Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, considered one of the Court’s liberal voices, denied an emergency appeal from a Mexican family facing deportation, siding with the Trump administration.
The family, who fled cartel threats in Guerrero, Mexico in 2021, claimed they risk death if forced to return. Despite detailed evidence of cartel violence, immigration courts denied their asylum claim. Kagan declined to block their removal, choosing not to refer the case to the full Court.
Meanwhile, legal analyst Kerri Urbahn criticized Chief Judge James Boasberg’s handling of another deportation case, calling his actions “desperate” after the Supreme Court vacated his order. The case involved a deported MS-13 gang member whose return Boasberg demanded despite the Court ruling it belonged in Texas, not Washington, D.C.
SE E MO RE
In a highly anticipated legal move, President Donald Trump has filed a powerhouse appeal to New York’s Appellate Division, challenging his conviction in the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case.The appeal comes after months of legal battles and millions in taxpayer dollars spent on prosecuting Trump over thirty-four felony charges related to “falsifying business records,” a case that legal experts from across the political spectrum have repeatedly criticized as weak and politically motivated.Now,
Trump is determined to turn the tables, calling Bragg’s case “the most politically charged prosecution in our Nation’s history.” The appeal, which spans an impressive 111 pages (some reports list it at 96 pages), blasts Bragg’s case as nothing more than “Radical Democrat Lawfare.”Trump’s legal team argues that the entire case, which centers on alleged hush-money payments to a former adult film star, is built on a flawed legal foundation.In the filing, Trump’s legal team insists that the charges should be dismissed, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, federal and state constitutional protections, and established legal precedent. The appeal is a direct response to what Trump’s team describes as a politically motivated assault on the President.
“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately overturned and dismissed,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement to Fox News Digital.“President Trump will keep defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn as he focused on his singular mission to Make America Great Again.” The Manhattan DA’s case, which was launched over a year ago, hinges on the payments made during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to silence allegations from Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress.
The case, however, has been widely criticized as weak because such financial transactions—while controversial—are far from unusual in the corporate world.Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are commonly used in various industries to protect privacy and silence accusations, making it difficult for prosecutors to argue that Trump’s actions were criminal.Despite these facts, Bragg and his office pressed forward, framing the case as one of felony-level criminal conduct. The charges involve accusations that Trump falsified business records related to these payments, with Bragg asserting that the records were altered to conceal the true nature of the transactions.
In New York, falsifying business records is typically classified as a misdemeanor, but Bragg argued that the charges should be elevated to felonies because they allegedly were part of a broader crime, one that remains unspecified. The court, however, ruled that this approach was valid, leading to Trump’s conviction.Yet, even legal experts who are not aligned with Trump have voiced skepticism about the case. Many have pointed out that Bragg’s case fails to meet the legal threshold for felony charges and is built largely on speculative claims.It is rare for such corporate transactions to be elevated to felony offenses, and many legal analysts believe Bragg’s case is based on a broad and unsubstantiated interpretation of the law.
For Trump’s supporters, the charges are simply a tool to undermine his political influence and distract from his successes during his presidency.“Bragg’s case was shaky from the very beginning,” said Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY), who has been a vocal critic of the prosecution. “This is about weaponizing the justice system to target a political opponent.These payments are not inherently illegal. They happen in corporate America every day.” Tenney’s comments reflect widespread Republican sentiment that the charges against Trump are politically motivated, an extension of the larger effort by Democrats to weaken his influence and prevent his return to power.
The public perception of the case has been deeply divided along partisan lines. On one hand, Democrats have championed Bragg’s prosecution, viewing it as a much-needed accountability measure for a President who they believe skirted the law during his time in office.On the other hand, Republicans argue that the case is an abuse of power, part of a broader pattern of weaponized justice aimed at undermining political opponents.Trump’s legal battle is far from isolated. For years, the President has been at the center of numerous legal challenges—many of which critics claim were designed to prevent him from regaining power.From the Russia investigation to the impeachments, Trump has faced an ongoing onslaught of legal issues, each of which has been marked by partisan divisions and accusations of political warfare.The Arctic Frost investigation, a precursor to the current investigations into Trump’s alleged actions during the 2020 election, has been heavily criticized for its overreach.Meanwhile, the legal challenges related to the 2020 election, spearheaded by Special Counsel Jack Smith, have raised questions about the fairness and impartiality of the legal system.
For many Republicans, these investigations and prosecutions represent an all-out effort by the political establishment to use the justice system as a tool to defeat a political rival.While Democrats claim that these investigations are necessary to preserve the rule of law and protect American democracy, conservatives argue that they are simply another form of political attack designed to discredit and destroy Trump.
“The Democrats have weaponized the justice system at every turn,” said one Republican strategist. “From the Russia probe to impeachment, to the constant attacks on his businesses and campaign, it’s clear that the goal was never about justice—it was about stopping him from running again. And now, they’re trying to do the same thing with these baseless charges in New York.”In the wake of Trump’s legal challenges, the response from his supporters has been one of defiance.
“This is an abuse of power,” said a Trump supporter outside the courthouse. “The Democrats are afraid of him because they know that he represents everything they stand against. They will stop at nothing to take him down.”Despite the backlash, Trump’s legal team remains confident that they will ultimately prevail. The appeal filed by Trump’s lawyers is a direct challenge to the legality and fairness of the case against him.With the eyes of the nation—and the world—on this high-stakes legal battle, the outcome could have far-reaching consequences not only for Trump but also for the broader question of how political prosecutions are handled in the United States.As the case progresses, one thing is clear: Trump’s fight against what he describes as “Radical Democrat Lawfare” is far from over. His legal team is pushing back on every front, challenging the evidence, the procedures, and the very foundations of the case brought against him.Whether or not they will succeed in overturning his conviction remains to be seen, but the larger political implications of this case continue to unfold.For Trump, this is not just a legal battle—it is a fight for his political survival. The stakes are high, and the outcome will have a lasting impact on the future of American politics.
As the appeal moves forward, the political climate surrounding Trump remains as charged as ever, with both his supporters and detractors bracing for what comes next in this unprecedented and high-profile legal fight.
Former FBI Director James Comey is scheduled to be arraigned in a Virginia federal court on Wednesday morning, several weeks after being indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of obstruction of justice and making a false statement.
The case stems from allegations that Comey misled the Senate during testimony in September 2020, when he reaffirmed his 2017 denial of authorizing an FBI leak to the media concerning the Trump-Russia or Clinton-related investigations. Prosecutors further allege that Comey obstructed Congress by providing false statements to lawmakers.
While the arraignment has drawn national attention, senior Justice Department officials on Tuesday dismissed reports suggesting that law enforcement planned to arrest Comey publicly or escort him theatrically into court, saying the proceedings will follow standard protocol.
“Mr. Comey has been directed to appear, and I expect that he will,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Fox News. “The noise from MSNBC and from retired agents or unnamed anonymous sources about perp walks is just that. It’s just noise.”
The FBI was reportedly considering a “showy” arrest and perp walk of Comey — and the bureau has already suspended an agent who refused to take part, according to multiple sources cited by CBS News
Comey was charged last month with lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The move came after President Donald Trump publicly pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate his longtime adversary.
A grand jury indicted Comey on Sept. 25, and he was issued a summons to appear in federal court in Virginia on Oct. 9 for arraignment. His attorneys had agreed to bring him to court voluntarily, two sources said to CBS News.
But that same day, FBI leadership reportedly discussed hauling Comey in rather than waiting for him to appear on his own. A source familiar with the conversations told CBS News that leadership wanted “large, beefy” agents to carry out the arrest “in full kit,” including Kevlar vests and outerwear emblazoned with the FBI logo.
The plan, according to the source, was for a supervisory special agent in the violent crimes division of the Washington Field Office to assemble the team. However, the agent refused, believing such a display would be “inappropriate and highly unusual” for a white-collar defendant like Comey.
That agent was then suspended for insubordination, CBS News reported.
The FBI is said to be moving forward with efforts to put together another team to arrest Comey between now and his scheduled court appearance. However, according to law enforcement sources familiar with the situation, other supervisors have also refused to cooperate.
The charges allege that Comey lied during a Senate hearing five years ago when he claimed he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source in media reports about investigations into Hillary Clinton. The indictment does not specify who he allegedly authorized or what the leak involved. Comey has denied any wrongdoing.
The indictment followed turmoil inside the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, where Comey was charged. The office’s lead prosecutor, Erik Siebert, resigned two weeks before the indictment. Trump then appointed his former personal attorney, Lindsey Halligan, as Siebert’s replacement. Within a week, Halligan asked a grand jury to indict Comey.
A Justice Department source told CBS News that some staff members in the office had circulated a memo arguing that Comey should not be charged. Two senior prosecutors in the Eastern District were also fired in recent weeks, according to CBS.
While the political and legal implications of Comey’s case are already significant, the debate over the FBI’s possible “showy” arrest has fueled even greater controversy — especially given the bureau’s past handling of high-profile arrests