Trudeau trolls Trump after Canada bests USA at hockey

(WASHINGTON) — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back against President Donald Trump’s call to impeach a judge whose ruling conflict with his administration’s priorities.

In a statement on Tuesday, Roberts issued a rare statement after Trump hurled insults at the federal judge who conducted a “fact-finding” hearing on Monday over whether the Trump administration knowingly violated a court order when it handed over more than 200 alleged gang members to El Salvadoran authorities over the weekend.

In a post on his social media network on Tuesday morning, Trump called U.S. District Judge James Boasberg “crooked” and suggested that he should be impeached.

“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” Trump wrote. “WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY.”

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in the statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

The statement signals a stark difference in opinion between the judicial and executive branches.

Trump argued on Tuesday that he should not be prevented from carrying out his immigration agenda, saying “I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do.”

Trump’s comments about Boasberg came after the federal judge blocked the Trump administration from deporting any noncitizens after the president’s recent proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

Boasberg, in verbal instructions during a hearing on Saturday, gave orders to immediately turn around two planes carrying noncitizens if they are covered by his order, including one that potentially took off during a break in the court’s hearing. However, sources said top lawyers and officials in the administration made the determination that since the flights were over international waters, Boasberg’s order did not apply, and the planes were not turned around.

On Monday, Boasberg questioned whether the Trump administration ignored his orders to turn the planes around, saying it was “heck of a stretch” for them to argue that his order could be disregarded.

Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli argued Monday during the “fact-finding” hearing convened by Boasberg that the judge’s directive on Saturday evening to turn around the flights did not take effect until it was put in writing later that evening.

Boasberg ordered the Justice Department to submit, by noon Tuesday, a sworn declaration of what they represented in a filing Monday — that a third flight that took off after his written order on Saturday carried detainees who were removable on grounds other than the Alien Enemies Act.

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer and Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Ten Senate Democrats provided the necessary votes to allow the House-approved government funding bill to advance on Friday afternoon, setting the government funding bill on a glide path to final passage before a deadline at the end of the day Friday.

In a test vote, the Senate voted 62 to 38 to advance the bill — with 60 votes needed to advance it. Democrats voted with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to keep the funding bill moving forward, despite blowback from other members of their party.

While the test vote wasn’t on the final passage of the funding bill, it’s an indicator of how the final vote will go. With the passage of the key procedural hurdle, it’s almost certain to eventually pass.

The vote comes after Schumer took to the Senate floor Friday morning to defend his decision to support the Republican short-term funding bill — a move that has drawn criticism from other Democrats.

His surprise reversal, first announced Thursday evening — a day after he said he and Democrats would try to block the bill — means there will almost certainly be enough Democratic votes to advance the measure to a final Senate vote Friday just hours before the shutdown deadline.

“As everyone knows, government funding expires at midnight tonight. As I announced yesterday, I will vote to keep the government open. I believe it is the best way to minimize the harm that the Trump administration will do to the American people,” Schumer said Friday.

He said he believes the short-term funding bill — or continuing resolution — is a “bad bill” but said he believes if the government were to shut down, it would be a far worse outcome for the country.

“The CR is a bad bill. But as bad as the CR is, I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option,” Schumer said.

Schumer said he believes a government shutdown would mean President Donald Trump and Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) would have even more authority to “destroy vital government services at a much faster rate.”

He said they would also have the power to determine which federal employees are considered essential — potentially giving them more power to lay off or fire more government workers and shutter federal agencies.

“A shutdown would allow DOGE to shift into overdrive. Let me repeat, a shutdown will allow DOGE to shift into overdrive. It would give Donald Trump and DOGE the keys to the city, state and country,” he said. “Donald Trump and Elon Musk would be free to destroy vital government services at a much faster rate than they can right now and over a much broader field of destruction that they would render.”

He continued, “In a shutdown, Donald Trump and DOGE will have the power to determine what is considered essential and what is not and their views on what is not essential would be mean and vicious and would decimate vital services and cause unimaginable harm to the American people.”

“Musk has told everybody he wants a shutdown because he knows it will help him achieve his horrible goal of just decimating the federal government from one end to the other. In other words, if government were to shut down, DOGE has a plan in place to exploit the crisis for maximum destruction,” Schumer said.

“A shutdown would be the best distraction Donald Trump could ask for,” he added.

Schumer also defended some of his Senate Democratic colleagues who have come out opposed to the short-term funding bill. He acknowledged the tough decisions they as a caucus had to weigh.

“Our caucus members have been torn between two awful alternatives, and my colleagues and I have wrestled with which alternative would be worse for the American people,” Schumer said.

Trump praised Schumer in a post on his social media platform on Friday, saying it took “guts” for the New York senator to signal his support for the GOP bill.

“Congratulations to Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing — Took “guts” and courage! The big Tax Cuts, L.A. fire fix, Debt Ceiling Bill, and so much more, is coming,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

“We should all work together on that very dangerous situation. A non pass would be a Country destroyer, approval will lead us to new heights. Again, really good and smart move by Senator Schumer. This could lead to something big for the USA, a whole new direction and beginning,” Trump wrote.

Two separate letters were sent to Schumer on Friday, urging senators to reject the GOP continuing resolution — one from freshman California Rep. Derek Tran and the second from Ranking Member of House Appropriations Committee Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut.

Rep. Tran’s letter, which has 66 signatures so far and is addressed directly to Schumer, states that “as members of the House Democratic Caucus, we write to express our strong opposition to the passage of a partisan continuing resolution that potentially legitimizes President Trump and the Republican party’s dismantling of government.”

“We urge you to reject the partisan continuing resolution coming before the Senate and stand with the American people in opposing these draconian Republican cuts. All parties must come back to the negotiating table and work across party lines to keep the government open in a responsible way,” the lawmakers wrote.

Rep. DeLauro’s letter, which came from Democratic lawmakers on the Appropriations Committee, echoed similar sentiments.

“As members of the House Committee on Appropriations, we urge our Democratic colleagues in the Senate to reject the partisan and harmful continuing resolution that will only serve to enable President Trump, Elon Musk, and the Republican Party’s ongoing efforts to unilaterally and unlawfully destroy the agencies and programs that serve the American people,” the appropriators said.

“We urge all Senate Democrats to stand with House Democrats and with the American people, reject this continuing resolution,” they added.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, appeared to be distancing herself from Schumer’s decision, slammed Democrats who support the House GOP bill.

“America has experienced a Trump shutdown before — but this damaging legislation only makes matters worse. Democrats must not buy into this false choice. We must fight back for a better way. Listen to the women, For The People,” she said in a statement Friday.

At the same time, Pelosi applauded House Democrats for their near unanimous vote against the measure.

“I salute Leader Hakeem Jeffries for his courageous rejection of this false choice, and I am proud of my colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus for their overwhelming vote against this bill,” she said.

ABC News’ Isabella Murray contributed to this report.

 

 

“A shutdown would be the best distraction Donald Trump could ask for,” he added.

Schumer also defended some his Senate Democratic colleagues who have come out opposed to the short-term funding bill. He acknowledged the tough decisions they as a caucus have had to weigh.

“Our caucus members have been torn between two awful alternatives, and my colleagues and I have wrestled with which alternative would be worse for the American people,” Schumer said.

He added that just because some of his colleagues will vote no on advancing the short-term funding bill, it does not mean they support a government shutdown.

“Different senators come down on different sides of this question. But that does not mean that any Senate Democrat supports a shutdown. Whatever the outcome, our caucus will be united in our determination to continue the long-term fight to stop Donald Trump’s dangerous war on our democracy and on America’s working families,” he said.

About the time Schumer was speaking, Trump praised him in a post on his social media platform, saying it took “guts” for the New York senator to signal his support for the GOP bill.

“Congratulations to Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing — Took “guts” and courage! The big Tax Cuts, L.A. fire fix, Debt Ceiling Bill, and so much more, is coming,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

“We should all work together on that very dangerous situation. A non pass would be a Country destroyer, approval will lead us to new heights. Again, really good and smart move by Senator Schumer. This could lead to something big for the USA, a whole new direction and beginning,” Trump wrote.

On Friday, House Democrats sent a letter to Schumer saying their “strong opposition” to the funding bill.

“The Republican leadership has deliberately cut Democrats out of the process, and we must not give in to Republican hostage-taking of our vulnerable seniors, veterans, and working-class families to advance their destructive funding bill,” the House Democratic Caucus’ letter said.

The letter recommends a 30-day CR as a short-term solution.

“We urge you to reject the partisan continuing resolution coming before the Senate and stand with the American people in opposing these draconian Republican cuts,” the letter said. “All parties must come back to the negotiating table and work across party lines to keep the government open in a responsible way.”

“If Republicans in Congress want to pass this bill, they should do so with their own votes,” the letter said. “However, since they cannot, Republicans must work with Democrats to pass a clean 30-day continuing resolution and continue negotiating full FY25 appropriations.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, appeared to be distancing herself from Schumer’s decision, slammed Democrats who support the House GOP bill.

“America has experienced a Trump shutdown before — but this damaging legislation only makes matters worse. Democrats must not buy into this false choice. We must fight back for a better way. Listen to the women, For The People,” she said in a statement Friday.

At the same time, Pelosi applauded House Democrats for their near unanimous vote against the measure.

“I salute Leader Hakeem Jeffries for his courageous rejection of this false choice, and I am proud of my colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus for their overwhelming vote against this bill,” she said.

ABC News’ Isabella Murray contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Federal judges have been blunt in their rulings from the bench as the Trump administration has been hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its policies, layoffs and firings and other orders.

While many of the cases are still working their way through the system, several federal judges have been swift in issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, questioning the legality and constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s actions.

The president and his allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency has been at the center of some of the suits, have dismissed many of the orders in interviews and on social media. Musk has called for the impeachment of multiple judges, and Trump has also called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Boasberg has called on the administration to stop deporting Venezuelans as part of Trump’s executive order that invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little to no due process, as a lawsuit plays out.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Justice Department on behalf of five Venezuelans contending the deportees were not criminals. The judge argued that the accused deportees could face real harm and granted the TRO.

Several of the judges have faced increased harassment and threats, according to the U.S. Marshals Service and sources with knowledge of the situation.

Here are some of the major rulings issued by judges against the administration.

March 21

Boasberg said during a court hearing over the AEA deportations of Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvadorian prison that the administration’s use of the law was “incredibly troublesome and problematic.”

“I agree it’s an unprecedented and expanded use of an act that has been used … in the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, when there was no question there was a declaration of war and who the enemy was,” Boasberg said.

The judge noted that the Trump administration’s arguments about the extent of the president’s power are “awfully frightening” and a “long way from” the intent of the law.

The Trump administration argued that members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and the gang’s national security risk warranted the use of the 18th century act.

Boasberg vowed to hold the Trump administration accountable, if necessary, if it violated his court order from March 15.

“The government’s not being terribly cooperative at this point, but I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my word and who ordered this and what’s the consequence,” he said.

Boasberg also grilled Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign over his compliance with the court order to turn back the flights already in the air and questioned how the deportation flights were put together.

“Why is this proclamation essentially signed in the dark on Friday night, early Saturday morning, when people [were] rushed on the plane?” Boasberg asked. “To me, the only reason to do that is if you know the problem and you want to get them out of the country before a suit is filed.”

“I don’t have knowledge of those operational details,” Ensign said.

Boasberg also raised concerns that the rapid nature of the deportations prevented the men from being able to challenge the allegations that they belonged to Tren de Aragua.

“[What] they’re simply saying is don’t remove me, particularly to a country that’s going to torture me,” Boasberg said.

An attorney for the ACLU argued that those targeted by the AEA should be able to contest whether they fall within the act.

“Otherwise, anybody could be taken off the street and removed,” said Lee Gelernt, the attorney for the ACLU. “This is a very dangerous road we’re going down.”

As Ensign appeared to undermine arguments made earlier in the week about the timing of the order and struggled to answer Boasberg’s questions, the judge suggested the Department of Justice might be risking its reputation and credibility.

“I often tell my clerks before they go out into the world to practice law, the most valuable treasure they possess is their reputation and their credibility,” Boasberg said. “I just ask you make sure your team [understands] that lesson.”

Boasberg decided on March 24 that the men who were deported were entitled to due process in court.

“Federal courts are equipped to adjudicate that question when individuals threatened with detention and removal challenge their designation as such. Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge,” he wrote.

Later that evening, the Trump administration invoked the “state secrets privilege” in a court filing to attempt to stop the federal judge from learning more information about the flights.

“Removal flight plans-including locations from which flights depart, the planes utilized, the paths they travel, where they land, and how long they take to accomplish any of those things–reflect critical means and methods of law enforcement operations,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in the filing.

March 20

U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander slammed DOGE in a 137-page ruling that blocked the group’s unlimited access to Social Security information.

“The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion. It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack,” she wrote.

“The government has not even attempted to explain why a more tailored, measured, titrated approach is not suitable to the task,” Hollander added. “Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud. Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.”

The White House has not commented on the case as of March 25.

March 18

In a 79-page decision, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes blocked the Trump administration from enacting the policy that would have banned transgender soldiers from serving in the military.

Reyes said the policy continued an unfortunate history of the armed services excluding marginalized people from the “privilege of serving.”

“The President has the power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving,” Reyes wrote.

“[Fill in the blank] is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; [fill in the blank] will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness; allowing [fill in the blank] to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order,” she added.

“First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve,” she said.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has slammed the judge on X and vowed to appeal.

Lawyers for the administration argued in court papers that the court “has broadly construed the scope of the DoD Policy to encompass all trans-identifying servicemembers or applicants” and claimed the Department of Defense’s new guidance “underscores Defendants’ consistent position that the DoD Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition — one that every prior Administration has, to some degree, kept out of the military.”

March 13

U.S. District Judge William Alsup scolded a DOJ attorney during a hearing for a lawsuit against the mass firing of federal workers.

Alsup slammed the attorney for refusing to make acting Office of Personnel Management Director Charles Ezell available for cross-examination and withdrawing his sworn declaration, which Alsup called a “sham.”

“The government, I believe, has tried to frustrate the judge’s ability to get at the truth of what happened here and then set forth sham declarations,” Alsup said. “That’s not the way it works in the U.S. District Court.”

“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross-examination would reveal the truth. This is the U.S. District Court,” Alsup said. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth.”

Alsup bashed the government for submitting a declaration from Ezell he believed to be false but then withdrawing it and making Ezell unavailable for testimony.

“You withdrew his declaration rather than do that. Come on, that’s a sham. It upsets me,” Alsup said. “I want you to know that I’ve been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years and I know how that we get at the truth, and you’re not helping me get to add to the truth. You’re giving me press releases, sham documents.”

Alsup later ruled that thousands of federal workers needed to be rehired.

The judge determined the Trump administration attempted to circumvent the procedures in place for issuing reductions in force by asserting that the employees were terminated for performance reasons without providing evidence.

“I just want to say it is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said. “That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”

If the Trump administration wants to reduce the size of the federal government, it needs to follow the process established in federal law, he said.

“The words that I give you today should not be taken as some kind of wild and crazy judge in San Francisco has said that the administration cannot engage in a reduction in force,” he said.

His ruling is being appealed by the administration, which asked the Supreme Court on March 24 for an emergency stay.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued in her filing that the labor unions and nonprofit groups that challenged the mass firings lack standing, saying they have “hijacked the employment relationship between the federal government and its workforce.”

“This Court should not allow a single district court to erase Congress’s handiwork and seize control over reviewing federal personnel decisions — much less do so by vastly exceeding the limits on the scope of its equitable authority and ordering reinstatements en masse,” she wrote.

Jan. 23

Just days into Trump’s second presidency, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship and expressed shock in the order from the president.

“I have been on the bench for over four decades,” said Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”

“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” the judge told the DOJ’s attorney during the hearing. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”

The Trump administration has appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Harris, the acting solicitor general, argued in a filing to the Supreme Court that the nationwide injunctions “transgress constitutional limits on courts’ powers” and “compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions.”

“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” she wrote.

ABC News’ Emily Chang and Laura Romero contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.