Connect with us

Politics

Federal judge appointed by Trump quits group over statement on threats

Published

on

Federal judge appointed by Trump quits group over statement on threats

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018 announced that he had resigned from the largest association of federal judges, decrying how the group issued a rare statement last week condemning recent alleged threats against judges but stayed quiet for years while conservative members of the judiciary faced scrutiny and attack. 

Judge James C. Ho, of the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, announced his departure from the Federal Judges Association during a speaking event Saturday hosted by the conservative Federalist Society at the University of Michigan Law School. It comes in response to the 1,100-member group issuing a statement on March 5 saying in part that “judges must be permitted to do their jobs without fear of violence or intimidation of any kind.” Trump and his allies have grown increasingly critical of judges who have blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and other aspects of the administration’s agenda, while DOGE leader Elon Musk last month called for an “immediate wave of judicial impeachments.” 

“I was very surprised by that statement. And the next morning, I sent an email to the organization saying that I wanted to resign,” Ho said of the Federal Judges Association. “I researched for myself, and I also asked the association if they ever issued any such statements when Justice Thomas received attacks, or Justice Alito. Justice Kavanaugh dealt with an assassination attempt. We’ve had federal district judges in Texas and in Florida – as well as, I’m sure, other states, but those are the ones that come to mind immediately – all faced the kinds of things that that statement was complaining about and more. Did we see these statements in 2024 or 2023 or 2022? From what I can tell, no.” 

WHO IS JUDGE AMIR ALI? THE BIDEN-APPOINTED FEDERAL JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP’S USAID BATTLE

James Ho, nominee to be a judge for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Nov. 15, 2017. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

Advertisement

“You can’t say that you’re in favor of judicial independence only when it comes to decisions that you like. That’s not protecting the judiciary, that’s politicizing the judiciary,” Ho said, arguing that such statements actually harm the cause they try to further. “Because one of two things turns out to be true when you’re selective in this way. And either of these options, I think, is a bad thing. Option number one is that you’re basically lying, that you actually don’t care about this principle because you didn’t stand up for it when the shoe was on the other foot, and so you’re telling the world essentially we’re not seriously committed to judicial independence.” 

“The alternative is perhaps even worse, which is that you are telling the truth – you do care about this, this principle, whether it’s judicial independence or free speech. I think this concept applies to a lot of things,” Ho continued. “If you’re telling the truth, you really care about this principle, but there are just some people who have views that are so anathema to you that you don’t think they are worthy of this principle that you expound on.” 

James Ho, a Taiwanese-born American lawyer and jurist serving as a U.S. circuit judge, speaks at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention on Nov. 10, 2022. (The Washington Post via Getty Images)

“And so what you may think is a statement born of righteousness I think is perceived by a lot of people as merely sanctimonious,” he concluded. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the Federal Judges Association for comment, but they did not immediately respond.

Advertisement

JUDGE RULES DOGE LIKELY SUBJECT TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS, SAYS DEPARTMENT OPERATING IN ‘UNUSUAL SECRECY’

The president of the Federal Judges Association, U.S. Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, wrote in an email to members last week that the “judiciary faces growing threats, including violence, intimidation, disinformation, and unprecedented impeachments that challenge its independence,” according to Reuters. 

The Federal Judges Association then released a lengthier public statement the next day that did not elaborate on specific threats against specific judges. 

J. Michelle Childs testifies during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on April 27, 2022. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

It began by saying that “recent events are a clear and urgent reminder that federal judges play a crucial role in upholding our democracy as guardians of the rule of law.” 

Advertisement

“In the history of our Republic, there has always been tension between the three separate and equal branches of the federal government, including criticism of judicial interpretations. The FJA strives to ensure that accurate information is shared with all American citizens regarding the role of the judiciary as defined in the U.S. Constitution: to impartially interpret the laws that have been created by the U.S. Congress and enforced by the Executive branch,” the group said. “Specific decisions issued by judges are not formed from individual opinions, but rather are prepared against evaluation of what the ‘laws on the books’ require.” 

The group commended those, including Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, “who have commented recently on the rise in criticism, threats and violence aimed at members of the judiciary.”

“Irresponsible rhetoric shrouded in disinformation undermines the public’s confidence that our justice system can fulfill its constitutional duties,” the statement said. “The security of federal judges and all those serving in the judicial branch of our government is fundamental to their ability to uphold the rule of law, and to fulfill their constitutional duty without fear or undue influence. Any erosion in the independence of the judiciary is a threat to our Constitution and to democratic rule of law. Ensuring judicial security is not just about protecting individuals, it is about preserving the integrity of our legal system and the public’s trust in an impartial judiciary.” 

Advertisement

Politics

Lawmaker Sues Trump to Remove Name From Kennedy Center

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Politics

20% of NYC mayor-elect Mamdani transition appointees have anti-Zionist ties: ADL

Published

on

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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)

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

California, other states file suit to prevent shutdown of federal consumer agency

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending