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

Contributor: The last shreds of our shared American culture are being politicized

Published

on

Contributor: The last shreds of our shared American culture are being politicized

At a time when so many forces seem to be dividing us as a nation, it is tragic that President Trump seeks to co-opt or destroy whatever remaining threads unite us.

I refer, of course, to the U.S. men’s Olympic hockey team winning gold: the kind of victory that normally causes Americans to forget their differences and instead focus on something wholesome, like chanting “USA” while mispronouncing the names of the European players we defeated before taking on Canada.

This should have been pure civic oxygen. Instead, we got video of Kash Patel pounding beers with the players — which is not illegal, but does make you wonder whether the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a desk somewhere with neglected paperwork that might hold the answers to the D.B. Cooper mystery.

Then came the presidential phone call to the men’s team, during which Trump joked about having to invite the women’s team to the State of the Union, too, or risk impeachment — the sort of sexist humor that lands best if you’re a 79-year-old billionaire and not a 23-year-old athlete wondering whether C-SPAN is recording. (The U.S. women’s hockey team also brought home the gold this year, also after beating Canada. The White House invited the women to the State of the Union, and they declined.)

It’s hard to blame the players on the men’s team who were subjected to Trump’s joke. They didn’t invite this. They’re not Muhammad Ali taking a principled stand against Vietnam, or Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising fists for Black power at the Olympics in 1968, or even Colin Kaepernick protesting police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem. They’re just hockey bros who survived a brutal game and were suddenly confronted with two of the most powerful figures in the federal government — and a cooler full of beer.

Advertisement

When the FBI director wants to hang, you don’t say, “Sorry, sir, we have a team curfew.” And when the president calls, you definitely don’t say, “Can you hold? We’re trying to remain serious, bipartisan and chivalrous.” Under those circumstances, most agreeable young men would salute, smile and try to skate past it.

But symbolism matters. If the team becomes perceived as a partisan mascot, then the victory stops belonging to the country and starts belonging to a faction. That would be bad for everyone, including the team, because politics is the fastest way to turn something fun into something divisive.

And Trump’s meddling with the medal winners didn’t end after his call. It continued during Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, when Trump spent six minutes honoring the team, going so far as to announce that he would award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to goalie Connor Hellebuyck.

To be sure, presidents have always tried to bask in reflected glory. The main difference with Trump, as always, is scale. He doesn’t just associate himself with popular institutions; he absorbs them in the popular mind.

We’ve seen this dynamic play out with evangelical Christianity, law enforcement, the nation of Israel and various cultural symbols. Once something gets labeled as “Trump-adjacent,” millions of Americans are drawn to it. However, millions of other Americans recoil from it, which is not healthy for institutions that are supposed to serve everyone. (And what happens to those institutions when Trump is replaced by someone from the opposing party?)

Advertisement

Meanwhile, our culture keeps splitting into niche markets. Heck, this year’s Super Bowl necessitated two separate halftime shows to accommodate our divided political and cultural worldviews. In the past, this would have been deemed both unnecessary and logistically impossible.

But today, absent a common culture, entertainment companies micro-target via demographics. Many shows code either right or left — rural or urban. The success of the western drama “Yellowstone,” which spawned imitators such as “Ransom Canyon” on Netflix, demonstrates the success of appealing to MAGA-leaning viewers. Meanwhile, most “prestige” TV shows skew leftward. The same cultural divides now exist among comedians and musicians and in almost every aspect of American life.

None of this was caused by Trump — technology (cable news, the internet, the iPhone) made narrowcasting possible — but he weaponized it for politics. And whereas most modern politicians tried to build broad majorities the way broadcast TV once chased ratings — by offending as few people as possible — Trump came not to bring peace but division.

Now, unity isn’t automatically virtuous. North Korea is unified. So is a cult. Americans are supposed to disagree — it’s practically written into the Constitution. Disagreement is baked into our national identity like free speech and complaining about taxes.

But a functioning republic needs a few shared experiences that aren’t immediately sorted into red and blue bins. And when Olympic gold medals get drafted into the culture wars, that’s when you know we’re running out of common ground.

Advertisement

You might think conservatives — traditionally worried about social cohesion and anomie — would lament this erosion of a mainstream national identity. Instead, they keep supporting the political equivalent of a lawn mower aimed at the delicate fabric of our nation.

So here we are. The state of the union is divided. But how long can a house divided against itself stand?

We are, as they say, skating on thin ice.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Hillary Clinton Denies Ever Meeting Jeffrey Epstein

Published

on

Video: Hillary Clinton Denies Ever Meeting Jeffrey Epstein

new video loaded: Hillary Clinton Denies Ever Meeting Jeffrey Epstein

transcript

transcript

Hillary Clinton Denies Ever Meeting Jeffrey Epstein

The former first lady, senator and secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, told congressional members in a closed-door deposition that she had no dealings with Jeffrey Epstein.

“I don’t know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein. I never went to his island. I never went to his homes. I never went to his offices. So it’s on the record numerous times.” “This isn’t a partisan witch hunt. To my knowledge, the Clintons haven’t answered very many questions about everything.” “You’re sitting through an incredibly unserious clown show of a deposition, where members of Congress and the Republican Party are more concerned about getting their photo op of Secretary Clinton than actually getting to the truth and holding anyone accountable.” “What is not acceptable is Oversight Republicans breaking their own committee rules that they established with the secretary and her team.” “As we had agreed upon rules based on the fact that it was going to be a closed hearing at their demand, and one of the members violated that rule, which was very upsetting because it suggested that they might violate other of our agreements.”

Advertisement
The former first lady, senator and secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, told congressional members in a closed-door deposition that she had no dealings with Jeffrey Epstein.

By Jackeline Luna

February 26, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Vulnerable House Dem lashes out at Trump’s ‘racist’ SOTU challenge: ‘That was uncomfortable’

Published

on

Vulnerable House Dem lashes out at Trump’s ‘racist’ SOTU challenge: ‘That was uncomfortable’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., called a challenge from President Donald Trump at the 2026 State of the Union “racist” when he asked listeners to stand if they agreed the U.S. should prioritize the safety of its own citizens over illegal aliens.

“If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support,” Trump said.

“The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”

Democrats remained seated for over a minute and a half as the Republican side of the chamber burst into prolonged applause.

Advertisement

President Donald Trump pictured ahead of his 2026 State of the Union Address on Feb. 24, 2026. (Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images)

After the address, Bynum, who is on the National Republican Congressional Committee’s list of vulnerable Dem incumbents, said the moment made her uneasy.

“I think you can agree with the ‘what’ — like standing up for American citizens,” Bynum said. “But I disagree with the ‘how.’”

“There’s thinly veiled racist language, anti-immigrant language in what he was asking, and that was uncomfortable,” Bynum said.

Bynum’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on how Trump’s challenge had asked lawmakers to discriminate on the basis of race. 

Advertisement

TRUMP SHAMES DEMOCRATS IN VIRAL STATE OF THE UNION CHALLENGE ON MIGRANT CRIME: ‘FIRST DUTY’

Trump’s remarks to Democrats on Tuesday came as a partial government shutdown drags on over demands Democrats have made to reform the agency at the heart of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Rep. Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., left, pictured alongside President Donald Trump, right. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images; Craig Hudson For The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Democrats are demanding a set of 10 enforcement reforms for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and won’t vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) until Republicans meet their demands.

DHS, which oversees ICE, went into a shutdown on Feb. 14.

Advertisement

DHS SHUTDOWN DRAGS INTO WEEK TWO AS IRAN THREAT, SOTU CLASH COMPLICATE HILL TALKS

Among other changes, Democrats are looking for a ban on masks, an end to roaming patrols, visible identification and stiffer warrant requirements for arresting illegal aliens in public.

Republicans have dismissed those demands, arguing that Democrats must first pass legislation to restrict “sanctuary cities” — local communities that have instructed their law enforcement not to cooperate with federal agents on immigration apprehensions and deportations.

DHS Agents in Charlotte, North Carolina on a mission. (Ryan Murphy/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

In a press release after the State of the Union, Bynum, who voted against DHS earlier this year, listed Trump’s framing of his immigration crackdown among her many critiques of the address.

“Tonight, I watched President Trump spend the majority of his speech lying about the state of our economy, demonizing immigrants and spewing more of the same divisive BS. I can’t say I’m surprised,” she wrote.

Related Article

How ICE went from post-9/11 counterterror agency to center of the immigration fight
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending