Politics
Defying courts in deportation case, Trump risks a tipping point, experts say
WASHINGTON — It was just the latest example of President Trump, still in the infancy of his second term, appearing to plow through direct orders from a U.S. court. But it was the sharpest moment yet of a federal judge losing patience.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had asked what the administration had done, if anything, to follow a ruling from the highest court in the land, and reached a stark conclusion.
“To date, nothing has been done,” Xinis told the Justice Department lawyer before her Tuesday. “Nothing.”
The Supreme Court had ordered the administration last week to “facilitate” the return of a Maryland resident named Armando Abrego Garcia, whom it had deported to a notorious El Salvador prison despite an earlier court order barring such a move.
The administration had defied that order and made no secret of it. On cable TV, through social media and from the Oval Office, the president and his allies were clear they had no intention to work toward Abrego Garcia’s return.
Still, Xinis’ concluding as much in court added fresh weight to a profound question swirling with increasing intensity in recent days among government officials and watchdogs, constitutional scholars, legal experts and worried members of the public: If the president refuses to abide by court rulings, then is the United States in a constitutional crisis?
If Trump won’t listen to the Supreme Court, is the entire U.S. system of governance — the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, due process under the law — at risk of faltering?
For some, the answer is an affirmative yes — the actions of the administration in the Abrego Garcia case a clear tipping point.
“There is no guarantee that President Trump will abide by his legal and constitutional obligations, and he has already shown a willingness to violate those obligations many times over,” said Jamal Greene, a constitutional law professor at Columbia University.
Others said that the risk is certainly there, but that legal nuance remains in the maneuverings of the Trump administration — enough to imagine a less fraught future in which the administration falls back in line as the courts make their directives in the Abrego Garcia case less ambiguous and harder to skirt using dubious but still barely defensible legal arguments.
Robert Weisberg, a professor at Stanford Law School, said the judiciary also still has tools at its disposal to enforce its rulings should Trump and his team continue defying court orders, and especially the Supreme Court.
For example, if a court issues an injunction “saying, ‘You can’t do this,’ ” and the administration does it anyway, the court can hold the administration in contempt. And, the U.S. Marshals Service, the law enforcement arm of the judicial branch, can be called upon to enforce the court’s orders, Weisberg said.
“So there are ways,” he said. “The Supreme Court has tools.”
A deportation with consequences for Trump
Either way, the case raises stark questions for a country already exhausted by a steady stream of unprecedented moves by the Trump administration and a mountain of lawsuits challenging them — on immigration enforcement, federal funding streams to the states, LGBTQ+ rights and school funding, among many issues.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office has already sued the Trump administration more than a dozen times and expressed support for litigants suing the administration in at least half a dozen other cases. Other Democratic-led states have joined California in its cases.
Time and time again, courts have blasted the administration for violating the law — sometimes in flagrant ways. And in multiple instances, the administration has defied court instructions to reverse course, judges and litigants against the administration have said.
California has alleged that the administration has failed to unfreeze funding, including under the Federal Emergency Management Agency, despite court orders for it to do so. Associated Press journalists continued to be barred from White House functions after a judge ordered they be allowed back in. The Trump administration balked at another court order that it return immigrants who had been loaded onto a plane for deportation, arguing that the plane was already in the air and out of the judge’s jurisdiction.
Still, the Abrego Garcia case and an Oval Office meeting partially about it between Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele on Monday have ratcheted up fears of a recalcitrant Trump unafraid of defying the courts when they attempt to check him or his policies.
Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen and sheet metal worker living in Maryland, had been arrested years ago while looking for work outside of a Home Depot in Maryland. A judge had determined in 2019 that he should not be deported to El Salvador because he would be in danger there from a local gang, allowing him to remain in the country.
However, Abrego Garcia was detained last month on claims by the administration that he is a member of the MS-13 gang, and then deported along with other detainees to a notorious prison in El Salvador. His family, denying the gang allegations, sued in response, alleging that his rights had been violated and that the administration had broken the law and the previous judge’s decision allowing him to remain in the country.
The case moved swiftly up through the courts.
‘Facilitate’ vs. ‘effectuate’?
When it was first before Xinis, she found that the evidence of Abrego Garcia’s alleged gang affiliation was slim — amounting to a tip from an informant that he’d worn Chicago Bulls apparel associated with the gang — and that the government had wrongfully removed him from the country. Xinis then ordered the Trump administration to both “facilitate” and “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States.
The Trump administration appealed that ruling, resulting in a terse unsigned decision by the Supreme Court on Thursday that required the Trump administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, but not “effectuate” it.
The high court said the “intended scope of the term ‘effectuate’” was unclear and may exceed the district court’s authority in the matter, and called on Xinis to clarify her directive “with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers claimed the ruling as a victory and a clear directive to that administration that it have him returned to the U.S. The Trump administration, however, claimed a victory as well.
“As the Supreme Court correctly recognized, it is the exclusive prerogative of the president to conduct foreign affairs,” a Department of Justice spokesperson said. “By directly noting the deference owed to the executive branch, this ruling once again illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy.”
Xinis followed the Supreme Court’s ruling by issuing another of her own, calling again on the Trump administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. That set up the Oval Office meeting Monday, where Trump and Bukele insisted they were not going to bring Abrego Garcia home.
In what some legal observers saw as an absurd twist of logic, Trump administration officials said they would supply the plane to return Abrego Garcia if only El Salvador would allow it, while Bukele said El Salvador could not possibly return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. because doing so would amount to smuggling a terrorist into an allied territory.
“Of course, I’m not going to do it,” he said. “The question is preposterous.”
In the same meeting, Trump said “the homegrowns are next” — a clear insinuation that he wants to send American citizens to Salvadoran prisons next, in clear violation of American law.
Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia of Maryland, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador, speaks at an April 4 news conference.
(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)
During Tuesday’s hearing before Xinis, the Trump administration made it clear that it took an extremely narrow view of what facilitating Abrego Garcia’s return requires.
“If Abrego Garcia presents himself at a port of entry, we will facilitate his entry to the United States,” said Drew Ensign, an attorney for the Justice Department. Ensign also submitted a transcript of the Oval Office meeting, suggesting the case had clearly been “raised at the highest level.”
Xinis was unmoved, demanding documentation of the administration’s actions in recent days. Legal experts said the order could set the stage for Xinis to find the Trump administration in contempt of court. And that could raise new questions about the power of the court to hold the administration to account — and whether it has any teeth in the event the administration pushes back.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law, said it’s questionable whether the Justice Department or the U.S. marshals would help to enforce any criminal or civil contempt orders against the administration or any of its actors.
“The question is, do we have the guardrails for our Constitution to survive?” Chemerinsky said. “‘We don’t know’ is the only answer anyone can give. You can play it out, and it’s very frightening.”
If Trump was given a very clear, unambiguous order from the courts and openly declared that the administration would not comply, the country would be in an extremely dangerous position, Chemerinsky said.
And if he won out in that scenario — wasn’t stopped by Congress or the courts or anyone else — “then the president can do anything,” Chemerinsky added. He could violate other constitutional laws and court orders and “literally lock up anybody, any dissident,” without fear of repercussions.
“Of course then the reality is this is not a democracy, it’s a dictatorship,” Chemerinsky said.
‘Crisis is here’
Democrats in Congress have been sounding similar alarms, with some arguing that Trump has already crossed the line into authoritarian behavior — and thrust the country into a constitutional crisis.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote in a post to X late Monday: “The constitutional crisis is here.”
The post also included a nearly six-minute video in which Schiff, a former federal prosecutor, attempted to explain the complicated Abrego Garcia case, the administration’s actions in it, and why they put the country in crisis.
“It’s a constitutional crisis because the administration is under a court order to return this wrongfully deported man to the United States. To facilitate his return,” Schiff said. “And far from taking any step to facilitate his return, in that meeting in the White House, Donald Trump essentially told the Supreme Court to pound sand.
“Nowhere in that entire meeting does the president of the United States ask the president of El Salvador to return the man wrongly sent to a maximum security prison in his country,” Schiff said. “It just never happens.”
Schiff said the president, through his actions, had “taken a very determined step toward dictatorship.”
Chemerinsky agreed that the days of wondering whether the U.S. is in a constitutional crisis were over.
He said the U.S. is “clearly in a constitutional crisis” both because of the “quantity of unconstitutional things that have been done” by the Trump administration that show Trump “has no respect for constitutional law,” and because of the extreme actions and recalcitrance of the administration in the Abrego Garcia case in particular.
“It could get worse, but that doesn’t minimize that we’re in one now,” he said.
Chemerinsky said it was clearly illegal under U.S. law for the administration to defy a court order and send a person to a notorious El Salvador prison without due process. And the administration’s claim now that it cannot bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. because he is under the control of a foreign government simply “has to be wrong” in a land of laws, he said.
“It’s nothing less than a claim of the power to put any human being in a foreign prison,” he said. “That’s the authority to create a gulag.”
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has emerged as one of the party’s fastest-rising political figures, drawing national attention for his populist message and outsider image.
But as his profile has grown, so has scrutiny of his past conduct, with controversies ranging from sexually explicit messages and offensive social media posts to a Nazi-linked tattoo and campaign staff upheaval.
PLATNER CONTROVERSIES FUEL SPECULATION ABOUT LITTLE-KNOWN MAINE BALLOT REPLACEMENT PROVISION
In continued clean-up of those scandals, Platner came to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday to huddle with party figures at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headquarters just one week before his primary election.
The Marine veteran and oyster farmer has defended himself against the criticism and retained the support of prominent Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Still, some have questioned whether the allegations could complicate Democrats’ efforts to unseat Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in one of the nation’s most closely watched Senate races.
Here’s a look at the major controversies that have engulfed Platner’s campaign.
Explicit text messages and sexting allegations
Senate candidate Graham Platner is under fire, but it was his wife Amy Gertner coming out with a controversial five-minute social media post by the campaign to denounce the ‘attacks’ while she did not deny the allegations of infidelity in a new marriage. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The most recent controversy surrounding Platner stems from reports that he exchanged sexually explicit messages with multiple women during his marriage, an issue that campaign aides were reportedly aware of as his Senate bid was taking shape.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner, informed a campaign aide about the text exchanges shortly after he launched his Senate bid as staffers were assessing potential political liabilities.
According to the report, Gertner discovered the messages months after the couple married in 2024 and disclosed their existence before her husband held a campaign rally alongside progressive Sen. Sanders. The campaign told Politico that the aide viewed the matter as a private issue between the couple and did not raise concerns about it publicly.
SENATE CANDIDATE GRAHAM PLATNER SENT EXPLICIT TEXTS TO MULTIPLE WOMEN WHILE MARRIED, WIFE SAYS: REPORT
Platner’s campaign later confirmed the existence of the text exchanges to Politico.
He also told Fox News Digital in a statement: “Amy and I went through something hard — because of me. We did the work, and I’m grateful for her every hour of every day.”
“I’ve learned throughout this campaign is that people don’t care about gossip or headlines, they care that you’re fighting for their hospitals, their paycheck, their kids… Our opponents want politics to be empty of content and empty of actual change — and beating that is exactly what our movement is about,” he added.
In a statement to the Journal, Gertner criticized the disclosure of the information, saying she had shared “deeply personal details” about her marriage with someone she considered a friend, only to see those details become public.
She revealed that the two attended couple’s counseling, worked through the issues in their marriage and have since emerged as a stronger couple.
“I know who Graham is. I know the man I married and the husband he has been to me on the best and the worst days of my life,” Gertner said. “That hasn’t changed, and it won’t.”
Nazi-linked tattoo
Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, points to a covered tattoo that was previously recognized as a Nazi symbol during an interview in Portland, Maine, on Oct. 22, 2025. (WGME via AP)
Platner’s campaign also faced intense scrutiny after it was revealed he once had a skull-and-crossbones tattoo on his chest closely resembling the “Totenkopf” symbol used by Hitler’s SS paramilitary forces.
The Maine Democrat said he got the tattoo during a “night of drinking” while on leave in Croatia in 2007 as a Marine and claimed he was entirely unaware of its meaning at the time.
In an Instagram video posted in May, Platner elaborated on the tattoo’s origins. He explained that he merely selected the design from a flash tattoo wall while “carousing” with fellow Marines in Split, Croatia.
“We thought it looked cool,” he downplayed.
Platner said he was later “appalled” to learn the image resembled a Nazi symbol, arguing that his life and career have been defined by opposition to fascism, racism and Nazism. He also noted that he was never questioned about the tattoo during his military service.
MAINE DEM SENATE HOPEFUL BACKED BY BERNIE SANDERS APOLOGIZES FOR NAZI-STYLE TATTOO, VOWS TO STAY IN RACE
Rather than undergo removal, Platner said he chose to cover the tattoo because tattoo removal services were not readily available near his rural Maine home.
“Going to a tattoo removal place is going to take a while,” he told The Associated Press. “I wanted this thing off my body.”
The symbol was ultimately covered with a tattoo featuring a Celtic knot and images of dogs, which Platner said were meant to honor his family pets.
Deleted Reddit posts reveal offensive comments
U.S. Senate candidate from Maine Graham Platner speaks during a campaign event on May 17, 2026, in Portland, Maine. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The keystone scrutiny Platner has faced during his bid stemmed from thousands of now-deleted Reddit posts that resurfaced after he launched his Senate campaign.
In posts first reported by CNN and Politico, Platner referred to himself as a “communist” and “socialist” and endorsed the slogan “all cops are b—–ds.”
In other posts, he argued that those who “expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history” and said that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice.”
DELETED POSTS URGING VIOLENCE HAUNT DEMOCRATIC SENATE HOPEFUL IN MAINE RACE
The posts under his since-retired username “P-hustle” were deleted before Platner announced his Democratic Senate bid in August.
The candidate has since addressed the posts multiple times, telling CNN and Politico that he was “f—ing around on the internet” during a period when he felt “lost and very disillusioned with our government who sent me overseas to watch my friends die.”
“I made dumb jokes and picked fights,” Platner said. “But of course I’m not a socialist. I’m a small business owner, a Marine Corps veteran, and a retired s—poster.”
In the posts Platner made crude comments about masturbating in port-a-potties and claimed a U.S. service member who took enemy fire in Afghanistan “didn’t deserve to live.”
GRAHAM PLATNER VOWS TO ‘COME AFTER’ BEZOS AS SENATE HOPEFUL ESCALATES BILLIONAIRE TAX FIGHT
The controversies have done little to erode Platner’s standing within the Democratic Party as he has continued to attract national attention and grassroots support in the Democratic primary bid to challenge Sen. Collins for her seat.
Since former Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills halted her campaign in April, much of the party establishment has consolidated behind Platner, and national Democrats have continued to support his candidacy despite the flurry of scandals.
The steady stream of allegations and past controversies has also drawn attention to a little-known provision in Maine election law that allows political parties to replace a nominee under certain circumstances after a primary election.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Under state law, a candidate who wins a primary and subsequently withdraws by 5 p.m. on July 13 can be replaced by a nominee selected by party officials. Any replacement candidate must then be chosen by 5 p.m. on July 27.
There is currently no indication that Platner plans to withdraw from the race, and the Democratic hopeful has repeatedly vowed to continue his campaign. Still, the provision has drawn renewed interest as questions persist about whether additional revelations could complicate his candidacy.
Platner’s campaign did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
-
Lifestyle16 minutes ago‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University
-
Technology28 minutes agoCyberdecks used to look like little laptops, but now they’re getting more personal
-
World31 minutes agoPete Hegseth warns narco-terrorists as U.S. backs Bolivia’s government amid coup warnings
-
Politics36 minutes agoDemocrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission
-
Health43 minutes agoPopular weight-loss diet shows surprising impact on serious mental health condition
-
Sports46 minutes agoNBA bans two fans for life after court invasion during Knicks-Spurs Game 1
-
Technology51 minutes agoCharter breach warning: What customers should know
-
Business58 minutes agoTrump announces new coal export terminal in Oakland
