A coalition of 27 Christian and Jewish groups representing millions of Americans filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a Trump administration action allowing federal immigration enforcement to make arrests in places of worship.

The federal lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, was brought on behalf of a range of religious groups, including the Episcopal Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Mennonites and Unitarian Universalists.

The lawsuit challenges an order by President Donald Trump that reversed a Biden administration policy barring agents from arresting illegal migrants in sensitive places like churches, schools and hospitals.

According to the lawsuit, Trump's new policy has sparked fear of raids, which has led to lower attendance at worship services and other church programs. Because of this impact on attendance, the lawsuit argues the policy infringes on the groups’ religious freedom, particularly their ability to minister to migrants, including those in the U.S. illegally.

'SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES': TED CRUZ DELIVERS STRONG WARNING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FLEEING BORDER PATROL

"We have immigrants, refugees, people who are documented and undocumented," the Most Rev. Sean Rowe, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, told The Associated Press.

"We cannot worship freely if some of us are living in fear," he added. "By joining this lawsuit, we’re seeking the ability to gather and fully practice our faith, to follow Jesus’ command to love our neighbors as ourselves."

A similar lawsuit was filed Jan. 27 by five Quaker congregations that was later joined by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and a Sikh temple. That case is currently pending in U.S. District Court in Maryland.

The new lawsuit names the Department of Homeland Security and its immigration enforcement agencies as defendants.

"We are protecting our schools, places of worship, and Americans who attend, by preventing criminal aliens and gang members from exploiting these locations and take safe haven there because these criminals knew that under the previous Administration that law enforcement couldn’t go inside," DHS assistant secretary for public affairs, Tricia McLaughlin, said in a statement.

"DHS’s directive gives our law enforcement the ability to do their jobs," she said.

A memorandum filed Friday by the Department of Justice, opposing the argument in the Quaker lawsuit, could also apply to the new lawsuit.

The DOJ claims that the plaintiffs’ request to block the new immigration enforcement policy is based on speculation of hypothetical future harm, which the department says makes for insufficient grounds for the courts to side with the Quakers and issue an injunction.

In the memo, the DOJ said that immigration enforcement affecting places of worship had been allowed for decades and that the new policy announced last month stated that field agents should use "common sense" and "discretion" but could now carry out immigration enforcement operations in houses of worship without pre-approval from a supervisor.

One part of that memo may not apply to the new lawsuit, as it argued the Quakers and their fellow plaintiffs have no basis for seeking a nationwide injunction to protect all religious groups against the new policy.

NOEM, HEGSETH, BONDI PLEAD WITH CONGRESS FOR MORE BORDER FUNDING AMID LARGE-SCALE DEPORTATIONS

"Any relief in this case should be tailored solely to the named plaintiffs," the DOJ memo said, arguing that any injunction should not apply to other religious organizations.

The plaintiffs in the new lawsuit represent a significantly larger number of American worshipers, including more than 1 million followers of Reform Judaism, around 1.5 million Episcopalians, more than 1 million members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the estimated 1.5 million active members of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, among others.

"The massive scale of the suit will be hard for them to ignore," lead counsel Kelsi Corkran, who is a lawyer with the Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, told The Associated Press.

Corkran said the plaintiffs joined the lawsuit "because their scripture, teaching, and traditions offer irrefutable unanimity on their religious obligation to embrace and serve the refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants in their midst without regard to documentation or legal status."

Before Trump's change to federal policy, Corkran said immigration agents generally needed a judicial warrant or other special authorization to conduct operations in locations like places of worship, schools and hospitals.

"Now it’s go anywhere, any time," she said. "Now they have broad authority to swoop in — they’ve made it very clear they’ll get every undocumented person."

The lawsuit outlined how some of the plaintiffs' operations may be affected. Some, including the Union for Reform Judaism and the Mennonites, said many of their synagogues and churches host on-site foodbanks, meal programs, homeless shelters and other support services for illegal migrants who may now be fearful of participating.

One plaintiff, the Latino Christian National Network, described the fear among migrants in the wake of the new Trump administration policy.

"There is deep-seated fear and distrust of our government," the network’s president, Rev. Carlos Malavé, a pastor of two churches in Virginia, told The Associated Press. "People fear going to the store, they are avoiding going to church. ... The churches are increasingly doing online services because people fear for the well-being of their families."

One religious group that did not join the new lawsuit is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which leads the nation's largest denomination, although it has criticized Trump's mass deportation plan.

On Tuesday, Pope Francis criticized the administration's immigration policies, saying that the forceful removal of people because of their immigration status deprives them of their inherent dignity and that doing so, he argued, "will end badly."

Many conservative faith leaders and legal experts across the country, however, share no concerns about immigration enforcement targeting places of worship to arrest migrants.

"Places of worship are for worship and are not sanctuaries for illegal activity or for harboring people engaged in illegal activity," Mat Staver, founder of the conservative Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel, told The Associated Press.

"Fugitives or criminals are not immune from the law merely because they enter a place of worship," he said. "This is not a matter of religious freedom. There is no right to openly violate the law and disobey law enforcement."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Dozens of activist and legal groups, elected officials, local jurisdictions and individuals have launched more than 50 lawsuits against the Trump administration since Jan. 20 in response to his more than 60 executive orders, as well as executive proclamations and memos, Fox News Digital found. 

Trump long has been a legal target, which hit a fever pitch during the 2024 election cycle when Trump faced four criminal indictments, including a criminal trial in Manhattan in the spring of 2024 when he was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records. 

Trump has maintained his innocence in the four cases, pointing to them as evidence of lawfare at the hands of Democrats working against his political efforts. 

Upon Trump's election win in November 2024, state attorneys general, such as New York Attorney General Letitia James, publicly said they would ready legal battles against the Trump administration for actions they view as illegal or negatively impact residents. 

TRUMP HATING NY ATTORNEY GENERAL LETITIA JAMES VOWS WAR WITH PRESIDENT-ELECT IN DIVISIVE NEWS CONFERENCE

"We faced this challenge before, and we used the rule of law to fight back," James, who repeatedly has leveled suits against Trump, said following his win. "And we are prepared to fight back once again because, as the attorney general of this great state, it is my job to protect and defend the rights of New Yorkers and the rule of law. And I will not shrink from that responsibility."

Just roughly three weeks back in the Oval Office, Trump's administration has been hit with at least 54 lawsuits working to resist his policies. 

Fox News Digital compiled a list of the groups, state attorneys general, cities or states, and individuals who have launched lawsuits against the Trump administration's executive actions. The list includes the various groups and individuals challenging the Trump administration in court, as well as the executive order or proclamation that sparked the suit. 

Amid the flurry of lawsuits against Trump and his administration, Democratic elected officials and government employees have spoken out against the orders and the Trump agenda overall. 

Democrats and government employees also have staged protests as the Department of Government Efficiency investigates various federal agencies as part of its mission to cut government overspending and weed out corruption and mismanagement of taxpayer funds. 

"That's not acceptable," House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., declared in January. "We are going to fight it legislatively. We are going to fight it in the courts. We're going to fight it in the streets." 

'LOSING THEIR MINDS': DEM LAWMAKERS FACE BACKLASH FOR INVOKING 'UNHINGED' VIOLENT RHETORIC AGAINST MUSK

"We will see you in the court, in Congress, in the streets," Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., said at a rally outside the Treasury Department earlier in February. 

"We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your a--es, and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain’t it," Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said at the same rally. 

TRUMP 100% DISAGREES WITH FEDERAL JUDGE'S 'CRAZY' RULING BLOCKING DOGE FROM TREASURY SYSTEM

Trump joined Fox News' Bret Baier for an exclusive interview ahead of the Super Bowl on Sunday, where he was asked about a lawsuit filed by attorneys general to restrict DOGE and its chair, Elon Musk, from accessing the Treasury Department's systems and a judge temporarily blocking the DOGE team from the data. 

"Nineteen states attorneys general filed a lawsuit, and early Saturday a judge agreed with them to restrict Elon Musk and his government efficiency team, DOGE, from accessing Treasury Department payment and data systems. They said there was a risk of ‘irreparable harm.’ What do you make of that?" Baier asked Trump in the interview clip. "And does that slow you down and what you want to do?" 

"No, I disagree with it 100%," Trump said. "I think it's crazy. And we have to solve the efficiency problem. We have to solve the fraud, waste, abuse, all the things that have gone into the government. You take a look at the USAID, the kind of fraud in there."  

"We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of money that's going to places where it shouldn't be going," Trump said when asked about what DOGE has found while auditing federal agencies in search of government overspending, fraud and corruption.

This tracker will be updated with additional lawsuits as they are confirmed.

President Donald Trump has paused the enforcement of a law that criminalizes American businesses that bribe foreign officials in an executive order signed on Monday.

The order, which directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to stop enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), is intended to further American economic growth by eliminating excessive barriers to American commerce abroad.

"It sounds good on paper, but in practicality, it's a disaster," Trump said about the FCPA. 

"It means that if an American goes over to a foreign country and starts doing business over there illegally, legitimately or otherwise, it's almost a guaranteed investigation indictment. And nobody wants to do business with the Americans because of it," Trump continued.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPEALS RULING BLOCKING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER

According to the DOJ, the FCPA was enacted in 1977 to make it "unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business." 

However, the act has been "stretched beyond proper bounds and abused in a manner that harms the interests of the United States." Enforcing the FCPA also "actively harms American economic competitiveness and, therefore, national security," the order states. 

TRUMP ANNOUNCES EXECUTIVE ORDER CREATING TASK FORCE TO 'ERADICATE ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIAS'

In an effort to eliminate excessive barriers to American businesses overseas, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has also been directed, through the executive order, to review the FCPA for the following 180 days and revise reasonable enforcement guidelines. 

"President Trump is stopping excessive, unpredictable FCPA enforcement that makes American companies less competitive," a White House fact sheet stated. "U.S. companies are harmed by FCPA overenforcement because they are prohibited from engaging in practices common among international competitors, creating an uneven playing field."

"The title is so lovely, but it's an absolutely horror show for America," Trump said. "So we’re signing it because that's what we have to do to make it good… It's going to mean a lot more business for America."

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey sued Starbucks on Tuesday for using "race-based hiring practices" in alleged violation of anti-discrimination laws.

Bailey's lawsuit alleges that Starbucks violates the Missouri Human Rights Act. The lawsuit highlights programs Starbucks offers to promote "BIPOC" employees, referring to Black, indigenous and people of color. It also targets the company for "setting and tracking annual inclusion and diversity goals of achieving BIPOC representation of at least 30 percent at all corporate levels and at least 40 percent of all retail and manufacturing roles by 2025," according to a draft of the lawsuit obtained by Fox News Digital.

"With Starbucks’ discriminatory patterns, practices, and policies, Missouri’s consumers are required to pay higher prices and wait longer for goods and services that could be provided for less had Starbucks employed the most qualified workers, regardless of their race, color, sex, or national origin," Bailey claimed in a statement.

Starbucks did not respond by press time to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

TRUMP ADMIN HITS BACK AS ACLU LAUNCHES LAWSUIT ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: ‘READY TO FACE THEM'

"As Attorney General, I have a moral and legal obligation to protect Missourians from a company that actively engages in systemic race and sex discrimination," Bailey said. "Racism has no place in Missouri. We’re filing suit to halt this blatant violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act in its tracks."

Bailey's lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court ruling that federal law prohibits discrimination based on race in college admissions, arguing that the decision also applies to hiring practices.

TRUMP DHS REPEALS KEY MAYORKAS MEMO LIMITING ICE AGENTS, ORDERS PAROLE REVIEW

By allegedly linking its hiring practices to race and gender quotas, Starbucks has "blatantly violated the law," the lawsuit claims.

"Additionally, the company discriminates based on race and gender when it comes to board membership. All of these actions are unlawful," Bailey's office said in a statement.

The lawsuit comes just weeks after news that Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol warned the company's employees about incoming layoffs in March.

In a message to employees, he highlighted how the company aims to deliver on its "Back to Starbucks" strategy, a series of changes announced last year that aims to enhance customers' in-store experience, but also said it needs to strive for better efficiency, which will ultimately result in layoffs.

"We have recently begun the work to define the support organization for the future. We are approaching this work thoughtfully, but it will involve difficult decisions and choices. I expect that, unfortunately, we will have job eliminations and smaller support teams moving forward," Niccol wrote.

House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., sent House Democrats a letter Monday announcing the formation of a rapid response team and litigation group to "push back against the far-right extremism" since President Donald Trump took office. 

In the "Dear Colleague" letter, Jeffries wrote, "I write with respect to our ongoing effort to push back against the far-right extremism that is being relentlessly unleashed on the American people."

Jeffries characterized the political landscape as "a multifaceted struggle to protect and defend everyday Americans from the harm being inflicted by this administration."

The letter states House Democrats have as a result officially established a Rapid Response Task Force and Litigation Working Group chaired by Colorado Democratic Rep. Joe Neguse. 

DEMS FLIRT WITH GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN THREAT DESPITE PAST FUROR OVER SPENDING CLIFF

Jeffries said that Democrats would continue to be "committed to driving down the high cost of living for everyday Americans." He criticized House Republicans for continuing to "launch far-right attacks on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public safety and the education of our children," saying the American people were "counting" on Democrats to stop them. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House, Jeffries' office and Neguse's office for comment but did not immediately hear back. 

SPEAKER JOHNSON SAYS HOUSE WILL MATCH TRUMP’S PACE AS DEMOCRATS ARE LEFT ‘FLAILING’

Jeffries responded to a Fox News inquiry about the task force, saying, "It's been an ongoing effort to push back against far-right extremism."

Jeffries told Fox that "not a single thing that [Republicans have] actually done is a matter of law right now" and said such actions suggest Republicans are "in disarray."

Jeffries, along with House Democrat colleagues, have unveiled efforts to resist the president's agenda since Trump took office in mid-January. 

Just last week, House Democrats announced legislation that seeks to secure the personal data of Americans amid the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) spending sweep.

HOUSE DEMOCRAT LEAVES CONGRESSIONAL DOGE CAUCUS, SAYING MUSK IS 'BLOWING THINGS UP'

The legislation, titled the Taxpayer Data Protection Act, was revealed Thursday to "shield the American people from this out-of-control power grab, permanently, and make sure that the financial, personal, medical, and confidential information of the American people is protected."

Elon Musk's DOGE team has spent the last several weeks identifying "wasteful" spending within various governmental agencies. 

DOGE became the target of various lawsuits in the weeks following its establishment. A federal New York judge on Saturday ruled to block DOGE officials from accessing personal data such as social security numbers and bank account numbers. 

Trump's Justice Department railed against the order, calling it an "anti-Constitutional" ruling. 

Vice President JD Vance also called the ruling unconstitutional on X, saying it was an example of judicial overreach.

"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power," Vance wrote Sunday.

Fox News' Kelly Phares, Tyler Olson, Aubrie Spady, and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report. 

A New Jersey driver was awarded nearly $13 million after she was arrested by a state trooper who mistakenly believed she was intoxicated when she was actually suffering from a stroke, which delayed the medical care she urgently needed by several hours.

Cheryl Lynn Rhines, now 57, was having a stroke on Oct. 17, 2017, when she pulled her vehicle over on Route 78 as she was traveling from her home in Jersey City to her job in Florham Park, according to her lawsuit against the New Jersey State Police obtained by NJ.com and the New Jersey Monitor.

A trooper found her about 30 minutes later with vomit on her face, and she was only able to answer questions with a "yes" or "no."

Rhines was experiencing facial drooping – a symptom of a stroke – and was unable to control her body and motor functions, but the trooper claimed she was "playing games" and made the arrest, according to the lawsuit. She was also experiencing drooping eyelids and having trouble holding herself up.

NJ LAWSUIT CLAIMING OIL COMPANIES CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE DEALT MASSIVE BLOW IN COURT

The lawsuit described the trooper's conduct as "so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and is regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

"Any ordinary human being observing Cheryl Rhines would have immediately recognized and called for emergent medical care," it added.

More than two hours passed before someone at the police station eventually realized she was having a medical emergency and called an ambulance, which transported her to a hospital.

Rhines and her mother said the delay in treatment led to her suffering "the death of significant brain function and permanent lifelong disability," according to the Independent. She is no longer able to work and requires continuous care.

In a trial last month, a jury faulted the state police. The state argued that police followed their training in their handling of Rhines' situation.

TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER FORCES NEW JERSEY TO CANCEL ITS FIRST OFFSHORE WIND FARM

She was initially awarded $19.1 million – $5 million for pain and suffering, $6 million for emotional distress, $6.5 million for medical care and $1.6 million for loss of income – but the total was later reduced because of her pre-existing condition, according to NJ.com.

Nearly $350,000 in medical expenses and more than $1 million in other related costs were added to the final payment, which ended up being about $12.9 million, the outlet noted.

Fox News Digital has reached out to New Jersey State Police for comment.

Judges around the country are making quick work of climate lawfare, a welcome development following the U.S. Supreme Court declining to confront the issue earlier this year.  

In recent months, three judges in Maryland and New York have dismissed climate-change lawsuits from public litigants who accuse energy companies of harming communities through emissions and concealing those harms from the public. Their decisions suggest an emerging consensus that federal law does not permit these kinds of claims, which fail on their own terms in all events.  

More than two dozen cities and states have filed nearly identical climate-change lawsuits, creating significant risk for energy companies and consumers who enjoy the quality of life cheap and abundant power provides. 

NJ LAWSUIT CLAIMING OIL COMPANIES CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE DEALT MASSIVE BLOW IN COURT

The plaintiffs pleaded state law claims accusing the defendants of creating a public nuisance and deceiving the public. The energy companies have raised a variety of defenses. Their principal defense is that the climate claims are preempted by the Clean Air Act, which assigns emissions regulation to the Environmental Protection Agency, with limited carve-outs for states that do not apply in the instant cases.  

Taken together, the recent decisions clarify the fundamental political goals of climate litigants. In dismissing the city of Baltimore’s climate lawsuit, Judge Videtta Brown explained that a successful state law climate claim "would operate as a de facto regulation on greenhouse gas emissions," echoing the like conclusions of the Second and Ninth U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.  

The reason for that is obvious. In these cases, the energy providers face liability unbound. The prospective damages are so high that the defendants would fundamentally alter their business practices. That is the policy outcome the plaintiffs intend, which makes the preemption issue straightforward.  

Indeed, U.S. District Judge William Alsup speculated that climate lawfare threatens the continued viability of fossil fuel production altogether. When dismissing Oakland’s climate change lawsuit in 2021, Alsup wrote that the damages sought "would make the continuation of defendants’ fossil fuel production ‘not feasible.’" 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Public reporting about the origins of the climate nuisance, fraud and misrepresentation cases fills out the picture. News accounts establish that a skillful network of academics, lawyers, celebrities and leftwing foundations are at work behind the scenes, at once incubating new legal theories and lining up financing. These facts aren’t necessarily germane for a court, but reasonable onlookers should not be obtuse about what’s going on here.  

Apart from the preemption issues, a Jan. 14 decision in New York clarifies that climate deception suits don’t meet the requirements of a misrepresentation tort. As above, the reason is obvious.  

"The connection between fossil fuels and climate change is public information," Judge Anar Rathod Patel wrote in dismissing the second of New York City’s climate change lawsuits. Courts have determined that "a reasonable consumer cannot have been misled" when the plaintiff does not identify salient facts that the defendant alone possessed.  

The climate misrepresentation claims rest on a contradiction. The plaintiffs maintain that the public is broadly aware of climate change, and that "climate anxiety" shapes economic and political choices. But those same consumers have supposedly been deceived by the energy companies and kept in the dark about the connection between fossil fuels and a changing climate. As Patel wrote, the plaintiffs "cannot have it both ways."  

Rebranding extreme social engineering as environmental or consumer protection is an old liberal trick. Ironically, the pioneer of this tactic, Ralph Nader, contributed to the current climate policy problem with his successful "pro-consumer, pro-safety" crusade against nuclear power in the 1970s.   

I am not sure that the Supreme Court is clear of climate lawfare. While most courts confronting the late wave of climate lawsuits have dismissed them, a few have allowed them to proceed to discovery and trial. The existing split in authorities thus seems like to grow. And the plaintiffs need only prevail in a handful of cases to extract the changes they seek. But it is surely positive for consumers and for the rule of law that the prevailing trend is against the plaintiffs. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM JOHN YOO

The Trump administration has filed a motion to vacate or modify a court's temporary restraining order blocking the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and political appointees from accessing sensitive Treasury Department payment records.

In the motion, Cloud Software Group, Inc. CEO Tom Krause argued that "it is important that high-level political appointees, such as the Treasury Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Chief of Staff, and Under Secretaries, retain the ability to attend briefings concerning information obtained from the data or systems from Treasury employees with appropriate access to the data or systems in order to perform their job duties."

Although Krause, who was working at Treasury as a special government employee, admitted that "these high-level officials do not ordinarily need to receive access to or review data from such systems," he said an event could conceivably occur that could warrant them needing access.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote in a temporary restraining order on Saturday that "political appointees, special government employees and any government employee detailed from an agency outside the Treasury Department access to Treasury Department payment systems or any other data maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information."

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS LIMITED DOGE ACCESS TO SENSITIVE TREASURY DEPARTMENT PAYMENT SYSTEM RECORDS

Anyone covered under those categories who was given previous access to the sensitive data must "immediately destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems," the judge said.

This comes after a group of 19 attorneys general filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, the U.S. Treasury and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent alleging that the Trump Administration illegally provided DOGE with unauthorized access to the Treasury Department’s payment systems.

Kollar-Kotelly had earlier said in a temporary restraining order on Thursday that Treasury officials "will not provide access to any payment record or payment system of records maintained within the [Treasury] Bureau of Fiscal Service," a program that handles an estimated 90% of federal payments.

Thursday's order came a day after the Justice Department agreed in a proposed court order to limit access to the sensitive records to only two special government employees within DOGE who will have read-only permission. Kollar-Kotelly approved the motion in a brief order on Thursday.

The case in the Thursday order was brought by several government employee unions that sued over who could access the material as part of a government-wide evaluation of programs and systems led by DOGE. It argued that Bessent allowed DOGE improper access.

‘AMERICA HAS DOGE FEVER’: STATES FROM NEW JERSEY TO TEXAS DRAFT SIMILAR INITIATIVES AS FEDERAL LEADERS CELEBRATE

Under that order, only Krause and Marko Elez — an engineer and former Musk company employee — were allowed continued access to Treasury’s Fiscal Service, but that changed with Saturday's order.

Krause and Elez were both named as special government employees in the Department of the Treasury, but Elez has since resigned.

A federal judge on Friday ordered a temporary block on plans by the Trump administration to put 2,200 employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development on leave.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, also agreed to block an order that would have given just 30 days for the thousands of overseas USAID workers the administration wanted to place on abrupt administrative leave to move their families back to the U.S. at the government's expense.

Both actions by the administration would have exposed the workers and their families to unnecessary risk and expense, according to the judge.

This comes as President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who leads the Department of Government Efficiency, seek to dismantle the agency.

TOP DEM STRATEGISTS WARN USAID FUNDING FIGHT IS A ‘TRAP’ FOR THE PARTY

Nichols noted that staffers living overseas have said the administration had cut some workers off from government emails and other communication systems required to reach the U.S. government in case of a health or safety emergency.

USAID contractors in various regions, including the Middle East, even reported that "panic button" apps had been removed from their phones or disabled when the administration abruptly placed them on leave.

"Administrative leave in Syria is not the same as administrative leave in Bethesda," the judge said.

The judge also pointed to workers stating difficulties that would arise from the 30-day timeline to return to the U.S., including that they had no home to return to in the U.S. after decades overseas and that they would be forced to pull children with special needs out of school in the middle of the school year.

Nichols ordered 500 USAID staffers who had already been placed on leave by the administration to be reinstated.

But the judge declined a request from two federal employee associations to grant a temporary block on an administration-imposed funding freeze that has shut down the agency and its work, pending more hearings on the workers' lawsuit.

USAID STAFFERS STUNNED, ANGERED BY TRUMP ADMIN'S DOGE SHUTDOWN OF $40B AGENCY

Nichols emphasized in the hearing earlier Friday that his order to pause the administration's actions was not a decision on the employees' request to block the administration's efforts to quickly destroy the agency.

"CLOSE IT DOWN," Trump said on Truth Social, referring to USAID, ahead of the judge’s ruling.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A federal judge on Friday said he would not immediately block the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, from accessing systems at the Labor Department.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said he had concerns about DOGE but that the labor unions who sued to block their access to the systems have not yet provided evidence of any legal injury.

"Although the court harbors concerns about defendants’ alleged conduct, it must deny plaintiffs’ motion at this time," Bates wrote.

The Labor Department has investigated companies like SpaceX and Tesla that are owned by Elon Musk, who leads DOGE, and keeps records on these investigations. The department also has information about these companies' competitors' trade secrets, the unions said in the lawsuit.

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS LIMITED DOGE ACCESS TO SENSITIVE TREASURY DEPARTMENT PAYMENT SYSTEM RECORDS

The department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has investigated and fined SpaceX and Tesla over worker safety, the unions said.

The Labor Department's systems contain medical and financial records of millions of Americans, including those who have filed safety complaints about their employers.

The ruling comes after the Trump administration agreed earlier this week that DOGE would not receive access to the Labor Department until this court decision.

The Justice Department said there are three DOGE staffers assigned to the Labor Department and reporting to its acting secretary, although they have been made special government employees and are required to follow the law with any sensitive information about corporations or workers as they conduct a review.

Musk’s DOGE team had gained access to sensitive Treasury Department payment systems, although a judge has since blocked that access to Treasury records containing sensitive personal data such as Social Security and bank account numbers for millions of Americans. DOGE has also largely dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and offered financial incentives to millions of federal workers to resign.

"At every step, DOGE is violating multiple laws, from constitutional limits on executive power, to laws protecting civil servants from arbitrary threats and adverse action, to crucial protections for government data collected and stored on hundreds of millions of Americans," labor union lawyers represented by the advocacy group Democracy Forward wrote.

ELON MUSK DUNKS ON SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, DECLARING 'HYSTERICAL REACTIONS' DEMONSTRATE DOGE'S IMPORTANCE

Labor Department leadership told a union member this week that DOGE would be visiting and workers should let them do "whatever they ask, not to push back, not to ask questions," the unions wrote.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Justice Department said there is no evidence of wrongdoing and the judge should not issue "a sweeping, prophylactic order … based on plaintiffs’ rank speculation that DOL will violate the law."

Nineteen states have sued over DOGE's access to federal payment systems.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Court's 2024 presidential immunity case in her first public appearance since the start of the second Trump term, saying it places the Court's legitimacy on the line. 

Sotomayor made the comments during an appearance in Louisville, Kentucky, during which she was asked a range of questions, including the public's perception of the high court, according to the Associated Press. Sotomayor's comments are her first in public since President Donald Trump took office last month. 

"If we as a court go so much further ahead of people, our legitimacy is going to be questioned," Sotomayor said during the Louisville event. "I think the immunity case is one of those situations. I don’t think that Americans have accepted that anyone should be above the law in America. Our equality as people was the foundation of our society and of our Constitution."

'INTEGRITY OF THE COURT': CRUZ REINTRODUCES AMENDMENT TO COMBAT COURT EXPANSION EFFORTS

In a 6-3 decision in July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

The case stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

Sotomayor notably wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, saying the decision "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS SWEARING IN MULTIPLE TRUMP CABINET OFFICIALS RAISES EYEBROWS AT CNN

"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law," the dissent continued. "Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

During her Louisville appearance, Sotomayor shared that she "had a hard time with the immunity case," saying the Constitution contains provisions "not exempting the president from criminal activity after an impeachment."

Sotomayor warned that if the Court were to continue down the same path, the Court's legitimacy would ultimately be at risk. 

SUPREME COURT DENIES TRUMP ATTEMPT TO STOP SENTENCING IN NEW YORK V. TRUMP

"And if we continue going in directions that the public is going to find hard to understand, we’re placing the court at risk," Sotomayor said. 

When asked for comment, a White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital, "This historic 6-3 ruling speaks for itself."

The justice suggested that one way to resolve the public's distrust in the Court would be to slow down in overturning precedent. The Court has, in recent years, overturned various landmark decisions, including Roe v. Wade in 2022, and striking down affirmative action in college admissions in 2023 and the Chevron doctrine in 2024. 

"I think that creates instability in the society, in people’s perception of law and people’s perception of whether we’re doing things because of legal analysis or because of partisan views," Sotomayor said. "Whether those views are accurate or not, I don’t accuse my colleagues of being partisan."

Sotomayor made similar comments in 2023, saying she had a "a sense of despair" about the Court's direction following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe. Sotomayor did not name the case specifically. 

However, the justice said she did not have the luxury to dwell on those feelings.

"It’s not an option to fall into despair," Sotomayor said. "I have to get up and keep fighting."

Fox News Digital's Ronn Blitzer and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

A Colorado woman was convicted of murder after she and a stranger she met on a bus killed her boyfriend who expressed skepticism about her ability to land a job.

Ashley White, 29, was found guilty of second-degree murder, conspiracy to commit second-degree murder and robbery in the August 2020 death of Cody DeLisa, 28, the 17th Judicial District Attorney's Office said in a press release.

The couple had a "volatile and strained" relationship in the months leading up to the murder, as DeLisa often criticized White for her struggles with finding a full-time job, which contributed to tension between them, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors said White expressed resentment over her boyfriend's criticism, even writing in her diary that she regretted ever meeting DeLisa.

DEA ARRESTS 4 IN COLORADO WITH SUSPECTED TIES TO SINALOA CARTEL, TREN DE ARAGUA

"Her frustration escalated after an incident in which she attempted to drown and burn DeLisa’s cat, a behavior that raised alarms about her mental well-being," prosecutors wrote.

On the day of the murder on Aug. 13, 2020, White attended a job interview in Denver. After the interview, she texted DeLisa about how it went while she was riding home on a bus.

During the exchange, prosecutors said DeLisa expressed skepticism about her chances of landing the job, which upset her.

White then began talking to a stranger during the bus ride home who said his name was "Scott."

COLORADO COURT RULES ELEPHANTS AT ZOO CANNOT PURSUE THEIR RELEASE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HUMAN

"Scott asked if she was in a relationship with a man and whether he raped her," prosecutors said. "White responded that he had, and Scott then said they must kill him."

White and Scott exited the bus and spent time together firing Scott’s gun before walking to White's home, where Scott introduced himself to DeLisa as White's brother from Texas, prosecutors said.

DeLisa was then shot twice in the head and his wallet was stolen, and his body was found the next day during a welfare check.

White and Scott spent the next few days together before Scott left, and they never saw each other again. White was later identified as a suspect and arrested and charged in DeLisa's death.

Three years after the killing, a woman came forward saying her boyfriend Michael Stratton may have been "Scott." He was in custody for a separate killing of a man in Pueblo that happened after DeLisa's murder, according to prosecutors.

The woman's description of Stratton's confession matched White's account of the crime, prosecutors said. But he was deemed incompetent to stand trial in the Pueblo murder case and has not been charged in DeLisa's case.

"This was a tragic and senseless murder and Ashley White bears significant culpability for it," District Attorney Brian Mason said in the press release. "Her callous actions led to the victim’s death, and now she will pay a significant price."

White is scheduled for sentencing on April 4.

LGBT activists and groups are already mobilizing to block gender-related executive orders President Donald Trump signed since taking office to fulfill one of his key campaign promises to crack down on "gender ideology extremism." And more legal challenges are expected in the coming weeks.

The executive orders, signed in late January, include a reinstatement of the ban on transgender troops in the military, a ban on federal funding for sex changes for minors and a directive requiring federal agencies to recognize only "two sexes," male and female, in official standard of conduct.

"This ban betrays fundamental American values of equal opportunity and judging people on their merit," Jennifer Levi, director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), said in a statement about the trans military ban. 

"It slams the door on qualified patriots who meet every standard and want nothing more than to serve their country, simply to appease a political agenda."

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS BANNING 'RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY,' DEI INITIATIVES IN THE MILITARY

GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), were among the first groups to file a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration for its military ban. The lawsuit, Talbott v. Trump, was brought forward on equal protection grounds by six active-duty service members and two individuals attempting to enlist, according to the groups' announcement.

The plaintiffs include a Sailor of the Year honoree, a Bronze Star recipient and several who were awarded meritorious service medals. They were identified as U.S. Army Reservist Lt. Nicolas Talbott, Army Maj. Erica Vandal, Army Sgt. First Class Kate Cole, Army Capt. Gordon Herrero, Navy Ensign Dany Danridge, Air Force Master Sgt. Jamie Hash, Koda Nature and Cael Neary. The latter two are civilians who are seeking to enlist in the military.

DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH SAYS 'NO MORE DEI AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE': 'NO EXCEPTIONS'

Another lawsuit, filed by a transgender inmate receiving taxpayer-funded medical treatments, is challenging Trump's executive order that ends medical transgender treatments – such as hormones, sex changes and grooming accommodations – for federal prisoners.

The unnamed inmate, who goes by "Maria Moe" in court documents and is represented by GLAD Law, NCLR and Lowenstein Sandler LLP, is claiming Trump and the Bureau of Prisons are violating the Fifth and Eighth amendments and claims to be "at imminent risk of losing access to the medical care she needs to treat her gender dysphoria."

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole in Boston temporarily blocked BOP officials from transferring "Maria Moe" to a men's prison, according to a ruling released by the inmate's attorney Thursday. The temporary restraining order was issued Sunday, the same day the suit was filed.

Prison officials are expected to keep the inmate in the women's prison general population and maintain her transgender medical treatments, NBC first reported. 

CRACKING DOWN ON TRANS TROOPS: TRUMP ORDER NIXES PREFERRED PRONOUNS, RESTRICTS FACILITY USE

Multiple lawsuits have been filed against Trump's other executive orders, too, especially Trump's immigration-related policies. More are expected in the coming weeks. 

A memo released Wednesday by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management provided guidance on directing federal agencies to acknowledge that women are biologically female and men are biologically male, Reuters reported. Trump said last week federal funds would not be used to promote "gender ideology." 

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on the litigation but did not hear back before publication.

Fox News Digital's Louis Casiano contributed to this report. 

A South Carolina inmate was executed on Friday, the third time in four months the state has carried out the death penalty as it goes through a backlog of inmates who exhausted their appeals when the state was unable to obtain lethal injection drugs.

Marion Bowman Jr., 44, was executed by lethal injection at 6:27 p.m. for his murder conviction in the shooting death of his friend, 21-year-old Kandee Martin, whose burned body was found in the trunk of a car in 2001.

Bowman has maintained his innocence since his arrest. He said at the beginning of his final statement: "I did not kill Kandee Martin."

His lawyers raised questions about his conviction, noting that he was convicted on the word of several friends and relatives who received plea deals with prosecutors in exchange for their testimony.

SOUTH CAROLINA MAN SENTENCED TO DEATH CONCERNED ABOUT DRUG AFTER ISSUE DURING NOVEMBER EXECUTION

When the curtain to the death chamber opened, Bowman briefly looked at his attorney on the other side of the glass in the witness room before looking back up at the ceiling and closing his eyes, opening his eyes once or twice as he looked up.

After Bowman's attorney finished reading his final statement and poem, his breathing became heavy, and he puffed his lips as he exhaled. In less than a minute, his breathing stopped. Twenty minutes later, a doctor with a stethoscope listened to his chest and placed a hand on his neck, patting him as she finished.

Bowman said in his final statement that death row inmates might be viewed as the worst of the worst, but they have all grown and changed from what "they were when they had their moment that cost them everything."

"I know that Kandee’s family is in pain, they are justifiably angry," Bowman said. "If my death brings them some relief and ability to focus on the good times and funny stories, then I guess it will have served a purpose. I hope they find peace."

For his final meal, Bowman had fried seafood, including shrimp, fish and oysters, as well as chicken wings and tenders, onion rings, banana pudding, German chocolate cake, cranberry juice and pineapple juice.

Bowman was offered a plea deal for a life sentence but instead went to trial because he said he was not guilty.

His execution was the third in South Carolina since September, when the state – once one of the busiest for executions – ended a 13-year pause in carrying out the death penalty. The pause was caused in part by the state having difficulty obtaining lethal injection drugs after its supply expired because of pharmaceutical companies' concerns that they would have to disclose they had sold the drugs to state officials. The state legislature then passed a shield law allowing officials to keep lethal injection drug suppliers private.

SOUTH CAROLINA SCHEDULING EXECUTIONS AGAIN AFTER A PAUSE FOR THE HOLIDAYS

In July, the state Supreme Court cleared the way to resume executions. Freddie Owens was put to death on Sept. 20 and Richard Moore was executed on Nov. 1, with both men choosing to die by lethal injection.

This was the first execution in the U.S. this year after 25 were carried out in the country last year. The court will allow an execution every five weeks until the other three inmates who have run out of appeals are put to death.

South Carolina has executed 46 inmates since the death penalty was resumed in the U.S. in 1976. In the early 2000s, the state was carrying out an average of three executions per year. Only nine states have killed more inmates.

Bowman did not ask Republican Gov. Henry McMaster for clemency, but the governor's office still released a letter denying clemency, noting that he received informal requests and petitions to spare Bowman's life.

No governor in the state has ever reduced a death sentence to life in prison without parole in the modern era of the death penalty.

Bowman's lawyer, Lindsey Vann, said his client did not want to spend additional decades in prison for a crime he did not commit. He had already spent more than half his life on death row.

"After more than two decades of battling a broken system that has failed him at every turn, Marion’s decision is a powerful refusal to legitimize an unjust process that has already stolen so much of his life," Vann said in a statement Thursday.

Bowman was convicted in Dorchester County in 2002 in connection with Martin's death the year before. Several friends and family members testified against him as part of plea deals with prosecutors.

One friend said Bowman was upset because Martin owed him money, while a second testified that Bowman believed Martin was wearing a recording device to have him arrested.

Bowman said he sold drugs to Martin, who was a friend of his for years, and sometimes she would pay with sex, but he said he did not kill her.

The final appeal from his current lawyers argued that Bowman's trial attorney was not prepared and had too much sympathy for the white victim and not Bowman, who is black. The South Carolina Supreme Court rejected the argument.

Bowman's lawyers also raised concerns about his execution due to his weight. An anesthesiologist said he feared South Carolina's secret lethal injection protocols did not take into account that Bowman, listed as 389 pounds in prison records, was heavier, as it can be difficult to properly insert an IV into a blood vessel and determine the dose of the drugs needed in people with obesity.

His lawyers were concerned that the drug used to put Moore to death in November required two large doses more than 11 minutes apart.

An anesthesiologist involved in reviewing Moore's autopsy records said they showed fluid in the lungs, leading lawyers to believe he "consciously experienced feelings of drowning and suffocation during the 23 minutes that it took to bring about his death."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court will weigh an effort to establish the nation's first religious charter school with implications for school choice and religious practices. 

The court agreed Friday to hear two cases on the matter, which will be argued together — Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. 

In 2023, the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted to approve an application by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa for a K-12 online school, the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School.

SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF FAMILIES CAN OPT OUT OF READING LGBTQ BOOKS IN THE CLASSROOM

Oklahoma parents, faith leaders and an education group sought to block the school after the approval. 

In a 7-1 decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found a taxpayer-funded religious charter school would violate the First Amendment's provision on "establishment of religion" and the state constitution.

"Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school," Justice James Winchester wrote in the court’s majority opinion. "As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian.

"However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic school curriculum while sponsored by the state."

Alliance Defending Freedom Chief Counsel Jim Campbell told Fox News Digital the case "is fundamentally about religious discrimination and school choice."

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LOOMING TIKTOK BAN

"The Supreme Court has been clear in three cases over the last eight years that you can't create a public program like that and then exclude religious organizations," Campbell said. "So, we're going to be arguing before the court that the state of Oklahoma should be allowed to open up the program to religious organizations."

Campbell says the decision would give parents, families and the state "more educational options." 

Oklahoma Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who originally challenged the school's approval, has previously said the school's establishment is unconstitutional. His spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement the attorney general "looks forward to presenting our arguments before the high court."

"I will continue to vigorously defend the religious liberty of all 4 million Oklahomans," Drummond said in a statement released in October. "This unconstitutional scheme to create the nation’s first state-sponsored religious charter school will open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan. My fellow Oklahomans can rest assured that I will always fight to protect their God-given rights and uphold the law."

TENNESSEE AG OPTIMISTIC ABOUT SCOTUS CASE AFTER 'RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY' REVERSAL IN LOWER COURT

The Oklahoma case is one of several religious institution cases that have been filed in the Supreme Court. 

In 2017, the high court ruled in favor of a Missouri church that sued the state after being denied taxpayer funds for a playground project as a result of a provision that prohibits state funding for religious entities. 

Likewise, in 2020, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on taxpayer funding for religious schools in a 5-4 decision that backed a Montana tax-credit scholarship program. Most recently, in 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that a Maine tuition assistance program violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause for excluding religious schools from eligibility.

Campbell said given the court's previous considerations of cases involving religious educational institutions, he is "hopeful that the Supreme Court will recognize that the same principle applies here."

"You can't create a charter school program that allows private organizations to participate but tell the religious groups that they can't be included," Campbell said. "So, we're hopeful that the Supreme Court will make it clear that people of faith deserve to be a part of the charter school program as well."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, although an explanation was not given. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in April. 

School choice has become a hot-button issue, particularly after the 2024 election cycle. President Donald Trump recently signed two executive orders on education, one to remove federal funding from K-12 schools that teach critical race theory and another to support school choice. 

Fox News Digital's Ronn Blitzer and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Kash Patel, President Donald Trump's pick for FBI director, claimed Thursday that he won't stand for federal law enforcement needing a warrant for surveillance in some scenarios because it's plainly impractical in real-time practices. Despite lawmakers’ surprise at his opposition, legal experts say his take is far from unusual within the law enforcement arena.

Patel was peppered with questions Thursday on a provision called Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. When asked if he believed that a warrant requirement is "practical and workable or even a necessary element of 702," Patel said he had issues with "those that have been in government service and abused it in the past." Patel said that because of the viability of abuse, "we must work with Congress to provide the protections necessary for American citizens dealing with these matters."

"Having a warrant requirement to go through that information in real time is just not comported with the requirement to protect American citizenry," Patel said during his Senate hearing. "I'm all open to working with Congress on finding a better way forward. But right now, these improvements that you've made go a long way."

4 OF THE BIGGEST CLASHES BETWEEN PATEL, SENATE DEMS AT HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING

"The fact that the soon-to-be head of the nation's, sort of, top law enforcement agency takes the position that is favored by law enforcement shouldn't surprise anybody," former assistant district attorney and criminal defense attorney Phil Holloway told Fox News Digital. 

"When Mr. Patel answered the question the way that he did, that answer is adverse to the public positions taken by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle." 

Patel, throughout his testimony, emphasized his interest in working with Congress if he were to head the FBI.

"Some lawmakers have absolutely called for the necessity of a warrant in these situations. And so it makes sense that the senators would ask the nominee to run the FBI whether or not he has an opinion on it," Holloway continued. "But, ultimately, it's not his call."

KASH PATEL HAMMERS ‘GROTESQUE MISCHARACTERIZATIONS’ FROM DEMS AMID FIERY FBI CONFIRMATION HEARING

"I've always thought that there's a middle ground here where you don't have to. And I think there are some situations that warrant a warrant and deserve a warrantless search," Palm Beach County, Fla., state attorney Dave Aronberg told Fox News Digital. "And I think Patel's remarks show that he thinks the same way."

Aronberg noted that under U.S. law, there is a warrant exception under exigent circumstances, i.e. emergency situations, where it is impractical to obtain a warrant. 

"What Kash Patel is saying is that there may be some situations that may be in that gray area where you shouldn't have to get a warrant," Aronberg said. "And I am encouraged by his comments because I do think that law enforcement needs flexibility when it comes to national security matters, especially with the very real threat of terrorism here on our shores."

KASH PATEL FLIPS SCRIPT ON DEM SENATOR AFTER BEING GRILLED ON J6 PARDONS: 'BRUTAL REALITY CHECK'

Congress voted to pass a renewal of FISA's Section 702 last April. The legislation serves as a governmental tool in gathering intelligence on foreign subjects using the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers. 

If the renewal had not been passed, the expiration would have meant companies would not be forced to comply with the government's requests for surveillance aid under the bill. 

Without the FISA section's reauthorization, the government would be required to seek a warrant to compel any such assistance, which is a process that can span extended periods of time. 

Earlier this month, a federal district court ruled that the federal government had violated the Fourth Amendment when it searched the communications of an Albanian citizen residing in the U.S. at the time of his arrest without a warrant. The information had been collected under FISA's Section 702. 

"The individual rights of people in the United States under our Constitution come first," Holloway said. "So having constitutional requirements that sort of frustrate or perhaps slow down law enforcement, this is a tension that is not new at all. And so what we're seeing is this playing out."

Fox News Digital's Liz Elkind and Julia Johnson contributed to this report. 

Since taking office, President Donald Trump and his administration have become the target of multiple lawsuits over the president's agenda and policies. 

The Trump White House has faced numerous legal challenges, including deportation policies, an executive order to end birthright citizenship and a directive to freeze federal funding.

On the day of his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, with many legal experts arguing that the right is enshrined in the Constitution under the 14th Amendment.

BLACK CAUCUS CHAIR ACCUSES TRUMP OF 'PURGE' OF 'MINORITY' FEDERAL WORKERS

"The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift," Trump says in the order, titled, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration that same day "on behalf of organizations with members whose babies born on U.S. soil will be denied citizenship under the order." The ACLU also claimed the order is unconstitutional and against congressional intent and Supreme Court precedent.

Eighteen Democrat-led states then launched their own lawsuit, also claiming the order is unconstitutional and "unprecedented." 

"The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth," the lawsuit reads.

TRUMP COULD BE ON VERGE OF LEGAL VICTORY AGAINST CBS AS SETTLEMENT SPECULATION HEATS UP

Attorneys general from New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine and others signed on to the suit, along with the city and county of San Francisco, Calif., and Washington, D.C.

A U.S. district judge also temporarily blocked Trump's order in a separate lawsuit filed by the states of Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington, describing the action as "blatantly unconstitutional."

Several Chicago sanctuary city groups filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its mass deportation policy, saying it violates their First Amendment rights. 

The suit, filed by Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, Organized Communities Against Deportations, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights Inc., and Raise the Floor Alliance, states that "the threat of ICE agents flooding into communities has already impacted Chicagoans and chilled their rights to freely exercise their religion and assemble."

Trump also signed an executive order ending all federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. On Monday, the president signed an order stating that the "adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life."

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS STRIPPING FEDERAL FUNDING FROM SCHOOLS THAT TEACH CRT, SUPPORTING SCHOOL CHOICE

Six transgender military members filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the order is unconstitutional and violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

"Rather than being based on any legitimate governmental purpose, the ban reflects animosity toward transgender people because of their transgender status," the suit claims. 

The Office of Management and Budget issued a memo on Monday with a directive to pause all federal grants and loans aiming to eradicate "wokeness" and the "weaponization of government" in an effort to improve government efficiency. The memo claims that nearly $3 trillion was spent in 2024 on such assistance programs. 

The White House shortly thereafter insisted that the freeze did not affect programs such as Social Security, Medicare or other entitlement payments.

Alongside Senate Democrats announcing a coordinated response with Democratic governors, blue state attorneys general, along with advocacy and non-profit groups, filed their own suits over the directive. 

On Tuesday, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 22 other attorneys general suing to stop the implementation of the memo.

Likewise, a handful of non-profit organizations and health associations, including a LGBTQ+ advocacy group, filed a lawsuit Tuesday over the directive.

A federal judge on Tuesday imposed a stay on Trump's action, delaying it until Monday.

Fox News Digital's Adam Shaw, Breanne Deppisch and Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report. 

Liberal news website The Daily Beast could soon face a defamation lawsuit brought by the Republican National Committee and ex-Trump co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita.

The RNC and LaCivita believe they were defamed by The Daily Beast in an October 2024 report that reported LaCivita was paid $22 million by the Trump campaign. The RNC and LaCivita say the sum was less, and it was used for things such as campaign advertising, as opposed to being pocketed by LaCivita, which they claim The Daily Beast "falsely" suggested.  

Axios first reported that the RNC and LaCivita had readied a defamation suit against the Daily Beast and noted lawyers have written three letters, which have been obtained by Fox News Digital, demanding retractions of the article over the past few months.

JURY FINDS CNN COMMITTED DEFAMATION AGAINST NAVY VETERAN, SETTLEMENT REACHED ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES

The Daily Beast stands by its reporting, although it added an editor’s note to the initial story admitting the article "mistakenly reported that LaCivita’s firm had received a total of $22 million" when the total was actually $19.2 million. 

"The Beast is committed to following the money and reporting accurately on Chris LaCivita's LLC, which received $19.2 million from the Trump campaign, the RNC and related super PACs, according to public records," a Daily Beast spokesperson told Fox News Digital. 

"We stand by our journalism and will defend ourselves vigorously if necessary," the spokesperson continued. 

While the Beast says it stands by its journalism, the liberal news organization has taken steps to resolve the ordeal before a lawsuit is formally filed. 

The first letter was sent from the Geragos & Geragos law firm to Daily Beast general counsel Neil Rosenhouse on November 5, 2024. It claimed the initial report, along with "recycled allegations" repeated in other Daily Beast content, "center around the false and defamatory claim" that the RNC authorized, and LaCivita received, compensation in the amount of $22 million over the course of two years for his role in Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

The letter stated the RNC and LaCivita had reason to believe The Daily Beast acted "with actual malice." 

Three days after receiving the initial letter, the Daily Beast added the following editor’s note to the report: "The original version of this article mistakenly reported that LaCivita’s firm had received a total of $22 million from Trump’s campaign and affiliated PACs. Based on a further review of FEC records, the correct total is $19.2 million. The Beast regrets the error. The article has also been updated to make clear that payments were to LaCivita’s LLC, not to LaCivita personally." 

The second letter came on November 12, 2024, when Geragos & Geragos told The Daily Beast its editor’s note was "entirely inadequate" and failed to remedy the damages inflicted on LaCivita.

"The remainder of the reporting has remained substantially the same, and despite the addition of the editor’s notes and corrections, it continues to falsely imply that Mr. LaCivita personally pocketed $19.2 million paid by the Trump campaign for campaign advertising," the letter stated. 

"The editor’s note in that article clarifying that $22 million went to LaCivita’s LLC and not to him personally does not remedy the overall defamatory messaging of the story – which depicts Mr. LaCivita as deceptively pocketing campaign money for his own personal gain and that he was and is on the verge of being ‘fired’ because of it," the letter continued. "This entire narrative is completely false and a result of malicious and irresponsible reporting by The Daily Beast… we demand that The Daily Beast issue a retraction on all reporting regarding this topic."

The third letter, sent on January 21, demanded that The Daily Beast "immediately and permanently" remove a podcast episode that discussed the report. 

FOX NEWS DIGITAL FINISHES 2024 AS TOP NEWS BRAND AMONG KEY METRICS DURING UNPRECEDENTED YEAR OF NEWS

In response, The Daily Beast deleted a segment of the podcast while continuing to insist it "stands by its reporting."

The following note was added to the podcast description: "The Beast has deleted a segment that appeared on the original edition of this podcast with award-winning journalist Michael Isikoff. It concerned payments, revealed in FEC records, that Republican strategist and operative Chris LaCivita’s LLC collected from the Trump campaign and related super PACs. The interview included references to a sum of money larger than the actual amount, which was $19.2 million. The Beast regrets the error. For clarity of listening the Beast is removing the entire segment. The Beast stands by its reporting on this subject, which appears elsewhere."

Attorneys for the RNC and LaCivita have demanded that The Daily Beast preserve all documents and communications related to the story ahead of "anticipated litigation."

The Daily Beast declined further comment. 

EXCLUSIVE – A law firm requested public records from five major universities in order to investigate whether they were participating in a "censorship regime" they claim was conducted under the Biden administration.

"Free speech is essential to a free society," said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Phil Sechler, director of the ADF Center for Free Speech, in a press release obtained by Fox News Digital.

"The American people have a right to know if their tax dollars were used to suppress certain voices and how involved state actors were—and are—in social media censorship," Sechler said in the statement.

Now with a new administration in power, ADF is going after the University of Michigan (UM), the University of Wisconsin (UW), Indiana University (IU), the University of North Carolina (UNC), and the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA).

ATTORNEY SAYS 'A LOT OF TEACHERS COMING TO US' AFTER THEY ARE BEING FORCED TO USE STUDENTS' PREFERRED PRONOUNS

ADF cited President Donald Trump signing an executive order that seeks to restore freedom of speech. Trump on Jan. 20 announced that the executive order ends the previous administration’s practices of trampling "free speech rights."

The White House said the federal government will not censor speech on social media or any online platform in general, which they said was executed "under the guise of combating ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation.’"

ADF claims that these universities created "misinformation" centers that are "designed to censor speech."

For example, ADF called out UM’s Center for Social Media Responsibility (CSMR), which, according to their website, "addresses the negative effects of broad access to the means of public communication, while amplifying positive effects."

CSMR’s website explains further that while social media product managers, designers, and engineers "are the day-to-day policymakers of today's social media landscape," the institution aims to help them articulate "principles" as well as create "metrics and tools" that help them "set responsible policy."

LOCAL VIRGINIA TEACHERS NO LONGER FORCED TO USE STUDENTS' PREFERRED PRONOUNS AFTER SETTLEMENT

The law firm wants records related to the CSMR containing any communication between the CSMR administrators, including the director, and federal government officials or employees. Furthermore, ADF requests documents related to communication between CSMR directors and employees of social media companies Google, Facebook, Instagram, "Twitter," YouTube, Snapchat, and Reddit.

Acquiring such communication would help ADF identify any "certain censorship red flags," in its view, like "cancel," "throttle," "First Amendment," and "free speech." 

ADF also cited a report released in February by investigators from the U.S. House Judiciary Committee which found that UM officials pitched an idea of an artificial intelligence tool to the National Science Foundation (NSF) for "externalizing the difficult responsibility of censorship."

The House Judiciary Commitee's Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government stated in February last year that NSF issued "multi-million-dollar grants to university and non-profit research teams" to combat "alleged misinformation" regarding COVID-19 and the 2020 election.

Considering that NSF "is responsible for funding censorship grants," ADF wants records containing any of the terms National Science Foundation and NSF. 

ADF suspects that CSMR and similar institutions at IU, UW, UNC, and UCLA had worked with the Biden administration.

Sechler claimed that the Biden administration "established a censorship regime that aimed to suppress so-called ‘misinformation’ and other speech deemed unfavorable to the government," which "included funding censorship tools created by these public universities."

"The U.S. government should defend our First Amendment right to free speech, not be its greatest threat," he said.

UM, IU, UW, UNC, and UCLA, as well as a spokesperson for former President Joe Biden, did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Fox News Digital.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that federal employees must return to in-person work by early February or "be terminated," the latest in a string of actions announced by the new administration as it looks to crack down on remote work. 

Trump addressed the changes Wednesday at the White House shortly before signing into law the immigration-focused Laken Riley bill.

Asked about the new requirements for federal workers, Trump said, "We’re requiring them to show up to work or be terminated."

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT DOGE AND ITS QUEST TO SLASH GOVERNMENT WASTE, SPENDING

His remarks come just hours after the Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, began emailing roughly 2 million federal employees on Tuesday, offering them the equivalent of a buyout if they do not return to in-person work within a specified time frame. 

Employees have until Feb. 6 to decide whether to take the buyouts, OPM said, noting that most employees will be required to show up in person five days a week.

Those who choose not to continue their roles in person would be provided with what the email said would be a "dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program."

Employees who resign were also told they will retain all pay and benefits regardless of workload and will be exempt from in-person work requirements until Sep. 30, 2025.

"We think a very substantial number of people will not show up to work, and, therefore, our government will get smaller and more efficient," Trump told reporters of the plan Wednesday. "And that's what we've been looking to do for many, many decades."

'GET BACK TO WORK': HOUSE OVERSIGHT TO TAKE ON GOVERNMENT TELEWORK IN 1ST HEARING OF NEW CONGRESS
 

He also suggested federal employees may be asked to "prove" they did not have another job during the period of remote work, a difficult issue to correct for given that an estimated 8.6 million U.S. residents work multiple jobs, or roughly 5.2% of the U.S. workforce, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"We may ask these people to prove that they didn't have another job during their so-called employment with the United States of America, because if they did, that would be unlawful," Trump said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

 "A lot of people are getting paychecks, but they're actually working other jobs, so they'll have to prove that to us that they weren't," Trump said.

Fox News Digital's Greg Wehner contributed to this article.