Judges skeptical of Trump administration effort to force California to set aside mail ballots

2026-10-25 / CNN

A three-judge US Circuit Court of Appeals panel expressed significant skepticism Sunday over the Justice Department’s desire to inject itself into California’s midterm vote-counting process by forcing election officials to set aside the votes of suspected noncitizens who have been issued mail ballots.

During a highly unusual emergency hearing, 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals Judge Mark Bennett told a Justice Department attorney that California appears to have legal authority to handle its elections on its own, and that the fact that Congress passed a criminal law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal and state elections doesn’t mean the Justice Department has authority to regulate California’s voting process.

The legal action in California is one of many steps the Trump administration has taken as voting is underway in the midterm elections to try to help prove President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of massive voter fraud. This past week, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in Alaska, seeking to block certification of the election of incumbent GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan loses, because a candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan is also on the ballot.

Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee, on Sunday both questioned the Justice Department’s decision to appeal to the 9th Circuit before the US District Court in California, where the case was originally filed, had held a hearing. They also pressed DOJ attorney Matthew Donnelly about the reliability of the Trump administration’s claims that there are 20,000 noncitizens on California’s voter rolls, information the DOJ has said came from a purchased list of voters and analyzed by third parties.

The Trump administration is attempting to convince the court that it should be able to immediately change California’s ballot processing because of a fear that noncitizens could have sent in votes. The state has already processed more than 300,000 midterm ballots.

But at least two of the three judges on the panel disputed the argument that federal law trumps the Constitution giving the power of running elections primarily to the states.

“It seems to me that under the Elections Clause, they have the right to determine the manner of the elections, including sorting out noncitizens,” Bennett said during the hearing, which was held over videoconference and broadcast on YouTube.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, appeared more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s argument, questioning attorneys for California and Los Angeles County about how noncitizens are investigated on the voter rolls. He also asked about DOJ’s suggestion in court filings that not setting aside mail-in ballots would keep California from ever learning whether noncitizens illegally voted in the midterms.

Sunday’s emergency hearing was the Trump administration’s sharpest effort to date to inject itself into a state’s midterm elections. DOJ sued California and Los Angeles County earlier this month, seeking to prevent officials from counting more than 20,000 mail-in ballots associated with people the government believes are likely noncitizens.

Samuel Siegal, an attorney arguing on behalf of California and the secretary of state, argued Sunday that the Justice Department was asking the court “to short-circuit the democratic process” while California’s election was already underway.

Beyond the constitutional issues, Bennett and Sanchez both questioned why the judges should rely on the Justice Department’s claims that 20,000 noncitizens were on the voter rolls, pressing Donnelly to explain how the administration came up with that number and why it should be relied upon to take extraordinary action.

“Your claims very much depend on the reliability of that list,” Sanchez said.

Siegal argued that the Trump administration’s list of alleged noncitizens voters was unreliable, saying it isn’t clear where the Trump administration’s list came from and that the data being used was “wildly outdated.”

“This is coming against the backdrop of the federal government compiling similar lists, and those also demonstrate having been demonstrably unreliable,” Siegal said.

Donnelly offered little clarity about why the administration believes 20,000 names on a list of California voters may include noncitizens, and how that list became part of the emergency hearing.

The Trump administration “was supplied a list that was purchased” from California, Donnelly said.

Donnelly argued that the DOJ’s briefs, including sworn declarations from Department of Homeland Security officials about their process for learning about noncitizen voters they say helped solidify the list, should be reliable enough to warrant segregating the ballots in question. He argued they are in an emergency situation because midterm ballots are being counted, and the administration isn’t asking to throw out votes and instead just set aside ballots the federal government would like to question.

The judges also questioned why the Justice Department took its case to the appellate court before the district court ruled. Donnelly responded that DOJ had asked for a ruling ahead of a hearing schedule for this week because more than 300,000 mail ballots had already been processed.

Bumatay questioned Siegal about whether California would be able to know whether noncitizens voted without an injunction, if the ballots are processed.

“We would respectfully disagree with that because of the number of steps that people have to take to attest to their citizenship,” Siegal argued.

Bennett asked Donnelly whether the appeals court needed to rule ahead of a planned hearing in district court Tuesday. Donnelly argued the court should rule as soon as possible, because voting is still ongoing in the state.

Aleksandar Vucic concedes defeat in Serbia’s parliamentary election, marking political shift

October 25, 2026 / 5:30 PM EDT / AP

The long-serving strongman leader of Serbia, Aleksandar Vucic, conceded defeat on Sunday in an election that pitted him and his right-wing party against a diverse student-led opposition movement that spent two years protesting his government.

It was a seismic political shift in the Balkan country where Vucic, who had been endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and who denounced the student movement as a foreign-led attempt to unseat him, led with virtually absolute power for 14 years.

High turnout and gathering tensions marked the highly contested parliamentary election that was a showdown between Vucic and his right-wing Serbian Progressive Party and university students who, accusing the government of corruption and dismantling democracy, had built a popular following across the country.

Serbia’s 6.4 million voters were electing lawmakers to the 250-member Parliament. In conceding the election, Vucic said his party projects that his opponents, the youth-backed Students’ List, will take between 135 and 140 seats while his SNS party will have around 105.

“The Students’ List has won,” Vucic told supporters at his party’s election night event, though he blamed Serbia’s independent media as well as alleged interference by unnamed European countries and an “American deep state” for the loss.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-2301472875.jpg

Aleksandar Vucic casts his ballot at a polling station in a school in Belgrade, Serbia, on October 25, 2026, during the country’s early parliamentary elections. Samir Jordamovic/Anadolu via Getty Images

Vucic said that his SNS party won around 1.7 million votes compared to the Students’ List, which he said took around 2.2 million.

Supporters of the Students’ List immediately flooded onto the streets of Belgrade and other cities, honking horns, shouting and chanting: “Aleksandar is gone,” referring to Vucic.

The outcome, which Vucic announced only around an hour and a half after polls closed, came after tensions had built as voting progressed during the day.

Police in anti-riot gear cordoned off an area in central Belgrade around the election commission headquarters. Special police vehicles could be seen near a Belgrade park where Vucic’s loyalists have been camping for over a year, and large groups of black-clad men had congregated at various points throughout the city.

Vucic was seeking to become Serbia’s prime minister after serving two near-full terms as president. He resigned the presidency last month to lead the campaign.

Support for the populist had eroded since 16 people were killed in 2024 when a concrete canopy collapsed at a train station in Novi Sad. That set off a wave of youth protests that blamed the collapse on high-level corruption, cronyism and rampant graft during renovation work at the station.

Despite the protests, Vucic retained considerable support among many of Serbia’s voters. Admirers viewed him as a capable leader who can steer the nation through global uncertainties – the image that was carefully crafted by the mainstream media.

While the increasingly authoritarian Vucic has routinely outplayed Serbia’s fractured opposition in the past, the leaderless youth movement proved to be a tough opponent that rattled his firm grip on power in Serbia like no one else in the 14 years since his party took office.

The newly formed Students’ List movement was shaped by university students, but none actually appeared on the election list. Instead, its candidates are little-known experts, athletes, farmers and artists.

This approach was meant to counter Vucic’s one-man rule and restore a sense of community and solidarity. The students’ message during the campaign focused on a non-partisan effort to rebuild Serbia’s economy and restore its democracy.

The students have used youthful energy to attract voters who are disillusioned with local politicians. Vilified by pro-government media, they cycled and walked through the country to reach voters in rural areas — Vucic’s traditional strongholds.

The student victory echoed the recent electoral defeat of a Vucic ally in Hungary, where youth participation helped oust the autocratic Viktor Orbán after 16 years and bring in a new pro-European government. It was likely to resonate beyond Serbia as countries across Europe have faced angry youth and student protests.

Monitors predicted that total turnout in the election could reach around 70%, unseen in Serbia since 2000. During the day, long queues formed at polling stations in Serbia and in cities around the world. Some in the Serbian diaspora were made to vote in the middle of the night after authorities tied voting hours to local Serbian time.

Recent Serbian elections had been marred by irregularities, and the EU was closely watching the conduct of Sunday’s vote in a candidate nation for the bloc’s membership.

Independent election monitors reported dozens of cases of irregularities on Sunday such as photographing of ballots that suggested pressure on voters and attempted vote buying.

Both international and local election monitors had expressed concern about the safety and fairness of an election campaign marked by detentions, near-total government control over the media and reports of surveillance and cyberattacks against activists.

Local elections earlier this year in 10 municipalities in Serbia saw violent attacks on journalists and activists. The previous parliamentary vote in 2023 was followed by opposition protests alleging fraud.

巴西总统选举 卢拉料逆转胜出连任

发布/2026年10月26日 07:31

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/151c2ffa996233eed2393f19c871c0436090f11c366a30180f77770a12c9cb29

当地时间10月25日，巴西里约热内卢，巴西总统、劳工党总统候选人卢拉的支持者在西内兰迪亚广场观看总统选举第二轮投票初步计票结果。 （路透社）

巴西总统选举第二轮投票星期天结束。民调机构AtlasIntel首席执行官罗曼根据持续进行的计票结果预测，现任总统卢拉将击败前总统博索纳罗之子弗拉维奥·博索纳罗，赢得连任。

罗曼（Andrei Roman）星期天（10月25日）向路透社作出上述判断。不过，巴西高等选举法院尚未正式宣布选举结果。

当天投票因全国多地公共交通停摆及强降雨而受到干扰。巴西联邦最高法院法官扎宁裁定，将全国仍开放的投票站截止时间从巴西利亚时间下午5时延长至晚上7时，以确保受影响选民能够投票。

不过，由于裁定公布时部分投票站已经关闭，当局规定已关闭的投票站不会重新开放。

卢拉竞选团队此前向高等选举法院申请延长投票时间，指出圣保罗、里约热内卢等至少九个州的选民因公共交通服务减少等问题，难以前往投票站。

弗拉维奥的竞选团队也要求在受停电及暴雨影响的地区延长投票时间。

在10月4日举行的首轮投票中，代表自由党的弗拉维奥获得约47%有效选票，以约两个百分点的优势领先劳工党候选人卢拉。若卢拉最终胜出，将扭转首轮落后的局面，赢得第四个总统任期。

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado makes surprise return home after nearly a year abroad

Machado reenters a political landscape transformed by US ouster of Nicolás Maduro

By Stephen Sorace | Fox News

Published October 25, 2026 1:47pm EDT

María Corina Machado warns Americans of the dangers of socialism

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado joins Rachel Campos-Duffy in Panama to warn Americans about the dangers of socialism ahead of the midterms. Machado shares a direct message to President Donald Trump, praising his leadership and stating that capturing Maduro would be his legacy. She also criticizes Delcy Rodriguez over the response to devastating earthquakes in Venezuela.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/dcfc42a8-cd9a-4c13-9310-ee8f3c4d2881

Listen to this article

3 min

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado made returned to her home country on Sunday after nearly a year abroad, re-entering a political landscape transformed by the U.S. ouster of Nicolás Maduro.

“I’m here. With you all,” Machado wrote on social media, announcing her return for the first time since December. Her homecoming comes as Venezuela remains under the leadership of acting President Delcy Rodríguez, a longtime Maduro ally backed by the Trump administration, with no presidential election scheduled.

President Donald Trump, asked about Machado’s return by reporters in Port Huron, Michigan, said he was unaware of the development but expressed hope for her safety.

[TRUMP TOUTS ACCESS TO 65 BILLION BARRELS OF VENEZUELAN OIL IN DEAL HE SAYS WILL SLASH GAS PRICES]

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/maria-corina-machado-venezuela-return-fox-news_.jpg

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado arrives at a church after returning to the country following nearly a year abroad, in Lara, Venezuela, Oct. 25, 2026.(Vente Venezuela Press/Handout via REUTERS)

“I don’t know anything about it, but I think she’s a very nice woman,” Trump said. “She gave me her Nobel Prize. So how can I say anything else? And I hope she’s safe. She’s a very nice woman. But we’re doing really well in Venezuela.”

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/trump-machado-nobel-1.jpg

Machado presented the Nobel Peace Prize she won to President Trump last week.(White House handout via Reuters)

Machado, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025 for her peaceful opposition to Maduro’s government, did not disclose her exact location or provide details about how she returned.

Fellow opposition leader Edmundo González, who ran for president in 2024 after Machado was barred from seeking office, confirmed her arrival on social media and said he would join her “very soon.”

“Today is a very important day for Venezuelans. Our sovereign voice returns with her to lead and guide this process!” González wrote on X. “You know it, this is until the end.”

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/maria-corina-machado-1.jpg

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado speaks during a news conference at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, on Jan. 16, 2026.(Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Machado’s return comes nearly 10 months after U.S. forces captured Maduro in January, removing the longtime leader from power.

Rodríguez, Maduro’s former vice president, has remained in power with the Trump administration’s support, despite exceeding the period she was initially authorized to serve as acting president.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/maria-corina-machado.jpg

Opposition leader Maria Corina Machado displays vote tally sheets during a protest against the reelection of President Nicolás Maduro one month after the disputed presidential vote which she says the opposition won by a landslide, in Caracas, Venezuela, Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2024.(Cristian Hernandez/AP Photo)

Trump has repeatedly praised his administration’s relationship with Rodríguez, highlighting agreements involving Venezuelan oil production and other business ventures with American companies.

[NICOLAS MADURO AND WIFE CILIA FLORES FACE NEW CHARGES OF CONSPIRACY TO TORTURE AMERICANS]

In September, Trump said it was too soon to consider holding democratic elections in Venezuela, with U.S. officials prioritizing economic stabilization. Machado and her allies, meanwhile, have pushed for an election date, arguing that democratic governance is essential to the country’s long-term stability.

Her return could complicate relations between the Venezuelan opposition, the interim government and Washington. Reuters reported in June that U.S. officials had asked Machado to delay her return.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/machado-nobel-prize.jpg

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado gestures at a protest ahead of the Friday inauguration of President Nicolas Maduro for his third term, in Caracas, Venezuela January 9, 2025.(REUTERS/Maxwell Briceno)

Machado spent much of 2025 in hiding after being briefly detained following an opposition protest that January. She later secretly left Venezuela and resurfaced in Norway in December to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

Meanwhile, a faction of the Venezuelan opposition and Rodríguez’s government held another round of talks this month focused on reforms to the country’s Supreme Court and electoral authorities ahead of eventual elections, Reuters reported.

[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP]

Machado’s political movement has not participated in those negotiations.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

MAPPED: The states Trump and top Democrats are targeting before Election Day

Both parties are deploying their biggest names to competitive Senate races in Ohio, Michigan and beyond

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/amanda_macias-amanda-macias.png By Amanda MaciasFox News

Published October 25, 2026 2:15pm EDT | Updated October 25, 2026 3:30pm EDT

The Texas voters who could help Talarico pull off a historic upset

Voters at the State Fair discuss whether Talarico can defeat Ken Paxton, turn Texas blue and end Democrats’ decadeslong statewide losing streak.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

https://www.foxnews.com/ca9a0694-1313-41be-b373-8516d7339791

Listen to this article

2 min

With just nine days until Election Day, both parties are making a final push to shape the fight for control of Congress.

President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance are rallying Republicans across the country, while former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Kamala Harris are campaigning for Democrats.

The map traces their campaign stops so far this month, with states visited by both sides shaded gray.

Made with Flourish•Create a chart

Trump’s stops span the country, from Texas and Oklahoma to Ohio, Georgia, Florida and Michigan. He said in early October he planned to hold five to seven rallies a week. This weekend, he campaigned in Florida on Friday, Georgia on Saturday and Michigan on Sunday.

HIGH PRICES PUT TRUMP’S ECONOMY IN THE SPOTLIGHT AS THE GOP FIGHTS TO HOLD CONGRESS

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/trump-raises-fist-arizona-midterm-rally.png

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for a campaign rally at Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport on October 14, 2026 in Bullhead City, Arizona.(Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The map includes both reliably Republican states and states with competitive races. Oklahoma and Alabama, for example, are deep-red states where rallies can help energize the GOP base.

Ohio, Texas and Iowa have competitive Senate contests; recent Cook Political Report polling showed Democratic candidates narrowly ahead in all three. Michigan is also a key Senate battleground.

REPUBLICANS JUST GOT A POWERFUL NEW PLAYBOOK FOR THE BATTLE FOR CONGRESS. HERE’S WHAT’S INSIDE.

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/capitol-dome-statue.png

The 2026 midterms will determine control of the House and Senate, shaping President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda during the final two years of his term.(Al Drago/Getty Images)

The stops by Obama and Harris show Democrats are also leaning on well-known figures in states with consequential races.

Obama campaigned in Ohio and Michigan, while Harris’s recent appearances included Nevada, Mississippi and New Hampshire.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The map tracks campaign travel, not a formal ranking of battlegrounds. However, it offers a snapshot of where the parties are trying to rally voters in the final stretch before Nov. 3.

Amanda Macias covers the intersection of business, economics and politics, with a focus on how policy decisions shape markets, businesses and American workers.

Transcript: Attorney General Todd Blanche on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” Oct. 25, 2026

October 25, 2026 12:06 PM EDT / CBS News

The following is the transcript of the interview with Attorney General Todd Blance that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Oct. 25, 2026.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And we begin with U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche. Good morning to you, sir.

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: Good morning.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So we’re nine days out. Your colleague Harmeet Dhillon, whose office would oversee election integrity cases, told my colleagues over at 60 Minutes that, quote, “absent some shocking contingency that’s unexpected, there should be no interruption in the usual course of counting and certifying the results in the states.” Do you share that view?

AG BLANCHE: Well, yes, of course. Absent- absent some facts that require us to do otherwise, there’s President Trump, the Department of Justice- we don’t want to have to get a law involved in elections, of course not. But that doesn’t mean that at times any Justice Department doesn’t do that and shouldn’t do that if the facts and the law require it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it seems you already are taking action up in Alaska. Just for our audience to understand, there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot there. There’s the incumbent senator, a Republican, Dan S. Sullivan, and then there’s a challenger there, Dan J. Sullivan. The Justice Department is suing Alaska preemptively to block the certification of the results if Senator Sullivan loses. Now, President Trump was asked about this lawsuit. He said quote, “I’m the one that said do it.” Who did he tell to do this? Did he tell you to do this?

AG BLANCHE: Well, first of all, let me correct you, okay. You describe facts that were just simply either at best misleading, but really a lie to your viewers. It is not two Dan Sullivans, one an incumbent and one running. That’s not true. The head of the Alaska Election Commission, not- not President Trump, not me, has said that the second Dan Sullivan is running solely to confuse voters, solely to pull votes away from the incumbent senator. Okay, so that is something that we’re dealing with. It’s not just two Dan Sullivans running on the ballot in Alaska. That is not true. And second, President Trump has been talking about what a travesty this is for many, many, many months, and the Department of Justice has been looking at it for many, many, many months, as we should under federal law. And you saw what we did earlier this week- late last week. And it was not- it’s not to let the federal government take over the Alaska system of selecting their next senator or certifying who’s going to be senator. It’s asking the court to step in where the Alaska Supreme Court didn’t, which is to look at federal law, and if necessary, to allow a process for Alaska to decide who should be who should be certified as a winner.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Alaska Supreme Court did uphold lower court’s ruling on this matter. They found the assertion that Mr. Sullivan seeks to confuse or misguide voters is not supported by preponderance of evidence. The Alaska Supreme Court did take on this matter. I also want to show our viewers what the ballot will look like. We have a picture of it.

AG BLANCHE: No, they didn’t. That’s the state law. That’s the state law.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Just to make clear here–

AG BLANCHE: That’s the state law.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –this is how the state- in this country, the states administer the elections- this is how the state came up with the issue and how to handle any confusion. Our viewers are seeing it right now. It’s ranked choice voting.

AG BLANCHE: I mean, you’re not- you’re not telling the truth. You’re not being honest with the voters.

MARGARET BRENNAN: They can see that Dan- I’m showing the ballot to the viewers right now.

AG BLANCHE: You’re not.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s on the screen. It says Dan S. Sullivan is listed as the incumbent. Why is that- it says incumbent. Why is that not sufficient?

AG BLANCHE: Well, listen. I don’t know if it’s sufficient, but I can tell you this: that the director of the Alaska election system has said that it will likely cause confusion, and so, you know, that- you- you can continue to talk and continue to state facts as you want them to be, but that’s different than the way that they actually are. The Alaska Supreme Court did not rule on the federal law that’s implicated in every election, and it is true that it is not often that we have to get involved. But just take a step back. Take a step back and understand what’s happening here. There is no dispute that the only reason the second Dan Sullivan is running is to pull votes away in a confusing and inappropriate manner from the Dan Sullivan incumbent. Okay? And the Alaska Supreme Court, when they issued a ruling, they didn’t issue a decision yet. We’re waiting for that decision to be- to- the opinion to be issued, but in the meantime, all that we are trying to do as the Department of Justice is make sure that federal law–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

AG BLANCHE: –is enforced and upheld if it needs to happen after the election.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the ballots are out. There’s a lot of mail-in ballot voting in Alaska. The ballot’s going to look like what we just showed our viewers. They are both on there. In terms of the question I asked you, I asked if it was President Trump who told you to take this action. When the president said, “I’m the one that said do it,” who did he tell to do it?

AG BLANCHE: So I don’t- I will never, ever, ever talk about communications that I have with the president of the United States. I never have, and I never will.

MARGARET BRENNAN: No, the president of the United States said this on camera.

AG BLANCHE: But make sure that you understand that this was not the–

MARGARET BRENNAN: He said, “I told them to do it.” Did he tell that to you?

AG BLANCHE: No, that wasn’t your question. No, no, he didn’t say it on camera.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, he did.

AG BLANCHE: He said he told them to do that. I said I will not talk ever about- no, that wasn’t your question, I said. I said, what your question was to me is, did he tell me? And I said to you, I will not talk about communications I have with the president of the United States. I haven’t ever, and I won’t ever. But I will tell you this: this is the Department of Justice doing our own research under the law, the Civil Rights Unit in the Department of Justice drafting this lawsuit, and then ultimately we filed the lawsuit. President Trump has been talking about this for months and months and months and months.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

AG BLANCHE: This isn’t something new that just came up last week. This is something that’s been going on for a long time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why did he file it 11 days before the election?

AG BLANCHE: Well, we were hopeful that- that the Supreme Court would actually issue an opinion and explain their reasoning. What we knew from their ruling is that they didn’t consider federal law. I’m not judging them for that; it’s just a fact. They didn’t consider federal law, so we want a procedure in place that if there is litigation, there may not be, but if there is litigation brought by others after the election because of possible voter confusion, that the ballots are kept in a way that the Alaska state- that the Alaska state election system can determine who the accurate winner is, not the federal government, not President Trump, not me, but the Alaska system as the law is required- as the law is set out for it to do.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So the DOJ lawsuit says the defendants, who are the state election board and the ballot counting review board, quote, “not certify any election result that may be impacted by voter confusion.” The confusion is defined as Senator Sullivan not winning, and had all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast as said for Senator Sullivan, then he would have won. How do you–

AG BLANCHE: –That’s not what it says, okay.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m quoting from it.

AG BLANCHE: What it says is the way- the way that you can determine–

MARGARET BRENNAN: You are telling them not to certify it.

AG BLANCHE: No, no, but the way you- you started that–

MARGARET BRENNAN: What right does the federal government have–

AG BLANCHE: No, no we’re not saying- no we’re saying–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –telling a state not to certify or how to certify?

AG BLANCHE: We are not- we are- you know, if you talk the whole time, you’re not going to get answers out of me. But if you let me answer your question, I can address your question. Okay, so the- exactly what we want is that there are ways- because of the way that Alaska ballots are set up, where voters can vote for more than one candidate– there is a way, potentially- we don’t know what’s going to happen yet- where it will be obvious from the results and from the ballots that voters were confused, and that could be obvious from the way that they rank the Dan Sullivans or not including a Dan Sullivan on the ballot. I don’t know yet because there hasn’t been an election. But all we are doing is trying to put guardrails in place so that if that- this- that happens, there’s a system allowed where the ballots are kept in a way so that we can determine whether there was confusion. It’s not saying don’t certify. It’s saying if a court ultimately determines that it was decided because of confusion and not the will of the voters, then we do not think the states should certify, and that’s consistent with federal law and consistent with even Alaskan law, if that happens.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve been clear in saying you won’t talk about your conversations with the president. Who was he referring to when he said, “I’m the one that said do it”?

AG BLANCHE: I have no idea who he was referring to and even if I did have an idea, I would most certainly not talk about it. He’s not- what- what the president is saying, and what he clearly has said for the past four months, five months, is that this is a travesty, and this- in this country we should not have a system of elections where it’s okay for somebody who is only running with the same name to pull votes away.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

AG BLANCHE: And by the way, how about we talk about that? I mean, do you disagree with that? Do you think that that’s okay? You think that should be allowed in- in our system of government? Someone that the- the head of the Alaskan system of voters has said that there is no scenario under which she can certify that voters will not be confused, and she lists a number of reasons why–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

AG BLANCHE: –that wasn’t President Trump and that wasn’t me. And the fact that the conversation is about this lawsuit we filed, and not the fact that there’s a person running for Senate in the United States, in Alaska that- that the head of the elections has said is- is only running to to confuse voters. That should be the conversation, and it’s not, and that’s- that’s unfortunate. But we’re going to make it–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

AG BLANCHE: –the conversation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Supreme Court also talked about the fact that the good faith requirement does not appear in the Constitution, so whether it was intended to be confusing or not, they sort of put that aside. Anyway–

AG BLANCHE: Right, correct, and so- and that’s that. You know, you’re totally- you’re totally right about that. But that’s where they did not consider federal law. You’re- you’re right that what the Alaska Supreme Court said is even if it’s bad faith–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

AG BLANCHE: –our laws in Alaska, for reasons that, you know, that- not up to them, don’t- don’t address that. But that’s different than federal law, which is why we brought a federal lawsuit.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about other federal actions. CBS is reporting that DOJ is looking into allegations that Corey Lewandowski, the former advisor to then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, used his position for financial gain. President Trump said this.

[START SOUND ON TAPE]

PRESIDENT TRUMP: All I know is I want my people to be honest, and if they’re not going to be honest, they have to be prosecuted. I don’t know about specifically, but- because I view if people are not honest, they’re stealing from me as president. They’re stealing from me, so I want my people to be honest, and if they’re not honest, I’ll have my DOJ go and do whatever they have to do.

[END SOUND ON TAPE]

MARGARET BRENNAN: Have you briefed the president on any part of this investigation? Are you willing to go after corruption within the administration?

AG BLANCHE: Your source for that- I don’t know what it is, it’s CBS’s reporting. I don’t. I will not comment on leaks and sources. I very much agree with every word the president just said. And- but beyond that, I’m not commenting on some leak that several news outlets supposedly got last week about- about the former employee at DHS and whether I would quote “go after people in the administration,” I agree with the president. Everybody in this administration, in any administration, should operate with integrity and honesty, and- and- and do the right thing. And if they don’t, yes, of course, the Department of Justice will investigate.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Well, to that point, Democrats, if they do win in November, are talking about- when they are in control- investigating Trump officials. Vice President Vance was asked by my colleague Tony Dokoupil the other day about this scenario, and told him he will, “of course,” abide by any congressional subpoenas he receives. It is the Justice Department that ultimately would decide whether to charge someone for defying a congressional subpoena. Would you, as AG, charge Trump officials for not adhering to them?

AG BLANCHE: Wait. So you just say the vice president says, “Of course, we’re going to comply with the subpoena,” and then ask me if I was if I’m going to prosecute–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

AG BLANCHE: –somebody who doesn’t. I have no idea what the facts are around that. I have no idea. I mean, you’re talking about hypothetical after hypothetical. If a crime has been committed, yes, of course we will investigate it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The vice president answered the question and said he would. But- but for- for those who defy congressional subpoenas, should the Democrats go ahead with some of these investigations?

AG BLANCHE: Who’s the “those?” Who’s defying a subpoena? Who’s defying a subpoena?

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m saying, would you be open to it?

AG BLANCHE: I mean, you’re literally making things up to try to get an answer out of me. Who?

MARGARET BRENNAN: The vice president was very clear in his remarks.

AG BLANCHE: To who?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you like to be as clear as the vice president was?

AG BLANCHE: Yes, of course. Of course, we comply with subpoenas. That we will comply with subpoenas as we always have, of course. Yes. Is there any subpoena you can identify in this administration that we haven’t complied with? Has there been any allegation or any contempt of Congress finding? No, no of course not. So, I very much agree with the vice president, and we’re not here to not defy subpoenas. Of course, we comply with subpoenas.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Attorney General Todd Blanche, thank you for your time today. Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us.

Transcript: Rep. Jason Crow on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” Oct. 25, 2026

October 25, 2026 / 12:30 PM EDT / CBS News

The following is the transcript of the interview with Rep. Jason Crow, Democrat of Colorado, that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Oct. 25, 2026.

*

MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado, who is in Denver this morning. Congressman, our CBS polling shows Democrats are on pace to have a narrow majority of about 11 seats and that for most voters who are backing Democrats, they tell us their motivation is more about stopping Trump and GOP policies than advancing other policies. Is that how you think your party will govern the House in opposition?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CROW: You know- you know politics is really interesting. There’s a lot of weird things about politics in this job. But one of the weird things is when, you know, the political class comes out with polling and they’re like, “Hey, Americans want to be able to pay their bills and afford health care and afford housing and- and groceries.” I mean, that- that’s just it always has been true, always will be true. It always will be the primary thing people are concerned about. It’s actually what we’re running on. As the battleground chair for House Democrats, I have recruited and mentored this battlefield of candidates. It’s what they’re running on, it’s what we’re going to win on, and it’s what we’re going to address when we get into power in January.

MARGARET BRENNNAN: Well, I take your point on polling, but at the same time, our poll shows 57% of voters don’t think Democrats have a clear plan to do all the things that you just laid out. In Ohio yesterday, former President Barack Obama put the challenge this way. Take a listen.

[START SOUND ON TAPE]

FORMER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We can’t just be against something. We got to be for something. We got to start showing what a future on the other side of this administration can look like.

[END SOUND ON TAPE]

MARGARET BRENNAN: Excuse me that was Michigan, not Ohio. But the point he’s diagnosing there or the issue he’s diagnosing there you would acknowledge, and how, if you do in the House, how do you move any of the affordability platforms if Republicans control the Senate?

REP. CROW: Yeah, absolutely. And here’s the honest- here’s the honest truth: we’re running against Donald Trump, we’re running against MAGA extremism, we’re running against corruption, but we are also running against our own history to some degree, right? It is true. I mean, I couldn’t sit here in front of you and tell you otherwise. It is true that we have not addressed the issues that we needed to address in years past and in cycles past, and that’s why we’ve lost, right? We’ve lost 90% of U.S. counties in fall of 2024. That is not a governing coalition. And we have to prove otherwise. We have to go to Americans, we have to go to working class and rural folks in particular, who haven’t voted for us in cycles and said, hey, we have learned our lesson. We get it. We’re going to be relentless about addressing your issues, rebuilding America’s middle class. That is our charge and our responsibility, and it’s our candidates that I am working with who are going to come in and they’re going to lead that charge for us, and that’s how we’re going to have to govern.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I know you have also spoken about the possibility of investigating corruption should Democrats win. Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan recently spoke out at the University of Chicago. She spoke about investigations Democrats will conduct. And then she said this.

[START SOUND ON TAPE]

SENATOR ELISSA SLOTKIN: I want young people coming out of school to say, should I go work for the Trump administration? Like that sounds fun. I might get an opportunity. I want them to be like, Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want. And so let me avoid participating in that. I want that deterrence message sent.

[END SOUND ON TAPE]

MARGARET BRENNAN: So that remark was interpreted by many conservatives as a threat of persecution, if not prosecution. What do you make of what she was laying out?

REP. CROW: Well, I didn’t hear the full conversation, and I- I can tell you I’m very close friends with Elissa Slotkin. She’s a patriot. She’s a public servant. She has spent most of her life in national security, working for both Republicans and Democrats. So there’s just no question in my mind that she is pro public servant and pro public service, right, so I think the- the key here is is we don’t want people to want to go to work for a corrupt administration to try to line their pockets, like that is not servant leadership. If the message is being sent from Donald Trump is, hey, come to work for me and you’ll get a lot out of it and you’ll get rich doing it. That’s actually not public servants. That- that- that is the- that is antithetical to what Elissa and I- when we served in the national security infrastructure and we served in the military, in my case, that is- that is the exact opposite of what public service should be about, that- that is the message, right? What we want is a next generation of leadership to step up, young folks who are going to lead the way and help us build something new. You know, we are not going back. We’re not going to just rebuild what once was, and we’re not going to try to rebuild a system that actually didn’t deliver for most Americans. We’re building something new, that is America 2.0, the start up. And we need young folks across this country, particularly in the middle of the country, the heartland, to step up and to serve.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about national security issues. The Director of National Intelligence, Jay Clayton, reported the U.S. received intelligence that Iran has substantially increased efforts to target U.S. personnel. Lethal plotting efforts was how he put it in a memo by the Iranians against U.S. citizens have reached advanced stages in the Middle East and other countries. You sit on the Intelligence Committee. We know that the U.S. has drawn down from some military bases, some diplomatic posts. What, if anything, can you tell us about this plot?

REP. JASON CROW: Well, Iran remains a danger. Pete Hegseth remains incompetent and is not doing what’s necessary to protect our service members, which is why he’s my priority number one if we retake the majority, to make sure we oust him from the Pentagon, because our service members actually deserve competent, serious, real leadership that will protect them and do the right thing. And they currently don’t have that. But what’s more is you know who is the primary supporter of Iran, who is providing intelligence and helping supply and provide targeting to Iran to kill Americans? Vladimir Putin and Russia. So, how about we talk about the fact that in the last two weeks you had Steve Witkoff go and sit across from Vladimir Putin and call him a humanitarian, and Donald Trump lifted and eased sanctions to provide tens of billions of dollars to the Russian war machine to try to kill Americans.That is- that is just beyond the pale, and- and Donald Trump needs to stop because he is putting our service members at risk, and Americans should be just beside themselves with this administration is doing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You talk about what has happened in the past few weeks with Russia and Ukraine policy. As of yesterday, Ukraine said that SpaceX satellite services have been fully restored as of yesterday. Elon Musk owns that entity. Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut has said the events with this disruption, which has impacted the battlefield show how a single point of control can be turned against the forces that depend on it, degrading service, disabled missions across a military theater. He wants to know who possesses the authority to alter these capabilities and safeguards. Is it truly the case that one man and his whim, an unelected official, can have such unilateral influence over our national security policy?

REP. JASON CROW: Yeah, it appears to be the case, and it’s beyond disturbing to me, which is why I also wrote a letter directly to President Trump, along with Adam Smith of the Armed Services Committee and Jim Himes of the Intelligence Committee, both of my colleagues on those committees, senior members, saying we- we deserve answers. You know, it cannot and should not be the case that a tech oligarch, a private citizen, who has that much control over our national security, who is unaccountable, who is unelected, with zero transparency, is making life and death decisions on the battlefield in systems that our service members and our partners and allies rely upon. It should not be the case. And under this administration, they are allowing it to happen. And we’re going to try to stop it because Americans deserve accountability and they deserve leadership.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, we got to leave it there, Congressman Crow. Thank you for your time. More Face the Nation in a moment.

Transcript: Sen. Thom Tillis on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” Oct. 25, 2026

October 25, 2026 / 1:07 PM EDT / CBS News

The following is the transcript of the interview with Sen. Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, that aired on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Oct. 25, 2026.

*

MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to North Carolina Republican Senator Tom Tillis, who joins us from Charlotte this morning. Good morning to you, sir.

SENATOR THOM TILLIS: Good morning.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you to be a bit of a pundit before we get into some policy. CBS polling shows voters see corruption as a major factor, 83% see it as a concern in determining their vote, and they see it as more of an issue with Republicans. How does your party overcome this perception?

SEN. TILLIS: Well, I think a part of what we have to do is be open about what we’ve done right and where we’ve kind of skated into the gray area. I’ll give you a good example of why I think maybe people feel that way. You can’t have an oligarch pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for the president’s son’s wedding and not make it look odd, particularly when that oligarch is aligned with Putin and has gone on delegations with Putin to Beijing. That’s just one example. What we need to do is learn the rule of figure out where the line is and take a step back, or American people are already predisposed to assume Democrats and Republicans are corrupt. We’re just feeding that narrative when we let things like that happen, whether it’s legal or not. It’s irrelevant.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah. Well, it seems Democrats may be carrying out some scrutiny if they do win the majority. You will not be in the Senate at that time. You’re retiring. And you were deeply frustrated by Republicans when they passed this tax and spending bill on a party-line vote that included cuts to Medicaid, and will deeply affect rural hospitals. In your state, more than 25 percent of people rely on Medicaid. I know North Carolina is trying to patch things up here to plan ahead. Do you still expect devastating health care cuts in the new year?

SEN. TILLIS: We’re going to have significant headwinds. It’s really a 10-year impact if you take a look at the original bill. And by the way, I supported the tax provisions of the bill, it was the health care provisions beyond what the House has proposed that are problematic, and it’s going to take time. What I was trying to do was not necessarily get rid of the cuts, but try to affect their timing. I think they’re coming too soon, and I have a lot of experience with the state budget here in North Carolina, understanding Medicaid. I believe it’s going to be very, very challenging, and we’re going to have to get it- we’ve got our work cut out for us because some of those impacts could also feed right into the 2029 election.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So healthcare will be a big factor in that election, is your prediction? It sounds like. I want to ask you–

SEN. TILLIS: — Absolutely–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –a bit about what I engaged with the attorney general on. In- in recent weeks, the Justice Department has filed this case up in Alaska to preemptively challenge the outcome there. Out in California, DOJ also told election officials they’ll risk “legal consequences” if they continue to send vote-by-mail ballots to a list of voters they say are not confirmed citizens. And then there was, of course, this action taken against Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, though she has not been charged with a crime. Do you see a pattern here, and are you comfortable with these actions this close to an election?

SEN. TILLIS: Well, I think we have to be careful. First, you got to take them separately. California has been guilty of ballot harvesting. They have a policy to do it. They have a system there that is ripe for abuse and they need to be looked at. Alaska has a candidate who just coincidentally happens to be the same name as my friend and colleague who came in with me in 2014, and they also have ranked choice voting. So I think it’s appropriate to take a look at it. I’m not sure why they thought they had to file a lawsuit, other than as Todd said earlier, make sure that you have the ballots right, so we can be certain that the Democrats were not successful in confusing candidates to vote for someone else to better position Peltola for- for being the winner. And with respect to Omar, I’ve got to look at the details there, but I found it very concerning. You know, as a member of Congress, you better have a very, very high bar to issue a subpoena and- and a search warrant, and the- the facts better be there. Otherwise, the DOJ needs to be held accountable. It’s that simple. I’d say the same thing if it was a- and I have in the past in a Biden administration where I felt like they were moving a little bit out ahead of their skis, they better have the facts to substantiate their action.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I guess that gets to the timing of it all because the action itself draws attention and scrutiny whether or not the cases actually have legs to them. But up in Alaska, your Republican colleague Lisa Murkowski, the other Republican senator said the DOJ should never have filed the lawsuit. She said when it came to the ballot, Alaskans don’t need help picking a preferred candidate. The state already handled this by distinguishing the candidates on the ballot, and the Department of Justice should never have filed the lawsuit. You sit on Judiciary. I mean, what are the consequences? Will there be any?

SEN. TILLIS: Well, there are very few people that know Alaska better than Lisa. To be honest with you, Lisa Murkowski is a friend and an extraordinary member of the U.S. Senate. I agree that- I think the lawsuit- I mean, filing a lawsuit before anything that could be substantiated that’s a legal question–

(CROSSTALK)

MARGARET BRENNAN: –Even before the–

SEN. TILLIS: –is suspicious to me–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –election is held.

(END CROSSTALK)

SEN. TILLIS: –I’m on judiciary, but I’m not an attorney- Yeah, that’s what I mean. It’s almost a preemptive, a presumptive posture versus simply telling the Alaska election officials we’re going to be watching this closely because clearly Democrats game the system by having a Dan Sullivan on the ballot. Either the Democrat Party, there’s some evidence to suggest that Chuck Schumer may have even been involved. So I don’t mind looking at it, but I do mind the- the appearance of filing a lawsuit before we even know if the facts that would substantiate a lawsuit actually occur.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that Dan- other Dan Sullivan claims he’s he’s not a Democrat, but there has been reporting that a Democratic strategist may have helped him along the way, but that is something that–

SEN. TILLIS: –It’s a strange coincidence. We can all admit that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: No doubt, no doubt. But the state has handled it, and clearly the senator thinks handled it well. I want to get back to Vladimir Putin because you have been very vocal in recent days about your concern here with President Trump and his actions. Just yesterday, Elon Musk said the SpaceX satellite services have been restored, and Senator Cramer of North Dakota, who was on this program last week, told us though he is concerned one person or one company just has too much control over America’s ability to protect the domain of space. You know, people might be confused over which service was switched on and off and to what degree, but the bigger picture issue here that your Republican colleagues seem concerned about is just how much control Elon Musk has over defense. Do you share that concern?

SEN. TILLIS: Yeah, I do, and I have a concern with the whole narrative that played out. Elon Musk, I was trying to put pressure on everyone to own responsibility for this. Elon Musk originally said he didn’t do it. Then we start focusing on the administration, and now we hear Elon says that he did, and- and also to the American people, many members of Congress, this distinction between Starlink and Starshield. Are you telling me- and I agree with Kevin Cramer; he’s a great senator also. Are you telling me that we don’t know something as important as- as a tool that’s being used by our Western nations is subject to the whims of one CEO, and that there’s some other the- star defense is that controlled by him, controlled by somebody in DoD? We need answers to this question, and I’m not satisfied. I’m glad that the capabilities back up. Shame on whoever is responsible for it ever having elapsed. People died in that intervening time. But what I want to know more importantly is what, to what extent, is the Department of Defense and- and the U.S. government involved in this? I get it’s a private company, but they’re playing into military space, geopolitical space. That there’s got to be some guardrails- guardrails and accountability, in my opinion.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I know you helped organize a call with Senator Blumenthal and President Zelensky this past week to try to get some clarity around this. From what you know, are all of the arrangements to expand access to let Ukraine target inside of Russia is all of that on hold right now?

SEN. TILLIS: You know the best we can tell you when we’re thankful for doing nothing more than reestablishing the current capabilities, I am concerned that we’re not expanding it. Look, there is a bad guy and there is a- a good country in the mix here. The bad guy is Vladimir Putin. The good country is Ukraine. We like the other Western European nations, need to support them, expand capabilities, and defeat Putin. Putin is no friend. There is no such thing as a win-win when you’re dealing with a despot, a totalitarian in the Western world. So we- we need to plus up that capability, not simply be thankful for getting something back that was working fine two weeks ago, was working okay when I was in Ukraine just a month ago.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So in the back and forth over exactly what was turned off and why Russia was able to hit inside of Ukraine so much over the past 10 days, it came to light that there were also failures of the early warning system. Two, if not three, the BC-3 systems did not detect incoming Russian ballistic missiles into Ukraine. Secretary Rubio was asked about this, and he talked about technical issues. That sounds deeply concerning. I mean, does this mean that Russia can subvert American early warning systems, or are we misunderstanding that?

SEN. TILLIS: I think that’s a legitimate question. That’s why I think this whole timeline needs to be examined, probably in a- in a secured setting, not necessarily in a public hearing. But we need to go through that entire timeline and say, seriously, guys, we’re that vulnerable. I don’t think we are, and so I’m beginning to think that maybe we’re finessing around the reality that somebody needs to own the lapse in service, and it became- it came at the same time the Starlink or Star-StarShield capabilities went down. Let’s just map this out, folks. I don’t mind the American people. Don’t mind people making mistakes or maybe having a policy that they decide they got to- they’ve got to reverse. But this sort of “who’s on first” game being played with who actually called this, who’s responsible for it’s unacceptable. We’re the greatest natio-We’re an exceptional nation, greatest nation on earth. This is a simple question. We should have simple answers for it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we will continue to try to get answers, sir. Thank you, Senator, for your time today.

SEN. TILLIS: Thank you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And we will be right back.

Trump immigration win could strengthen admin’s hand in looming Supreme Court fight

Conservative legal experts say the ruling could strengthen the government’s hand in the Supreme Court’s Rhoney case

By Elaine Mallon | Fox News

Published October 25, 2026 12:00pm EDT

A $95K plane, banned rifles and ‘climate lawfare’: the high-stakes battles set to shake the Supreme Court

Supreme Court justices will begin hearing oral arguments Monday on a wide range of cases this term involving gun rights, religious freedom, immigration detention and the limits of government power.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Trump administration scored a major full-panel victory at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Friday, which ruled that detained illegal immigrants who were never formally admitted into the U. S. are not constitutionally entitled to bond hearings while awaiting deportation.

The ruling comes as the Supreme Court prepares to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha this term, a closely related fight over whether the federal mandatory-detention statute applies at all to longtime immigrants arrested inside the country — setting up the possibility that the justices could either undercut Friday’s ruling or strengthen the government’s hand.

The Fifth Circuit answered the constitutional question in Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez v. Sylvester M. Ortega, finding that three immigrant men detained under the mandatory-detention statute are not entitled to bond hearings under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court held that their years or even decades of residence in the United States, along with ties to the country and their communities, do not create a constitutional right to a bond hearing.

“The Constitution does not entitle them to a bond hearing,” the court wrote.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT COMPARES TRUMP MIGRANT DETENTION POLICY TO JAPANESE AMERICAN INTERNMENT

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/homeland-ero-agent.jpg

Dozens of immigrants are detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents inside the Federal Plaza courthouse in New York City on Thursday, June 26, 2025, following their legal proceedings.(Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will consider Rhoney, a case out of the Second Circuit, to determine whether the mandatory-detention law applies to longtime immigrants arrested inside the country in the first place.

At the center of the issue is a 9-2 circuit split over which federal detention law applies to immigrants who entered the country illegally, were never formally admitted and were later arrested by immigration authorities after living in the U.S. for years — sometimes decades after crossing the border.

The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have held that those immigrants remain “applicants for admission” under Section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, subjecting them to mandatory detention without an ordinary bond hearing while their removal proceedings play out. Nine other federal appeals courts have ruled that Section 1226 applies instead, which provides a path for them to seek release on bond.

The Supreme Court will essentially decide whether immigrants who entered illegally and have lived in the U.S. for years can be subjected to the same mandatory-detention provision that applies to certain immigrants seeking admission into the country.

If the Supreme Court sides with the Second Circuit, Barbosa da Cunha — a Brazilian national who entered the country illegally roughly two decades ago and was detained in 2025 — would have a path to seek release on bond. Such a ruling would likely apply to the three longtime immigrants at the center of Rodriguez as well, substantially undercutting the significance of Friday’s ruling by eliminating the need to answer the constitutional question of whether due process requires a bond hearing.

SUPREME COURT TAKES UP FIGHT OVER TRUMP’S THIRD-COUNTRY ILLEGAL ALIEN DEPORTATION POLICY

The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025.(Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Judge Leslie Southwick pointed directly to the looming Supreme Court fight in her dissent.

Should the Supreme Court eventually determine that this court was wrong as to the statute, then the constitutional issue we address here will have far less significance. It certainly has significance at the moment,” Southwick wrote.

But conservative legal experts say Rodriguez could also strengthen the administration’s hand in Rhoney by undercutting one argument against the government’s interpretation of Section 1225: that applying the mandatory-detention provision to longtime residents would raise serious constitutional concerns.

Michael Morley, a constitutional law professor at Florida State University, said Friday’s ruling could influence how the justices approach that question because courts often consider whether a particular reading of federal law would create constitutional problems.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP DEPORTATION AGENDA

https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/california-bill-bans-police-face-masks-fox-news-001.png

U.S. federal agents working for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detain immigrants and asylum seekers reporting for immigration court proceedings at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building’s U.S. Immigration Court in New York, New York, Thursday, July 24, 2025.(Getty Images)

“The Fifth Circuit’s en banc ruling in Rodriguez today takes the next step by holding that such detention would not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause,” Morley said. “This holding may impact the Supreme Court’s reasoning, because an important consideration in disputes over federal laws is whether a particular interpretation would be unconstitutional.”

“If the Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit’s analysis that the Due Process Clause allows such detention, it may be more likely to conclude that federal law permits it, as well, Morley continued.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, argued that the decision could bolster the administration as the justices prepare to resolve the circuit split.

“I actually think this ruling will help the government in the Rhoney case,” von Spakovsky said, pointing to the Fifth Circuit’s position that the applicable immigration statute does not require bond hearings for immigrants who were never admitted to the United States.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

“There was already a split in the circuit courts on this issue but the Fifth Circuit has consistently held that the applicable immigration statute does not require bond hearings for aliens who were never admitted to the United States,” he said. “I will be surprised if a majority of the Supreme Court disagrees when they ultimately issue a decision in the Rhoney case.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in Rhoney, which it agreed to hear earlier this month.

Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6406214635112

Alaska Senate candidate Mary Peltola sustains “minor injuries” in car accident, reschedules campaign events

October 25, 2026 / 1:32 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — Alaska Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola sustained “minor injuries” in a car accident, her campaign said Sunday.

“Mary and her family sustained minor injuries but are in good spirits,” Peltola’s campaign manager, Cheryl Bruce, said in a statement.

Peltola and her family were on their way to the Alaska Federation of Natives Annual Banquet when the vehicle transporting them was struck by another driver, her campaign said, causing injuries that required medical attention.

Bruce said at the advice of medical professionals, Peltola was rescheduling campaign events “as she takes time to recover.”

“Mary is disappointed that the accident is delaying the start of her Alaska Always Tour, and she is eager to get back on the campaign trail to speak directly with Alaskans about her plan to take on the rigged system and lower costs for working families,” Bruce said.

Peltola’s events on Sunday and Monday would be rescheduled in the coming days, the campaign said.

Peltola, 53, is vying to unseat GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan to become the first Democrat elected to the Senate since 2008, four years after she became the first Democrat to represent the state in the House in 50 years . She was the top vote-getter in the August top-four primary, setting up the general election contest against Sullivan and two other candidates under Alaska’s ranked-choice election system.