Politics

(WASHINGTON) — In two courthouses on opposite sides of the country, Donald Trump’s attempt to send troops into Democratic-led cities will face a critical legal test on Thursday.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hold oral arguments at noon on whether to lift a lower court’s order blocking the deployment of troops into Portland, while a District Judge in Chicago has a hearing at the same time to consider stopping the deployment of the National Guard in Illinois.

The dueling hearings sets the stage for one of the most high-profile legal battles since President Trump took office, as local governments turn to the courts to stop what some judges have described as blurring of the line between military and civilian rule.

Chicago
Ahead of the Chicago hearing, U.S. District Judge April Perry set a midnight deadline for the Trump administration to confirm when National Guard troops are set to arrive in Illinois, where they are set to be deployed and the scope of their activities.

Lawyers for the city of Chicago and state of Illinois have argued that the deployment of National Guardsmen will decrease public safety, exacerbate tensions in the city and infringe on the state’s sovereignty.

“By design, state and local governments operate closer to the people they serve, allowing them to tailor their activities to their communities’ needs. Federalism is not merely an administrative arrangement; it is a structural protection of liberty,” they wrote in a filing. “When the federal government assumes a role traditionally reserved to the States, it blurs the constitutional lines that define who is responsible for public safety.”

Portland
Meanwhile, as the Chicago hearing takes place, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments about whether to lift a lower court’s order blocking the deployment of 200 federalized members of the Oregon National Guard into Portland.

Earlier on Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit issued an administrative stay of that order to preserve the status quo as the lawsuit moves through the court.

Oregon argues that the deployment of troops is “part of a nationwide campaign to assimilate the military into civilian law enforcement” and is based on “inaccurate information” about the conditions in Portland.

“Defendants’ nearly limitless conception [the law] would give the President discretion to repeat this experiment in response to other ordinary, nonviolent acts of civil disobedience across our Nation. The public interest is served by a judicial order preserving the rule of law in the face of unprecedented and unlawful Executive action that threatens grave and irreparable damage to our State and the Nation,” lawyers for the state said in a recent filing.

A federal judge on Sunday expanded her order to bar any state’s National Guard from entering Portland after concluding that the Trump administration was attempting to work around her temporary restraining order by using troops from other states.

That second order has not been formally appealed yet, although the broader issue may arise during the hearing as the Trump administration challenges judicial limits on the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard.

“Congress did not impose these limits on the President’s authority to federalize the Guard, nor did it authorize the federal courts to second-guess the President’s judgment about when and where to call up the Guard to reinforce the regular forces in response to sustained and widespread violent resistance to federal law enforcement,” lawyers for the Trump administration wrote in a filing earlier this week.

In an amicus brief filed on Thursday, a group of former secretaries of the Army and Navy and retired four-star admirals and generals encouraged Judge Perry to express caution about the broader use of the National Guard in domestic operations.

“Domestic deployments that fail to adhere to [Posse Comitatus Act] threaten the Guard’s core national security and disaster relief missions; place deployed personnel in fraught situations for which they lack specific training, thus posing safety concerns for servicemembers and the public alike; and risk inappropriately politicizing the military, creating additional risks to recruitment, retention, morale, and cohesion of the force,” lawyers for the former military leaders wrote.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW JERSEY) — New Jersey’s gubernatorial candidates face off in their second debate, hosted by New York City’s WABC-TV and Philadelphia’s WPVI-TV less than a month out from Election Day. 

Polling shows Democratic nominee Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a former Navy helicopter pilot, has an edge over Republican former state Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli. A recent survey from Quinnipiac shows Sherrill leading in a head-to-head matchup, 51%-42%.

This is not Ciattarelli’s first go around — he narrowly lost a bid to unseat Murphy in 2021. But this time, he faces wider margins and is expected to try to dodge Sherrill’s attempts to link Ciattarelli with President Donald Trump on every issue. Trump has endorsed Ciattarelli’s bid.

Outside groups have infused large sums of cash into this race. Democrats, looking to defend control as term-limited Phil Murphy leaves office, are writing fat checks: Greater Garden State, a super PAC supported by the Democratic Governors Association, reserved over $20 million in ads to support Sherrill. And the Democratic National Committee has invested $3 million into the governor’s race, a sum it says is its largest in an off-cycle race in New Jersey.

Republicans have thrown in far less: Restore New Jersey, a Republican Governors Association-backed group, invested $1 million in ads supporting Ciattarelli in September.

New Jersey has not elected the same party three straight terms since 1961, with affordability and taxes central to the race. Trump’s inroads with Jersey voters could be tested in November, as Republicans point to last year’s presidential results as a sign the state has gotten more favorable for the GOP.

Late last month, Sherrill ‘s unredacted military records were released by the National Archives that revealed she did not walk at graduation. In 1994, more than 130 Midshipmen were implicated in a cheating scandal. No documents released or obtained by news outlets have shown that Sherrill was involved in the cheating, but because she did not report her classmates, she was not permitted to walk at graduation.

CBS News, which was the first to report about the release of Sherrill’s unredacted military records, reported that the request came from Ciattarelli ally Nicholas De Gregorio, who was tasked with doing so by political operative Chris Russell.

Sherrill said this was a 30-year-old widely reported incident that does not reflect on her military service and accused the Trump administration of leaking the records in concert with the Ciattarelli campaign and asked for them to stop distributing them as they contained protected personal information.

Sherrill’s campaign communications director Sean Higgins said in a statement: “This disrespects the service of all military veterans, jeopardizes the safety of their records, and shows that Jack Ciattarelli will say or do anything to get elected, no matter the dishonor he brings upon himself — and that should frighten everyone.”

Ciattarelli disagreed.

“For eight years, Mikie Sherrill has built her entire political brand around her time at the Naval Academy and in the Navy, all the while concealing her involvement in the scandal and her punishment. The people of New Jersey deserve complete and total transparency,” the Ciattarelli campaign said in a statement.

Another likely animating issue in the debate will be the impacts of the government shutdown and White House funding freezes in the Garden State. The Hudson Tunnel Project, which White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought froze funding for on Oct. 1, is meant to expand rail links between New York City and New Jersey.

After the announcement, Sherrill slammed the Trump administration for “attacking” the project and wrote in a post on X that Ciatterelli “said there’s not a single issue where he disagrees with Trump, and he promised to never take them to court.” 

Ciatterelli, meanwhile, told NJ Advance Media/NJ.com that the hold “doesn’t stop what’s going on today with regard to the construction. And I think it’s a large negotiation that’s taking place.”

-ABC’s Oren Oppenheim  and Aaron Katersky contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A majority of the Supreme Court signaled on Wednesday that it would allow candidates for federal office to more freely challenge state elections laws without having to prove that the rules would significantly harm their chance of winning.

The case has the potential to clear the way for a wave of legal challenges ahead of the midterm elections at a time when many Republicans and allies of President Donald Trump hope to roll back laws that allow the counting of late-arriving mail-in ballots and other voter accommodations. 

During oral arguments on Wednesday in a lawsuit brought by Illinois Congressman Michael Bost, the justices appeared open to letting him contest a state law that allows the counting of mail-in ballots up to 14 days after voting ends, provided they were postmarked on or before election day. 

Bost’s lawsuit was originally thrown out after a federal district and appeals court concluded he lacked a large-enough stake in the election to establish a right to bring a lawsuit. The eight-term Republican won 75% of the vote in 2022 and 74% in 2024.

To bring a lawsuit in federal court, a plaintiff generally needs to establish that a particular action injures them, that the action stemmed from the person he or she is suing, and that the court’s solution would resolve the harm. 

Bost’s attorney Paul Clement argued before the justices that candidates – regardless of the outcome – are not “mere bystanders” in an election and spend “untold time and energy” on their campaigns, giving them a concrete interest in accurate vote tallies.

“If the campaign is going to be two weeks longer, you’ve got to keep the campaign staff together for two weeks longer, and that’s going to be more expensive,” Clement argued. 

Preventing Bost’s lawsuit from moving forward, Clement argued, would turn the “federal courts into federal prognosticators.”

All of the Court’s conservative members appeared receptive to Clement’s argument, and even some of the Court’s liberal justices signaled a willingness to embrace a middle ground advocated by the Trump administration. 

“Let me ask about the pocketbook injury,” Justice Samuel Alito said of Bost’s right to sue. “Why isn’t that straightforward?” 

Alito also suggested that a difference in a vote count from the contested ballots would also be sufficient basis to bring a case.  “Isn’t a smaller margin of victory an injury in fact?” he asked Illinois Solicitor General Jane Notz, who was defending the law. 

“Unless it’s coupled with something else, a smaller margin of victory has no real-world consequence,” Notz said. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced concern about steering more election law challenges until after an election which could in turn disenfranchise voters and create “chaos.” 

“So let’s say the losing candidate sues, challenging this rule…and the Court, post-election, finds it illegal. We faced this in 2020 in some of our many cases pre-election,” Kavanaugh asked. “What’s the remedy?” 

Chief Justice John Roberts echoed similar concerns that curtailing lawsuits based on a more stringent view of candidate standing would result in lawsuits being filed closer to elections during the “most fraught time to be involved in politics.” 

“What you’re sketching out for us is a potential disaster,” he said. 

Justice Elena Kagan seemed open to a middle ground that could allow Bost to pursue his case without automatically setting a precedent that would give standing to any candidate who wants to challenge any election rule for any reason. 

She suggested that the Court could require a candidate to claim “substantial risk” that a new election law would put him or her at an “electoral disadvantage” compared to the old rule. 

“What you have is a voting rule that harms somebody relative to what’s come before,” Kagan said.  

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was more circumspect about her views. 

“Our case law and our standing law requires some form of substantial harm that can be articulated and shown. And what you’re talking about is a desire to implement the law with a generalized grievance because it doesn’t really particularly harm you,” Sotomayor said. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the most skeptical of Bost’s position, openly questioning whether a simple difference in vote margin constitutes harm to a candidate and casting doubt on the view that spending money to monitor the counting of ballots was a mandatory expense. 

“I’m a little concerned about in your argument is the idea that a candidate who wins and who wins by some margin is harmed by a regulation of this nature because of the potential decrease in his margin of victory. I don’t understand the harm that necessarily comes from that,” Jackson said. “You might be disappointed, but that’s usually not what we look at when we’re determining whether or not someone is actually harmed.” 

A decision in favor of Bost would not only revive his challenge to mail-in ballot counting but also widen the ability of any candidate for federal office to sue over voting policies ahead of Election Day. 

“The stakes of this case are not just about the standing rules, it’s about how candidates, political parties, and even voters, think about challenging the rules governing elections going forward,” said Matthew Shapanka, an election law expert at Covington & Burling LLC. 

“It’s also about how courts intervene in elections, and whether it’s appropriate for courts to have to make judgments about how strong a candidate is or how likely they are to win or lose, when deciding whether to hear a case about the constitutionality or legality of an election rule,” Shapanka said.  

The case, Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, is expected to be decided by the end of June 2026. 

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(ALEXANDRIA, Va.) — Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty Wednesday to both counts in a federal indictment, and his attorneys said they will seek to have the case dismissed for vindictive and selective prosecution.

A federal grand jury indicted Comey on Sept. 25, just days after President Donald Trump publicly demanded Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Justice Department act “now” against Comey and other political opponents.

Comey is charged with one count of false statements and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding, related to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020.

The plea was entered by his attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who asked for a jury trial. 

The judge read the charges and said they carry a penalty of up to 5 years in prison with a $250,000 fine.

He asked if Comey understood the charges, and he replied, “I do, Your Honor.”

A trial date was set for Jan. 5.

The judge asked how long the government anticipated the trial lasting, and the government said 2-3 days.

The judge said that he was prepared to move forward with a speedy trial. The government said the case was “complicated,” but didn’t appear to object to the trial date in court.

“This doesn’t appear to be a complicated case,” the judge said.

Fitzgerald agreed, saying, “We see this as a simple case.”

Comey has been a longtime target of Trump’s criticism over his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump on Monday, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, called Comey a “dirty cop” and claimed it was a “simple case.”

But the Comey matter has thrown the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia into turmoil, according to sources. The previous U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, resigned over pressure from the Trump administration to bring criminal charges against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump said he fired Siebert.

Trump then handpicked Halligan, a White House aide and his former defense attorney, to replace Siebert and lead the office. Halligan presented the Comey case to the grand jury, despite prosecutors and investigators determining there was insufficient evidence to charge him, ABC News reported at the time.

Comey attorneys told the judge Wednesday they plan to file a motion challenging the lawfulness of Halligan’s appointment, but that will be heard by a different judge appointed by the chief judge of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The judge on Wednesday instructed the government to respond to those motions by Nov. 3 and directed the defense to respond by Nov. 10. The judge said he wants the case to be fully briefed by Nov. 19 and said hearings will be planned for Nov. 19 and Dec. 9. 

Oral arguments will be held Dec. 9 on the defense’s motion to dismiss because of grand jury abuse, “outrageous government conduct” and other motions Comey’s attorneys did not disclose.

Both the defense and the judge expressed some confusion as to why the government said there would be a substantial amount of classified information involved in the case.

At one point Fitzgerald said that he believed the government should have figured out the issue with classified information before bringing the case. It appears the “cart has been put before the horse,” Fitzgerald said. 

The judge said there should be no reason the case gets off track because of classified information.

“We will go through the fastest CIPA process you have ever seen in your life,” he joked, referring to the litigation that occurs around cases involving classified information. 

The judge also said, “I will not slow this case down” over the government’s obligations to produce discovery to the defense. 

Comey was in court Wednesday for the first time since he was indicted last month, where he was joined inside the Alexandria, Virginia, courtroom by Fitzgerald and attorneys David Kelley and Jessica Carmichael. 

The government was being represented by Halligan and Nathaniel “Tyler” Lemons, a prosecutor from the Eastern District of North Carolina. 

Comey’s wife and his daughter, Maureen Comey, were seen arriving at the Alexandria courthouse ahead of the proceeding.

Comey has denied any wrongdoing and has said he looks forward to a trial.

Ahead of Wednesday’s arraignment, the Department of Justice added two assistant U.S. attorneys from out of state to work on the case.

ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler, Alexander Mallin, Peter Charalambous and Ely Brown contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Following an unprecedented surge in election-related litigation, the Supreme Court on Wednesday was. considering reviving a lawsuit challenging an Illinois law that allows officials to count mail-in ballots received within two weeks of Election Day. 

The Supreme Court heard arguments about the broader question of who has the right to file a federal lawsuit challenging election law, the outcome of which could not only revive the mail-in ballot case but also open the door to a wave of new legal challenges to election laws. 

Republican Rep. Michael Bost and two presidential electors filed a lawsuit in 2022 to challenge the Illinois law, arguing that counting mail-in ballots beyond Election Day constitutes an illegal extension of voting beyond the timeframe set in federal law. 

Two lower courts threw out the lawsuit after concluding that the congressman lacked standing — or the legal right to bring a lawsuit — because the plaintiffs could not prove the policy harmed them. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in June, adding to one of the high court’s most consequential terms in recent history.

 President Donald Trump and his allies have long criticized the practice of mail-in voting, using it as ammunition to cast doubt on the outcome of the 2020 election. In August, Trump vowed to “lead a movement to get rid of” mail-in voting, though his campaign had encouraged voters to use mail ballots. 

“It’s time that the Republicans get tough and stop it, because the Democrats want it. It’s the only way they can get elected,” Trump said then.

When a federal district judge threw out Bost’s lawsuit in 2022, the decision stemmed from the question of whether the congressman and the electors had the grounds to sue, not the merits of his legal argument about mail-in ballots. The court ruled that Bost’s claims about being harmed by the policy — including having to use campaign resources during the post-election ballot counting period — were a “generalized grievance” that did not provide him standing to sue.  

To bring a lawsuit in federal court, a plaintiff generally needs to establish that a particular action injures them, that the action stemmed from the person he or she is suing, and that the court’s solution would resolve the harm. 

Together with electors Laura Pollatrini and Susan Sweeney, Bost argues that the mail-in ballot policy not only harms his election prospects but also causes a “pocketbook injury,” because candidates need to continue staffing their campaigns through the ballot-counting period. 

“When it comes to elections, candidates running for office plainly have the most at stake. They put their lives on hold and spend countless hours and millions of dollars organizing and running campaigns,” their lawyers wrote. “When the dust settles, the candidates either win or lose, with months of effort and untold expenditures either vindicated or forever lost.”

The Illinois State Board of Elections has pushed back by arguing that the potential impact on Bost’s “electoral prospects” is too speculative and that political candidates are under no requirement to continue staffing their campaigns after the election, effectively making the injury that Bost claims he suffers voluntary. 

Illinois has also argued that allowing Bost to bring the lawsuit would open the floodgates of frivolous lawsuits “to challenge any election rule on the books for purely ideological reasons” and cause local governments to spend more time fighting lawsuits and less time administering elections.

The Trump administration has supported part of Bost’s argument about having the right to sue over the ballot policy, though Solicitor General D. John Sauer pushed back on the claim that candidates have broad claims to bring election-related lawsuits. 

“This Court can …. establish a clear rule for standing to litigate disputes over election laws: candidates have standing to seek prospective relief challenging a rule governing the validity of ballots so long as there is a risk that the ballots at issue could affect the outcome of their election,” Sauer wrote in an amicus brief.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Tennessee state Rep. Justin Pearson, a 30-year-old progressive activist and lawmaker who gained national attention as one of the “Tennessee Three,” is launching a primary challenge against longtime Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen.

Pearson’s campaign, framed around the slogan “It’s About Us,” highlights Memphis’s 22.6% poverty rate — nearly double the state average — and pledges “urgent solutions to persistent crises” in Tennessee’s only Democratic congressional district.

Pearson’s bid is part of a broader wave of intraparty contests pitting younger progressives against long-established incumbents.

Cohen, 76, has represented Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District since 2007. Earlier this year, he told Axios he intended to seek reelection.

“My constituents need help from D.C. and I’m effective in bringing home important funding,” he said.

Pearson, expelled from the Tennessee House in 2023 after leading a gun control protest, was later reappointed and won a special election, cementing his status as a rising progressive voice.

In Pearson’s campaign launch video, released Wednesday, he told voters, “I’m proud to be one of us, a Memphian, born and raised who understands how to build bridges across race, identity, ethnicity and generations in order to build the future that we want to live into.”

Tennessee’s 9th District, based in Memphis, is the state’s only Democratic stronghold after redistricting in 2022.

“The same issues that people are facing today in this district, are the same issues that Justin faced as a child, and the same issues that Justin’s parents faced when they were kids,” Usamah Andrabi, communications director for the group, Justice Democrats, told ABC News. “At a certain point, you have to ask yourself, maybe it’s time for new leadership?”

Andrabi said the group is focused on elevating a new generation of leaders, pointing out Pearson was just 8 years old when Cohen first won the seat. The group framed Cohen as a man who has been in office for four decades, calling him an “absentee congressman.”

Cohen remains popular in his home district, winning reelection with more than 70% of the vote in a four-way primary in 2024 and more than 71% of the vote in the general election against a Republican challenger.

Pearson is Justice Democrats’ third endorsement of the cycle, following Angela Gonzales-Torres in California and Michigan state Rep. Donavan McKinney.

Founded in 2017, the group has helped elect several members of the “Squad” — including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York, Ilhan Omar in Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley in Michigan and Rashida Tlaib in Michigan — and unseat five long-serving incumbents.

Pearson’s campaign platform includes labor rights and living wages, affordable housing, Medicare for All, environmental justice, federal investment to combat poverty and gun reform.

“This campaign isn’t about one person,” Pearson said in a statement. “It’s about building a movement our community can see itself in.

Pearson’s campaign is part of a broader pattern.

In Washington, D.C., Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a nonvoting member of the House, faces two challengers in next year’s primary, D.C. Council members Robert White Jr. and Brooke Pinto.

In Connecticut, Rep. John Larson is facing primary challengers, including former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin and state Rep. Jillian Gilchrest.

Bilal Dabir Sekou, a political science professor at the University of Hartford, said the trend shows Democrats are increasingly willing to challenge longstanding members of their party.

“What’s interesting is people are stepping up and primarying people, almost like there’s an insurgency going on within the party,” Sekou said.

He added that Democrats are grappling with a generational shift, citing former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepping down from House leadership in 2023.

“A lot of that older leadership wants people who are like them,” he said. “If they step aside, they want to step aside for someone who looks familiar to them, in terms of policy preferences and in terms of style and approach.”

Republicans are also grappling with challenges from within their own party.

For example, in Texas, Sen. John Cornyn, 73, faces primary challenges from state Attorney General Ken Paxton, 62, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, 43.

In addition to the support Pearson has received from Justice Democrats, another group, Leaders We Deserve, a youth-driven political organization founded by gun-violence survivor David Hogg, has pledged $1 million for his race.

“In this moment of crisis, I’m calling on Representative Steve Cohen to pass the torch to Justin J. Pearson — a transformational leader who can inspire a new generation,” Hogg said in a statement. “Memphis deserves a next-generation leader like Justin — a tested fighter who will deliver opportunity, affordability, safety, and justice to his constituents.”

“From his successful work stopping the Byhalia Connection oil pipeline, which threatened the drinking water of more than one million people in the Memphis area, to his fearless stand in the state capitol for stronger gun safety laws after the 2023 Covenant school shooting, Justin J. Pearson has repeatedly shown the kind of backbone needed to confront powerful special interests, from big oil to the gun lobby,” Hogg added.

Charlotte Bergmann is a Republican running for the 9th Congressional District seat.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Winsome Earle-Sears faces strong headwinds in her campaign to be Virginia’s next Republican governor.

She’s been outpaced in fundraising and lags in polling behind her Democratic rival, Rep. Abigail Spanberger. And the support from one voice that could narrow this race is largely absent. 

President Donald Trump has yet to endorse Earle-Sears, Virginia’s current lieutenant governor. While slamming Spanberger during an event in Virginia for the U.S. Navy’s 250th anniversary over the weekend, Trump did not mention Earle-Sears, a Marine Corps veteran, at all. 

Earle-Sears and Trump’s relationship turned tepid in 2022 after the lieutenant governor suggested it was time for the Republican Party to “move on” past him and declined to support his third White House bid.

“A true leader understands when they have become a liability. A true leader understands that it’s time to step off the stage. And the voters have given us that very clear message,” Earle-Sears said at the time.

Trump then undercut Earle-Sears on Truth Social, writing that he “never felt good” about her, and that she was a “phony.” 

ABC News has reached out to The White House, Earle-Sears’ campaign and the Virginia GOP for comment. 

Attorney general’s race

And now, as Republicans are at high risk of losing control of Virginia’s governor’s mansion, their chief executive and others in the administration are nowhere to be found on the campaign trail for Earle-Sears.

Yet they’re not completely withdrawn from Virginia politics. 

Both Trump and Vice President JD Vance have joined the chorus of Republican voices calling for the resignation of Democratic attorney general candidate and former Virginia delegate Jay Jones after text messages to then-fellow Virginia delegate Carrie Coyner surfaced detailing a hypothetical situation about then-Speaker of the House Todd Gilbert getting “two bullets to the head.” 

The National Review reported Jones also wished for Gilbert’s wife to “watch her own child die in her arms so that Gilbert might reconsider his political views.” 

Coyner, a Republican, claimed in a note sent to her constituents this week and obtained by ABC that Jones meant to text someone else initially, but was OK with chatting when he realized it was her. She says once she expressed “alarm” about the messages, Jones “continued to try to justify his initial statements by phone and by text.”

Jones has apologized for the messages, telling WRIC that he “sincerely and from the bottom of my heart, want to express my remorse and my regret for what happened and what I said that language has no place in our discourse, and I am so remorseful for what happened.”

In a statement to ABC News, Coyner also alleged that in a separate phone call in 2020 during a conversation about police qualified immunity, Jones suggested that the death of a few officers might result in fewer police-inflicted killings. 

“During the debate on repealing qualified immunity for law enforcement in Virginia, legislation Jay Jones supported, I stated that I believed that removing qualified immunity would make officers hesitate when making split second decisions, which would lead people and police officers to get killed. Jay stated that if a few police officers died maybe they would move on and stop killing people. His statements were and still are disqualifying, people should not have to die to prove Jay Jones’ talking points,” Coyner said to ABC. 

Jones denied those remarks in a statement to ABC: “I have never believed and do not believe that any harm should come to law enforcement, period.”

Vance, on X, claimed Jones was “fantasizing about murdering his political opponents” and Trump labeled Jones as a “radial left lunatic” while offering his endorsement of Jason Miyares, Jones’ Republican opponent. 

On this issue, the White House and Earle-Sears align — she’s also called for Jones to drop out, and has even cut an ad featuring screenshots of the aforementioned texts. Earle-Sears and Virginia Republicans are attempting to link this scandal to Spanberger, who say her recent advice on the campaign trail to “let your rage fuel you” as motivation to resist against Republicans is incendiary.

Spanberger has not called for Jones to step aside, yet said in a statement that she feels “disgust” for his language and condemned violent language in politics.

Still,  Earle-Sears  has less than a month to use this scandal as momentum and inch closer to Spanberger — with or without White House aid. 

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The top Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee is urging Republicans to hold a hearing on whether the Trump administration committed ethics violations at the beginning of the government shutdown by providing politically charged out-of-office email replies for government employees.

Ranking Member Bobby Scott, D-Va., said multiple federal agencies violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities during their official duties, when they used government messaging that disparaged and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.

“Multiple Executive Departments under the jurisdiction of our Committee have taken political actions in apparent violation of the Hatch Act and other statutes,” Scott wrote in a letter first obtained by ABC News. “I write to ask you to hold hearings on these acts as soon as possible,” Scott said.

The federal agencies under the jurisdiction of the House committee — including at the departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture — are using public statements on their websites that label the lapse in appropriations a “Democrat-led” shutdown while blaming the “radical left.” 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also encouraged federal employees across the government — including at the departments of Labor, Justice and Education — to create out-of-office email messages denouncing “Democrat Senators” for causing the government shutdown, multiple sources confirmed to ABC News.

The approach appears to differ with each agency. Some federal departments did not send out any out-of-office email guidance.

However, multiple furloughed employees at the Department of Education report their out-of-office replies were automatically reset without their permission to say: “Thank you for contacting me. On September 19, 2025, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5371, a clean continuing resolution. Unfortunately, Democrat Senators are blocking passage of H.R. 5371 in the Senate which has led to a lapse in appropriations. Due to the lapse in appropriations I am currently in furlough status. I will respond to emails once government functions resume.”  

One Department of Education staffer told ABC News, “They [the agency] did it after everyone left.” “[I’m] so p—ed,” they said.

The employee added, “We as career government employees need to be neutral when carrying out our jobs. This is such bull—-.”

Several federal workers, including the Education Department staffer, expressed concern to ABC News that adding the messages to their email accounts would violate the Hatch Act. The Education employee, furious about the message, stressed that federal workers are supposed to “serve all people of this country.”

The employee continued, “That [automatic reply] message is what anyone seeking assistance from a government worker is going to see.”

In his letter to Education Committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., Scott condemned the out-of-office reply practice.

“The act of altering the messages of non-partisan employees to literally put political speech in their mouths is incredibly egregious, and may be a violation of additional federal criminal statutes,” he wrote.

The letter comes as negotiations to fund the government are at a standstill as the shutdown stretches past a week.

Meanwhile, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) — a union representing federal government employees whose automatic reply messages were replaced last week — sued the Department of Education for allegedly replacing the emails with messaging that parroted the Trump administration’s talking points.

“Forcing civil servants to speak on behalf of the political leadership’s partisan agenda is a blatant violation of federal employees’ First Amendment rights,” the AFGE said in its suit.

AFGE represents approximately 800,000 federal workers across the government, including most of the remaining staff at the Department of Education.

In a statement to ABC News, Madi Biedermann, the Department of Education deputy assistant secretary for communications, said, “The email reminds those who reach out to Department of Education employees that we cannot respond because Senate Democrats are refusing to vote for a clean CR and fund the government.”

“Where’s the lie?” Biedermann added.

Democracy Forward, the public education advocacy nonprofit representing the plaintiffs in the case, accused the Trump administration of engaging in partisan political rhetoric.

In a statement to ABC News, Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said: “This is beyond outrageous.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Following an unprecedented surge in election-related litigation, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider reviving a lawsuit challenging an Illinois law that allows officials to count mail-in ballots received within two weeks of election day.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments about the broader question of who has the right to file a federal lawsuit challenging election law, the outcome of which could not only revive the mail-in ballot case but also open the door to a wave of new legal challenges to election laws.

Republican Rep. Michael Bost and two presidential electors filed a lawsuit in 2022 to challenge the Illinois law, arguing that counting mail-in ballots beyond Election Day constitutes an illegal extension of voting beyond the timeframe set in federal law. 

Two lower courts threw out the lawsuit after concluding that the congressman lacked standing — or the legal right to bring a lawsuit — because the plaintiffs could not prove the policy harmed them. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in June, adding to one of the high court’s most consequential terms in recent history.

 President Donald Trump and his allies have long criticized the practice of mail-in voting, using it as ammunition to cast doubt on the outcome of the 2020 election. In August, Trump vowed to “lead a movement to get rid of” mail-in voting, though his campaign had encouraged voters to use mail ballots. 

“It’s time that the Republicans get tough and stop it, because the Democrats want it. It’s the only way they can get elected,” Trump said then.

When a federal district judge threw out Bost’s lawsuit in 2022, the decision stemmed from the question of whether the congressman and the electors had the grounds to sue, not the merits of his legal argument about mail-in ballots. The court ruled that Bost’s claims about being harmed by the policy — including having to use campaign resources during the post-election ballot counting period — were a “generalized grievance” that did not provide him standing to sue.  

To bring a lawsuit in federal court, a plaintiff generally needs to establish that a particular action injures them, that the action stemmed from the person he or she is suing, and that the court’s solution would resolve the harm.

Together with electors Laura Pollatrini and Susan Sweeney, Bost argues that the mail-in ballot policy not only harms his election prospects but also causes a “pocketbook injury,” because candidates need to continue staffing their campaigns through the ballot-counting period.

“When it comes to elections, candidates running for office plainly have the most at stake. They put their lives on hold and spend countless hours and millions of dollars organizing and running campaigns,” their lawyers wrote. “When the dust settles, the candidates either win or lose, with months of effort and untold expenditures either vindicated or forever lost.” 

The Illinois State Board of Elections has pushed back by arguing that the potential impact on Bost’s “electoral prospects” is too speculative and that political candidates are under no requirement to continue staffing their campaigns after the election, effectively making the injury that Bost claims he suffers voluntary. 

Illinois has also argued that allowing Bost to bring the lawsuit would open the floodgates of frivolous lawsuits “to challenge any election rule on the books for purely ideological reasons” and cause local governments to spend more time fighting lawsuits and less time administering elections.

The Trump administration has supported part of Bost’s argument about having the right to sue over the ballot policy, though Solicitor General D. John Sauer pushed back on the claim that candidates have broad claims to bring election-related lawsuits.

“This Court can …. establish a clear rule for standing to litigate disputes over election laws: candidates have standing to seek prospective relief challenging a rule governing the validity of ballots so long as there is a risk that the ballots at issue could affect the outcome of their election,” Sauer wrote in an amicus brief.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump says he’d consider declaring an “insurrection” inside the United States, accusing Democratic governors and mayors of preventing the federal government from enforcing immigration laws and turning their cities in “war zones.”

“Chicago’s a great city where there’s a lot of crime,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday. “And if the governor can’t do the job, we’ll do the job. It’s all very simple.”

Invoking the Insurrection Act would unfurl extraordinary presidential powers to use military force in American cities in a manner not used since the Civil Rights Movement.

It also would potentially pit troops from a southern Republican-run state against northern Democratic-run cities and states. 

Some 200 National Guard troops from Texas were preparing to deploy to Chicago this week, administration officials told a federal judge this week who agreed not to block the deployments for now.  

“That escalates the situation quite a bit,” Katherine Kuzminski, director of studies at the Center for a New American Security, said of the deployment of Texas troops to Chicago.

“It creates a tinderbox,” she said.

Under the law, the president can use military troops to protect federal buildings and federal employees. But they can only conduct domestic law enforcement if they remain under control of the state’s governors.

A major exception to those constraints is the Insurrection Act, which Trump said he’d be open to invoking if people were getting killed and if Democrats running states like Illinois and Oregon “were holding us up.”

Signed into law in 1807 by President Thomas Jefferson, that law allows the president to deploy military troops inside the U.S. to act as law enforcement and quell an “insurrection” that threatens a state or its residents.  

“If I had to enact it, I do,” Trump said. “If people were being killed, and courts were holding us up, or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure I’d do that.”

In an interview on Newsmax, Trump said he wouldn’t invoke the law if he didn’t have to. At the same time, he told the outlet what is happening is “pure insurrection.”

Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker has called allegations of civil unrest in his state “complete bs” and pushed back on the arrival of Texan troops as an “unconstitutional invasion of Illinois by the federal government.”

If Trump declares an insurrection in Illinois, it would mark the first time a president has invoked the law without a governor’s consent since Lyndon Johnson did so to protect civil rights activists in 1965 in Alabama. 

Since then, the law has been invoked at a governor’s behest, including in 1992 during riots in California following the acquittal of police officers accused of beating motorist Rodney King. 

On Monday, both Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott and senior Trump aide Stephen Miller echoed Trump’s accusations that Chicago was a “war zone” and blamed Democratic politicians as refusing to enforce federal laws.

“We have local states refusing to enforce the law, and we have chaos,” Abbott said in an interview on Fox News with host Sean Hannity. 

Miller, who has led Trump’s push for mass deportations inside the United States, directly accused local officials of trying to undermine the federal government.

“There is an effort to delegitimize the core function of the federal government of enforcing our immigration laws and our sovereignty,” he said in an interview on CNN on Monday.

“It is domestic terrorism. It is insurrection,” Miller added. 

Kuzminski with the Center for a New American Security said the president has broad authority to invoke the Insurrection Act. But after Democratic-led states inevitably sue in court, a judge would likely press Trump to provide evidence that an insurrection has occurred.

In the case of Illinois, it’s possible the Trump administration would point to the “rebellion” as coming from Pritzker and other Democratic politicians themselves.

Pritzker said at a news conference on Monday that he believes invoking the Insurrection Act is part of Trump’s plan.

“The Trump administration is following a playbook — cause chaos, create fear and confusion, make it seem like peaceful protesters are a mob by firing gas pellets and tear gas canisters at night,” Pritzker told reporters.

“Why? To create the pretext for invoking the Insurrection Act so that he can send military troops to our city,” he added.

Kuzminski said there’s a reason why a federal government should move cautiously when thinking about unleashing military might in American cities.

“We are proud of the fact that we train the world’s most lethal fighting force,” Kuzminski said. “And that’s why we have such firm boundaries on their use in law enforcement.” 

ABC News’ Katherine Faulders and Peter Charalambous contributed to this report.  

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.