The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 Friday that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg cannot move forward with possible contempt proceedings against the Trump administration.

The case involves the administration’s alleged violation of an emergency court order blocking the administration from using a 1798 law to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador — the latest in an evolving, high-stakes court clash that has played out for months in various courts. 

Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, two Trump appointees on the majority-Democrat bench, sided with the Trump administration Friday in blocking Boasberg’s contempt motion from moving forward. 

Judge Nina Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented. 

The 2-1 ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the full court to be heard en banc, where the Democrat-majority bench is seen as more favorable to the plaintiffs, or directly to the Supreme Court for review.

‘The district court here was placed in an enormously difficult position,’ Katsas said Friday, writing for the majority.

‘Faced with an emergency situation, it had to digest and rule upon novel and complex issues within a matter of hours. In that context, the court quite understandably issued a written order that contained some ambiguity.’

Katsas noted that the appellate court ruling does not center on the lawfulness of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act removals in March, when administration officials invoked the 1798 immigration law to send more than 250 Venezuelan nationals to CECOT, the maximum-security prison in El Salvador.

‘Nor may we decide whether the government’s aggressive implementation of the presidential proclamation warrants praise or criticism as a policy matter,’ he added. ‘Perhaps it should warrant more careful judicial scrutiny in the future. Perhaps it already has.’

‘Regardless, the government’s initial implementation of the proclamation clearly and indisputably was not criminal.’

The ruling comes months after Boasberg originally found grounds to move on potential contempt proceedings in the case.

It comes as Boasberg has also ordered ongoing status updates on the location and custodial status of the 252 CECOT class migrants, after they were deported last month from El Salvador to Venezuela as part of a prisoner exchange between the U.S. and Venezuela.

It is unclear how many of those migrants had pending asylum applications in the U.S. or had been granted a ‘withholding of removal’ order blocking their return to their country of origin. 

The long-awaited ruling comes months after Boasberg ruled that the court had found probable cause to move on criminal contempt proceedings after he issued a late-night temporary restraining order on March 15 blocking the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport certain migrants to El Salvador.

Boasberg had also ordered all migrants to be ‘immediately returned’ to U.S. soil, which did not happen. 

Despite the order, hundreds of migrants were deported to the Salvadorian prison, CECOT, in March, where they remained until late last month, when they were sent from the prison in El Salvador to Venezuela, as part of the prisoner exchange. 

Boasbeg ruled in April that there was ‘probable cause’ to move on criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration for failing to return the planes to U.S. soil and said the court had determined that the Trump administration demonstrated a ‘willful disregard’ for his order.

The appeals court granted the Trump administration’s request for an emergency stay of the ruling months earlier, prompting questions as to why they did not move more quickly on the motion.

Still, the decision is almost certain to be appealed either to the full circuit court to be heard en banc, or directly to the Supreme Court for review. 

The Trump administration for months has sparred with judges who have blocked the president’s executive orders from taking force.

Boasberg, in particular, has emerged as one of Trump’s biggest public foes. Last month, the court attempted to have him removed from overseeing the case and have it reassigned to another case — a long-shot effort that legal experts and former judges suggested is unlikely to go far.

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.

Republican senators offered a range of responses when pressed on how the Trump administration has been handling the Epstein files controversy, with some calling it a distraction and others arguing the American people are ‘entitled’ to answers.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the ‘first phase’ of declassified files related to Jeffrey Epstein Feb. 27, noting the move was following through on President Donald Trump’s commitment to ‘lifting the veil’ on Epstein and his co-conspirator’s actions. Bondi also said the same month she was in possession of an Epstein ‘client list.’

However, the February declassification contained mostly information and files that had already been publicly available, and the Justice Department subsequently indicated that no ‘client list’ exists. Since then, a series of events, including a clash between FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino and Attorney General Bondi, have led to mounting pressure on the Trump administration to release more files. 

‘This is factual. Epstein trafficked a lot of young women, some of whom were minors. The American people are entitled to know who — if anyone — he trafficked these young women to, besides himself, and why they weren’t prosecuted,’ John Kennedy, R-La., said. 

‘Now that’s a very simple question that’s at the bottom of all of this. The Department of Justice is going to have to answer that question to the satisfaction of the American people.’

Kennedy’s call for transparency comes after the president described the Epstein situation as a ‘hoax’ while blasting Democrats and other ‘weaklings’ who continue to buy into it. 

‘Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bull—-,’ hook, line, and sinker,’ Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform last month amid mounting reports of internal division within the administration over its handling of the Epstein case 

When asked about how the Trump administration was handling the Epstein furor, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said he thought the situation was being used by Democrats to create a ‘distraction’ from the ongoing investigations into former President Biden and others, like the probe related to Biden’s use of an autopen tool to sign important documents and the investigation into whether Obama-era officials manufactured evidence to accuse Trump of Russian collusion.

‘Look what’s being investigated right now through the Biden administration. … So, what are they going to talk about now?’ Mullin asked. ‘This is nothing but a distraction from the actual facts that is coming out about the Biden administration. Of course, the Democrats say, ‘Well, we’re just about transparency.’ Well, where was the transparency the last four years?’

Democrats have suggested Trump could be implicated in the files, but Mullin said that if such a circumstance were true, the information would have been leaked by the Biden administration. 

Mullin’s counterpart in the Senate, Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford took more of a middle ground in his response about how the administration has been handling the Epstein files.

‘The challenge is there are people that are victims that are in it, and there are folks that are not criminals that are in it as well,’ Lankford said. ‘And the challenge the Department of Justice has is you’ve got a girl that was 14, 16 years old and was abused. Well, now she’s, let’s say 26 or 30, married and has children. 

‘Maybe her family knows about this, maybe they don’t. I don’t know the situation, but we gotta figure out a way to be able to protect those folks that are genuine victims on all this as well as getting out as much information as you possibly can.’

For Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the debate about the Epstein files was not something she was interested in talking about when approached by Fox News Digital.

‘I’m going,’ Collins responded when pressed on the matter outside the Capitol complex.

In a sweeping move aimed at rolling back pandemic-era mandates, the Trump administration on Friday directed all federal agencies to erase any records related to employees’ COVID-19 vaccination status, prior mandate noncompliance or exemption requests.

The guidance, issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), was a response to recent litigation and is part of a broader push to reverse what officials have described as ‘harmful pandemic-era policies’ imposed under the Biden administration. 

‘Things got out of hand during the pandemic, and federal workers were fired, punished or sidelined for simply making a personal medical decision,’ OPM Director Scott Kupor said in a statement.That should never have happened. Thanks to President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, we’re making sure the excesses of that era do not have lingering effects on federal workers.’

Former President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14043 in September 2021, directing federal agencies to require COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of federal employment. 

After the controversial demand, numerous lawsuits were filed by federal employees, unions and states alleging the mandate violated constitutional rights and federal labor laws.

A federal appeals court blocked enforcement of the order in 2022m and Biden repealed the mandate in May 2023, prompting OPM officials to issue a memorandum to human resources directors stating that ‘agencies should review their job postings … to ensure that none list compliance with the now revoked Executive Order 14043 as a qualification requirement.’ 

The memo also reminded agencies that the executive order could no longer be enforced.

In a memo to heads and acting heads of departments and agencies Friday, Kupor announced that, effective immediately, agencies are barred from using a person’s vaccine history or exemption requests in any employment-related decision, including hiring, promotion, discipline or termination. 

Unless an employee affirmatively opts out within 90 days, all vaccine-related information must be permanently removed from both physical and electronic personnel files.

Agencies must certify compliance with the memo by Sept. 8, according to the memo.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

On July 15, President Trump nominated my friend and former Gorsuch clerk colleague Eric Tung to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. If confirmed, Tung will succeed Judge Sandra Ikuta, who recently assumed senior status after a distinguished tenure. Judge Ikuta leaves behind a strong legacy, one Tung is more than equipped to uphold and extend.

Tung’s credentials are exceptional. He earned a philosophy degree from Yale in 2006 and graduated with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School in 2010. While there, he served as managing editor of the University of Chicago Law Review, one of the most rigorous legal journals in the country.

Following law school, Tung clerked for two of the most respected jurists in America: then-Judge Neil Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. These clerkships are offered only to the legal elite. Even among that group, Tung stood out.

Although President Trump made inroads during his first term in balancing out the nation’s most liberal federal appeals court outside of Washington, D.C., of the 29 active judges, 16 were Democratic nominees. Tung replacing Ikuta won’t change that balance, but it will ensure the vacated seat remains in the hands of a strong constitutionalist.

Tung’s brilliance, ethics, and temperament have earned him bipartisan respect. A letter supporting his nomination was signed by fellow Supreme Court clerks from across the ideological spectrum, from Justice Ginsburg’s to Justice Thomas’. That level of cross-aisle support is rare and speaks volumes.

One signer, Danielle Sassoon, a former federal prosecutor who has publicly disagreed with the Trump administration, went out of her way to endorse Tung. Her support underscores how widely admired he is for his intellect and integrity, regardless of politics.

Ultimately, what really matters is Tung’s record, and it’s unimpeachable. He is a brilliant legal mind, a fair-minded jurist, and a committed constitutionalist.

Tung’s experience goes far beyond the top of the legal profession. He served in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy, where he helped vet judicial nominees, giving him a firsthand look at what makes a good judge. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, he prosecuted serious criminal cases, gaining invaluable courtroom experience. Now a partner at Jones Day, Tung handles complex appellate and trial work at a national level.

Although President Trump made inroads during his first term in balancing out the nation’s most liberal federal appeals court outside of Washington, D.C., of the 29 active judges, 16 were Democratic nominees. Tung replacing Ikuta won’t change that balance, but it will ensure the vacated seat remains in the hands of a strong constitutionalist.

Despite this impeccable record, Tung’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was marred by partisan theatrics. Several Democrat senators ignored his qualifications and fixated instead on social media posts I had written. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., quoted part of an old post of mine and demanded Tung ‘condemn’ it. Tung, noting the canons of judicial ethics, rightly declined to weigh in, clarifying that my opinions are not necessarily his.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., followed suit, hitting Tung over a post where I had labeled certain Democrats ‘evil Marxists.’ Booker then attempted to cast himself as a model of bipartisan civility, citing his friendship with Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., conveniently omitting that he once claimed supporters of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court were ‘complicit in evil.’ Again, Tung refused to be drawn into political grandstanding, displaying the restraint and poise we should expect from a federal judge.

This guilt-by-association line of attack is dishonest and irrelevant. Tung’s record speaks for itself. Rather than engage with his legal merits, some senators tried to hijack yet another Judiciary Committee  hearing to score cheap political points. Tung never took the bait.

His nomination also highlights the double standard in how judicial diversity is treated. As the son of Chinese immigrants and a fluent Mandarin speaker, one would think Democrats would celebrate Tung at least for their sacred metrics of representation and diversity on the federal bench. But because he’s a conservative, his background is downplayed, or even used against him. The selective celebration of diversity and identity politics in judicial nominations is glaring.

Ultimately, what really matters is Tung’s record, and it’s unimpeachable. He is a brilliant legal mind, a fair-minded jurist, and a committed constitutionalist. His combination of courtroom experience, academic rigor, and ethical clarity makes him an ideal appellate judge.

The Senate should rise above political posturing and confirm Eric Tung without delay. His confirmation will not only fortify the Ninth Circuit, but strengthen the rule of law nationwide. President Trump’s reshaping of the federal judiciary with principled, constitutionalist judges will take a significant step forward with Tung’s appointment.

Eric Tung is exactly the kind of judge Americans want: sharp, steady, and scrupulously fair. The Senate must act upon its return and confirm him in September.

Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Article III Project.

Why did the Sydney Sweeney ad for American Eagle become such a national sensation that has lasted multiple weeks? 

What made this story unique is that it wasn’t the outrage that prolonged the story but the reaction to that outrage. It represented a win for normalcy after many years of abnormal hysteria. 

Sydney Sweeney has great jeans, proclaims the American Eagle ad released toward the end of July. The ad has been called racist, sexist and more. The controversy ostensibly stems from a pun. The accusation that the play on words, that Sweeney actually has good genes, means celebrating eugenics. 

In one video, Sweeney says, ‘Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue.’

Thousands of internet commenters weighed in angrily about the ad, both because of the pun and because they didn’t approve of Sweeney’s classic American blonde hair, blue eyed beauty. Vanity Fair called the ad a ‘very, very bad idea.’ Megan Graham at the Wall Street Journal called the ad ‘male-geared’ and quoted TikTok users who used the term ‘male gaze,’ a silly film term that alleges women are often portrayed only for the consumption of a male audience.

The New York Times took issue with Sweeney doing so many ads for different brands. ‘Why does an actress who has two Emmy Award nominations and has been featured in a number of films and TV shows — including the hit rom-com ‘Anyone But You,’ which brought in over $200 million worldwide — need to lend her face to so many brands?’ they wondered while closely inspecting her bank account.

The Sweeney ad didn’t just show a beautiful girl in tight jeans. It represented a shift in culture, the left felt it and it made them angry. But the real test of that shift is what came next. Nothing. 

It’s one thing for a brand to make what used to be considered a fairly safe ad featuring a pretty girl wearing the clothes in a provocative fashion. It’s another for that brand to stand by it amid backlash. American Eagle put out a short statement noting ‘it’s always been about the jeans.’ What would have been a groveling apology just a few years ago was suddenly a terse comment telling people, essentially, to get over it.

One of the top comments on their Instagram page noted ‘It’s giving ‘I’m sorry you feel that way” which is another way of saying it’s a non-apology. That’s exactly right. American Eagle isn’t sorry and they shouldn’t be. Sweeney hasn’t commented publicly about the non-controversy at all.

Sweeney has been the center of dumb internet storms before and it’s possible she learned some lessons. Three years ago, Sweeney posted photos from her mom’s 60th birthday and, in the blurry background of some of the photos, red hats in the style of the Trump campaign’s MAGA hats are visible. Her brother pointed out that the hats actually read ‘Make Sixty Great Again,’ which did little to assuage the mob. 

At first, Sweeney tried to brush it off, posting on her then-Twitter account that ‘An innocent celebration for my moms milestone 60th birthday has turned into an absurd political statement, which was not the intention. Please stop making assumptions.’

But it was 2022 and the mob had total control over the narrative. A year later, in an interview with Variety, Sweeney somewhat capitulated and noted, ‘The people in the pictures weren’t even my family.’ In that same interview, Variety described her bikini photo shoot with them as channeling ‘a ’90s-throwback magazine queen.’ Somehow she wasn’t catering to the male gaze then.

In the parsing of the American Eagle story, some outlets have pointed out that Sweeney posted a Black Lives Matters post in 2020, which feels particularly Soviet. Does this person really believe? Is their zeal real? Is she for us or against us? Then the news broke that Sweeney had registered as a Republican.

A few days ago, the president gave new life to the story when he was asked about it. President Donald Trump responded, ‘You’d be surprised at how many people are Republicans. That’s what I wouldn’t have known. But I’m glad you told me that. If Sydney Sweeney is a registered Republican, I think her ad is fantastic!’ The truth is, the ad is fantastic whether she’s a Republican or not. 

The larger win here is for giving people what they want. American Eagle wasn’t making a political statement, it was making a marketing one. Pretty girls wear our clothing and you should too. In May, American Eagle was forced to downgrade their outlook for the year after lackluster sales. Since the controversy, their stock price is up. 

If it’s true that they have good jeans, their growth will continue. They’ve done a service for the American people by standing their ground and focusing on their product.

As Japan marks the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings, the mayor of Nagasaki is warning that the world could see the same kind of devastating attack again.

Approximately 2,600 people, including representatives from 90 countries, attended the memorial event on Saturday at Nagasaki Peace Park, according to the Associated Press. At 11:02 a.m., the exact time the bomb exploded over the city, the attendees held a moment of silence. Nagasaki Mayor Shiro Suzuki, whose parents survived the 1945 attack, addressed the crowd and called for global action against nuclear weapons.

‘Conflicts around the world are intensifying in a vicious cycle of confrontation and fragmentation,’ Suzuki told a crowd on Saturday, according to a translation by The Mainichi. ‘If we continue on this trajectory, we will end up thrusting ourselves into a nuclear war. This existential crisis of humanity has become imminent to each and every one of us living on Earth.’

Mayors for Peace, which brings together mayors and city leaders from across the globe, is holding its 11th General Conference in Nagasaki this weekend as the city mourns the tragic day. The organization’s aim is to abolish nuclear weapons, a point Suzuki emphasized in his remarks.

‘In order to make Nagasaki the last atomic bombing site, it is essential to show a specific course of action for achieving the abolition of nuclear weapons. Procrastination can no longer be tolerated,’ Suzuki said, according to The Mainichi. 

The mayor also noted that the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) ‘will represent a crucial moment capable of swaying the fate of humanity.’

Every five years, world leaders meet to review the provisions of the NPT, which was opened for signature in 1968 and entered into force in 1970, 25 years after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan three days apart. The first was dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and the second was dropped on Nagasaki three days later, on Aug. 9. The bombs decimated both cities, leading to Japan’s surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, and later the end of World War II.

A bomb nicknamed ‘Little Boy,’ weighing approximately 9,000 pounds and producing an explosive force equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT, detonated 1,800 feet over Hiroshima, causing massive devastation. ‘Fat Man,’ the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, weighed 10,000 pounds and detonated at approximately the same altitude as ‘Little Boy.’

‘I would like to express my deepest condolences for the lives claimed by the atomic bombings, and to all of the victims of war,’ Suzuki said, according to The Mainichi. ‘In marking 80 years from the atomic bombing, Nagasaki has resolved to continue our duty to relay, both inside Japan and overseas, the memories of the bombing, which are a common heritage to all humanity and should be passed down for generations throughout the world.’

He concluded with a declaration, which was also translated by The Mainichi: ‘I hereby declare that in order to make Nagasaki the last atomic bombing site now and forever, we will go hand-in-hand with global citizens and devote our utmost efforts towards the abolition of nuclear weapons and the realization of everlasting world peace.’