Fox News Politics Newsletter: Birthright Debate
Here's what's happening…-Trump highlights potential pay raise for troops, touts military reforms in Qatar speech
-Dems divided on Trump's executive order aimed at slashing drug prices
-Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts reins in Sotomayor after repeated interruptions
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in a challenge to President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship, a case that could more broadly call into question the powers of lower courts to block executive branch actions.
It's unclear when the justices will rule, but their decision to fast-track the case means an opinion or order could come within weeks — or even days.
Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared to agree Thursday that the use of universal injunctions has surged in recent years — blocking actions by both Democratic and Republican presidents.
WHY WOULD HE GO?': Trump to skip Russia-Ukraine peace talks, calls Zelenskyy the 'greatest salesman, maybe in history'
TRUMP OF ARABIA: Trump makes historic UAE trip in first U.S. presidential visit in nearly 30 years
'VERY SIMPLE': Trump warns Iran faces 'violence like people haven't seen before' if nuclear deal fails
'TRUMP'S EXCEPTIONAL EFFORTS': UAE's president bestows highest civilian honor on Trump
'IT'S THE LAW': Espionage, constitutional concerns abound from Trump detractors, allies over Qatari jet offer
POLL POSITION: Trump's poll position improves as president's approval ratings edge up in new national survey
'DESTRUCTION OR DISRUPTION': Hidden communications devices found in Chinese solar power inverters spark security alarm
'NO DOUBT': Dem senator says 'no doubt' Biden declined cognitively during presidency
TAX-CUT DAY: GOP reps, advocacy group to target competitive House districts in Trump tax-cut push
PLANES, TRAINS, AND INVESTIGATIONS: House Dems open investigation into Trump's acceptance of $400 million jet from Qatar
SUPREME SMACKDOWN: Justice Kagan snaps at Trump lawyer in major case: 'Every court has ruled against you'
'DISTURBING' CONDUCT: US attorney for Massachusetts says interference with ICE operations is 'disturbing,' threatens arrests
JUDGE IS IN: Jeanine Pirro sworn in as interim US attorney
'LEAVING AMERICANS VULNERABLE': US military would be unleashed on enemy drones on the homeland if bipartisan bill passes
NEW GAME: Harvard updates lawsuit after Trump cancels additional $450M in funding
Get the latest updates on the Trump administration and Congress, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
18 minutes ago
- Fox News
Zelenskyy arrives in Washington, DC for Trump meeting, urges lasting peace with Russia
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed his arrival in Washington, D.C., on Sunday ahead of a meeting with President Donald Trump to discuss an end to the war with Russia. "I have already arrived in Washington, tomorrow I am meeting with President Trump. Tomorrow we are also speaking with European leaders. I am grateful to @POTUS for the invitation. We all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably. And peace must be lasting," Zelenskyy wrote, in part, on X on Sunday. Zelenskyy will be bringing a group of European leaders to the Monday meeting, and Trump said on Truth Social it is a "great honor to host them all." Zelenskyy said this meeting must be different from past discussions on how to achieve peace with Russia, which allowed Moscow to take over Crimea and part of Donbas in 2014. He also noted that "so-called 'security guarantees'" given to Ukraine in 1994 in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union did not work. The Ukrainian president said his country would not tolerate another temporary truce, maintaining that only enforceable guarantees from the U.S. and Europe could prevent Moscow from launching future attacks. In his post on X, Zelenskyy highlighted some of the recent "successes" by Ukrainian forces, emphasizing his assurance that Kyiv can and will defend its territory with continued Western backing. "Ukrainians are fighting for their land, for their independence. Now, our soldiers have successes in Donetsk and Sumy regions. I am confident that we will defend Ukraine, effectively guarantee security, and that our people will always be grateful to President Trump, everyone in America, and every partner and ally for their support and invaluable assistance," he maintained. While Zelenskyy expressed his gratitude to Trump, America and European allies for the support, he also said he hopes "joint strength" will push Russia to end the war it started more than three years ago. "Russia must end this war, which it itself started. And I hope that our joint strength with America, with our European friends, will force Russia into a real peace. Thank you!," the post concluded. The push comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly demanded that Ukraine withdraw from two eastern regions during a summit with Trump in Alaska on Friday. Trump appeared to show support for Putin's request in a post on Truth Social on Sunday night, writing that Zelenskyy does have the ability to "end the war with Russia." "President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight. Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!" he wrote. Zelenskyy has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is not giving up any territory.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Who Trump can fire Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. Flood of campaign cash? The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. Obergefell's anniversary A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Race and redistricting Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. When soldiers sue Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prayer for relief Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.' Solve the daily Crossword
2 hours ago
Zelenskyy brings Europe's top leaders with him to meet Trump on ending Russia's war
WASHINGTON -- Ukraine's future could hinge on a hastily assembled meeting Monday at the White House as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy brings with him an extraordinary cadre of European leaders to show U.S. President Donald Trump a united front against Russia. The European political heavy-hitters were left out of Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin last Friday, and they look to safeguard Ukraine and the continent from any widening aggression from Moscow. By arriving as a group, they hope to avoid any debacles like Zelenskyy's February meeting in the Oval Office, where Trump chastised him for not showing enough gratitude for American military aid. The meeting also is a test of America's relationship with its closest allies after the European Union and United Kingdom accepted Trump's tariff hikes partly because they wanted his support on Ukraine. Monday's showing is a sign both of the progress and the possible distress coming out of the Alaska meeting as many of Europe's leaders are descending on Washington with the explicit goal of protecting Ukraine's interests, a rare and sweeping show of diplomatic force. 'It's important that America agrees to work with Europe to provide security guarantees for Ukraine, and therefore for all of Europe,' Zelenskyy said on X. The night before the meeting, however, Trump seemed to put the onus on Zelenskyy to agree to concessions and suggested that Ukraine could not regain Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, setting off an armed conflict that led to its broader 2022 invasion. "President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight," he wrote Sunday night on social media. 'Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!' Zelenskyy appeared to respond with his own post late Sunday, saying, 'We all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably.' He went on to say that 'peace must be lasting,' not as it was after Russia seized Crimea and part of the Donbas in eastern Ukraine eight years ago, and 'Putin simply used it as a springboard for a new attack.' The sitdown in Alaska yielded the possible contours for stopping the war in Ukraine, though it was unclear whether the terms discussed would ultimately be acceptable to Zelenskyy or Putin. Planning to join Zelenskyy in America's capital are European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. On the table for discussion are possible NATO-like security guarantees that Ukraine would need for any peace with Russia to be durable. Putin opposes Ukraine joining NATO outright, yet Trump's team claims the Russian leader is open to allies agreeing to defend Ukraine if it comes under attack. Trump briefed Zelenskyy and European allies shortly after the Putin meeting, and details from the discussions emerged in a scattershot way that seemed to rankle the U.S. president, who had chosen not to outline any terms when appearing afterward with Putin. 'BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA,' Trump posted Sunday on social media. The president also bemoaned media coverage of his summit with Putin and said on Truth Social: "I had a great meeting in Alaska." Following the Alaska summit, Trump declared that a ceasefire was not necessary for peace talks to proceed, a sudden shift to a position favored by Putin. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that a ceasefire was still possible but that 'the best way to end this conflict is through a full peace deal." European officials confirmed that Trump told them Putin is still seeking control of the entire Donbas region, even though Ukraine controls a meaningful share of it. And Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, said the U.S. and its allies could offer Ukraine a NATO-like commitment to defend the country if it came under attack as the possible security guarantee. "How that's constructed, what we call it, how it's built, what guarantees are built into it that are enforceable, that's what we'll be talking about over the next few days with our partners who are coming in from overseas,' Rubio told NBC's 'Meet the Press.' Rubio said on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures' that such a commitment 'would be a very big move" by Trump. He expects the delegations will 'spend six, seven hours talking about these things, maybe more, and try to get to a point where we have something more concrete.' Monday's meeting will likely be very tough for Zelenskyy, an official close to the ongoing talks said. That official spoke on condition of anonymity to speak openly about thinking within Ukraine and between allies. Zelenskyy needs to prevent a scenario in which he gets blamed for blocking peace talks by rejecting Putin's maximalist demand on the Donbas, the official said. It is a demand Zelenskyy has said many times he will never accept because it is unconstitutional and could create a launching pad for future Russian attacks. If confronted with pressure to accept Putin's demands, Zelenskyy would likely have to revert to a skill he has demonstrated time and again: diplomatic tact. Ukrainian leadership is seeking a trilateral meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump and Putin to discuss sensitive matters, including territorial issues. After enduring a public tirade by Trump and Vice President JD Vance in February, Zelenskyy worked to repair relations with the U.S. Constant diplomatic communication and a 15-minute meeting at the Vatican in April on the sidelines of Pope Francis' funeral helped turn the tide. Trump appeared at the time to be swayed by Zelenskyy's conditions for peace. But Trump says he cares primarily about ending the war, an ambition that led him after his meeting with Putin to discard the need for a ceasefire. European allies also have worked with Trump, reaching a deal in July for NATO allies to buy weapons from the U.S. for Ukraine. Ahead of Monday's meeting, France's Macron stressed the importance of building up Ukraine's military and the need to show Putin that Europe interprets his moves as a threat to other nations. 'If we are weak with Russia today, we'll be preparing the conflicts of tomorrow and they will impact the Ukrainians and — make no mistake — they can impact us, too,' Macron said.
