Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in a Supreme Court order handed down on Tuesday stood out enough that it prompted one of her liberal colleagues to voice disagreement with her.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said in a brief concurrence that the high court’s 8-1 order clearing the way for President Donald Trump to continue downsizing the government was the right decision.

‘I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,’ Sotomayor wrote. ‘Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much.’

Sotomayor’s remarks were included as part of a short two-page order from the Supreme Court saying the executive order Trump signed in February directing federal agencies to plan for ‘large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law’ was likely lawful.

The Supreme Court said it had no opinion at this stage on the legality of any actual job cuts and that that question was not before the high court.

But Jackson felt differently, according to her 15-page dissent affixed to the order.

Jackson, the most junior justice and an appointee of former President Joe Biden, said a lower court judge was right to pause any further reductions to the federal workforce. Jackson lectured her colleagues for thinking otherwise.

‘That temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,’ Jackson said.

Any future government downsizing would come on top of thousands of government employees already losing their jobs or opting to accept buy-out plans as part of Trump’s stated goals to scale down the federal government and make it run more efficiently.

The Supreme Court’s order arose from a lawsuit brought by labor organizations and nonprofits, who alleged that the president’s decision to dramatically slash the federal workforce infringed on Congress’s authority over approving and funding government jobs.

The order was issued on an emergency basis and is only temporary. It will remain in place while the Trump administration appeals the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

A new book on the end of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign and the birth of Kamala Harris’ sheds light on the process behind the vice president choosing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, a decision widely panned by pundits in retrospect. 

‘2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America,’ released Tuesday by journalists Josh Dawsey of The Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of The New York Times and Isaac Arnsdor of The Washington Post, described a vetting process that came down to three finalists: Walz, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly.

All three candidates did a final interview with Harris at her residence, the book explains, adding that when asked what they wanted to drink, Shapiro and Kelly chose water while Walz chose Diet Mountain Dew.

Appeal with rural voters was a top priority for the Harris ticket and the book states that Harris’s advisors felt that Walz was the best candidate to do that. 

‘Pelosi privately pushed for him too, because she’d worked with him in Congress,’ the book said about the former House speaker. ‘The pitch for Walz was straightforward: He could appeal to white voters across the Blue Wall states (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) and hopefully help Harris with male voters. He’d never lost election.’

While most political experts felt Shapiro, governor of a key swing state, was the most logical choice, the book states that the interview with Harris and Shapiro ‘revealed the two were not a perfect match.’

‘He came across as overly ambitious, pushing Harris to define what his role would be. He also conceded it would not be natural for him to serve as someone’s number two, leaving Harris with a bad impression,’ the book states. 

Conversely, the authors explain that Walz was ‘deferential’ while ‘showing no interest in himself’ and ‘flatly denied any interest in running for president.’

‘He went so far as to proactively volunteer reasons why she might not want to pick him,’ the book says. ‘In his interview that Friday, he said he had never used a teleprompter before. On Sunday, he told Harris, ‘I would understand if you went with someone else because I’m really nervous about the debate, and I don’t think I’ll do well.’ Still, the vetting team did not fully appreciate his tendency to misspeak, his folksiness sometimes tipping into factual imprecision.’

Walz would ultimately draw intense scrutiny on the campaign trail for his ‘folksiness’ with a series of blunders, including his characterization of his military service and a claim he was present at the Tiananmen Square massacre. 

The book says Harris ‘struggled’ deciding between Shapiro and Walz, believing that she had a better ‘rapport’ with Walz but understood the importance of Pennsylvania. Harris’ team, according to the book, told her that polling did not offer a clear answer as to which of the two candidates would help the ticket more.

‘There was no empirical evidence that Shapiro would deliver Pennsylvania and with it the White House,’ the book said. 

As Shapiro was being considered, many pundits speculated that his staunch support of Israel could be an issue given the progressive wing of the Democratic Party being vocally pro-Palestinian, resulting in protests, sometimes violent, across the country after Oct. 7.

The book said the Harris campaign was aware of that issue. 

‘Much of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party declared war on Shapiro, largely because of his support of Israel,’ the book said. ‘Some Shapiro allies saw the criticism as deeply unfair and borderline antisemitic, since the governor was an observant Jew, but his positions on the Palestinian conflict broadly aligned with the Biden administration and the other vice presidential contenders. The lawyers vetting Shapiro did flag some comments they viewed as more incendiary, particularly as it related to pro- Palestinian protests on college campuses after the October 7 attacks.’

‘One that caught their attention was his commentary on CNN from April: ‘We have to query whether or not we would tolerate this, if this were people dressed up in KKK outfits or KKK regalia, making comments about people who are African American in our communities.’’

Ultimately, the book says Harris ‘went with her gut’ and chose Walz believing he was the ‘better fit’ in a decision her staff was ‘unanimously behind.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Walz and Shapiro for comment. 

After losing every battleground state and ultimately the presidency to Donald Trump, critics were quick to judge the Walz pick as a misstep by Harris. 

‘The choice of Walz was only one of many disastrous mistakes but symptomatic of one larger problem – the Democratic Party leadership is too scared to say no to the hard-left progressive wing of the party,’ Julian Epstein, longtime Democratic operative and former chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital shortly after the election. 

Rob Bluey, president and executive editor of The Daily Signal, told Fox News Digital in November that Harris picking Walz ‘proved to be a disastrous decision that doomed Kamala Harris from the moment she made it.’

‘Not only was Walz ill-prepared for the national spotlight and media scrutiny, but Harris passed over several better options,’ Bluey said. ‘Given how little Americans knew about Harris or her policy positions, they were right to question her judgment on this big decision.’

A Senate Republican wants to give the U.S. a leg up in its race against China and to ween the nation off of its reliance on imports of key raw materials needed for weapons systems.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., would like to fast-track the harvesting of raw materials in the U.S. needed for the nation’s defensive capabilities, and plans to blow through federal and judicial red tape to do it.

Cotton plans to introduce legislation that would allow critical mineral mining projects deemed necessary to bolster the nation’s military and defensive readiness by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to skirt environmental laws and possible blockages by the courts.

His bill is designed to give the U.S. an edge against China, the world’s largest producer of critical minerals like cobalt, lithium, graphite and other rare earth minerals used in weapons systems, electric vehicles and consumer electronics.

Currently, China produces roughly 60% of the world’s critical mineral supply, and processes up to 90%.

‘Current environmental laws put our readiness to counter Communist China at risk and waste taxpayer dollars on projects that stall out and die on the vine,’ Cotton said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘This bill will create jobs, better arm and prepare our soldiers, and spend taxpayer dollars more efficiently.’

Cotton’s bill, dubbed the Necessary Environmental Exemptions for Defense Act, would create a waiver for mining activities and projects related to countering China and to allow the Pentagon to ‘operate with maximum agility and efficiency to ensure it is prepared to deter and, if necessary, fight and win a conflict with the Chinese Communist Party,’ according to bill text first obtained by Fox News Digital.

Among the regulations and environmental review standards that could be skirted with the waiver are the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act and Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Cotton argued in his legislation that the aforementioned regulations ‘frequently and unnecessarily delay’ the preparedness of the military without ‘substantial benefit to the environment or protected species,’ and that time is of the essence when it comes to national defense.

The projects that would fall under the umbrella of the regulation exemption include testing and production and deployment of technologies, systems or equipment and the construction, maintenance, expansion, or repair of facilities or Defense Department infrastructure, among others.

It would also prevent projects from being snarled in the courts, as long as the initiative is deemed necessary for military preparedness by the Secretary of Defense.

The bill fits into the White House’s broader plan to jump-start critical mineral mining in the country, be it through executive action, a bid to buy Greenland, a minerals agreement with Ukraine, or opening up more offshore mining in the Gulf of America.

It also comes after President Donald Trump reached a deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping to resume trade of critical minerals after shipments were stopped earlier this year following the White House’s slew of tariffs against China and other countries. 

The Trump administration landed a legal victory on Monday after a federal judge allowed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to rescind nearly $800 million dollars in grants for programs supporting violence reduction and crime victims.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington denied a preliminary injunction that five organizations sought against the DOJ’s cancellation of more than 360 grant awards and granted a motion to dismiss the case. 

Metha described the DOJ’s actions as ‘shameful’ in his ruling, though he ultimately declared that the court lacked jurisdiction and the organizations had failed to state a constitutional violation or protection.

‘Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence,’ Mehta wrote. ‘But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.’

The DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs canceled more than $800 million in grants in April as part of what it called a priority shift to include more direct support to certain law enforcement operations, combat violent crime and support American victims of trafficking and sexual assault.

Democracy Forward Foundation and the Perry Law firm filed the lawsuit, arguing the grant terminations did not allow due process, lacked sufficient clarity and violated the constitutional separation of powers clause that gives Congress appropriation powers.

The loss of the federal money triggered layoffs, program closures and loss of community partnerships, according to many of the organizations that had the grants rescinded.

The Justice Department argued in a court filing that there was ‘no legal basis for the Court to order DOJ to restore lawfully terminated grants and keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States.’

Noting that it intended to redirect the grant funds, it called the suit a ‘run-of-the mill contract dispute’ and said it belonged in a different court.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Former White House physician Kevin O’Connor’s closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee ended after less than an hour on Wednesday morning, with the doctor giving investigators virtually no new insights.

O’Connor pleaded the Fifth Amendment to multiple questions about his time with former President Joe Biden during his sit-down. It resulted in a hasty end to what could have been an hours-long deposition.

‘I’m going to read the first two questions that were asked. ‘Were you ever told to lie about the president’s health?’ He pleaded the Fifth Amendment. He would not answer that question. The second question, ‘Did you ever believe President Biden was unfit to execute his duty?” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told reporters after the meeting.

‘Again, President Biden’s White House physician pled the fifth. This is unprecedented, and I think that this adds more fuel to the fire that there was a cover-up.’

The doctor’s lawyers said O’Connor’s refusal to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds was not an admission of guilt, but rather a response to what they saw as an unprecedented investigatory scope that could have violated the bounds of patient-physician privilege.

‘This Committee has indicated to Dr. O’Connor and his attorneys that it does not intend to honor one of the most well-known privileges in our law – the physician patient privilege. Instead, the Committee has indicated that it will demand that Dr. O’Connor reveal, without any limitations, confidential information regarding his medical examinations, treatment, and care of President Biden,’ the attorney statement said.

‘Revealing confidential patient information would violate the most fundamental ethical duty of a physician, could result in revocation of Dr. O’Connor’s medical license, and would subject Dr. O’Connor to potential civil liability. Dr. O’Connor will not violate his oath of confidentiality to any of his patients, including President Biden.’

The House Oversight Committee has been investigating whether Biden’s former top aides covered up evidence of his mental and physical decline while in office. Biden’s allies have denied such allegations.

But Comer suggested to reporters that O’Connor’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment could have been evidence to the contrary.

‘Most people invoke the fifth when they have criminal liability. And so that’s what would appear on the surface here,’ he said. ‘We’re going to continue to move forward. Obviously, I think his actions today speak loud and clear.’

But O’Connor’s lawyers wrote in their statement, ‘We want to emphasize that asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege does not imply that Dr. O’Connor has committed any crime. In fact, to the contrary, as our Supreme Court has emphasized: ‘One of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions is to protect
innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, who made a surprise appearance at the interview and was the only lawmaker there, save for Comer, defended O’Connor’s use of the Fifth Amendment.

‘As someone who has served as a criminal defense attorney and actually been in courtrooms, it’s kind of astounding to hear someone say, if you invoke the Fifth Amendment, that is only because you are guilty,’ Crockett said. 

She pointed out that the Trump administration had launched a contemporaneous criminal probe.

‘We have a constitutional right that anyone who may be under fire can invoke. And unfortunately, with this rogue DOJ, it has decided that it wants to run a contemporaneous investigation, criminal investigation, involving the doctor – I think he did what any good lawyer would advise him to do,’ Crockett said.

O’Connor’s lawyers have asked the committee to pause its investigation while the Department of Justice (DOJ) probe is underway.

He and his legal team appeared to catch reporters by surprise with their hasty exit on Wednesday morning, roughly thirty minutes after entering.

One of O’Connor’s lawyers said they would be making ‘no comments to press’ in response to a shouted question by Fox News Digital.

Comer, for his part, insisted the investigation would go on.

‘This is something I think every American is concerned about. I think that the American people want to know the truth. We’re going to continue this investigation. We’ll move forward,’ Comer said. ‘We have several other witnesses that are going to come in for depositions and transcribed interviews. We will do everything in our ability to be transparent with the media and be transparent with the American people.’

The committee previously interviewed former Biden staff secretary Neera Tanden. Comer has summoned several other ex-White House aides to appear.