Politics
Opinion: From legal bribery to Trump's immunity, a dark theme ran through the Supreme Court's term
In the three years since conservatives seized a Supreme Court supermajority, they have overruled at least one major precedent a year. This year, from crippling federal agencies to giving presidents sweeping protection from accountability, they showed no signs of slowing down.
While it’s difficult to boil down any Supreme Court term to a single theme, this one was marked by the court’s determination to make the country safe for corruption. Officials who abuse their offices — including Supreme Court justices eager to seize power at the expense of democracy — had a very good year.
Take, for example, Snyder vs. United States, in which the court rewrote federal anti-corruption laws to permit rather than prohibit corruption.
The case concerned a trucking company that paid an Indiana mayor $13,000 for “consulting services” after his city awarded the company a $1.1-million contract. In considering whether state and local officials may receive gifts, tips or gratuities for official acts, the court’s six Republican-appointed justices concluded that such rewards are perfectly legal even though, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in dissent, they “are functionally indistinguishable from taking a bribe.”
Jackson pointedly wrote that the majority’s “absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love.” Indeed, the majority that decided the case included Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., who themselves have accepted gifts and rewards from billionaires, some of whom have a stake in the court’s business.
The court’s penchant for insulating abuses of power from accountability is not limited to public corruption. In a series of less noticed cases, the court gave powerful corporations a kind of immunity from regulation even when they endanger the public. These cases are technical, but their effects are profound.
In one such case, the court overruled the 40-year-old so-called Chevron doctrine, asserting that the federal courts, not federal agencies, have the power to determine when corporations violate federal environmental, consumer protection, workplace safety and public health laws. Under Chevron, when a statute was ambiguous, courts were required to defer to the judgments of expert administrative agencies. Now the courts, many of them stocked with conservative judges who are hostile to regulation and keen on catering to corporate interests, have the last word.
That’s not all. The court also claimed the power to second-guess and pick apart agency regulations, making it easier for companies to challenge them. In Ohio vs. Environmental Protection Agency, five Republican justices blocked an EPA anti-pollution rule because they didn’t think the agency’s experts had sufficiently explained their efforts to control ozone pollution.
(It was not clear that the court itself possessed the expertise to render this determination. The majority opinion initially confused nitrogen oxides, which cause smog, with nitrous oxide, the “laughing gas” often used for dental procedures.)
In another attack on agency authority, the court hobbled the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to enforce federal securities laws. In SEC vs. Jarkesy, the conservative bloc held that agencies can’t use administrative law judges and internal procedures to impose civil penalties on companies that violate federal securities laws.
Rather, the court declared that companies are entitled to have these cases heard in the federal courts, which are slower than the agencies and populated with Trump appointees handpicked by the Federalist Society partly for their enthusiasm for deregulation. The ruling is likely to force agencies to triage their enforcement of securities laws, focusing on the most egregious violations while abandoning smaller claims often brought by individual investors.
On the last day of the term, the court tilted the legal landscape even further in favor of corporations by inviting more challenges to regulation. In an under-the-radar case, the six conservatives held that plaintiffs may challenge even long-standing agency regulations as long as they claim some new injury from them. As Justice Jackson warned in dissent, this means any new business can contest even thoroughly established regulations, and “well-heeled litigants” can “game the system by creating new entities” to challenge such rules.
The finale of a term preoccupied with protecting corrupt abuses of power was, of course, the decision effectively crowning the president a king unbound by the constraints of law. In Trump vs. United States, the court granted presidents “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution when they are exercising their core constitutional authority — even if they are abusing that authority for corrupt ends. That means special counsel Jack Smith, for instance, can’t prosecute Donald Trump for pressuring the Department of Justice to gin up baseless allegations of voter fraud.
This decision is all the more terrifying in light of the former president’s promise to seek retribution and prosecute his political rivals and critics. The majority’s embrace of an executive absolutely unfettered by judgment or law was so chilling that Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Jackson, was moved to write, “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
But the immunity decision goes even further by cloaking presidents with at least a presumption of immunity for any actions that fall within the perimeters of their official duties. There too, the court insisted that the president’s motives are irrelevant even if he corruptly abuses the powers of his office — say, by ordering his subordinates to prosecute or assassinate a rival. Indeed, the court even made it difficult to prove abuses of presidential power by prohibiting prosecutors from introducing evidence of the president’s motives for official acts, which effectively blocks any criminal prosecution of such conduct.
In all, it’s been a banner term for public and private corruption, which the court’s conservatives repeatedly blessed in its various forms. Even in dodging any substantial holding on two key abortion cases, which on the surface had little to do with government or corporate accountability, the court seemed to be striving to limit the salience of reproductive rights in the coming election. So as the court was seizing power and using it to enable corruption, it also invited suspicion that it was corruptly using its own power to boost the electoral fortunes of the party it favors.
Leah Litman is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. Melissa Murray is a professor of law at the New York University School of Law. They are co-hosts of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast.
Politics
Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
transcript
transcript
President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.
-
“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”
By Jackeline Luna
March 5, 2026
Politics
DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is continuing its investigation into former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen in the final months of his administration — focusing on pardons and commutations — though a senior official said Biden is unlikely to face criminal exposure.
A senior DOJ official told Fox News the autopen investigation is ongoing and not closed, adding investigators are reviewing clemency actions taken in the final months of the Biden administration.
The official also pointed out, however, that the use of an autopen by a sitting president is “established law.”
The issue under review is whether the autopen was used in violation of the law, specifically, whether Biden personally approved each name included on pardon and commutation lists.
A framed portrait shows former President Joe Biden’s signature and an autopen along “The Presidential Walk of Fame” outside the Oval Office of the White House. (Andrew Harnick/Getty Images)
“These types of cases are tough. Executive privilege issues come into play,” the official said.
What is also clear, the official indicated, is that the target of any potential prosecution would not likely be Biden.
“It’s hard to imagine how [Biden] could be criminally liable for pardon power,” the senior DOJ official said.
BIDEN’S AUTOPEN PARDONS DISTURBED DOJ BRASS, DOCS SHOW, RAISING QUESTIONS WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY BINDING
The use of the autopen by former President Joe Biden remains under investigation. (AP Photo)
The official noted that one reason the former president would be unlikely to face charges stems from a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that originally involved current President Donald Trump but would also apply to Biden.
“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States in 2024.
“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”
Sources familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s team continues to review the Biden White House’s reliance on an autopen, contradicting a recent New York Times report that indicated the investigation had been paused.
DOJ SIGNALS IT’S STILL DIGGING INTO BIDEN AUTOPEN USE DESPITE REPORTS PROBE FIZZLED
President Donald Trump has pushed for consequences for former President Joe Biden’s alleged use of the autopen. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)
Trump has pushed for consequences over the autopen controversy, alleging on social media that aides acted unlawfully in its use and raising the prospect of perjury charges against Biden.
Biden has rejected those claims, saying in a statement last year he personally directed the decisions in question.
“Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”
The House Oversight Committee has homed in on Biden’s clemency actions, including five controversial pardons for family members in the final days of his presidency, citing what it described as a lack of “contemporaneous documentation” confirming that Biden directly ordered the pardons.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The committee asked the DOJ to investigate “all of former President Biden’s executive actions, particularly clemency actions, to assess whether legal action must be taken to void any action that the former president did not, in fact, take himself.”
Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
Politics
Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out
SACRAMENTO — Despite a plea from the head of the California Democratic Party for underperforming candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, all but one of the party’s top hopefuls spurned the request.
Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.
His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.
“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.
Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.
“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”
Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.
But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.
“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”
Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.
“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.
Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.
Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.
“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.
Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.
“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”
Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”
Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.
During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.
“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.
That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.
A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.
Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.
“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”
Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.
“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”
Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.
Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.
While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.
Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.
“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”
Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Wisconsin4 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland5 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida5 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Oregon7 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling