN DURING SURGERY

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Terry was already serving a life sentence for armed burglary and armed robbery when he killed Matos, who was his cellmate for less than a week, court records showed.

Matos was found on the ground in the cell, lying in a pool of blood as Terry sat on the lower bunk, according to an arrest warrant.

Latest SCOTUS leak a gift to liberals ‘salivating’ over control of high court narrative: experts

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 18:00:46 -0400

A Supreme Court leak is giving liberals new ammunition in their long-running criticism of the emergency docket after recently published internal memos showed how the high court fast-tracks major cases, a process that critics say has served to advance key parts of President Donald Trump’s agenda in his second term.

"The liberals are salivating over this. They're very happy because it reinforces their narrative," South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman told Fox News Digital.

The memos, published Saturday by The New York Times, offered a rare look at how Chief Justice John Roberts pressed the court in 2016 to quickly block President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

THE FIVE LIBERAL COURTS THAT TIED TRUMP’S HANDS BEFORE SCOTUS CLIPPED THEIR POWER

But the immediate concern now is not about what the documents revealed about the Supreme Court’s emergency docket but rather the leak itself, according to experts, who said it was a deliberate attempt to damage the court's credibility.

"The bigger issue is people are leaking stuff to try to hurt the court," Blackman said. "That's the bigger story. This was done to try to make the court look bad. Roberts, I think, doesn't come out looking very good in this one. ... I think it's designed to hurt the chief in particular."

The leaked internal memos appeared centered on the 5-4 decision along ideological lines in February 2016 to block Obama's signature energy plan. The memos, written by and circulated among the justices, showed Roberts urging his colleagues to quickly intervene and halt the plan, a revelation that fueled attacks from the left on the so-called shadow docket.

"The new reporting highlights the role of this rashly issued stay in inaugurating the Supreme Court’s use of unexplained and hastily issued 'shadow docket' proceedings to alter major national policies," Environmental Defense Fund general counsel Vickie Patton said in a statement Monday.

The leak has generated several theories in legal circles that a liberal justice or retired liberal justice or one of their former clerks passed the 16 pages of memos off to The New York Times to weaken confidence in high-profile emergency docket decisions, which have often favored Trump since he took office. A similar, smaller-scale leak to the same New York Times reporters occurred in 2024.

A 'deteriorating culture at the court'

Blackman noted the person who gave the decade-old memos to The New York Times could share even more.

"This person probably kept a lot of things and decided to leak this, and there might be even more coming," Blackman said. "I think this is absolutely partisan, and it's done in a way to hurt and wound the court and to reaffirm this notion that the shadow docket is an evil, nefarious regime."

SUPREME COURT’S 2026 RULINGS COULD DEFINE AMERICA FOR DECADES TO COME

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley echoed Blackman's sentiments in an op-ed, saying "the controversy over the use of the shadow docket is immaterial to this story."

Turley pointed to the Dobbs opinion leak to Politico from 2022, which was, at the time, a stunning violation of the high court's confidentiality. Turley noted while that breach was an apparent "effort to influence the final opinion," this latest one is about an old case and therefore "had a purely malicious purpose to embarrass or disrupt the court."

"The leaks appear to reflect a deteriorating culture at the court," Turley added.

The Supreme Court's press office did not respond to an inquiry from Fox News Digital about the leaks.

GREGG JARRETT: TRUMP’S DEPORTATION WINS ARE A REBUKE TO SCHEMING LAWYERS AND ACTIVIST JUDGES

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News on Monday the memos were "100%" intended to discredit the court. Hawley and his wife, Erin, a lawyer at the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, both previously worked as law clerks for Roberts.

"You can tell from the news article that it builds that way," Hawley said. "They criticize the court for how they're managing their docket. They say this is some big conspiracy. The only conspiracy is the multi-year effort funded by somebody to undermine the institution of the court from within, from without. ... We need to find out who's doing this."

Shadow docket criticism

The emergency docket allows litigants to bypass lengthy court proceedings and seek immediate relief from the Supreme Court if lower courts block them through restraining orders or preliminary injunctions.

Democrats have criticized the Supreme Court for the higher frequency of emergency decisions, which often contain little explanation but have increased because of what legal experts say is a rise in executive actions in lieu of Congress passing laws.

In Trump's second term, the justices have ruled in favor of Trump on emergency decisions most of the time, clearing the way for Trump to fire masses of federal employees, cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts, move forward with aggressive immigration policies and more.

MORNING GLORY: IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, READ SARAH ISGUR'S NEW BOOK

Last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, tore into the high court's majority during a Yale Law School speech for issuing what she said were rushed, "scratch-paper musings" that advance "harmful" policies.

Upon introducing a bill to "increase transparency" of the emergency docket in December, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the Supreme Court was losing credibility by not allowing cases to first play out in the lower courts.

"The Roberts Court’s reliance on the Shadow Docket to covertly fast-track one-paragraph decisions on major cases drives tremendous mistrust toward Justices already facing record-low levels of public confidence," Raskin said at the time.

Roberts the 'bulldozer'

The Clean Power Plan would have involved the Obama Environmental Protection Agency imposing regulations on coal-powered plants under the Clean Air Act, a move that red states and industry groups implored the Supreme Court to quickly stop in 2016.

According to the memos, Roberts, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote that without the high court stepping in, "both the states and private industry will suffer irreparable harm from a rule that is — in my view — highly unlikely to survive."

The New York Times described Roberts as acting like a "bulldozer." Blackman said "it's very clear" that Roberts stepped in to stop the EPA administrator from ramming through a plan in Obama's last year in office that could reshape the energy sector with only the "very liberal" D.C. appellate court weighing in.

In another memo, Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, disagreed with Roberts, saying "the unique nature of the relief sought in these applications gives me real pause."

In a matter of days, the high court issued its brief, unexplained decision along ideological lines to temporarily block Obama's plan. The move would become a death blow to Obama's efforts because Democrats would lose the White House later that year.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Blackman noted that accountability for leaking the private memos, which framed Roberts as spearheading a reckless decision, would be difficult, saying any possible crime would fall outside of statutes of limitations and that, outside of the possibility of attempting to disbar the culprit for an ethics violation, there was no real recourse, especially for conservatives seeking to punish a possible left-leaning leaker.

"If a liberal leaks, they'll get a medal," Blackman said. "They'll become a hero. They'll suffer zero professional consequences. In fact, they'll probably be better off."

Trump blasts Ketanji Brown Jackson as 'low IQ person' in Supreme Court tirade

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 16:15:29 -0400

President Donald Trump appeared to target Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Wednesday, calling her a "low IQ person" as he criticized the Supreme Court over recent rulings he opposes.

Trump’s comments come as he has grown increasingly frustrated with the Supreme Court, particularly after it blocked his sweeping tariff plan and weighs his effort to end birthright citizenship.

Though Trump did not name Jackson directly, his reference to the "new" female justice appointed by former President Joe Biden was clear. Biden in 2022 nominated Jackson, a Harvard Law School graduate and former clerk to former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, to the high court.

"The Republican Justices don’t stick together," Trump said, adding that the court "ALWAYS vote as a group, or BLOCK, even that new, Low IQ person, that somehow found her way to the bench (Sleepy Joe!)."

JUSTICE THOMAS WARNS PROGRESSIVISM IS A THREAT TO AMERICA IN RARE PUBLIC REMARKS

Trump's remarks came as part of a broader tirade against the Supreme Court's conservative majority, which he said showed him "very little loyalty" earlier this year in blocking his global tariffs from taking force. He also suggested the court might rule against him on his executive order seeking to end so-called "birthright citizenship" in the U.S.

Trump had attended a portion of those oral arguments in person, making history and signaling just how closely he has been monitoring the issue.

"Certain 'Republican’ Justices have just gone weak, stupid, and bad, completely violating what they ‘supposedly’ stood for," Trump said. He contrasted this with Democrat justices, whom he said "stick together like glue, totally loyal to the people and ideology that got them there."

TRUMP WARNS SUPREME COURT TARIFF SHOWDOWN IS ‘LIFE OR DEATH’ FOR AMERICA

"They are an immovable force, and there is nothing that can be done to change that," Trump said, adding: "Frankly, I respect that a lot!"

Trump's remarks come after the high court blocked his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs from taking force earlier this year. Justices in February blocked Trump, 6-3, from using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA to unilaterally enact steep reciprocal tariffs.

Trump on Wednesday also suggested the high court might rule against him on birthright citizenship. Trump used the social media post to take aim at what he described as the "nasty, one-sided questions on the country destroying the subject of Birthright Citizenship" during oral arguments earlier this month.

Trump attended roughly half of the oral arguments, and left shortly after U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer finished making the administration's case.

"If they rule against our Country on Birthright Citizenship, which they probably will, it will be even worse, if that’s possible," Trump said of the Supreme Court. "It will cost America massive amounts of money but, more importantly, it will cost America its DIGNITY!"

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS

The remarks come weeks after a majority of justices earlier this month appeared skeptical of Trump’s effort to end so-called birthright citizenship, using oral arguments to cite concerns over the legality and enforcement of an executive order that could reshape protections for millions of Americans.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

A ruling in Trump's favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship, which Trump and his allies argue are misguided.

Trump said in a separate Truth Social post Tuesday night that, "based on the questioning by Republican Nominated Justices that I watched firsthand in the Court, we lose" the case.

Jackson scolds colleagues in solo dissent after court jumps into routine police-stop case

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:14:02 -0400

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the Supreme Court majority on Monday of overstepping its role to "wordsmith" a lower court in Washington, D.C., in a pointed break from her colleagues in a Fourth Amendment case about whether a police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a man.

Jackson, a Biden appointee, was the lone justice to defend the D.C. appeals court, which had found last year that the officer improperly stopped the man while he was in a vehicle. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision 7-2, approving the police stop. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee and the high court's most senior liberal justice, also broke with the majority but declined to join Jackson's dissent, further isolating Jackson as an outlier even among the liberal justices.

The Supreme Court’s decision emphasized that police officers have the broad ability to rely on a "totality of the circumstances" when making stops, noting that sometimes seemingly trivial standalone facts about a situation can be combined with more suspicious behavior to justify reasonable suspicion for a police stop or arrest.

JACKSON-KAVANAUGH TENSIONS SURFACE IN CANDID EXCHANGE OVER SUPREME COURT 'SHADOW DOCKET'

But Jackson argued against what she said was the high court's intervention in a lower court's routine evaluation of which facts are relevant and which are not.

"I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court," Jackson wrote.

The case arose from a 2023 dispatch call to Washington, D.C., police at 2 a.m. reporting a suspicious vehicle. When an officer arrived on scene, two people ran from the car while the remaining passenger slowly began backing out of the parking lot with a door still open. The D.C. attorney general's office argued on behalf of police that this "totality" of facts amounted to reasonable suspicion to stop the person who remained in the car.

The Supreme Court’s unsigned per curiam opinion said the lower court improperly ignored that two people fled the vehicle before the third person was stopped by an officer. Jackson said the D.C. appeals court had done basic "culling" of facts to reach its conclusion that the stop was unwarranted.

JUSTICE JACKSON SPARKS ONLINE UPROAR AFTER LINKING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO STEALING A WALLET IN JAPAN

"Under these circumstances, with only seconds to decide whether to intervene, the officer was entirely justified in detaining the driver," lawyers for the police argued.

They added that "within moments of stopping the driver, the officer observed a smashed window and punched-out ignition, confirming that the vehicle had been stolen."

While Jackson has become known for aggressively supporting court intervention in broader constitutional fights involving presidential power, in this case, her dissent emphasized a need for judicial restraint.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Jackson argued that the lower court properly considered the Fourth Amendment, which says people have a right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." She said the case was not worthy of taking the "unusual step of summary reversal."

"I am not sure why our Court sees fit to intervene in this case, let alone to do so summarily," Jackson said. "If the intervention reflects a worry that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (DCCA) misunderstands the Fourth Amendment’s totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, that worry seems unfounded."

Utah justice allegedly sent ‘inappropriate’ texts to lawyer in key redistricting case, officials launch probe

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 16:23:32 -0400

Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and top state lawmakers ordered an independent investigation Friday into a state Supreme Court justice over allegations she had an unethical relationship with an attorney who worked on a high-stakes redistricting case.

Justice Diana Hagen, who was appointed by Cox, stands accused by her ex-husband of sending what he described as "inappropriate" text messages to an attorney who helped challenge a Republican-friendly map that maintained four red congressional seats in Utah.

Hagen joined a unanimous decision to toss out Republicans' redistricting plan in July 2024, a ruling that led to one of the seats flipping blue in time for the 2026 midterms.

FEDERAL JUDGE SCORCHES DEMS FOR PANDERING TO LATINOS WITH CALIFORNIA MAP IN FIERY DISSENT

The revelation of a possible relationship between Hagen and the attorney, David Reymann, who worked on behalf of progressive voting rights groups in the case, stemmed from a complaint that a lawyer for Hagen's husband submitted to Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and the Judicial Conduct Commission, according to local outlet KSL.

Hagen and Reymann have both denied the allegations. Fox News Digital reached out to a Utah Supreme Court representative and Reymann for comment.

The Utah Supreme Court issued a public statement on behalf of Hagen Friday afternoon in which she said she never had a conflict of interest.

SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH NEW YORK REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING FIGHT

"I took prompt, prudent, and transparent steps in response to the allegations made by my ex-husband, including reporting them myself to the Judicial Conduct Commission and submitting a sworn statement. The Judicial Conduct Commission recently reviewed the matter, dismissed the complaint, and closed the case. I remain committed to upholding the highest standards of judicial ethics, integrity, and impartiality."

The complaint and interviews conducted by the Judicial Conduct Commission found that Hagen and her husband began discussing divorce in September 2024, had interacted together with Reymann toward the end of that year and that Hagen did not meet one-on-one with Reymann until 2025, according to KSL.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Cox, along with Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz, who joined the governor in launching the new investigation, said in a joint statement that more "transparency" was needed on the matter, signaling that the public's trust in the state's highest court was at stake, especially after a polarizing decision in a redistricting case set to affect the midterms.

"An initial review by the Judicial Conduct Commission and the court left important questions unresolved," they said. "Allegations of this nature, especially involving public officials, must be examined with transparency and accountability to establish the facts and to maintain public confidence."