Connect with us

Latest

Leaked memos reveal how Supreme Court steamrolled Obama climate plan in 2016 showdown

Published

on

The Supreme Court’s emergency order blocking former President Barack Obama’s signature clean energy initiative in 2016 came after a series of leaked internal memos among the justices that revealed a fight along ideological lines about whether to intervene.

The rare glimpse at the high court’s internal memos, obtained by the New York Times, showed Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, urging the Supreme Court to block Obama’s effort, while liberal justices pushed back.

Roberts and the court’s conservatives were concerned not just with Obama’s policy itself, but with the possibility that the Clean Power Plan could reshape the power sector before the justices could fully review whether it was lawful, the newly revealed memos show.

“Absent a stay, the Clean Power Plan will cause (and is causing) substantial and irreversible reordering of the domestic power sector before this court has an opportunity to review its legality,” Roberts wrote in one of the memos published by the New York Times on Friday. 

JACKSON-KAVANAUGH TENSIONS SURFACE IN CANDID EXCHANGE OVER SUPREME COURT ‘SHADOW DOCKET’

📣

FROM THE EDITORS  -  Keeping our readers safe extends beyond the headlines. We've secured an exclusive antivirus offer from TotalAV to help protect your devices and personal information.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Supreme Court’s communications team Monday for comment on the leaks.

The push from Roberts came as the justices were considering what was viewed at the time as an unusual request on the emergency docket, sometimes called a “shadow docket,” from red states and outside groups to halt the Obama-era regulation, which aimed to cut carbon emissions over the next 25 years, before lower courts had fully weighed in, a step that the liberal justices warned would break from longstanding practice.

The emergency docket allows litigants to bypass typical court proceedings and seek immediate relief from the Supreme Court if lower courts block them through restraining orders or preliminary injunctions.

The Clean Power Plan would have involved the Obama Environmental Protection Agency regulating coal, oil and gas plants under the Clean Air Act. Roberts wrote that without the Supreme Court stepping in, “both the states and private industry will suffer irreparable harm from a rule that is — in my view — highly unlikely to survive.”

In another memo, Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, disagreed, saying “the unique nature of the relief sought in these applications gives me real pause.”

JONATHAN TURLEY: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS COULD LEARN FROM BASEBALL GREAT TED WILLIAMS WHEN IT COMES TO LEAKS

Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, circulated a memo the same day as Kagan in which he agreed with Roberts.

“A failure to stay this rule threatens to render our ability to provide meaningful judicial review — and by extension, our institutional legitimacy — a nullity,” Alito wrote.

Within a matter of days, the justices temporarily blocked Obama’s Clean Power Plan 5-4 along ideological lines, effectively dealing it a death blow because Democrats would lose the White House later that year. The New York Times noted that the Obama White House dismissed the ruling at the time as a small hurdle but that “behind closed doors, officials were astonished that the court had intervened so quickly.”

The back-and-forth in the memos during the short period of time, from the end of January 2016 to Feb. 9, when the brief decision was issued, showed how fast the justices moved to weigh in on a major presidential action.

Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, wrote in an op-ed that the anonymous leak of the memos to the New York Times, the second leak of confidential material after the Dobbs opinion leak in 2022, was “clearly designed to wound some of its members.”

“For an institution that prides itself on its confidentiality and insularity, the court is looking increasingly porous and partisan in these leaks,” Turley wrote.

KAGAN SCREAMED SO LOUDLY AT LIBERAL ALLY AFTER DOBBS LEAK THE ‘WALL WAS SHAKING,’ BOOK CLAIMS

The New York Times’ report highlighted that legal experts have long viewed the Clean Power Plan decision as one of the first examples of the Supreme Court using the emergency docket in a way that limits executive power over national policy.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, has been among the most vocal dissenters in emergency cases during President Donald Trump’s second term as the president frequently benefits from the fast-paced docket. Jackson is sometimes joined by her two liberal colleagues, Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissents, and emergency cases have often split 6-3 in favor of Trump.

Last week, Jackson aired her grievances in a different forum, blasting emergency docket decisions during a Yale Law School speech as rushed, “scratch-paper musings” that undermine the high court’s purpose.

“Given the real world facts that a stay request asks the court to consider, the court’s stay decisions can, at times, come across utterly irrational,” Jackson said. “We cannot expect the public to have faith in our judicial system if, without clear explanation, we consistently greenlight harmful acts.”

Legal experts have attributed the heightened activity on the emergency docket to a rise in presidents attempting to shape national policy through through executive orders.

“[An increase in emergency motions] coincides with the rise of executive orders and other forms of unilateral executive action really as the primary form of lawmaking in our country with the disappearance of Congress, and that has posed enormous challenges for the court,” attorney Kannon Shanmugam said during a Federalist Society panel last fall.

Fox News Digital reached out to Obama’s office for comment. 

Continue Reading

Latest

JUST IN: ‘Squad’ Congressional Candidate Arrested

Published

on

JUST IN: ‘Squad’ Congressional Candidate Arrested

A Democratic congressional nominee who defeated a sitting member of Congress earlier this year was arrested Thursday during a major protest against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outside the United Nations in New York City.

Darializa Avila Chevalier, the Democratic nominee for New York’s heavily Democratic 13th Congressional District, was taken into custody as demonstrators gathered near U.N. headquarters ahead of Netanyahu’s address to the General Assembly.

Avila Chevalier defeated five-term Rep. Adriano Espaillat in June’s Democratic primary after campaigning as a critic of U.S. support for Israel and receiving the backing of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Now, just months after that upset victory, she was among the politicians, activists and entertainers arrested during Thursday’s demonstration.

The protest, organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, drew roughly 250 people to First Avenue and East 39th Street, just blocks from U.N. headquarters.

📣

FROM THE EDITORS  -  Keeping our readers safe extends beyond the headlines. We've secured an exclusive antivirus offer from TotalAV to help protect your devices and personal information.

Demonstrators sat in the roadway while protesting Netanyahu’s appearance and U.S. support for Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

Police arrested protesters who blocked the road and refused orders to move.

Avila Chevalier defended her decision to participate and sharply condemned Netanyahu.

“As the Democratic Nominee for New York’s 13th Congressional District, I refuse to allow a war criminal to roam the streets of our city unchallenged,” she said.

“I refuse to play host to a man who has overseen the slaughter or injury of more than 64,000 children in Gaza with American taxpayer dollars.”

The description of Netanyahu as a “war criminal” reflects Avila Chevalier’s position. Netanyahu and the Israeli government have rejected accusations that Israel’s military campaign constitutes genocide and have maintained that Israel is targeting Hamas while seeking to minimize civilian casualties.

The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity. Netanyahu and Israel reject the allegations and dispute the court’s jurisdiction.

Avila Chevalier’s arrest comes after a Democratic primary campaign in which U.S. policy toward Israel emerged as a significant dividing line between her and Espaillat.

She has advocated ending U.S. military support for Israel and has aligned herself with the Democratic Party’s democratic-socialist and pro-Palestinian wing.

Espaillat’s support for Israel became one of the issues Avila Chevalier used to challenge the longtime incumbent.

She ultimately defeated him in the June Democratic primary, securing the nomination in a district covering parts of northern Manhattan and the Bronx.

Thursday’s demonstration showed that she has no intention of softening her position after winning the nomination.

As police led her away, Avila Chevalier told reporters:

“We’re standing against war. Stop the genocide. U.S. dollars for health care, for housing, for education. Not for bombing children.”

She was not the only New York political figure taken into custody.

New York City Council Member Chi Ossé was also arrested during the demonstration.

Ossé similarly condemned U.S. financial support for Israel.

“I’m sick and tired of my taxpayer dollars going towards an active genocide,” Ossé said.

Council Member Alexa Avilés was also among those arrested.

The protest attracted a number of prominent activists and entertainers as well.

Actor Hannah Einbinder and whistleblower Chelsea Manning were among those taken into custody, while other reports identified actor Susan Sarandon among those arrested.

The NYPD said more than 100 people were arrested during the protests surrounding Netanyahu’s appearance.

The demonstration unfolded as Netanyahu addressed the United Nations amid intense international criticism of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Netanyahu used his appearance to defend Israel’s conduct and push back against allegations surrounding the war.

The Israeli government maintains that its military campaign is directed against Hamas and points to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage, as the catalyst for the war.

Palestinian health officials say more than 73,000 people have been killed in Gaza during the ensuing Israeli military campaign. Those figures do not distinguish in their topline count between civilians and combatants.

The political fight over the war has increasingly spilled into Democratic electoral politics in the United States.

Avila Chevalier’s primary victory over Espaillat was one of several 2026 races in which candidates critical of U.S. support for Israel defeated established Democratic politicians.

Her victory also positioned her to potentially become another democratic-socialist voice in Congress if elected in November.

Thursday’s arrest underscored how central the issue remains to her political identity.

Avila Chevalier did not merely issue a statement condemning Netanyahu’s appearance.

She joined demonstrators in the street outside the United Nations and was taken into police custody alongside other protesters.

For a congressional nominee only months away from the general election, it was an unusually visible act of protest.

And it offered voters a clear look at the kind of politics Avila Chevalier intends to bring to Washington if she wins the seat in November.

Continue Reading

Latest

Jeanine Pirro Makes Massive Announcement – WH In Total Shock

Published

on

Jeanine Pirro Makes Massive Announcement – WH In Total Shock

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is launching a new federal division in Washington dedicated to pursuing fraud against the government and recovering taxpayer money.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia announced Wednesday the creation of its new Fraud and Asset Recovery Division, a specialized unit that will bring prosecutors, investigators, auditors and support personnel together to pursue civil fraud cases.

The new division will put a particular emphasis on the False Claims Act, one of the federal government’s most powerful tools for recovering money lost through fraud.

Pirro tied the sweeping reorganization directly to the Trump administration’s campaign against fraud, waste and abuse throughout the federal government.

“President Trump has prioritized the elimination of fraud, waste, and abuse involving federal agencies and programs,” Pirro said.

📣

FROM THE EDITORS  -  Keeping our readers safe extends beyond the headlines. We've secured an exclusive antivirus offer from TotalAV to help protect your devices and personal information.

“This new Fraud and Asset Recovery Division will reinforce and consolidate our resources to hold fraudsters accountable and recover taxpayer dollars.”

Pirro then delivered an unmistakable warning to anyone attempting to defraud the government.

“We are sending a clear message: those who cheat the federal government will face decisive, coordinated action,” Pirro said.

The new division represents a significant restructuring inside one of the country’s most consequential U.S. Attorney’s Offices.

Pirro’s office is expanding and realigning resources from its existing Affirmative Civil Enforcement unit, which had operated within the Civil Division.

Officials said the change is intended to separate proactive civil enforcement work from much of the Civil Division’s massive defensive caseload.

That workload, according to the Justice Department, had limited the personnel and resources available to launch affirmative investigations and pursue fraud litigation.

The new structure is designed to change that.

Rather than forcing fraud investigations to compete with defensive civil litigation for resources, prosecutors and investigators will now have a dedicated division focused on finding fraud, pursuing cases and recovering federal money.

Assistant U.S. attorneys will work alongside investigators, auditors and support staff inside the new operation.

Dan Schiffer will serve as chief of the Fraud and Asset Recovery Division, while Sean M. Tepe will serve as deputy chief.

One of their primary weapons will be the False Claims Act.

Originally enacted in 1863 amid widespread fraud involving Civil War government contractors, the law allows the federal government to pursue individuals and companies that knowingly submit false claims for government money.

Those found liable can face triple the government’s damages along with additional civil penalties.

The law also contains powerful whistleblower provisions allowing private individuals to bring lawsuits on behalf of the federal government and potentially receive a portion of money successfully recovered.

And the amount of money involved is enormous.

False Claims Act settlements and judgments exceeded $6.8 billion during fiscal year 2025 — the highest single-year total in the law’s history.

Whistleblowers filed a record 1,297 qui tam lawsuits during the same year, while the federal government opened 401 new investigations.

Since Congress substantially strengthened the False Claims Act in 1986, settlements and judgments have surpassed $85 billion.

Pirro’s office already has experience pursuing major civil fraud cases.

According to the Justice Department, previous cases handled by the Washington office have involved allegations against government contractors accused of improperly billing commercial and international costs to federal contracts, software manufacturers accused of false disclosures and intentional overbilling, medical-device companies accused of misbranding and off-label marketing, and pharmaceutical manufacturers accused of violating federal medication regulations.

The new division will go beyond False Claims Act cases.

Its responsibilities will also include civil collections for federal agencies, enforcement of agency and inspector-general subpoenas and civil asset forfeiture actions.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office Financial Litigation Unit is also being folded into the Fraud and Asset Recovery Division.

That unit is responsible for collecting money already owed to the federal government, including criminal fines, special assessments, restitution, civil judgments and settlements.

It also handles certain debts owed to federal agencies, including student-loan debts owed to the Department of Education.

The result is a division with responsibilities on both sides of the government’s financial enforcement system: investigating suspected fraud and pursuing money already determined to be owed.

The restructuring comes as the Justice Department intensifies federal fraud enforcement nationwide.

But Pirro’s Fraud and Asset Recovery Division is specifically housed inside the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, placing a dedicated civil fraud operation in the nation’s capital and at the center of the federal government.

The announcement itself does not accuse any newly identified company, contractor, nonprofit or individual of wrongdoing, and the Justice Department has not announced the division’s initial investigative targets.

Officials also have not publicly specified the division’s total staffing level or additional budget.

What the Justice Department has made clear is its objective.

Pirro is consolidating prosecutors, investigators, auditors and financial-enforcement personnel into a single operation charged with aggressively pursuing fraud against federal programs and recovering money for taxpayers.

The numbers illustrate the potential stakes.

More than $6.8 billion was recovered through False Claims Act settlements and judgments in fiscal 2025 alone.

More than $85 billion has been recovered since the law was strengthened in 1986.

And now Pirro’s Washington office is establishing an entire division dedicated to expanding that work.

For individuals and companies doing business with the federal government, Pirro’s message was direct:

Those who cheat the government should expect a coordinated response.

Continue Reading

Latest

Senate Vote 50-49 On Save America Act — Dems Stunned!

Published

on

Senate Vote 50-49 On Save America Act — Dems Stunned!

The SAVE America Act secured 50 votes in the U.S. Senate during a dramatic late-night showdown, giving supporters of the Republican-backed election legislation a significant boost even as a procedural hurdle prevented the measure from advancing.

The 50-49 vote came during the Senate’s marathon June 4-5 “vote-a-rama,” when Sen. Mike Lee of Utah brought forward the voting provisions of the House-passed legislation.

At the center of the proposal are two major changes to federal election law: requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and requiring eligible photo identification when casting a ballot.

The proposal also includes provisions directing states to verify voter rolls and remove noncitizens who are found to be improperly registered.

Lee’s amendment drew 50 votes in support and 49 against.

📣

FROM THE EDITORS  -  Keeping our readers safe extends beyond the headlines. We've secured an exclusive antivirus offer from TotalAV to help protect your devices and personal information.

But that was not enough.

Because the amendment faced a budget point of order under the Senate’s reconciliation rules, Lee needed 60 votes to waive the objection.

His motion fell 10 votes short.

The result meant the proposal could not be added to the broader reconciliation package despite attracting 50 Senate votes.

The late-night tally nevertheless marked an improvement for supporters following an earlier attempt by Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Graham’s broader amendment failed 48-50 after four Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — joined Democrats in opposing the effort.

Lee then brought forward a narrower version focused on the SAVE America Act’s voting provisions.

This time, Collins voted in support.

Murkowski, McConnell and Tillis remained opposed.

The result: 50-49.

That distinction quickly became a major talking point for supporters of the legislation.

They had demonstrated that 50 sitting senators were prepared to vote for the proposal, but Senate procedural rules still stood between those votes and adoption of the amendment.

Vice President JD Vance has the constitutional authority to break a 50-50 Senate tie when one occurs. But the vote before senators Thursday night required 60 votes to waive the budgetary objection, meaning a vice-presidential tiebreaker could not overcome that particular hurdle.

The fight is therefore far from over.

The SAVE America Act has become one of the Republican Party’s major election-policy priorities heading toward the 2026 midterms.

Supporters argue that requiring documentary proof of citizenship would strengthen enforcement of the existing prohibition against noncitizen voting in federal elections and increase confidence that voter rolls contain only eligible voters.

Opponents see the legislation very differently.

Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and critics argue that requiring additional citizenship documentation could make registration more difficult for some eligible American citizens who do not readily possess the required documents.

Those competing arguments have fueled an increasingly intense battle over the legislation.

The House previously approved the SAVE America Act, while President Donald Trump, Vice President Vance and Republican lawmakers have pushed for its enactment.

But the Senate has been the major obstacle.

The chamber voted earlier this year to begin consideration of the legislation, yet supporters have not demonstrated the 60 votes generally needed to overcome a filibuster and bring contested legislation to a final vote.

Republicans subsequently attempted to use the reconciliation process to advance the election provisions alongside a massive immigration and border-security package.

That strategy created a different obstacle.

Senate reconciliation rules restrict the types of provisions that can be included in budget legislation, allowing senators to raise points of order against provisions considered outside those limits.

Overcoming such an objection requires 60 votes.

That is precisely where Lee’s amendment failed.

The underlying proposal attracted 50 votes.

The motion needed 60.

The outcome immediately renewed Republican debate over Senate procedure and the future of the legislation.

Lee has argued that the 50-vote showing demonstrates that the original House-passed proposal has simple-majority support in the Senate, even though supporters remain short of the votes necessary to overcome the chamber’s procedural barriers.

The dispute also places renewed attention on the filibuster.

Republican leaders have repeatedly acknowledged that the 60-vote threshold remains a central obstacle to moving the SAVE America Act through the Senate under ordinary procedures.

But eliminating the legislative filibuster would itself require sufficient support among Republican senators, and GOP leaders have not demonstrated that those votes exist.

That leaves supporters searching for another path.

For now, the SAVE America Act remains stalled.

But the late-night vote established an important piece of the Senate math surrounding the legislation.

An earlier attempt attracted only 48 votes.

Lee’s narrower proposal attracted 50.

That still wasn’t enough to clear the 60-vote procedural threshold.

But it demonstrated that 50 senators were willing to back the voting provisions when they were put before the chamber — a result supporters are certain to point to as they continue pushing for another vote.

The immediate effort failed.

The broader fight over the SAVE America Act did not.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 Political Signal