Politics
At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump's claims of executive power
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action.
The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration’s lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump’s agenda.
On Friday, the court’s conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump.
What’s been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority under the U.S. Constitution.
On the final two days of the term, the court’s conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump.
The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites.
Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented.
These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states.
California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic.
The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion.
As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions.
On this front, the court’s decisions reflect a “federalism,” or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court’s conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O’Connor’s case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments.
With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today’s conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the “culture wars.”
The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power.
Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies.
He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later.
He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor.
He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms.
He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause.
So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump’s broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump’s lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect.
The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president.
Friday’s ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit.
The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” she wrote.
Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person.
Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House.
That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law.
The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to “enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.”
Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising “undue caution.”
Instead, he appears to have viewed the court’s opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation’s chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect.
But the Supreme Court’s conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt.
In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress.
Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday’s ruling empowering parents.
The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes.
In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the “free exercise” of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees.
Friday’s ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks.
At first, the school board said parents could have their young children “opt out” of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it.
The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to “to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used … and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.”
This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves.
The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation’s first publicly funded, church-run charter school.
In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school.
But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.
Politics
Lawmaker Sues Trump to Remove Name From Kennedy Center
Case 1:25-cv-04480 Document 1 Filed 12/22/25
Page 1 of 18
JOYCE BEATTY,¹
V.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Plaintiff,
DONALD J. TRUMP, RICHARD GRENELL, JENNIFER FISCHER, SERGIO GOR, JOHN FALCONETTI, BRIAN D. BALLARD, MARIA BARTIROMO, PAMELA BONDI, MARY HELEN BOWERS, HANNAH F. BUCHAN, ROBERT CASTELLANI, ELAINE CHAO, PAMELLA ROLAND DEVOS, PATRICIA DUGGAN, EMILIA MAY FANJUL, LYNETTE FRIESS, PAMELA GROSS, LEE GREENWOOD, KATE ADAMSON HASELWOOD, LAURA INGRAHAM, MICHELE KESSLER, DANA KRAFT, MINDY LEVINE, LYNDA LOMANGINO, BARBARA LONG, ALLISON LUTNICK, DOUGLAS MANCHESTER, CATHERINE B. REYNOLDS, DENISE SAUL, DAN SCAVINO, CHERI SUMMERALL, USHA VANCE, SUSIE WILES, ANDREA WYNN, PAOLO ZAMPOLLI, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., MARCO RUBIO, LINDA MCMAHON, MIKE JOHNSON, SAM GRAVES, JULIA LETLOW, MIKE MCCAUL, JOHN THUNE, SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, SUSAN COLLINS, TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS, JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS,
Defendants.
No. 25-CV-
1 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), the Plaintiff’s residential address is being filed under seal with the Court in a separate Notice of Filing.
Politics
20% of NYC mayor-elect Mamdani transition appointees have anti-Zionist ties: ADL
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
At least 20 percent of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s administrative appointees are connected to groups characterized as anti-Zionist, according to a Monday report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
The report found that more than 80 individuals among Mamdani’s 400-plus transition and administrative appointees either have ties to such groups or a “documented history of making anti-Israel statements.”
The organization said Mamdani’s Transition Committee appointees have been linked to groups including Students for Justice in Palestine, a pro-Palestinian college activism network; Jewish Voice for Peace, an American Jewish anti-Zionist organization; and Within Our Lifetime, a New York City-based anti-Zionist group “known for leading protests outside synagogues.”
For example, the ADL said at least four appointees have ties to Louis Farrakhan, the antisemitic leader of the Nation of Islam. One appointee, Jacques Léandre, was cited for reportedly attending a conference at which Farrakhan denounced “the Jews and their power.”
ADL CHIEF WARNS NYC MAYOR-ELECT ZOHRAN MAMDANI POSES A ‘CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER’ TO JEWISH COMMUNITY
Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani speaks to members of the media at Flushing Meadows Corona Park in the Queens borough of New York on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025. (Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Several other appointees were also cited for statements that appear to support or justify violence against Israel and the Oct. 7 attacks. According to the ADL, Kazi Fouzia posted on Facebook hours after the attacks that “Resistance are [sic] Justified when people are occupied” with video footage from an anti-Israel protest happening that day in Manhattan.
The report continued to identify other appointees who publicly expressed hostility toward Zionism.
Examples included Fahd Ahmed, who stated “Zionism is racism”; Ruha Benjamin, who signed a statement calling Israel “ideologically founded on Jewish supremacy”; Lisa Ohta, who referred to “Zionism’s genocidal ideology”; and Mohammed Karim Chowdhury, who shared a post claiming “Zionists are worse than … Nazis,” ADL reported.
MAMDANI’S FATHER SAYS COLUMBIA ‘TARGETED’ ANTI-ISRAEL STUDENTS WITH ANTISEMITISM CRACKDOWN
A protester waves a Palestinian flag during a protest on college campuses in Washington, D.C., on March 23, 2025. (ANDREW THOMAS/Middle Eeast Images/AFP via Getty Images)
The organization also identified Zakiyah Shaakir-Ansari, who was cited for allegedly posting a photo of herself at an encampment in front of a banner displaying an inverted red triangle, a symbol associated with Hamas, alongside the text “LONG LIVE THE RESISTANCE.”
The report also states that at least 12 appointees publicly expressed support for anti-Israel campus encampments during the spring of 2024, with at least five attending the protests in person. The ADL highlighted Gianpaolo Baiocchi, who was reportedly arrested at the NYU encampment and later asserted that no hate speech was present. The ADL disputes that claim, citing flyers distributed at the encampment that called for “Death to Israeli Real Estate” and “Death to America.”
Demonstrators raise a “Free Palestine” flag on Oct. 4, 2025. (Dan Gainor)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Mamdani, who takes office on Jan. 1, has previously and repeatedly emphasized that he stands against antisemitism.
The ADL noted that many appointees did not raise concerns and emphasized that at least 25 individuals expressed support for the Jewish community, including Rabbi Joe Potasnik, Félix Matos Rodríguez, Wayne Ho, John King, and Jerry Goldfeder. However, the organization said it remains concerned about Mamdani’s team overall.
“Many of Mayor-elect Mamdani’s Transition Committee appointments are inconsistent with his campaign commitments to prioritize the safety of New York’s Jewish community,” the ADL wrote in the report.
Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani for more comment.
Politics
California, other states file suit to prevent shutdown of federal consumer agency
California joined 20 other states and the District of Columbia on Monday in a lawsuit that seeks to prevent the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from being defunded and closed by the Trump administration.
The legal action filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore. by the Democratic attorneys general accuses Acting Director Russell Vought of trying to illegally withhold funds from the agency by unlawfully interpreting its funding statute. Also named as defendants are the agency itself and the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.
“For California, the CFPB has been an invaluable enforcement partner, working hand-in-hand with our office to protect pocketbooks and stop unfair business practices. But once again, the Trump administration is trying to weaken and ultimately dismantle the CFPB,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said, in a press conference to announce the 41-page legal action.
The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the action, co-lead by Bonta and the attorneys general from Oregon, New York, New Jersey and Colorado.
Established by Congress in 2010 after the subprime mortgage abuses that gave rise to the financial crisis, the agency is funded by the Federal Reserve as a method of insulating it from political pressure.
The Dodd-Frank Act statute requires the agency’s director to petition for a reasonable amount of funding to carry out the CFPB’s duties from the “combined earnings” of the Federal Reserve System.
Prior to this year that was interpreted to mean the Federal Reserve’s gross revenue. But an opinion from the Department of Justice claims that should be interpreted to mean the Federal Reserve’s profits, of which it has none since it has been operating at a loss since 2022. The lawsuit alleges the interpretation is bogus.
“Defendant Russell T. Vought has worked tirelessly to terminate the CFPB’s operations by any means necessary — denying Plaintiffs access to CFPB resources to which they are statutorily entitled. In this action, Plaintiffs challenge Defendant Vought’s most recent effort to do so,” the federal lawsuit states.
The complaint alleges the agency will run out of cash by next month if the policy is not reversed. Bonta said he and other attorney generals have not decided whether they will seek a restraining order or temporary injunction to change the new funding policy.
Prior to the second Trump administraition, the CPFB boasted of returning nearly $21 billion to consumers nationwide through enforcement actions, including against Wells Fargo in San Francisco over a scandal involving the creation of accounts never sought by customers.
Other big cases have been brought against student loan servicer Navient for mishandling payments and other issues, as well as Toyota Motor Credit for charging higher interest rates to Black and Asian customers.
However, this year the agency has dropped notable cases. It terminated early a consent order reached with Citibank over allegations it discriminated against customers with Armenian surnames in Los Angeles County.
It also dropped a lawsuit against Zelle that accused Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and other banks of rushing the payments app into service, leading to $870 million in fraud-related losses by users. The app denied the allegations.
Monday’s lawsuit also notes that the agency is critical for states to carry out their own consumer protection mission and its closure would deprive them of their statutorily guaranteed access to a database run by the CFPB that tracks millions of consumer complaints, as well as to other data.
Vought was a chief architect of Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation blueprint to reduce the size and power of the federal bureaucracy during a second Trump admistration. In February, he ordered the agency to stop nearly all its work and has been seeking to drastically downsize it since.
The lawsuit filed Monday is the latest legal effort to keep the agency in business.
A lawsuit filed in February by National Treasury Employees Union and consumer groups accuses the Trump administration and Vought of attempting to unconstitutionally abolish the agency, created by an act of Congress.
“It is deflating, and it is unfortunate that Congress is not defending the power of the purse,” said Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser, during Monday’s press conference.
“At other times, Congress vigilantly safeguarded its authority, but because of political polarization and fear of criticizing this President, the Congress is not doing it,” he said.
-
Iowa1 week agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Iowa1 week agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine7 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland1 week agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
New Mexico6 days agoFamily clarifies why they believe missing New Mexico man is dead
-
South Dakota1 week agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Detroit, MI1 week ago‘Love being a pedo’: Metro Detroit doctor, attorney, therapist accused in web of child porn chats
-
Health1 week ago‘Aggressive’ new flu variant sweeps globe as doctors warn of severe symptoms