Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court faces Guantanamo test again: Does president's power have limits?

Published

on

Supreme Court faces Guantanamo test again: Does president's power have limits?

Two decades ago, the Bush administration said its “war on terror” prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay were off-limits to the federal courts, but the Supreme Court disagreed.

“A state of war is not a blank check for the President,” said Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2004. “Whatever power the U.S. Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations…, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.”

Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

That issue is now back before the Supreme Court.

Although the nation is not at war, President Trump has invoked his war powers under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to round up and deport to El Salvador about 200 alleged members of a Venezuelan crime gang.

Advertisement

Two legal questions arose immediately.

How can Trump rely on the 1798 law, which applies only when Congress has “declared war” or a “foreign government” has launched an “invasion”?

And how does the government know all these men are gang members? Their families said they have no criminal records, and in some instances, fled Venezuela and sought asylum to escape the gangs.

So far, however, the legal fight has focused on the same big question from the Guantanamo era: Do federal judges have the authority to limit the power of the president who says he is protecting the nation from “dangerous aliens”?

On Friday, Trump’s acting solicitor general Sarah Harris urged the Supreme Court to set aside the judge’s order that put a temporary pause on further deportations.

Advertisement

“This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country — the President…or the Judiciary,” she wrote in her appeal. “The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice.”

The justices asked for a response from the American Civil Liberties Union by Tuesday. The fast-moving case poses an early test of whether the high court will uphold the president’s power to swiftly deport migrants without interference from judges.

Two weeks ago, Trump signed a proclamation that Tren De Araqua, a Venezuelan crime gang, was “perpetrating…an invasion” of the United States and ordering the “prompt removal” of all those who were held.

On the afternoon of Saturday, March 15, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg convened a hastily arranged hearing in response to an emergency lawsuit brought on behalf of five Venezuelan men who feared they would be deported to El Salvador.

At the same hour, administration officials were arranging for three planes to take off from Texas.

Advertisement

The judge questioned how the 1798 law could authorize such deportations, and “to preserve the status quo,” he ordered a temporary pause on all the deportations.

Although the five named plaintiffs stayed in Texas, the administration essentially ignored the broader order and allowed the three flights to proceed as planned.

Although the judge said he was troubled his orders were ignored, Trump’s lawyers were troubled by his intervention.

“These orders are an affront to the President’s broad constitutional and statutory authority to protect the United States from dangerous aliens who pose grave threats to the American people,” they said on behalf of Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi.

“The presidential actions they challenge are not subject to judicial review,” they said.

Advertisement

“The Constitution simply provides no basis for … no basis for second-guessing the policy judgment by the Executive that such an ‘invasion’ is occurring,” they said. The president “has an inherent authority to conduct foreign affairs and address national security risks.”

They took a hard line and refused to even disclose the flight times for airplanes that flew to El Salvador.

That’s a “state secret,” they said in a brief filed on Monday.

Veterans of the legal battles over Guantanamo see some similarities but differences as well.

UC Berkeley Law professor John Yoo, a former Bush administration attorney, said the Guantanamo prisoners were not brought into the United States.

Advertisement

“Here, there is no doubt that the Venezuelans sent to El Salvador were detained within the United States,” he said.

In the past, the Supreme Court has said people who are being held in this country, including noncitizens, have a right to due process of law.

Yoo said, “Trump is invoking the same arguments we made after 9/11 that the capture and detention of enemy prisoners during wartime fell exclusively within the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief to conduct war.” He is also “making similar arguments as to why federal judges today should defer to the decisions of the executive branch during what he has determined is an invasion.”

But Yoo said he doubts the courts will uphold Trump’s reliance on the 1798 law.

Earlier this week, Boasberg explained his order was narrow in scope as well as temporary. It would not lead to the release any of the Venezuelans that are being held, and it does not prevent the government from deporting those who have a “final order of removal” under the U.S. immigration laws, he said. It prevents only deportations to El Salvador that are based on the disputed Alien Enemies Act.

Advertisement

It also resolved nothing about the plight of those who are now held in El Salvador.

On Monday, Trump’s lawyers asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out Boasberg’s order but lost in a 2-1 decision.

Each of the judges wrote a lengthy opinion making a separate point.

Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, disputed the use of the Alien Enemies Act. “An invasion is a military act, not one of migration,” she said.

Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of President Obama, said the detained men deserve a hearing to challenge the claim they were gang members.

Advertisement

Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented but said the detained men could file a habeas corpus claim in Texas where they are held.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who brought the lawsuit, said the decision preserving the judge’s order “means that hundreds of individuals remain protected from being sent to a notorious black-hole prison in a foreign country, without any due process whatsoever — perhaps for the rest of their lives.”

Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, called the D.C. Circuit’s decision “an important step for due process and the protection of the American people. President Trump is bound by the laws of this nation, and those laws do not permit him to use wartime powers when the United States is not at war and has not been invaded.”

In her appeal on Friday, Harris, the acting solicitor general, agreed with Walker that the Venezuelans held in Texas could file a writ of habeas corpus there.

ACLU attorneys and Millett dismissed that option as impractical. The hundreds of men who were held had no lawyers, they said, and no way to know they must file an individual legal claim in federal court.

Advertisement

Politics

Tucker Carlson Says He Is ‘Tormented’ by His Past Support for Trump

Published

on

Tucker Carlson Says He Is ‘Tormented’ by His Past Support for Trump

Tucker Carlson, who was often at Donald J. Trump’s side during the 2024 presidential campaign, is now expressing remorse for that support, saying he will long be “tormented” by his role helping Mr. Trump return to the White House.

Mr. Carlson, a titan of conservative media who has broken sharply with Mr. Trump over the war with Iran, acknowledged that he was part of the “reason this is happening right now,” referring to the conflict.

“It’s not enough to say, well, I changed my mind — or like, oh, this is bad, I’m out,” Mr. Carlson said in an episode of his podcast released Monday.

“It’s a moment to wrestle with our own consciences,” Mr. Carlson said on the podcast, speaking with his brother, Buckley, a former speechwriter for Mr. Trump. “We’ll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be. And I want to say I’m sorry for misleading people.”

Mr. Carlson, a former Fox News host and a longtime opponent of American foreign interventions, has feuded with Mr. Trump and his allies for weeks over the war, which most Americans oppose, according to opinion polls.

Advertisement

He appeared particularly appalled by a threat Mr. Trump made to Iran on social media on Easter Sunday that the country would be “living in hell” if it did not open the Strait of Hormuz, the vital shipping route that has been clogged during the war. After the post, Mr. Carlson urged White House officials to stand up to the president, saying that Mr. Trump’s behavior was “evil.”

Mr. Trump fired back at Mr. Carlson and other conservative critics of the war in a lengthy Truth Social post two weeks ago, describing them as “Fools” and suggesting that Mr. Carlson should “see a good psychiatrist.” In the post, Mr. Trump said that Mr. Carlson, who was dismissed by Fox News in 2023, had “never been the same” after he left the network.

Asked for comment on Mr. Carlson’s remarks, the White House pointed to Mr. Trump’s social media commentary.

On Friday, Mr. Trump continued to lob insults at Mr. Carlson on social media, writing that “Tucker is a Low IQ person — Always easy to beat, and highly overrated.”

One of the president’s allies, the far-right activist Laura Loomer, wrote on social media on Monday that Mr. Carlson was “trying to hand our country over to the Democrats.”

Advertisement

Mr. Carlson, a right-wing brawler prone to spreading conspiratorial views, was once Fox News’s most popular prime-time host, and his TV program was all but mandatory for many conservatives during Mr. Trump’s first term.

But he was ousted by Fox News after it agreed to pay $787.5 million to resolve a lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems over the network’s promotion of 2020 election misinformation. The case exposed instances in which Mr. Carlson denigrated colleagues and privately attacked Mr. Trump. In a text from Jan. 4, 2021, that the case surfaced, Mr. Carlson wrote of Mr. Trump, “I hate him passionately.”

By 2024, Mr. Carlson had re-emerged as a popular podcaster and smoothed out tensions with Mr. Trump. Mr. Carlson was among those who lobbied Mr. Trump to choose JD Vance as his running mate.

When Mr. Trump made a dramatic appearance at the Republican National Convention in July 2024, days after he was shot in the ear at a rally in Butler, Pa., Mr. Carlson was the first person to greet him.

Cameras later captured the two chuckling together in Mr. Trump’s box at the convention in Milwaukee. From the stage of the convention, Mr. Carlson described Mr. Trump as “the funniest person I have ever met in my life.”

Advertisement

“He’s a wonderful person,” Mr. Carlson said. “I know him well.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Democrats win Virginia redistricting fight, threatening Republican House majority

Published

on

Democrats win Virginia redistricting fight, threatening Republican House majority

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democrats scored a major victory Tuesday when Virginia voters passed a congressional redistricting referendum that could give the party a significant boost in the battle for the U.S. House of Representatives majority in this year’s midterm elections, The Associated Press reported at 8:49 p.m. ET Tuesday.

The ballot measure gives the Democrat-controlled Virginia legislature — rather than the state’s current nonpartisan commission — temporary redistricting power through the 2030 election. It could result in a 10-1 advantage for Democrats in Virginia’s congressional delegation, up from their current 6-5 edge.

That would give the Democrats four additional left-leaning U.S. House seats ahead of the midterms as the party tries to win back control of the chamber from the GOP, which currently holds a razor-thin majority.

The standalone spring referendum capped months of political crossfire and court battles, sky-high early voting turnout and tons of national attention and money poured into the ballot box showdown.

Advertisement

DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger speaks during a Virginians For Fair Elections canvassing event in Woodbridge, Va., on April 18, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Even though a majority of voters gave the ballot initiative a thumbs-up, it still faces legal challenges.

The Supreme Court of Virginia allowed the referendum to move forward after a lower court struck it down. But legal challenges to the referendum remain unresolved and are still before Virginia’s highest court.

Republicans had railed against the Democrat-backed referendum.

Advertisement

“It’s the most partisan map in America,” former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin told supporters at his final campaign stop in northern Virginia on the eve of the election.

Pointing to the Democrats pushing new maps, Youngkin charged, “What they are doing is immoral.”

Teaming up with Youngkin to crisscross the state in leading the GOP opposition to the ballot initiative was former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, who told the crowd the Democrats’ map is one that “you draw when you’re drunk with power.”

BATTLE FOR THE HOUSE RUNS THROUGH VIRGINIA AS COURT OKS HIGH-STAKES REDISTRICTING VOTE

Former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, right, and former state Attorney General Jason Miyares lead a chant of “no” as they lead Republican efforts to defeat a Democrat-backed congressional redistricting referendum April 20, 2026, in Leesburg, Va. (Paul Steinhauser/Fox News)

Advertisement

Speaking with Fox News Digital ahead of their final election eve rally, Miyares charged that “Democrats want to take away the voices of millions of Virginians and gerrymander the state.”

Youngkin, pointing to the duo’s relentless campaigning in recent weeks, said, “What we’re hearing over and over and over again is Virginians want fair maps. And what the yes vote represents are unfair maps.”

And the two Republicans reiterated their charge that the referendum was an “unconstitutional power grab” by Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger and the Democrats who control the state legislature.

As Youngkin and Miyares spoke in Leesburg, President Donald Trump took to the airwaves on a popular Virginia-based conservative talk show and later teamed up with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to urge voters to defeat the referendum.

Pointing to congressional Democrats, Trump warned that “if they get these additional seats, they’re going to be making changes at the federal level.”

Advertisement

SPANBERGER FACES ‘BAIT AND SWITCH’ BACKLASH AHEAD OF CRUCIAL ELECTION

President Donald Trump headlined a tele town hall on the eve of Virginia’s congressional redistricting referendum urging voters to cast a ballot against the initiative. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Democrats countered that the redrawing of the maps was a necessary step to balance partisan gerrymandering already implemented by Republicans in other states at Trump’s urging.

“By voting yes, you have the chance to do something important — not just for the commonwealth, but for our entire country,” former President Barack Obama said in a video released Friday on the eve of the final day of early voting. “By voting yes, you can push back against the Republicans trying to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterms.

“By voting yes, you can take a temporary step to level the playing field. And we’re counting on you.”

Advertisement

The video by Obama was the former president’s latest effort for the referendum. He had previously appeared in ads released by Virginians for Fair Elections, the Democrat-aligned group working to pass the ballot initiative.

OBAMA GOES ALL IN ON HIGH-STAKES REFERENDUM THAT MAY IMPACT MIDTERM ELECTIONS

But Virginians for Fair Maps, the leading Republican-aligned group opposing redistricting, used past comments by Obama against political gerrymandering in its ads opposing the referendum.

“Because of things like political gerrymandering, our parties have moved further and further apart, and it’s harder and harder to find common ground,” the former president said in an old clip showcased in the spot.

Republicans pointed to comments from Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, a former Virginia governor and former chair of the Democratic National Committee, who acknowledged over the weekend in a “Fox News Sunday” interview that the new maps don’t represent Virginia’s partisan breakdown.

Advertisement

“Ninety percent of Virginians are not Democrats, that’s true,” Kaine said.

But Kaine added that “about 100% of Virginians want election results to be respected.”

SOROS-BACKED GROUP AMONG LIBERAL ORGS PUMPING EYE-POPPING CASH INTO VIRGINIA GERRYMANDERING EFFORT

And Republicans took aim at Spanberger, who won November’s gubernatorial election by over 15 points as Democrats also captured the lieutenant governor and attorney general offices.

“Abigail Spanberger told everybody last summer that she had no interest in redistricting, and then the first bill she signs is a bill to enable the gerrymandering of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginians don’t like this and that’s why independents and a lot of Democrats are voting no too,” Youngkin told Fox News Digital.

Advertisement

Minutes later, Youngkin told the crowd that Spanberger is “trying to disenfranchise millions, millions of Virginians.”

Republicans trained their redistricting firepower on Spanberger since a poll two weeks ago by The Washington Post indicated that the new governor’s approval rating was barely above water, with the highest unfavorable rating for a new Virginia governor in two decades.

“She’s an unpopular governor with an unpopular agenda, and she lied to the voters,” Miyares charged.

Former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, left, and former state Attorney General Jason Miyares, speak with Fox News Digital on the eve of Virginia’s congressional redistricting referendum in Leesburg, Va., April 20, 2026 (Paul Steinhauser/Fox News)

And Miyares and other top Republicans accused Spanberger of pulling a “bait and switch.”

Advertisement

Spanberger, in an ad in support of the referendum, said she was backing the measure because “it’s directly in response to what other states decide to do and a president who says he’s quote entitled to more Republican seats before this year’s midterms. Our approach is different. It’s temporary. It preserves Virginia’s fair redistricting process into the future.”

Supporters of redistricting dramatically outraised and outspent groups opposed to the referendum, with Virginians for Fair Elections outraising Virginians for Fair Maps by a roughly three-to-one margin. Much of the funding raised by both sides came from so-called “dark money” from nonprofit public policy groups known as 501(c)(4) organizations that are not required to disclose their donors.

Despite the Democrats’ funding advantage, recent polling suggested support for the ballot initiative was only slightly ahead of opposition amid a surge in early voting, which ended on Saturday.

“They have outspent us three to one. They’ve raised over $70 million. And yet this is a close vote,” Youngkin said.

Pointing to the ads in support of the referendum, Youngkin said Virginians “aren’t believing the mistruths. They aren’t believing the lies on TV. They’re actually doing the work themselves and understanding that a no vote is for fair maps and a yes vote is for the most gerrymandered maps in America.”

Advertisement

And Miyares emphasized that Democrats “outspent us, but we have the truth.”

Virginia is the latest battleground in the high-stakes fight between Trump and the GOP and Democrats over congressional redistricting.

Aiming to prevent what happened during his first term in the White House when Democrats reclaimed the House majority in the 2018 midterms, Trump last spring first floated the idea of rare, but not unheard of, mid-decade congressional redistricting.

The mission was simple: redraw congressional district maps in red states to pad the GOP’s fragile House majority to keep control of the chamber in the midterms, when the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses seats.

When asked by reporters last summer about his plan to add Republican-leaning House seats across the country, the president said, “Texas will be the biggest one. And that’ll be five.”

Advertisement

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas called a special session of the GOP-dominated state legislature to pass the new map.

But Democratic state lawmakers, who broke quorum for two weeks as they fled Texas in a bid to delay the passage of the redistricting bill, energized Democrats across the country.

Among those leading the fight against Trump’s redistricting was Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California.

DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an election night news conference at a California Democratic Party office in Sacramento Nov. 4, 2025. (Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP Photo)

Advertisement

California voters in November overwhelmingly passed Proposition 50, a ballot initiative that temporarily sidetracked the left-leaning state’s nonpartisan redistricting commission and returned the power to draw the congressional maps to the Democratic-dominated legislature.

That is expected to result in five more Democratic-leaning congressional districts in California, which aimed to counter the move by Texas to redraw their maps.

The fight quickly spread beyond Texas and California.

Republican-controlled Missouri and Ohio and swing state North Carolina, where the GOP dominates the legislature, have drawn new maps as part of the president’s push.

In blows to Republicans, a Utah district judge late last year rejected a congressional district map drawn by the state’s GOP-dominated legislature and instead approved an alternate that will create a Democratic-leaning district ahead of the midterms.

Advertisement

Republicans in Indiana’s Senate in December defied Trump, shooting down a redistricting bill that had passed the state House. The showdown in the Indiana statehouse grabbed plenty of national attention.

Florida is next up.

Two-term Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and state lawmakers in the GOP-dominated legislature are hoping to pick up an additional three to five right-leaning seats through a redistricting push during a special legislative session that kicks off April 28.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks during a news conference in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., July 22, 2025. (Amy Beth Bennett/South Florida Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service)

Hovering over the redistricting wars is the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule in Louisiana v. Callais, a crucial case that may lead to the overturning of a key provision in the Voting Rights Act.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

If the ruling goes the way of the conservatives on the high court, it could lead to the redrawing of a slew of majority-minority districts across the county, which would greatly favor Republicans.

But it is very much up in the air when the court will rule and what it will actually decide.

Continue Reading

Politics

Becerra sees momentum, money and movement in the polls in governor’s race

Published

on

Becerra sees momentum, money and movement in the polls in governor’s race

Xavier Becerra, a former Cabinet secretary in President Biden’s administration, appears to be surging in the wildly unsettled California governor’s race.

Until recently, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary had been mired in the single digits in polling to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom and lead the nation’s most populous state.

But after former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) dropped out of the race earlier this month amid accusations of sexual assault and other misconduct, Becerra has seen a boost in polls, fundraising and endorsements.

On Tuesday, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas endorsed Becerra alongside 14 Democratic members of the legislative body.

Advertisement

Arguing that Californians are under constant threat from President Trump’s policies, Rivas cited Becerra’s decades-long record in public office, including defending Obamacare and young immigrants, or “Dreamers,” to argue that Becerra is best positioned to lead the state.

“There’s no time to learn on the job — we need a governor who’s ready to fight back on day one,” Rivas said in a statement, noting that Becerra sued the Trump administration 122 times while he was California’s attorney general. “We have a strong Democratic field for governor. But right now, we need someone ready on day one. Xavier Becerra is that leader.”

Becerra said he was honored to receive the legislators’ backing.

“I look forward to working with the Speaker and legislators on Day One to tackle the problems Californians care about most — from the skyrocketing cost of groceries and housing to our unyielding fight against the Trump Administration’s disastrous policies,” he said in a prepared statement. “Californians need an experienced and trusted leader who doesn’t need on-the-job training.”

The endorsements come at a critical moment in the governor’s race — just two weeks before ballots begin arriving in Californians’ mailboxes. In addition to Swalwell dropping out, former state Controller Betty Yee ended her bid on Monday because of a lack of resources. On Tuesday, Yee endorsed hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior Tom Steyer.

Advertisement

She said in a video that she was backing Steyer because of his “standing up our democracy and getting young people involved, certainly with respect to our climate and the climate crisis we’re facing.”

Becerra and Steyer are now the Democratic front-runners in the race.

Despite Becerra’s long tenure in state and federal office, the unflashy politician is not well-known among California voters. He was among the underdogs in the 2026 gubernatorial race. Swalwell, by contrast, was among the leading Democratic candidates.

Amy Thoma, a former Republican strategist who is no longer affiliated with a political party, noted that Becerra’s surge comes at a critical moment in the election, shortly before ballots land in Californians’ mailboxes.

“Voters are starting to tune into the race. Yes, they want someone who will stand up to Trump, but it also seems they want someone with experience who can address the very real issues facing the state,” Thoma said.

Advertisement

She added that Becerra’s life story is “incredibly compelling.”

“The word authentic is overused, but every time he talks about his love for this state, for his family and wanting to make California work for everyone, it comes across incredibly sincere,” Thoma said. “Voters can see through candidates who fake it.”

Becerra was respected by colleagues across the aisle, including former GOP legislative leader and state Republican party chairman Jim Brulte. Both men were elected to the state Assembly in 1990 and though their politics often sharply differed. However, they had a warm relationship.

“He was progressive and I am a conservative,” Brulte said. “We never agreed much on policy, but he is a good man with a great heart.”

The 2026 governor’s race has been unlike any in recent memory, with no clear front-runner in a crowded field of candidates and voters just beginning to pay attention to the contest shortly before the June 2 primary.

Advertisement

There were two prominent Republicans and eight prominent Democrats in the race, leading to fears among Democratic leaders in the state that their party’s candidates could be shut out in the general election because of California’s unique primary system. The two candidates who win the most votes in the June 2 primary will move on to the November general election, regardless of party affiliation.

Democratic leaders remain concerned that despite California’s sapphire-blue tilt, the number of their party’s candidates in the race could lead to a splintering of Democratic voters that results in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot.

Six prominent Democrats remain in the race, after Swalwell and Yee dropped out.

The race — lacking a global superstar such as Arnold Schwarzenegger or the scion of a storied political family and former governor like Jerry Brown — is ephemeral. Anything can happen before the June 2 primary.

But Becerra is having a moment. In addition to the new endorsements, he has seen notable movement in polls, most recently in a survey released Monday by the state Democratic Party. Becerra jumped nine points from the party’s last poll, tying Steyer at 13%.

Advertisement

While Becerra will never be able to match Steyer’s deep pockets, he raised more than $1 million on ActBlue, the top Democratic fundraising platform, in the week ending Saturday, making him the biggest fundraiser on the site in the nation.

“Ninety-seven percent were first-time donors,” Becerra’s campaign said in a statement. “This is not a donor base being recycled. It is a movement being born.”

Times staff writer Nicole Nixon contributed to this report from Sacramento.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending