Politics
How a Phone Call Drew Alito Into a Trump Loyalty Squabble
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. received a call on his cellphone Tuesday. It was President-elect Donald J. Trump, calling from Florida.
Hours later, Mr. Trump’s legal team would ask Justice Alito and his eight colleagues on the Supreme Court to block his sentencing in New York for falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a pornographic film actress before the 2016 election. And the next day, the existence of the call would leak to ABC News — prompting an uproar about Mr. Trump’s talking to a justice before whom he would have business with substantial political and legal consequences.
Justice Alito said in a statement on Wednesday that the pending filing never came up in his conversation with Mr. Trump and that he was not aware, at the time of the call, that the Trump team planned to file it. People familiar with the call confirmed his account.
But the fact of the call and its timing flouted any regard for even the appearance of a conflict of interest at a time when the Supreme Court has come under intense scrutiny over the justices’ refusal to adopt a more rigorous and enforceable ethics code.
The circumstances were extraordinary for another reason: Justice Alito was being drawn into a highly personalized effort by some Trump aides to blackball Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump from entering the administration, according to six people with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
The phone call centered on William Levi, a former law clerk of Justice Alito’s who seemingly has impeccable conservative legal credentials. But in the eyes of the Trump team, Mr. Levi has a black mark against his name. In the first Trump administration, he served as the chief of staff to Attorney General William P. Barr, who is now viewed as a “traitor” by Mr. Trump for refusing to go along with his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Mr. Levi has been under consideration for several jobs in the new administration, including Pentagon general counsel. He has also been working for the Trump transition on issues related to the Justice Department. But his bid for a permanent position has been stymied by Mr. Trump’s advisers who are vetting personnel for loyalty, according to three of the people with knowledge of the situation.
As Mr. Trump puts together his second administration, Mr. Barr is among a handful of prominent Republicans who are viewed with such suspicion that others associated with them are presumptively not to be given jobs in the administration, according to people familiar with the dynamic. Republicans in that category include Mr. Trump’s former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and his former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley. To be called a “Pompeo guy” or a “Haley person” is considered a kiss of death in Mr. Trump’s inner circle. Resistance to such people can usually be overcome only if Mr. Trump himself signs off on their hiring.
Tuesday’s phone call took place against that backdrop. Several people close to the Trump transition team on Thursday said their understanding was that Justice Alito had requested the call. But a statement from Justice Alito framed the matter as the justice passively agreeing to take a call at the behest of his former clerk.
The disconnect appeared to stem from Mr. Levi’s role in laying the groundwork for the call in both directions. It was not clear whether someone on the transition team had suggested he propose the call.
Mr. Levi did not respond to a request for comment. The Supreme Court press office said it had nothing to add to the statement it put out from Justice Alito on Wednesday. In that statement, Justice Alito said that Mr. Levi “asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position. I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”
He added: “We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed. We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”
During the call, according to multiple people briefed on it, Mr. Trump initially seemed confused about why he was talking to Justice Alito, seemingly thinking that he was returning Justice Alito’s call. The justice, two of the people said, told the president-elect that he understood that Mr. Trump wanted to talk about Mr. Levi, and Mr. Trump then got on track and the two discussed him.
A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an email seeking comment.
While it is unusual for an incoming president to speak with a Supreme Court justice about a job reference, it is routine for justices to serve as references for their former clerks. Justices traditionally treat their clerks as a network of protégés whose continued success they seek to foster as part of their own legacies.
Seemly or not, there is a long history of interactions between presidents and other senior executive branch officials and Supreme Court justices who sometimes will have a say over the fate of administration policies.
In 2004, a controversy arose when there was a lawsuit seeking disclosure of records about Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force meetings. One of the litigants, the Sierra Club, asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from participation in the case because he had recently gone duck hunting with Mr. Cheney. Justice Scalia declined, issuing a 21-page memorandum that explained why he believed stepping aside was unjustified.
Part of Justice Scalia’s argument was that Mr. Cheney was being sued over an official action. That makes Mr. Trump’s pending attempt to block his sentencing for crimes that he was convicted of committing in his private capacity somewhat different, although the basis of Mr. Trump’s argument is that being sentenced and then fighting an appeal would interfere with his ability to carry out his official duties.
In trying to justify his decision not to recuse, Justice Scalia noted that justices have had personal friendships with presidents going back years, including some who played poker with Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman but did not recuse themselves from cases challenging their administrations’ policies and actions.
Mr. Trump has long sought to pressure the Supreme Court, in some cases by publicly hectoring the justices on social media for decisions he disagrees with. Mr. Trump has often privately complained that the three justices he appointed in his first term — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — had “done nothing” for him, according to a person who has discussed the matter with Mr. Trump.
One week after the 2018 midterm elections, Mr. Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump, had lunch with Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia Thomas. Ms. Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, made suggestions about personnel shake-ups to Mr. Trump and later supported his efforts to try to overturn the 2020 election results.
In December 2020, Mr. Trump attacked the Supreme Court as “incompetent and weak” for refusing to address his legal team’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election. Two years later, he attacked the court again for giving Congress access to his tax returns.
The Supreme Court redeemed itself in Mr. Trump’s eyes last summer when the six Republican-appointed justices ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from being prosecuted over actions they took in their official capacity. That ruling threw into doubt how much of the indictment brought against Mr. Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election could actually survive to go to trial — even after prosecutors filed a revised version trying to account for the court’s decision.
The Supreme Court’s intervention also seriously delayed the case’s progress, effectively making it impossible to get the charges to a jury before the election. And once Trump won the 2024 race, he could no longer face prosecution under Justice Department policy.
Kirsten Noyes contributed research from New York.
Politics
Federal judge blocks Trump administration from enforcing mail-in voting rules in executive order
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge in Washington state on Friday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing key parts of an executive order that sought to change how states administer federal elections, ruling the president lacked authority to apply those provisions to Washington and Oregon.
U.S. District Judge John Chun held that several provisions of Executive Order 14248 violated the separation of powers and exceeded the president’s authority.
“As stated by the Supreme Court, although the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, ‘[i]n the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,’” Chun wrote in his 75-page ruling.
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES AGAINST TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER
Residents drop mail-in ballots in an official ballot box outside the Tippecanoe branch library on Oct. 20, 2020 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital in a statement: “President Trump cares deeply about the integrity of our elections and his executive order takes lawful actions to ensure election security. This is not the final say on the matter and the Administration expects ultimate victory on the issue.”
Washington and Oregon filed a lawsuit in April contending the executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March violated the Constitution by attempting to set rules for how states conduct elections, including ballot counting, voter registration and voting equipment.
DOJ TARGETS NONCITIZENS ON VOTER ROLLS AS PART OF TRUMP ELECTION INTEGRITY PUSH
“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for voters in Washington and Oregon, and for the rule of law,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in response to the Jan. 9 ruling, according to The Associated Press. “The court enforced the long-standing constitutional rule that only States and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief.”
President Donald Trump speaks during a breakfast with Senate and House Republicans at the White House, Nov. 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Executive Order 14248 directed federal agencies to require documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms and sought to require that absentee and mail-in ballots be received by Election Day in order to be counted.
The order also instructed the attorney general to take enforcement action against states that include such ballots in their final vote tallies if they arrive after that deadline.
“We oppose requirements that suppress eligible voters and will continue to advocate for inclusive and equitable access to registration while protecting the integrity of the process. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote and to have their votes counted,” said Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs in a statement issued when the lawsuit was filed last year.
Voting booths are pictured on Election Day. (Paul Richards/AFP via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“We will work with the Washington Attorney General’s Office to defend our constitutional authority and ensure Washington’s elections remain secure, fair, and accessible,” Hobbs added.
Chun noted in his ruling that Washington and Oregon do not certify election results on Election Day, a practice shared by every U.S. state and territory, which allows them to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day as long as the ballots were postmarked on or before that day and arrived before certification under state law.
Politics
Deadly ICE shooting in Minnesota, affordability stir up California gubernatorial forums
Just days after the fatal shooting of a Minnesota woman by a federal immigration agent, the Trump administration’s immigration policy was a top focus of California gubernatorial candidates at two forums Saturday in Southern California.
The death of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, inflamed the nation’s deep political divide and led to widespread protests in Los Angeles and across the country about President Trump’s combative immigration policies.
Former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon, speaking at a labor forum featuring Democratic candidates in Los Angeles, said that federal agents aren’t above the law.
“You come into our state and you break one of our f— … laws, you’re going to be criminally charged. That’s it,” he said.
Federal officials said the deadly shooting was an act of self-defense.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) noted that the president of the labor union that organized the candidate forum, David Huerta, was injured and arrested during the Trump administration’s raids on undocumented people in Los Angeles in June.
“Ms. Good should be alive today. David, that could have been you, the way they’re conducting themselves,” he said to Huerta, who was moderating the event. “You’re now lucky if all they did was drag you by the hair or throw you in an unmarked van, or deport a 6-year-old U.S. citizen battling stage 4 cancer.”
Roughly 40 miles south at a separate candidate forum featuring the top two Republicans in the race, GOP candidate and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said politicians who support so-called “sanctuary state” policies should be voted out of office.
“I wish it was the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s — we’d take them behind the shed and beat the s— out of them,” he said.
“We’re in a church!” an audience member was heard yelling during a livestream of the event.
California Democratic leaders in 2017 passed a landmark “sanctuary state” law that limits cooperation between local and federal immigration officers, a policy that was a reaction to the first Trump administration’s efforts to ramp up deportations.
After the campaign to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom was largely obscured last year by natural disasters, immigration raids and the special election to redraw California’s congressional districts, the 2026 governor’s race is now in the spotlight.
Eight Democratic candidates appeared at a forum sponsored by SEIU United Service Workers West, which represents more than 45,000 janitors, security officers, airport service employees and other workers in California.
Many of the union’s members are immigrants, and a number of the candidates referred to their familial roots as they addressed the audience of about 250 people — with an additional 8,000 watching online.
“As the son of immigrants, thank you for everything you did for your children, your grandchildren, to give them that chance,” former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told two airport workers who asked the candidates questions about cuts to state services for immigrants.
“I will make sure you have the right to access the doctor you and your family need. I will make sure you have a right to have a home that will keep you safe and off the streets. I will make sure that I treat you the way I would treat my parents, because you worked hard the way they did.”
The Democrats broadly agreed on most of the pressing issues facing California, so they tried to differentiate themselves based on their records and their priorities.
Candidates for California’s next governor including Tony Thurmond, speaking at left, participate in the 2026 Gubernatorial Candidate Forum in Los Angeles on Saturday.
(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)
“I firmly believe that your campaign says something about who you will be when you lead. The fact that I don’t take corporate contributions is a point of pride for me, but it’s also my chance to tell you something about who I am and who I will fight for,” said former Rep. Katie Porter.
“Look, we’ve had celebrity governors. We’ve had governors who are kids of other governors, and we’ve had governors who look hot with slicked back hair and barn jackets. You know what? We haven’t had a governor in a skirt. I think it’s just about … time.”
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, seated next to Porter, deadpanned, “If you vote for me, I’ll wear a skirt, I promise.”
Villaraigosa frequently spoke about his roots in the labor movement, including a farmworker boycott when he was 15 years old.
“I’ve been fighting for immigrants my entire life. I have fought for you the entire time I’ve been in public life,” he said. “I know [you] are doing the work, working in our buildings, working at the airport, working at the stadiums. I’ve talked to you. I’ve worked with you. I’ve fought for you my entire life. I’m not a Johnny-come-lately to this unit.”
The candidates were not asked about a proposed ballot measure to tax the assets of billionaires that one of SEIU-USWW’s sister unions is trying to put on the November ballot. The controversial proposal has divided Democrats and prompted some of the state’s wealthiest residents to move out of the state, or at least threaten to do so.
But several of the candidates talked about closing tax loopholes and making sure the wealthy and businesses pay their fair share of taxes.
“We’re going to hold corporations and billionaires accountable. We’re going to be sure that we are returning power to the workers who know how to grow this economy,” said former state Controller Betty Yee.
State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond highlighted his proposal to tax billionaires to fund affordable housing, healthcare and education.
“And then I’m going to give you, everyone in this room and California working people, a tax credit so you have more money in your pocket, a couple hundred dollars a month, every month, for the rising cost of gas and groceries,” he said.
Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer said closing corporate tax loopholes would result in $15 billion to $20 billion in new annual state revenue that he would spend on education and healthcare programs.
“When we look at where we’re going, it’s not about caring, because everyone on this stage cares. It’s not about values. It’s about results,” he said, pointing to his backing of successful ballot measures to close a corporate tax loophole, raise tobacco taxes, and stop oil-industry-backed efforts to roll back environmental law.
“I have beaten these special interests, every single time with the SEIU,” he said. “We’ve done it. We’ve been winning. We need to keep fighting together. We need to keep winning together.”
Republican gubernatorial candidates were not invited to the labor gathering. But two of the state’s top GOP contenders were among the five candidates who appeared Saturday afternoon at a “Patriots for Freedom” gubernatorial forum at Calvary Chapel WestGrove in Orange County. Immigration, federal enforcement and homelessness were also among the hot topics there.
Days after Bianco met with unhoused people on Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles and Newsom touted a 9% decrease in the number of unsheltered homeless people during his final state of the state address, Bianco said that he would make it a “crime” for anyone to utter the word “homeless,” arguing that those on the street are suffering from drug- and alcohol-induced psychosis, not a lack of shelter.
Former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton criticized the “attacks on our law enforcement offices, on our ICE agents who are doing their job protecting our country.”
“We are sick of it,” he said at the Garden Grove church while he also questioned the state’s decision to spend billions of dollars for healthcare for low-income undocumented individuals. State Democrats voted last year to halt the enrollment of additional undocumented adults in the state’s Medi-Cal program starting this year.
Politics
Video: Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night
new video loaded: Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night
transcript
transcript
Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night
Hundreds of protesters marched through downtown Minneapolis on Friday night. They stopped at several hotels along the way to blast music, bang drums and play instruments to try to disrupt the sleep of immigration agents who might be staying there. Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis said there were 29 arrests but that it was mostly a “peaceful protest.”
-
The vast majority of people have done this right. We are so deeply appreciative of them. But we have seen a few incidents last night. Those incidents are being reviewed, but we wanted to again give the overarching theme of what we’re seeing, which is peaceful protest. And we wanted to say when that doesn’t happen, of course, there are consequences. We are a safe city. We will not counter Donald Trump’s chaos with our own brand of chaos here. We in Minneapolis are going to do this right.
By McKinnon de Kuyper
January 10, 2026
-
Detroit, MI1 week ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology5 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX3 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Delaware3 days agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Dallas, TX7 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Iowa5 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Health1 week agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Montana1 day agoService door of Crans-Montana bar where 40 died in fire was locked from inside, owner says