Politics
David H. Souter, a retired Supreme Court Justice, has died
WASHINGTON — Retired Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, the shy and frugal small-town New Englander who was touted as a conservative but surprised his Republican backers and nearly everyone else by becoming a staunch liberal on the high court, has died, the court said in a statement Friday. He was 85.
Souter stepped down in 2009 after nearly two decades on the court where he cast key votes to uphold laws on campaign finance, environmental protection, civil rights and church-state separation. He also played a crucial role in upholding a woman’s right to choose abortion in 1992.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts said in a statement that “Justice Souter served our court with great distinction for nearly 20 years. He brought uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service.”
Souter often said he liked the court work, but he did not like living in Washington and looked forward to returning home.
“After retiring to his beloved New Hampshire in 2009, he continued to render significant service to our branch by sitting regularly on the court of appeals for the First Circuit,” Roberts said.
As an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, Souter was expected to join with then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and other conservatives who were determined to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that expanded abortion rights.
But when a Pennsylvania test case came before the court in 1992, Souter instead joined moderate Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy to affirm the right to abortion. Souter saw the issue as a matter of precedent.
Repealing the constitutional right to abortion would be “a surrender to political pressure,” he wrote. “To overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.”
That decision stood for 30 years, but in 2022, three new justices appointed by President Trump played key roles in overturning the constitutional right to abortion and leaving it to the states to decide.
Souter had also cast key votes to maintain church-state separation. In 1992, he joined a 5-4 decision that upheld the strict ban on school-sponsored prayers at graduations. The five justices who voted to uphold the abortion right and the ban on school prayers were all Republican appointees.
But they no longer reflected the views of a more socially conservative GOP, and Souter was denounced by some in the party as a turn-coat. By the late 1990s, “No more Souters” had become a rallying cry for conservative legal activists.
“Justice Souter was a judicial version of a disappearing phenomenon: the moderate New England Republican,” said Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School. “He was not a true liberal and would not have been a liberal on the court of the 1960s and ‘70s. But he believed in privacy and civil rights and precedents, and that made him a liberal on the court of his day.”
He was unusual in other ways. Shortly after he arrived as a new justice in 1990, he was dubbed one of the city’s “most eligible bachelors” in the Washington Post, leading to a series of dinner invitations. He usually found himself seated between a single woman and a guest who spoke only Japanese, he later joked.
Souter became adept at turning down invitations. He would dine with Justice John Paul Stevens and his wife, or with O’Connor, but mostly he worked and ate alone. He spent evenings jogging along the waterfront near his small apartment.
Whenever the court took an extended break, Souter drove to the farmhouse where he grew up in tiny Weare, N.H., so he could hike.
He was in good health and not yet 70 when President Obama moved into the White House in early 2009. Soon after, Souter passed word that he intended to retire. Obama chose Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina on the high court, to replace him.
Souter was dubbed a “stealth nominee” when he arrived in Washington in 1990, and he remained a mystery when he left. He did no interviews and made no public statements.
Back in New Hampshire, he continued to serve part time as a retired judge on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, deciding low-profile cases out of the public spotlight.
Souter was not the first justice to surprise the president who appointed him, but he may be among the last. Since Souter’s time — and indeed, partly in reaction to him — presidents have carefully selected court nominees with public records showing they shared similar views on legal issues.
Souter had deep ties to the Republican Party. He carried a gold watch that was a prized possession of a great-great-grandfather who attended the Republican party convention of 1860 that nominated Abraham Lincoln as president.
The GOP supported environmental conservation and the separation of church and state when Souter was growing up. But it grew increasingly more conservative over the decades, and Souter didn’t always agree.
In July 1990, he was a 50-year-old bachelor who lived alone in a farm house with peeling paint and books on the floor. He had just been named to the U.S. court of appeals in Boston. Until then, he had spent his entire career as a prosecutor, state attorney and judge in New Hampshire.
His scholarly manner and devotion to the law had won him influential admirers, including then-Sen. Warren Rudman and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, who was then-White House chief of staff to the first President Bush.
When the Supreme Court’s liberal leader, William J. Brennan, suffered a stroke and announced his retirement, Souter’s name made the president’s short list of possible nominees.
Bush was anxious to avoid a fight with Senate Democrats over abortion and civil rights. Republicans still smarted from the Senate’s defeat in 1987 of Judge Robert Bork, whose strongly conservative writings convinced critics he was too extreme to be confirmed.
Souter seemed an ideal nominee. He was conservative, or at least old-fashioned. He wrote with a fountain pen, not a computer. And he ignored television. He only learned Brennan was stepping down when a postal clerk in his town shared the news.
Two days later, Souter stood in the White House press room as Bush announced his nomination. Souter was said to have no “paper trail,” but Sununu privately assured activists that he would be a “home run for conservatives.”
Liberal Democrats, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, were Souter’s sharpest critics that summer, while the arch-conservative Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina led the fight to confirm him. In less than two years, it became clear that both sides had miscalculated.
By the mid-1990s, Souter had allied himself with Stevens, another moderate Republican who also seemed to move left, and with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, the two appointees of President Clinton. They formed a liberal bloc in cases where the court split along ideological lines.
David Hackett Souter was born in Melrose, Mass., on Sept. 17, 1939, the only child of Joseph and Helen Souter. His father was a banker and his mother a gift shop clerk. When he was 11, the family moved to the New Hampshire farm house in Weare that remained Souter’s primary home until after his retirement.
As a Harvard undergraduate, Souter dated a young woman and spoke of marrying her. But when he won a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship and went to England to study at Oxford University, she found someone else.
Souter told friends he was disappointed he never married. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1966, he eschewed the big-city law firms and returned to the small-town life and rugged mountains of the New Hampshire he loved.
Friends and former clerks say Souter was never a true conservative as his early backers said, nor was he a solid liberal as he was portrayed years later.
Souter was “a judge’s judge,” said Penn Law Professor Kermit Roosevelt, who clerked for him in 1999. “He didn’t have a political agenda. People had a mistaken idea of what they were getting when he was appointed.”
new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
transcript
transcript
Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.
-
“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”
By Jackeline Luna
February 27, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.
Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.
“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement.
“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”
ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”
Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)
ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”
“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”
“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.
DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant. (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”
“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”
The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.
BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE
Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)
It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.
Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.
The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)
“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting. ”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”
Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.
Related Article
The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.
Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.
To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.
“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.
Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.
The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.
Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.
“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”
Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.
Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.
Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.
David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.
David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.
(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)
On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.
Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.
Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.
“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”
Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”
Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.
“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.
“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.
Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.
The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.
“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.
In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.
Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.
Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.
(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)
Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.
The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.
That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.
Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.
During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.
First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.
Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”
The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.
Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.
Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.
This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.
“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”
Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.
In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.
On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.
On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.
“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”
On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.
It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.
“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”
Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.
Miami heat: Phones are ringing off the hook as California billionaires look to drop 9 figures on homes in the 305
‘We’re honoring Black excellence’: Mass. celebrates leaders of color
Tempers flare during another tightly contested matchup between Denver Nuggets, Oklahoma City Thunder
Seattle Torrent put Olympic captain Hilary Knight on long-term IR – Seattle Sports
Joan Endres – San Diego Union-Tribune
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement
Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?
How the federal government is painting immigrants as criminals on social media
Where Iran’s ballistic missiles can reach — and how close they are to the US
Has India’s influence in Afghanistan grown under the Taliban?
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT