Connect with us

Politics

Hawley clashes with UPenn law professor over judicial injunctions

Published

on

Hawley clashes with UPenn law professor over judicial injunctions

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., clashed Tuesday with a University of Pennsylvania law professor over the number of nationwide judicial injunctions imposed by district judges against President Donald Trump’s executive actions on matters including deportations, tariffs, and cuts to federal funding and the federal workforce. 

During the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled “The Supposedly ‘Least Dangerous Branch’: District Judges v. Trump,” Hawley displayed a bar chart to argue that nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, which had not been used until the 1960s, surged when Trump came into office for his first term and then dramatically dropped again during former President Joe Biden’s time at the White House. 

“Now, you don’t think this is a little bit anomalous?” Hawley asked University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw. 

TRUMP CRITICIZES RAND PARL OVER TAX BILL OPPOSTION: ‘VOTES NO ON EVERYTHING’

Advertisement

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, speaks to members of the media during a vote at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Monday, June 2, 2025.  (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Shaw, a Supreme Court contributor for ABC News who previously worked for former President Barack Obama’s White House Counsel’s Office, responded, “A very plausible explanation, senator, you have to consider is that [Trump] is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents. Right?” 

“This was never used before the 1960s,” Hawley said. “And suddenly Democrat judges decide we love the nationwide injunction. And then when Biden comes office, no, no.” 

Shaw cited Mila Sohoni, a Stanford Law School professor, as suggesting that the first nationwide injunction came in 1913 and others were issued in the 1920s. 

“The federal government was doing a lot less until 100 years ago,” she said. “There’s many things that have changed in the last hundred or the last 50 years.” 

Advertisement

“So as long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions?” Hawley shot back. “If it’s a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted and called for? How can our system of law survive on those principles?” 

Shaw said she believes a system where there “are no legal constraints on the president is a very dangerous system of law,” but the Republican from Missouri contended that’s not what the law professor believed when Biden was president. 

“You said it was a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law,” Hawley said. “You said the idea that anyone would foreign shop to get a judge who would issue a nationwide injunction was a politician, just judges looking like politicians in robes. Again, it threatened the underlying legal system. People are just trying to get the result they wanted. It was a travesty for the rule of law. But you’re fine with all of that if it’s getting the result that you want.” 

Kate Shaw, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, testifies during a Senate Committee on the Judiciary joint subcommittee hearing to examine District Judges v. Trump, on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, June 3, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)

JUDGE TO BLOCK TRUMP ADMIN’S HARVARD FOREIGN STUDENTS BAN

Advertisement

Hawley cited Shaw’s stance in a specific abortion pill ruling during Biden’s presidency. In April 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction on the Biden Food and Drug Administration’s mifepristone rules, which Shaw described at the time as “a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law.” 

Hawley said she had failed to offer a legitimate principle for issuing nationwide injunctions now. 

“I understand you hate the president,” the senator told Shaw. “I understand that you love all of these rulings against him. You and I both know that’s not a principle. You’re a lawyer. What’s the principle that divides when issuing a nationwide injunction is OK and when it is not? When the Biden administration was subject to nationwide injunctions, you said that they were travesties for the principle of democracy.” 

“When it’s Biden, it’s OK. When it’s Biden, oh, it’s a travesty. When it’s Trump in office, it’s a no holds barred, whatever it takes,” the senator added. 

Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., greets University of Pennsylvania law Professor Kate Shaw before a subcommittee hearing about the unprecedented number of nationwide judicial injunctions against President Donald Trump on June 3, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Hawley said Shaw and his Democratic colleagues were raising “very principled injunctions” to nationwide injunctions issued against Biden just nine months ago and “all that’s changed in nine months is the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

“I realize that my colleagues on this side of the aisle very much dislike that individual,” Hawley said, referring to Trump. “And I realize that you think that the rulings that he has lost are fundamentally sound.”

“I disagree with all of that, but we can put that to one side. The question we’re talking about here is, ‘Should judges, single judges, district court judges be able to bind nonparties who are not in front of them?’ And you used to say no. Now you say yes,” he said. “Let’s be consistent. I would just suggest to you our system of government cannot survive if it’s going to be politics all the way down.” 

Shaw responded that “democracy is not as simple as majority rule,” but Hawley interjected, saying, “You would have it as simple as majority rule. When you get the majority you like, you’re for the nationwide injunction. When you don’t, you’re not.” 

Advertisement

Politics

Crews Drape Tarp Over White House in Latest Trump Restoration

Published

on

Construction workers unfurled a large printed tarp to cover scaffolding installed at the White House’s front entrance. Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, said President Trump had ordered the repairs after noticing damage to columns.

Continue Reading

Politics

WATCH: Trump’s Energy chief reveals what escalating Iran tensions could mean for gas prices

Published

on

WATCH: Trump’s Energy chief reveals what escalating Iran tensions could mean for gas prices

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Energy Secretary Chris Wright is telling Americans not to be concerned about the possibility of another surge of sharp increases in gasoline prices as tensions with Iran have started to escalate once again.

Asked whether Americans should worry about higher prices at the pump and how the Trump administration is preparing to keep the economy stable if the conflict continues to worsen, Wright told Fox News Digital: “It has not been any good behavior from Iran that’s allowed oil to flow. It’s been the United States military.”

“That’s not changing,” he assured, speaking from the Great American State Fair on the National Mall this week.

US CLAWS BACK KEY CONCESSION TO IRAN AFTER FRESH ATTACKS ON COMMERCIAL SHIPS IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ

Advertisement

(Mario Tama/Getty Images) (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

With Iran striking three commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Monday and Tuesday, Wright doubled down in urging citizens to not credit Iran for the U.S. military’s work to ensure oil shipments continue flowing through the strait.

“Look, the U.S. Military has been the key asset here,” he said. “They have assured the flow of oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz throughout. Not at the beginning of this conflict, but through the last six weeks.”

Wright said the administration is closely monitoring global oil supplies as the tentative ceasefire with Iran seemingly came to come to a halt, with President Donald Trump telling Secretary-General Mark Rutte the call for peace with Iran is “over” at the NATO Summit in Turkey on Wednesday.

But, he pointed to the continued shipping through the Strait as evidence that markets should remain stable.

Advertisement

TRUMP SAYS IRAN CEASEFIRE IS ‘OVER’ AFTER IRANIAN ATTACKS TRIGGER MASSIVE US RESPONSE

President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on Tuesday, April 22. (AP/Alex Brandon)

“We’re of course constantly watching the supply of oil, the supply of refined products and what’s going on there,” Wright said. “And I think still all positive trends.”

Beyond geopolitical concerns, Wright also praised the new chain of discounted gas stations across Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Freedom Fuel, which promises customers prices below the national average.

The Trump administration, though not involved with the network, has heavily endorsed the new chain and its 25 locations.

Advertisement

“We love it,” Wright said when asked about Freedom Fuel. “I mean, look, any mechanism we can to lower energy costs for Americans of all kinds, we’re all in on.”

“With Freedom Fuels, they’re just lowering it down to their wholesale price of gasoline,” Wright said. “So they’re not making any money selling gasoline, but they’ve got convenience stores. That’s how most gas stations make money.”

NEWSOM UNDER FIRE AS CALIFORNIA GAS TAX HIKE SENDS PUMP PRICES EVEN HIGHER

Gasoline costs are a known concern for many Americans, and amid surging prices there has been a considerable increase in those opting to purchase electric vehicles to save money long-term at the pump — with Tesla dominating the market for these types of models.

Wright argued one of the benefits to living in America is having the option to choose what type of vehicle you drive.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We just want people to buy what they would prefer,” he told Fox News Digital when asked his thoughts on increasing calls for support of the electrification of cars. “Consumer choice — you wanna buy an electric car, you wanna buy a gas powered car, diesel powered car, buy a big truck. That’s the choice.”

“That’s why you live in America. You get the choice of all those.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Black mold and $1 wages: Settlement forces immigrant detention centers to protect workers

Published

on

Black mold and  wages: Settlement forces immigrant detention centers to protect workers

In 2023, California regulators levied more than $100,000 in fines against the private operator of a federal immigration facility, kicking off a three-year battle over whether detainees who do work at the facilities should be considered employees.

The question went beyond semantics: If considered employees, the detainees would be subject to state worker protection laws.

A legal settlement announced this week now affirms that private immigrant detention facilities are subject to California’s workplace safety and health requirements.

“Every worker deserves a safe and healthy workplace and should be able to report workplace hazards without fear of retaliation,” said Denisse Gómez, spokesperson for the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health or Cal/OSHA.

Advertisement

“Individuals who perform work in these facilities are entitled to workplace safety protections, and this settlement reinforces Cal/OSHA’s commitment to enforcing those protections and safeguarding vulnerable workers,” she added.

Under the settlement between California and the GEO Group, a Florida-based private prison company, the company recently withdrew its legal challenges and agreed to pay more than $100,000 in the fines.

The GEO Group did not respond to requests for comment.

Back in 2023, Cal/OSHA issued $104,510 in fines against the GEO Group. The agency had found six violations of state code by the company after detainees complained about a lack of protective equipment and proper training while cleaning the facility for $1 per day.

Detainees alleged they routinely wiped black mold off shower walls at the facility, saw black dust spew from air vents and used cleaning solutions that lacked instructions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Advertisement

The biggest fine levied against the GEO Group was for failure to establish and maintain “effective written procedures to reduce employee risk of exposure to aerosol transmissible disease.”

Advocates viewed Cal/OSHA’S recognition of the detainees as workers as a victory that could pave the way for future labor rights fights at other detention centers in the state.

But the GEO Group appealed, arguing that detainees participating in ICE’s voluntary work program make their own schedules and aren’t employees, so hazard exposure couldn’t be “as a result of assigned duties,” as California law states. Plus, the company argued, there wasn’t enough evidence that detainees were exposed to any hazard.

Early last year, the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board rejected the GEO Group’s argument and found that detainees should be considered “affected employees.”

The GEO Group sued, but three days before a California Superior Court hearing in May, the company and Cal/OSHA reached the settlement.

Advertisement

Along with paying the fines, the GEO Group agreed to draft plans for avoiding aerosol transmissions at 12 secure and reentry facilities in California, including five detention centers that hold immigrants.

“GEO ensures detainees are afforded the necessary tools, equipment, and personal protective equipment … to safely and effectively perform any necessary tasks,” the settlement states.

Gómez said the settlement also leaves intact the appeals board’s ruling that civil immigration detainees who participate in work programs can participate in proceedings anonymously, “acknowledging the potential for retaliation when individuals raise workplace safety concerns.”

But the question of whether detainees are employees and deserve certain protections isn’t entirely resolved — at least not for the federal government.

Last month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released new standards for detention facilities across the country. The revised guidelines “emphasize that detainee volunteers participating in the voluntary work program are not considered facility and/or government employees” and thus not entitled to labor regulations.

Advertisement

Attorney Mariel Villarreal said the timing of the new detention standards made her question whether the GEO Group had asked ICE to specify in its standards that detainees are not workers in response to its battle with Cal/OSHA.

“To me, it’s a reaction to this very settlement,” she said. Villarreal works for the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, which filed the original complaint on behalf of detainees who said they worked in unsafe conditions.

Villarreal pointed to a Washington Post report that GEO Group executives privately asked ICE to specify that detainees are not employees of the facilities where they work. Two top Trump administration officials, border czar Tom Homan and acting ICE director David Venturella, previously worked for the GEO Group.

New versions of ICE detention standards take effect as contracts are established or modified, so this year’s rules won’t immediately apply to every facility.

An ICE spokesperson did not comment about the settlement. The spokesperson, who did not provide their name in an emailed statement Wednesday, said the agency has begun transitioning detention facilities to meet the 2026 standards, “building on its longstanding commitment to safe, secure, and professional detention operations.”

Advertisement

“ICE has consistently implemented many of these best practices independently, reinforcing its role as the leader in detention operations,” the spokesperson added.

The GEO Group and other immigrant detention center operators have faced other legal battles over workers’ rights, including lawsuits in Washington, Colorado and California over the $1-per-day payment.

Villarreal said she’s confident that the Cal/OSHA settlement would continue to hold even if California facilities incorporated the new standards. But she said she believes the statements are an attempt by the GEO Group to “sidestep responsibility” and avoid the possibility of being fined under similar circumstances in other states.

“These statements in the new standards are a way for them to try and preserve profits as much as possible,” she said. “GEO and ICE are so intertwined at this point that they have the same motives.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending