Politics
At Supreme Court, Mexico to Offer Culprit for Cartel Violence: Gun Makers
Mexico’s president offered a warning last month in response to news that the Trump administration planned to designate drug cartels as terrorist groups.
“If they declare these criminal groups as terrorists, then we’ll have to expand our U.S. lawsuit,” Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s president, said at a news conference.
She was referring to an unusual lawsuit that will be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday in which Mexico argues U.S. gun manufacturers have aided in the trafficking of weapons used by the cartels.
The case reverses longstanding complaints by President Trump that Mexican cartels have contributed to rising violence in the United States. Instead, Mexico argues the majority of guns found at Mexican crime scenes come from the United States. It seeks some $10 billion in damages from U.S. gun makers.
The dispute comes before the justices at a time of heightened tension between the two countries as the Trump administration leans on Mexico to crack down on illegal migration and cartel organizations. Tariffs on imported goods from Mexico are scheduled to go into effect on Tuesday — the same day the justices are set to consider the guns lawsuit.
President Trump has cited drug trafficking from Mexico as one of the factors driving the decision to impose tariffs. His administration has taken a number of steps to push back on the cartels, including designating more than a half-dozen of the criminal groups as foreign terrorist organizations. That move could result in penalties, including criminal charges, for companies found to be entangled with the cartels, but it has also raised concerns from the Mexican government of a potential violation of Mexico’s sovereignty.
Lawyers for Mexico argue that U.S. manufacturers and gun dealers are complicit in what they call an “iron river” of firearms pouring into the country and arming cartels. They point to strict controls on gun purchases in Mexico, where civilians are not allowed to purchase the types of rapid-fire, powerful military-style weapons favored by the cartels, as evidence that as many as half a million firearms are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year.
“It is far easier and far more efficient to stop the crime gun pipeline at its source and to turn off the spigot,” said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence and a longtime litigator against the gun industry who has worked on the case on behalf of Mexico.
The gun makers, joined by a slew of gun groups including the National Rifle Association, have argued the lawsuit would undermine gun rights in the United States.
“Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish America’s,” the N.R.A. said in a brief in support of the gun makers. “To that end, Mexico aims to destroy the American firearms industry financially.”
The case may be viewed skeptically by the Supreme Court, where the 6-3 conservative supermajority has worked to expand gun rights. But at a time when Mr. Trump has targeted the country, it has offered a forum for Mexico to publicize its counter case that U.S. gun manufacturers share the blame for cartel violence. The Mexican government has also sued several gun stores in Arizona and could expand the effort by filing additional suits.
At a conference last month in Latin America, Pablo Arrocha, a legal adviser for Mexico’s foreign ministry, said that two lawsuits filed so far marked only the beginning of a broader legal strategy to push back against the flow of guns across the border.
For years, Mexico has pushed the United States to do more to curtail the trafficking of American manufactured guns over the border. When Mr. Trump announced he would delay tariffs against Mexico earlier this month, both nations had agreed to address their respective concerns: Mexican authorities promised to work to stem the flow of drugs across the border while U.S. authorities would try to combat gun trafficking.
In recent days, there have been signs of improving relations between the two countries, including when the Mexican government this week sent to the U.S. nearly 30 top cartel operatives wanted by the American authorities. But inside the White House, Mr. Trump’s advisers remain split over whether to take more substantial action in Mexico, including carrying out military strikes against Mexican drug cartels.
A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Mexico first sued multiple gun companies in 2021, arguing that the cartel bloodshed was “the foreseeable result of the defendants’ deliberate actions and business practices.”
A trial court judge dismissed the case, finding it was barred by a 2005 federal law that limits litigation against gun manufacturers and distributors and has provided immunity from actions brought by the families of people killed and injured by their weapons.
A unanimous panel of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, overturned that decision. They found that the lawsuit met the criteria for a part of the law allowing for litigation in cases where knowing violations of firearms laws are a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Gun makers asked the justices to hear the case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141. Lawyers for Smith & Wesson argued Mexico had presented a legal theory that was an “eight-step Rube Goldberg, starting with the lawful production and sale of firearms in the United States and ending with the harms that drug cartels inflict on the Mexican government.”
The lawyers contend the gun makers acted lawfully in the United States and cannot not be held responsible for illegal cartel behavior in Mexico. They cited a 2023 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously that social media companies could not be sued for aiding terrorism because they hosted posts from ISIS.
A trial court judge dismissed Mexico’s case against six of the defendants on other grounds, leaving the Supreme Court’s decision in the case to apply to claims against Smith & Wesson, a gun manufacturer, and Interstate Arms, a wholesaler.
Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.
Politics
Reporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
They didn’t know what to do.
Just before 4 a.m. ET on Wednesday, President Trump blindsided everyone in the U.S. Senate. In a post on Truth Social, the president declared he was “cancelling the Senate hearing” for his Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton. Moreover, the President said he would withhold Clayton’s nomination from “going forward until Jamie McDonald is approved to be U.S. Attorney.”
If confirmed, Clayton would vacate his post as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That’s the slot for which the President is nominating McDonald.
TRUMP SAYS SENATE HEARING ON DNI NOMINEE IS CANCELED UNTIL US ATTORNEY REPLACEMENT CONFIRMED
Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, speaks next to Jessica S. Tisch, New York Police Department commissioner, during a press conference at NYPD headquarters following the arrest of suspects charged with igniting IEDs near Gracie Mansion, the home of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in New York City on March 9, 2026. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)
So what would happen with the hearing?
Lawmakers and aides scrambled as they woke to the news Wednesday morning. After all, Trump is the president. He doesn’t have the authority to cancel a Senate hearing.
“Yeah. I don’t think that’s his call,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a member of the Intelligence Committee.
One senior source told Fox News they presumed that Clayton’s confirmation hearing would forge ahead. Another told Fox the fate of the hearing was “undetermined.”
On one hand, lawmakers and aides had to first digest what was happening. Was the President withdrawing Clayton’s nomination? Was he saying he just wasn’t allowing Clayton to testify? Did the head of the executive branch really believe he could bigfoot a congressional hearing? Or was this the president flexing his political muscle, testing Senate Republicans to see how compliant they might be with his intimation — and potentially cancel the hearing on their own?
So was Clayton’s hearing on or off?
“Are we going to have an Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing today?” yours truly asked panel Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he slid behind a backdoor to a hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Silence from Cotton.
SCOOP: TOP GOP SEN. COTTON TO MEET WITH EMBATTLED TRUMP DEFENSE NOMINEE AS DOUBTS SWIRL
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arrives for a vote in the U.S. Capitol on April 30, 2025, stating the war with Iran will continue for weeks as the U.S. limits their offensive capabilities. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“Do you know the answer?” I followed up.
“Do you think the President overstepped his bounds, saying he was canceling the hearing?” I continued.
By that point, Cotton was well behind the doorway and it closed.
“I have never seen anything quite like this,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the longest-serving members on the Intelligence Committee in Senate history. “Everybody else is going to have to keep guessing for a while.”
It was Washington whiplash.
“Things change around here pretty quick, Chad,” quipped Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
But a bit later, Cotton finally weighed-in when he posted on X that the hearing would proceed. The Arkansas Republican then materialized again in the hallway, heading for an elevator bank.
“To be clear, you will proceed with the hearing and you expect Jay Clayton to be there despite what the President said?” I asked.
A steel-faced Cotton stared straight ahead at the green elevator door.
“Chad, you have our statement,” said a terse Cotton.
But an hour later, Cotton ditched the hearing after the President blocked Clayton from testifying.
“It’s regrettable that the President has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” said Cotton in a new statement on X. “While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”
The stunning reversal left everyone trying to grasp what happened. And what might be next.
SPRINT TO CONFIRM TRUMP NOMINEES KICKS OFF IN JANUARY
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a morning work meeting to “revive balanced, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all” in the presence of the G7 countries, partner countries, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD, as part of the G7 summit, in Evian, eastern France, on June 17, 2026. (Ludovic MARIN / AFP via Getty Images)
“I am not sure whether Jay Clayton has simply been postponed or withdrawn,” mused Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “I wonder whether Jay Clayton knows whether he has been postponed or withdrawn.”
Democrats and Republicans brokered a fragile agreement weeks ago to renew FISA Section 702. The intelligence community argues that program is the powerful tool in the American arsenal to track and combat potential terrorism. Congress repeatedly punted a full renewal for months.
But with both bodies on the precipice of reauthorizing the program, President Trump announced he would install housing czar Bill Pulte as interim DNI. Democrats balked at Pulte, noting he had no intelligence experience. Plus, they viewed him as a political hack who would run roughshod over America’s intelligence apparatus.
So Democrats pulled their support from the FISA compromise.
Most Republicans weren’t exactly enamored with Pulte, either. And those worried about the nation’s security pushed to block Pulte from entering the DNI’s office. That’s why Cotton scheduled Clayton’s confirmation hearing so quickly. It was thought that the Senate might be able to pivot after the hearing and confirm Clayton on the floor late this week or early next.
Rapid confirmation of Clayton was essential. Such a scenario would unlock Democrats’ votes to reauthorize FISA Section 702 after the program’s congressional blessing expired a week ago.
That was the plan. At least until the president initiated the firestorm over Clayton’s confirmation hearing this week.
“Another Trump victory gets upended by an impulse,” vented Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. “It’s frustrating.”
WHY TRUMP PICKED BILL PULTE TO LEAD US INTELLIGENCE AS CRITICS QUESTION HIS QUALIFICATIONS
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., spoke to reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on April 1, 2025, before the weekly Republican Senate policy luncheon. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
But wait. There’s more.
President Trump inserted another chestnut — or hot potato — into his pre-dawn Truth Social screed. Especially if you thought the president was going to make it easy for Congress to hastily re-up FISA as soon as the Senate confirmed Clayton.
“To add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said.
He added that his plan was for Pulte to “remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence” and declared that “Republicans fell into a trap.”
The SAVE America Act is the touchstone of President Trump’s 2026 legislative agenda. It requires proof of citizenship to vote. However, the bill has never garnered even 50 yeas in the Senate on two previous test votes.
“We’ve got to pass the SAVE America Act and conditioning passage of FISA on the prior passage of SAVE America would be a great thing,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Other Senate Republicans were more realistic, based on the legislative history of the SAVE America Act.
“You can’t always get what you want,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “I mean, I want a Porsche for my birthday. I’m not going to get it.”
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said a classified briefing reinforced his view that Iran’s leaders would use a nuclear weapon if they obtained one during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C. (Elizabeth Frantz / Reuters)
Democrats seethed about national security as Republicans squirmed.
“We had a path forward as of yesterday (on FISA) and today we don’t,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. “This has become a complete debacle and now it’s up to the White House to figure out a path forward here.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
No one knows what’s next for Clayton. Or McDonald. Or FISA. And there’s high skepticism anything happens on the SAVE America Act. So it’s all in a cryogenic Congressional freeze.
Regardless, Clayton’s confirmation hearing never happened. Such hearings are the responsibility of the legislative branch. But by the end of the day, there was no question who canceled it.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled for gun rights and against drug laws on Thursday, striking down part of a federal law that made it a crime for an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug like marijuana to own firearms.
All nine justices agreed the law was too broad and overly harsh.
They left open the possibility that “addicts” and “unusually dangerous” people who were impaired by drugs could be denied guns.
The Trump administration had urged the court to uphold the prosecution of Ali Hemani, a Texas man who was investigated for alleged terrorist ties and admitted to being a regular user of marijuana.
Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives and any other person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
In defense of the law, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that “habitual” drug users were akin to “habitual drunkards” in early American history, and could therefore be denied the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But that historical argument fell flat, including with the court’s conservatives.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is a skeptic of laws that give prosecutors broad and unchecked power.
“The law automatically bans an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he ceases being one,” he wrote in U.S. vs. Hemani. “It doesn’t matter what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others.”
The government’s view “suggests that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”
And a conviction can lead to a 15-year prison term, he added.
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the ruling.
“The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.”
Some defenders of gun regulation opposed the ruling.
“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hemani,” said Janet Carter, managing director of 2nd Amendment litigation at Everytown Law. “That said, the court has stressed that its decision is limited — rightly recognizing that drugs and guns can make for a dangerous mix, and leaving open the possibility of prosecuting someone with proof that their drug use renders their gun possession dangerous to themselves or others.”
Two years ago, Hunter Biden, the president’s son, was charged and convicted under the gun law for making a false statement when he applied for a gun permit. He denied being a drug user at a time when prosecutors said he was addicted to crack cocaine.
Then-President Biden gave him a full pardon in December 2024.
Hemani was investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorists but was not charged with such a crime.
In 2020, he and his parents “traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem [Suleimani], an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before,” the administration told the court last year.
The FBI obtained a warrant to search Hemani’s family home. Agents found a Glock 9-millimeter pistol, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine.
When questioned, Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.
A federal grand jury in Texas charged him with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana.
But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this restriction on guns violated the 2nd Amendment. It said that “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”
Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration urged the justices to uphold the law.
“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” the solicitor general said.
But the justices affirmed the 5th Circuit’s decision.
Still pending before the court is a 2nd Amendment challenge to new laws in Hawaii and California that would prohibit carrying guns into private businesses unless the owner or manager had given their express approval.
Gun rights advocates said such laws, if enforced, are intended to deny their rights to carry concealed weapons when they leave home. The case is Wolford vs. Lopez.
The justices will issue decisions next week on Tuesday and Thursday.
new video loaded: Reflecting Pool Turns Green, Paint Peels After Renovation
transcript
transcript
Reflecting Pool Turns Green, Paint Peels After Renovation
Algae blooms have hit the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, which underwent a $14.2 million repair project. Blue paint appeared to be chipping from the bottom.
-
“The reflecting pool is greener than I have ever seen it before due to algae.” “I was expecting to see blue, but green is O.K.” “Honestly, I don’t think you can fight mother nature.”
By Julie Yoon, Jackeline Luna and Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 19, 2026
-
Politics2 minutes agoReporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA
-
Health14 minutes agoWeight-loss drugs linked to ‘Ozempic ears’ and other cosmetic complaints, surgeons say
-
Sports17 minutes agoFlorida AG launches civil rights investigation into MLB’s warning to Christian pitchers over Pride Night caps
-
Technology22 minutes agoFox News AI Newsletter: Bezos predicts labor shortage
-
Business29 minutes agoLandmark downtown apartment tower faces foreclosure
-
Entertainment32 minutes agoBob Dylan is absolutely cooking on the road right now
-
Lifestyle37 minutes agoL.A. Affairs: Would taking a trip with this new guy finally push us out of the ‘polite’ phase?
-
Politics44 minutes ago
Drug users don’t lose their gun rights, Supreme Court rules
