Politics
Litman: With Supreme Court reform ideas, Biden is playing the long game
The first and easiest question to answer with respect to the package of Supreme Court reform measures that President Biden announced Monday is whether there is any hope of their passage or enactment by the current Congress.
There is not.
With Congress hopelessly polarized and the Supreme Court hopelessly politicized, there is no chance of action on Biden’s proposals in the coming months, and the administration well understands that point.
Indeed, before Biden even unveiled them in a speech at the LBJ Presidential Library in Texas, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson pronounced them “dead on arrival.”
Why then choose now to introduce them? After all, Biden has steadfastly resisted pleas from progressives to try to reform the court — and he has been under pressure since he took office, because President Trump had just tilted the court to the right by appointing three justices.
The straightforward explanation for the timing is to make the Supreme Court, now quite possibly the most unpopular of all federal governmental institutions, a focus of the election, which would presumably nudge voters toward Vice President Kamala Harris.
It was no surprise (and presumably exactly what Biden and Harris wished) when Trump came out with a strident defense of the court.
But the proposals shouldn’t be dismissed as a mere political gesture. Biden and the Democrats are also playing the long game, looking in particular to make the court a campaign issue. Then if they win control of both chambers and the White House, they can portray their election as a mandate for substantial reforms.
Biden’s proposals are in three basic areas. First, ethics, responding to the series of scandals involving eyebrow-raising or nakedly partisan conduct by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Second, time of service and method of appointment, which Biden proposes be changed to 18 years per justice and a fixed allotment of two new justices per presidential term. And third, the court’s recent, stunningly broad immunity opinion in the Jan. 6 Trump prosecution brought by the Justice Department.
Biden announced the reforms in a Washington Post op-ed that, interestingly, led with the immunity decision, which Biden wrote transgressed a bedrock principle of the nation: “No one is above the law.”
Indeed it does, but Biden and Harris, who was quick to endorse the proposals, obviously have calculated that of all the court’s recent unpopular moves, the immunity decision most offends the most American voters who might swing toward Harris.
Biden’s proposal recognizes that the decision can be overcome only by a constitutional amendment. I think that’s dubious; a careful reading of the Supreme Court’s sweeping immunity decision suggests it is ultimately anchored in perceived good government principles dressed up as constitutional law.
The problem here, as in one way or another with all the proposals, is the firmly entrenched principle that the Supreme Court has the last word. (One thinks of Justice Robert Jackson’s famous line “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”)
So that leaves the famously cumbersome process of a constitutional amendment, which requires either two-thirds of both houses or the states to request and three-quarters of the states to ratify.
The most recent constitutional amendment, the 27th, took more than 200 years to ratify. The Equal Rights Amendment, which was first proposed in 1923 to guarantee the rights of Americans regardless of their sex, still has not passed.
The ethics provision of the Biden package probably has the strongest chance of passing. It is conspicuous that the Supreme Court justices — alone among government officials — get to make and apply their own rules on issues such as whether they can take or must disclose gifts from parties who may have an agenda with the court. Although the court adopted ethics rules for itself last fall, they have no teeth. Justice Elena Kagan just last week called for the rules to be subject to an enforcement regime other than the justices themselves.
But in my view, the most important component of Biden’s package is his proposal to change Supreme Court terms from lifetime to 18 years, and, with the consistent rhythm of that span, guarantee each president precisely two appointments.
The design of the reform is to obviate the Armageddon quality of current confirmation battles. Lifetime appointments create very high stakes, leading to carefully curated fairly young nominees who can serve 40 years or more and have enormous, longstanding influence, as with the relatively young cadre of Trump appointees.
Term limits would prevent the imbalance that results if one president makes many appointments and others make few. Democrats are understandably frustrated at the bad luck — and GOP obstructionism — that allowed Republican presidents to choose six of the current nine justices, in a country in which more people identify as Democrats than as Republicans and in which Democratic presidential candidates have won the popular vote in seven of the last eight elections.
This proposal would do nothing to alleviate the current imbalance. Progressives had been pushing Biden to instead propose four additional seats on the court to undo the current uber-conservative hammerlock. The Constitution permits such an expansion, but the history of FDR’s court packing plan and similar efforts obviously persuaded Biden that the approach would freight the package with political controversy and long odds that would diminish the clean appeal of the rest of the provisions.
As for the court, today’s proposals only reinforce the grave loss of confidence it has brought on with its own overreaching. As a matter of raw power, it can continue on its path and remain oblivious to its many self-inflicted wounds. But Supreme Court history teaches that whatever its recognized authority in individual cases, it is untenable for it to operate indefinitely so against the grain of the American people.
As Alito said in an overheard comment, “one side or the other is going to win.”
Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the “Talking San Diego” speaker series. @harrylitman
Politics
Federal judge blocks Trump administration from enforcing mail-in voting rules in executive order
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge in Washington state on Friday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing key parts of an executive order that sought to change how states administer federal elections, ruling the president lacked authority to apply those provisions to Washington and Oregon.
U.S. District Judge John Chun held that several provisions of Executive Order 14248 violated the separation of powers and exceeded the president’s authority.
“As stated by the Supreme Court, although the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, ‘[i]n the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,’” Chun wrote in his 75-page ruling.
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES AGAINST TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER
Residents drop mail-in ballots in an official ballot box outside the Tippecanoe branch library on Oct. 20, 2020 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital in a statement: “President Trump cares deeply about the integrity of our elections and his executive order takes lawful actions to ensure election security. This is not the final say on the matter and the Administration expects ultimate victory on the issue.”
Washington and Oregon filed a lawsuit in April contending the executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March violated the Constitution by attempting to set rules for how states conduct elections, including ballot counting, voter registration and voting equipment.
DOJ TARGETS NONCITIZENS ON VOTER ROLLS AS PART OF TRUMP ELECTION INTEGRITY PUSH
“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for voters in Washington and Oregon, and for the rule of law,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in response to the Jan. 9 ruling, according to The Associated Press. “The court enforced the long-standing constitutional rule that only States and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief.”
President Donald Trump speaks during a breakfast with Senate and House Republicans at the White House, Nov. 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Executive Order 14248 directed federal agencies to require documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms and sought to require that absentee and mail-in ballots be received by Election Day in order to be counted.
The order also instructed the attorney general to take enforcement action against states that include such ballots in their final vote tallies if they arrive after that deadline.
“We oppose requirements that suppress eligible voters and will continue to advocate for inclusive and equitable access to registration while protecting the integrity of the process. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote and to have their votes counted,” said Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs in a statement issued when the lawsuit was filed last year.
Voting booths are pictured on Election Day. (Paul Richards/AFP via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“We will work with the Washington Attorney General’s Office to defend our constitutional authority and ensure Washington’s elections remain secure, fair, and accessible,” Hobbs added.
Chun noted in his ruling that Washington and Oregon do not certify election results on Election Day, a practice shared by every U.S. state and territory, which allows them to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day as long as the ballots were postmarked on or before that day and arrived before certification under state law.
Politics
Deadly ICE shooting in Minnesota, affordability stir up California gubernatorial forums
Just days after the fatal shooting of a Minnesota woman by a federal immigration agent, the Trump administration’s immigration policy was a top focus of California gubernatorial candidates at two forums Saturday in Southern California.
The death of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, inflamed the nation’s deep political divide and led to widespread protests in Los Angeles and across the country about President Trump’s combative immigration policies.
Former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon, speaking at a labor forum featuring Democratic candidates in Los Angeles, said that federal agents aren’t above the law.
“You come into our state and you break one of our f— … laws, you’re going to be criminally charged. That’s it,” he said.
Federal officials said the deadly shooting was an act of self-defense.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) noted that the president of the labor union that organized the candidate forum, David Huerta, was injured and arrested during the Trump administration’s raids on undocumented people in Los Angeles in June.
“Ms. Good should be alive today. David, that could have been you, the way they’re conducting themselves,” he said to Huerta, who was moderating the event. “You’re now lucky if all they did was drag you by the hair or throw you in an unmarked van, or deport a 6-year-old U.S. citizen battling stage 4 cancer.”
Roughly 40 miles south at a separate candidate forum featuring the top two Republicans in the race, GOP candidate and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said politicians who support so-called “sanctuary state” policies should be voted out of office.
“I wish it was the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s — we’d take them behind the shed and beat the s— out of them,” he said.
“We’re in a church!” an audience member was heard yelling during a livestream of the event.
California Democratic leaders in 2017 passed a landmark “sanctuary state” law that limits cooperation between local and federal immigration officers, a policy that was a reaction to the first Trump administration’s efforts to ramp up deportations.
After the campaign to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom was largely obscured last year by natural disasters, immigration raids and the special election to redraw California’s congressional districts, the 2026 governor’s race is now in the spotlight.
Eight Democratic candidates appeared at a forum sponsored by SEIU United Service Workers West, which represents more than 45,000 janitors, security officers, airport service employees and other workers in California.
Many of the union’s members are immigrants, and a number of the candidates referred to their familial roots as they addressed the audience of about 250 people — with an additional 8,000 watching online.
“As the son of immigrants, thank you for everything you did for your children, your grandchildren, to give them that chance,” former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told two airport workers who asked the candidates questions about cuts to state services for immigrants.
“I will make sure you have the right to access the doctor you and your family need. I will make sure you have a right to have a home that will keep you safe and off the streets. I will make sure that I treat you the way I would treat my parents, because you worked hard the way they did.”
The Democrats broadly agreed on most of the pressing issues facing California, so they tried to differentiate themselves based on their records and their priorities.
Candidates for California’s next governor including Tony Thurmond, speaking at left, participate in the 2026 Gubernatorial Candidate Forum in Los Angeles on Saturday.
(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)
“I firmly believe that your campaign says something about who you will be when you lead. The fact that I don’t take corporate contributions is a point of pride for me, but it’s also my chance to tell you something about who I am and who I will fight for,” said former Rep. Katie Porter.
“Look, we’ve had celebrity governors. We’ve had governors who are kids of other governors, and we’ve had governors who look hot with slicked back hair and barn jackets. You know what? We haven’t had a governor in a skirt. I think it’s just about … time.”
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, seated next to Porter, deadpanned, “If you vote for me, I’ll wear a skirt, I promise.”
Villaraigosa frequently spoke about his roots in the labor movement, including a farmworker boycott when he was 15 years old.
“I’ve been fighting for immigrants my entire life. I have fought for you the entire time I’ve been in public life,” he said. “I know [you] are doing the work, working in our buildings, working at the airport, working at the stadiums. I’ve talked to you. I’ve worked with you. I’ve fought for you my entire life. I’m not a Johnny-come-lately to this unit.”
The candidates were not asked about a proposed ballot measure to tax the assets of billionaires that one of SEIU-USWW’s sister unions is trying to put on the November ballot. The controversial proposal has divided Democrats and prompted some of the state’s wealthiest residents to move out of the state, or at least threaten to do so.
But several of the candidates talked about closing tax loopholes and making sure the wealthy and businesses pay their fair share of taxes.
“We’re going to hold corporations and billionaires accountable. We’re going to be sure that we are returning power to the workers who know how to grow this economy,” said former state Controller Betty Yee.
State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond highlighted his proposal to tax billionaires to fund affordable housing, healthcare and education.
“And then I’m going to give you, everyone in this room and California working people, a tax credit so you have more money in your pocket, a couple hundred dollars a month, every month, for the rising cost of gas and groceries,” he said.
Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer said closing corporate tax loopholes would result in $15 billion to $20 billion in new annual state revenue that he would spend on education and healthcare programs.
“When we look at where we’re going, it’s not about caring, because everyone on this stage cares. It’s not about values. It’s about results,” he said, pointing to his backing of successful ballot measures to close a corporate tax loophole, raise tobacco taxes, and stop oil-industry-backed efforts to roll back environmental law.
“I have beaten these special interests, every single time with the SEIU,” he said. “We’ve done it. We’ve been winning. We need to keep fighting together. We need to keep winning together.”
Republican gubernatorial candidates were not invited to the labor gathering. But two of the state’s top GOP contenders were among the five candidates who appeared Saturday afternoon at a “Patriots for Freedom” gubernatorial forum at Calvary Chapel WestGrove in Orange County. Immigration, federal enforcement and homelessness were also among the hot topics there.
Days after Bianco met with unhoused people on Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles and Newsom touted a 9% decrease in the number of unsheltered homeless people during his final state of the state address, Bianco said that he would make it a “crime” for anyone to utter the word “homeless,” arguing that those on the street are suffering from drug- and alcohol-induced psychosis, not a lack of shelter.
Former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton criticized the “attacks on our law enforcement offices, on our ICE agents who are doing their job protecting our country.”
“We are sick of it,” he said at the Garden Grove church while he also questioned the state’s decision to spend billions of dollars for healthcare for low-income undocumented individuals. State Democrats voted last year to halt the enrollment of additional undocumented adults in the state’s Medi-Cal program starting this year.
Politics
Video: Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night
new video loaded: Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night
transcript
transcript
Protests Against ICE in Minneapolis Continue Into Friday Night
Hundreds of protesters marched through downtown Minneapolis on Friday night. They stopped at several hotels along the way to blast music, bang drums and play instruments to try to disrupt the sleep of immigration agents who might be staying there. Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis said there were 29 arrests but that it was mostly a “peaceful protest.”
-
The vast majority of people have done this right. We are so deeply appreciative of them. But we have seen a few incidents last night. Those incidents are being reviewed, but we wanted to again give the overarching theme of what we’re seeing, which is peaceful protest. And we wanted to say when that doesn’t happen, of course, there are consequences. We are a safe city. We will not counter Donald Trump’s chaos with our own brand of chaos here. We in Minneapolis are going to do this right.
By McKinnon de Kuyper
January 10, 2026
-
Detroit, MI1 week ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology5 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX3 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Dallas, TX6 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Delaware2 days agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Iowa5 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Health1 week agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska4 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska