Mexico Elects Judges Among Scores of Little-Known Candidates
Polls open at 8 a.m. in Mexico City as voters pick a total of 881 federal judges, including all members of the Supreme Court. More than 3,000 little-known candidates are competing. Polls close at 6 p.m.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Supreme Court lets Trump remove 3 Dems from Consumer Product Safety Commission
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who had been fired by President Donald Trump and then reinstated by a federal judge. The justices acted on an emergency appeal from the Justice Department, which argued that the agency is under Trump's control and the president is free to remove commissioners without cause. The court provided a brief, unsigned explanation that the case is similar to earlier ones in which it allowed Trump to fire board members of other independent agencies, whom Congress protected from arbitrary dismissals. 3 Signage is seen outside of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in Rockville, Maryland, U.S., August 31, 2020. REUTERS The three liberal justices dissented. 'By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote for herself, as well as Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump fired the three Democrats on the five-member commission in May. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. Maddox sought to distinguish the commission's role from those of other agencies where the Supreme Court has allowed firings to go forward. A month earlier, the high court's conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, finding that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' The administration has argued that all the agencies are under Trump's control as the head of the executive branch. 3 President Donald Trump speaks during an AI summit at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in Washington. AP Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted that it can be difficult to characterize the product safety commission's functions as purely executive. The fight over the president's power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. Kagan wrote that the court already has 'all but overturned Humphrey's Executor.' 3 Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who was the ship sponsor, speaks during the christening for the USNS Earl Warren (T-AO 207) in San Diego on Saturday, Jan. 21, 2023. AP Other removals are making their way to the high court, including the firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission, the very agency at issue in Humphrey's Executor. Last week, a federal judge ordered Rebecca Slaughter reinstated as a commissioner. Slaughter returned to work Friday. By Tuesday, she had been sidelined again after an appeals court temporarily blocked the judge's order. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the fired commissioners wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence.
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Fox News Poll: Approval of SCOTUS at 5-year high, rebounding from record low in 2024
After a busy end to the 2024-2025 term, voters have a more positive view of the Supreme Court. In fact, the high court currently holds its highest approval rating since 2020. The latest Fox News survey finds 47% of voters approve of the job SCOTUS is doing, a 9-point jump since last July, when a record low 38% approved. The increase in approval is widespread, but especially among independents (up 16 points), women (+15), Republicans (+14), and voters under age 30 (+12). "Over the past decade, public confidence in our major institutions has declined," says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps conduct the Fox News survey with Democrat Chris Anderson. "The Court's rebound could reflect its attempts to steer a middle course on politically polarizing questions or indicate an uptick in positive attitudes toward our more venerable institutions." The numbers still fall short of the court's 54% approval rating in 2020 (the last time it was above 50%) or the record high 58% in 2017. At that time, majorities of Democrats (65%) and independents (55%) and half of Republicans (50%) approved. The survey, released Wednesday, shows 50% of voters disapprove of the court's performance, down from 60% last year. Those most likely to disapprove are Democrats (78%), liberals (75%), and Black voters (61%), while the highest approval is among Republicans (76%), conservatives (74%), and White, evangelical Christians (66%). The share saying partisanship frequently plays a role in the court's decisions decreased 9 points since 2024 (from 42% to 33%) and that downward shift is seen across all demographics. Another 44% say partisanship plays a role sometimes and 20% say hardly ever or never. Still, by more than 2-to-1, more voters think SCOTUS is too conservative (43%) than too liberal in its decisions (18%, a low), while 36% think the court's rulings are about right. That's roughly where sentiment was last summer, when a record high 45% felt the court was too conservative, 19% said too liberal, and 33% said about right. Voters have felt the Court has been too conservative rather than too liberal since July 2018. The last time voters felt it was too liberal was in February 2017 when 31% said liberal and 18% conservative – a plurality of voters, and a record high, felt the court was about right in decisions (47%). Today, Democrats feel the strongest about the conservative leaning of the Court: 72% think it's too conservative, while 17% say it is about right, and 8% say too liberal. In 2017, it was 29%, 60%, and 8%, respectively. A 56% majority of Republicans say the Court is about right in its decisions, while 29% say too liberal, and 14% too conservative. In 2017, it was 32%, 59%, and 5%, respectively. Attitudes among independents are more balanced, with 40% saying the Court is too conservative, 36% about right, and 18% too liberal. In 2017, it was 16%, 48%, and 26%, respectively. Conducted July 18-21, 2025, under the direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News survey includes interviews with a sample of 1,000 registered voters randomly selected from a national voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (114) and cellphones (636) or completed the survey online after receiving a text (250). Results based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points. Sampling error for results among subgroups is higher. In addition to sampling error, question wording and order can influence results. Weights are generally applied to age, race, education, and area variables to ensure the demographics of respondents are representative of the registered voter population. Sources for developing weight targets include the American Community Survey, Fox News Voter Analysis and voter file data.
CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Exclusive: Trump administration moves to rapidly deport migrant children, asking teens if they want to leave
The Trump administration is moving to rapidly deport some migrant children who arrived in the US without a parent or guardian by having federal agents ask teens whether they want to voluntarily depart the country, according to two Homeland Security officials and a source familiar with the discussions. The latest directive, which comes as the administration seeks to ramp up deportations, marks a departure from long-standing protocol which required that federal authorities turn over most unaccompanied children to the Health and Human Services Department, the agency charged with their care. Up until now, federal authorities didn't ask unaccompanied kids from countries other than Mexico and Canada if they wanted to self deport. This week, US Customs and Border Protection personnel were directed to ask children they encounter in immigration enforcement operations across the country whether they want to voluntarily depart the United States, the officials said. If the child agrees, agents will turn that child over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation. But if ICE doesn't pick them up from CBP custody within 72 hours, agents will refer them to HHS. Two of the sources said the new policy is designed to apply to children ages 14 to 17. 'This is a long-standing practice that was used by previous administrations to prioritize getting children back to the safety of a parent or legal guardian in their home country. The policy of offering unaccompanied alien children (UACs) the option to withdraw their application for admission into the U.S. is accredited in the Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022,' a Homeland Security spokesperson said in a statement. 'The only change pursuant to the Big Beautiful Bill is expanding this option to return home to UACs from additional countries beyond Mexico and Canada,' the spokesperson added. The administration has been leaning on so-called self-deportations as they double down on President Donald Trump's sweeping mass deportation campaign. Some families, including those from mixed-status households, have opted to leave the country voluntarily, fearful of the administration's immigration crackdown. Unaccompanied children residing in the US are usually afforded special protections given that they are deemed a vulnerable population. They are generally placed with family members already living in the US but are still deemed unaccompanied because they entered the country alone. While existing policy generally allows for the swift removal of children arriving from Mexico and Canada because they're contiguous countries, that's not true for children of other nationalities. And the targeting of those kids from other countries — many of whom are living in the US with family — marks an escalation of the administration's deportation efforts. 'A child is in no position to understand the consequences of self-deporting, particularly without the guidance of an attorney,' said Neha Desai, managing director of Children's Human Rights at the National Center for Youth Law. 'Unaccompanied children are being used as pawns in an effort to deport as many people as possible, regardless of the human toll it takes on the most vulnerable members of our community.' Trump and his top aides have repeatedly cited the influx of children who arrived at the US southern border alone under the Biden administration as a critique of his predecessor and his handling of border security. Trump officials argue that hundreds of thousands of those children went unaccounted for — and are in potentially dangerous situations. Former Biden officials and several experts refute those claims. But that's served as the premise for multiple initiatives focused on unaccompanied migrant children who are either in government custody or living with family in the United States. CNN previously reported that migrant children were coming back into government custody because of enforcement actions against their so-called sponsors, legal services typically offered to kids were being cut off, and children were being placed on expedited court dockets to speed up deportations. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which has been in place for more than two decades, provides protections for unaccompanied migrant children who arrive and reside in the US, including being screened to see if they are victims of human trafficking or have a credible fear of persecution in their home country. Children from Mexico and Canada have been asked to voluntarily depart as part of the removal process along the US southern border, but that hasn't been true for kids of other nationalities and it's unclear how the directive aligns with the protections outlined in law. 'They are not competent to make their own decisions,' a former Homeland Security official told CNN, referring to young migrant children. 'That's the whole idea — that they're a child. It's the whole premise of TVPRA.' Other policy changes concerning unaccompanied children are also underway. The Office of Refugee Resettlement, a federal agency that falls under HHS, has also implemented new guidelines that the agency describes as part of a broader effort to strengthen vetting of sponsors, who are usually family members of children. The guidelines require that staff meet with them in person before placing the kids, according to an email sent to staff and obtained by CNN. But it also notes that federal law enforcement agencies 'may be present to meet their own mission objectives, which may include interviewing sponsors,' the email states. The potential involvement of federal enforcement agencies could exacerbate the already present chilling effect among immigrant families, many of whom are undocumented and who have children in custody, experts say. 'We are witnessing a fundamental unraveling of protections for this vulnerable population — a population that a bipartisan Congress sought to protect years ago through landmark federal legislation,' Desai said.
