Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Trump, is scheduled to report to a federal prison in Connecticut on Monday to serve a four-month sentence for contempt for defying a subpoena in the congressional investigation into the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. 

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington had allowed Bannon to stay free for nearly two years while he appealed, but he later revoked his bail and ordered him to report to prison by July 1 after an appeals court panel upheld his contempt of Congress convictions. The Supreme Court rejected his last-minute appeal to stave off his sentence.

In an emergency motion filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last month, Bannon’s new lawyer, R. Trent McCotter, accused the government of seeking “to imprison Mr. Bannon for the four-month period leading up to the November election, when millions of Americans look to him for information on important campaign issues,” effectively barring him “from serving as a meaningful advisor in the ongoing national campaign.”

“There is also no denying the political realities here. Mr. Bannon is a high-profile political commentator and campaign strategist. He was prosecuted by an administration whose policies are a frequent target of Mr. Bannon’s public statements,” the motion said. 

TRUMP ALLY STEVE BANNON FILES EMERGENCY MOTION SEEKING TO STAY OUT OF PRISON

A jury found Bannon guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition with the Jan. 6 House Committee, and a second for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. 

JUDGE ORDERS STEVE BANNON TO REPORT TO PRISON

Former advisor to former President Trump, Steve Bannon, center, and attorney Matthew Evan Corcoran depart the courthouse on June 6, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

Defense attorneys have argued the case raises issues that should be examined by the Supreme Court, including Bannon’s previous lawyer’s belief that the subpoena was invalid because Trump had asserted executive privilege. Prosecutors, though, say Bannon had left the White House years before, and Trump had never invoked executive privilege in front of the committee.

Bannon’s surrender deadline is the same day the Supreme Court will release its ruling in a case involving whether Trump is immune from prosecution for his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

On Friday, the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6 riot who challenged his conviction for a federal “obstruction” crime.

Bannon’s appeal will continue to play out, and Republican House leaders have put their support behind stepping in to assert the Jan. 6 committee was improperly created, effectively trying to deem the subpoena Bannon received to be illegitimate.

Steve Bannon, former advisor to former President Donald Trump, appears in Manhattan Supreme Court to set his trial date on May 25, 2023, in New York City. (Curtis Means-Pool/Getty Images)

Another Trump aide, trade adviser Peter Navarro, has also been convicted of contempt of Congress. He reported to prison in March to serve his four-month sentence after the Supreme Court refused his bid to delay the sentence.

Bannon is also facing criminal charges in New York state court alleging he duped donors who gave money to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Bannon has pleaded not guilty to money laundering, conspiracy, fraud and other charges. That trial has been postponed until at least the end of September.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Emergency access to abortion has been a flashpoint in the chaotic aftermath of the Supreme Court’s overturning of the right to terminate a pregnancy in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022.

Can states deny women the care they need to preserve their health in the aftermath of Dobbs, or does federal law provide some protection for patients?

In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases testing whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act — or EMTALA — could override Idaho’s strict state abortion ban. Idaho has some of the narrowest exceptions to its ban in the nation — allowing doctors to intervene only when there was a threat to the life, not health, of the patient. The Biden administration argued that the federal law provided broader protection — and trumped the state’s ban. But on Thursday, the justices decided they had taken up the issue too soon, dismissing the cases as “improvidently granted” and sending them back to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In practical terms, Thursday’s ruling means that a district court order in Idaho that agreed with the administration about EMTALA went back into effect: Emergency access to abortion will be protected in the state, at least for the time being.

It may seem at first that abortion supporters should be happy. The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority agreed to hear two major abortion cases in a single term. And yet with Thursday’s ruling, and the court’s earlier decision that maintained wide access to mifepristone, a drug used in more than half of abortions nationwide, things didn’t get worse for reproductive rights.

The truth is that the court’s Idaho ruling is its own kind of disaster. It will increase the confusion and chaos women face when they need an emergency termination in states that ban all or most abortions. And the decision contains important clues about what could happen when or if the justices get another chance at these issues. The bottom line is simple: Don’t expect the Supreme Court to come to the rescue of women who find themselves in dire need of an abortion.

In theory, every state that severely limits or bans abortion has some kind of exception for threats to the life or health of the patient, but many of those exceptions are narrowly drawn and hard to understand. In addition, states impose unprecedented penalties on physicians who perform abortions that don’t fall under an exception — including, in some cases, life in prison. For these reasons, physicians have been reluctant to intervene, even when a patient may qualify under an exception.

States have scrambled to offer clarity, with some legislatures or medical boards adding explicit examples of when certain abortions may be performed, but these moves have only amplified the confusion. If an emergency condition doesn’t appear on a state’s list, does that automatically mean that a physician can’t act? Are there state or federal constitutional limits on denying access to patients who may die or suffer severe and permanent health damage? And what role, if any, does EMTALA play? The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that none of these questions will be fully answered in the short term, and patients will be the ones to pay the price.

The “improvidently granted” ruling split the court into three three-justice factions, with a center-right bloc agreeing with the liberals to dismiss the case, and the most conservative justices, led by Samuel A. Alito Jr., prepared to hold that EMTALA does absolutely nothing to limit strict abortion bans.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Brett M. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., agreed that it was too early for the court to intervene, but they didn’t seem averse to accepting Idaho’s arguments against EMTALA. Even if the center-right justices could find some rationale for providing patients with protection under EMTALA, they suggested a Faustian bargain: The court would interpret EMTALA to apply only to physical, not mental, health — and would conclude that the law does nothing to stop doctors with conscience-based objections from turning patients away, even when they face life-threatening emergencies.

The opinion Barrett penned clearly reflects suspicions about patients who invoke mental health as a justification for terminating a pregnancy, a long-standing talking point for those who consider psychological struggles during pregnancy to be a mere excuse for “abortion on demand.”

As for conscience-based denials of care, we can guess what Barrett has in mind because Kavanaugh’s majority opinion in the mifepristone case already spelled it out: Instead of the law having to balance doctors’ conscience-based objections with patients’ safety, the objecting doctors would be able to just say no, even in healthcare deserts where other providers may be unavailable.

The most concerning signal about what could be in store for those who get pregnant came in Alito’s dissent in the decision to send the Idaho case back to the lower court. Joined by Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, he suggested that EMTALA, rather than protecting a pregnant patient with a life-threatening emergency, protects the unborn patient instead.

Antiabortion groups have long argued that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees constitutional fetal rights. Alito did not explicitly take up that question, but his reading of the statute aligns with so-called fetal personhood views. He reasoned that because the wording in EMTALA includes the term “unborn child,” its framers must have prioritized the fetus over the mother, even when the mother’s life or health is in jeopardy.

As EMTALA litigation moves back into the federal courts, the 2024 election could make the whole thing moot. A second Trump administration would almost certainly withdraw President Biden’s guidance on EMTALA and let the states make their own decisions about when to withhold emergency care from patients. That is precisely what conservatives, led by the Heritage Foundation, have recommended in Project 2025, a proposed blueprint for another Trump presidency.

Abortion rights advocates may have been relieved on Thursday that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court punted on the Idaho abortion cases, but any celebration will be short-lived. In reality, there is no relief in sight for pregnant patients facing the dangers of a post-Roe America.

Mary Ziegler is a law professor at UC Davis and the author of “Roe: The History of a National Obsession.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a budget intended to close an estimated $46.8 billion deficit, but multiple Republican lawmakers say they were left out of negotiations. 

Lawmakers passed the budget Wednesday after an agreement between Newsom and legislative leaders in which both sides made concessions and gained some wins.

The budget aims to close the deficit through $16 billion in spending cuts and temporarily raising taxes on some businesses.

Newsom praised the budget as “responsible” and said it prepared “for the future while investing in foundational programs that benefit millions of Californians every day.” 

‘I WOULD NEVER TURN MY BACK ON PRESIDENT BIDEN’: NEWSOM SHOWS SUPPORT AT PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

“Thanks to careful stewardship of the budget over the past few years, we’re able to meet this moment while protecting our progress on housing, homelessness, education, health care and other priorities that matter deeply to Californians,” Newsom said. 

But some Republicans say they were left out of negotiations altogether. Republican Senator Roger Niello of Fair Oaks, Vice-Chair of the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, derided the budget as “the majority party’s budget.” He told Fox News Digital he only learned of the budget in an X post. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom joined NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Feb. 25, 2024. (Screenshot/NBC)

“This budget certainly reflects the majority party’s priorities, but it ignores the priorities of eight million residents of this state because none of my Republican colleagues were involved in development of the budget,” Niello said. 

The Republican lawmaker also called the budget package “nominally balanced but not sustainable.” 

ADAM CAROLLA SAYS HE’S LEAVING ‘HORRIBILE’ CALIFORNIA, PANS ‘SOCIOPATHIC’ NEWSOM: ‘SLIPPERY EEL OF NOTHINGNESS’

“It fails to rein in the past decade of irresponsible growth in government spending,” Niello said. “It relies on budget gimmicks, draws down our savings, and saddles future generations with debt.”

Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones of San Diego argued that California residents who are represented by a Republican in the legislature have effectively been denied a voice. 

“Each senator, whether Democrat or Republican, in California represents almost a million people and those million people each should have a voice on what happens in the legislature regarding the budget,” Niello said. 

He accused his Democratic colleagues of playing “shadow games with accounting” rather than “being responsible with California’s checkbook.” 

State Capitol Aerial view of California Capitol in Sacramento. Lawmakers on Friday advanced a bill that would allow killer serving life without parole to petition for re-sentencing.  (Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

“They shifted, swept and shuffled money around, stealing it from disabled kids and taking money from a host of necessary services to fund unneeded social experiments and pet projects,” he said. “It’s unfathomable. But it’s real.”

The deficit was about $32 billion in 2023 before growing even bigger this year, with more deficits projected for the future in the nation’s most populous state. 

Saturday’s signing came just two years after Newsom and Democratic lawmakers were boasting about surpluses that totaled more than $100 billion, the product of hundreds of billions of dollars of federal COVID-19 aid and a progressive tax code that produced a windfall of revenue from the state’s wealthiest residents.

But those revenue spikes did not last as inflation slowed the economy, contributing to rising unemployment and a slowdown in the tech industry that has driven much of the state’s growth. The Newsom administration then badly miscalculated how much money California would have last year after a seven-month delay in the tax filing deadline.

The budget includes an agreement that Newsom and lawmakers will try to change the state constitution to let California put more money in reserve for future shortfalls.

Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom’s office but did not hear back.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.