FIRST ON FOX: Army veteran and business executive Kendall Qualls has officially launched his campaign to challenge former Democrat vice presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz to be the next governor of Minnesota.While Walz has not yet formally announced a third consecutive gubernatorial bid, Qualls, who also ran for governor in 2022, framed the race for Minnesota's highest office as an opportunity to fix the problems Walz created."I'm running because, after a 16-year reign of failed leadership, the citizens of Minnesota are looking for a different direction. They're looking for new leadership, and I'm here to make sure they get it," Qualls told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview ahead of his campaign launch on Tuesday night.In a statement shared first with Fox News Digital, Qualls said he is the only candidate who can help Minnesota reach its potential.WALZ SAYS HARRIS PICKED HIM FOR VP TO 'CODE TALK TO WHITE GUYS'"I dont need to tell you that Minnesota is at a crossroads," Qualls said in a statement. "Tim Walz took us further down the road of lost jobs, fleeing companies, rising crime and cratering education. Now, hes spending more time outside the state on a vanity tour than he is trying to move Minnesota forward. Thats not leadership."WHITE HOUSE TORCHES TIM WALZ'S SPEECH ABOUT TRUMP'S 'GULAGS,' 'CHAOS': 'HIS LARGEST CITY BURNED TO THE GROUND'Qualls explained that Minnesotans want to build the economy, feel safe in their communities and improve education, but "we're not going to get any of those changes from Tim Walz.""Im the only candidate who can help Minnesota live up to its potential. If we are going to fix the budget Tim Walz broke, we need a proven leader with real-world business experience. If we are going to take back our streets and our classrooms, we need a candidate with a conservative backbone and law and order credentials," Qualls said.Qualls said the only way to create the change that Minnesotans are asking for is to bring in a political outsider like himself."Much like President Trump with his experience in business and leadership, my background has been in business. And before that, I was an officer in the United States Army. And even before that, I grew up in dire poverty. I know that there's a formula for success in this country, even if we don't come from a background of privilege," Qualls said.The gubernatorial candidate said he wants Americans to know there is a pathway forward in the United States for anyone to succeed, regardless of their background or where they went to school. But Qualls said the government has a responsibility to get out of the way of those pathways to success."There are pathways out. And unfortunately, what I'm finding with the Democrats is that they have been closing those doors of prosperity. When I turned 18 years old, I registered as a Republican, and I never looked back. I didn't know any Republicans. I didn't have a country club membership, but what I did know was what the Democrats were doing in the Black community was something I didn't want to be a part of. They weren't helping. They were making things worse," Qualls said, who grew up in poverty in Harlem in New York and in a trailer park in Oklahoma.While Qualls is presenting his campaign as the only alternative to what he describes as the destruction of Minnesota's current Democrat rule, it's not his first time running for the state's highest office."In this last election, I finished number two out of seven candidates in the Republican endorsement process. I agreed to abide by the endorsement. I actually endorsed. The candidate that won. But unfortunately, in that election in 2022, we lost everything, the governorship, Senate, House, attorney general, everything. And a lot of people felt that maybe we had the wrong candidate at the top of the ticket," Qualls said.But Qualls said this time is different."I worked around the state for four years helping candidates raise money, just rallying the troops," Qualls said. "There's a sense of true leadership that people haven't seen before."Leaning on his increased name recognition this time around, Qualls said he is focused on building a grassroots coalition of Minnesota Republicans who are ready for change.Walz did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

The case on the Supreme Court's docket this week ostensibly deals with a challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship.But overriding that important constitutional debate is a more immediate and potentially far-reaching test of judicial power: the ability of individual federal judges to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, preventing temporary enforcement of President Donald Trump's sweeping executive actions.That will be the focus when the nine justices hear oral arguments Thursday morning about how President Trump's restrictions on who can be called an American citizen can proceed in the lower federal courts.Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office that would end automatic citizenship for children of people in the U.S. illegally.SUPREME COURT POISED TO MAKE MAJOR DECISION THAT COULD SET LIMITS ON THE POWER OF DISTRICT JUDGESSeparate coalitions of about two dozen states, along with immigrant rights groups, and private individuals including several pregnant women in Maryland have sued.Three separate federal judges subsequently issued orders temporarily blocking enforcement across the country while the issues are fully litigated in court. Appeals courts have declined to disturb those rulings.Now the three consolidated cases come to the high court in an unusual scenario, a rare May oral argument that has been fast-tracked for an expected ruling in coming days or weeks.The executive order remains on hold nationwide until the justices decide.But the cases will likely not be decided on the merits at this stage, only on whether to narrow the scope of those injunctions. That would allow the policy to take effect in limited parts of the country or only to those plaintiffs actually suing over the president's authority.SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASEA high court decision could be sweeping, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 and counting federal lawsuits against White House actions filed since Jan. 20, according to a Fox News data analysis.Of those, more than 200 judicial orders have halted large parts of the president's agenda from being enacted, almost 40 of them nationwide injunctions. Dozens of other cases have seen no legal action so far on gateway issues like temporary enforcement.While the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the use of universal injunctions, several conservative justices have expressed concerns over power.Justice Clarence Thomas in 2018 labeled them "legally and historically dubious," adding, "These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch."And it comes to the Supreme Court as part of the so-called emergency or "shadow" docket, time-sensitive appeals known officially as "applications" that usually arrive in the early stages.They seek to temporarily block or delay a lower court or government action that, despite its procedurally narrow posture, can have immediate and far-reaching implications.Things like requests for stays of execution, voting restrictions, COVID vaccine mandates or access to a federally approved abortion medication and, since January, Trump's sweeping executive reform plans.Some members of the court have expressed concern that these kinds of appeals are arriving with greater frequency in recent years, high-profile issues leading to rushed decisions without the benefit of full briefing or deliberation.'ACTIVIST' JUDGES KEEP TRYING TO CURB TRUMPS AGENDA HERES HOW HE COULD PUSH BACKJustice Elena Kagan last year said the shadow docket's caseload has been "relentless," adding, "Weve gotten into a pattern where we're doing too many of them."The pace this term has only increased with the new administration frustrated at dozens of lower court setbacks."We've seen a lot of justices critical of the fact that the court is taking an increasing number of cases and deciding them using the shadow docket," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department lawyer and a top appellate advocate."These justices say, 'Look, we don't have to decide this on an emergency basis. We can wait.'"Many progressive lawyers complain the Trump administration has been too eager to bypass the normal district and intermediate appellate court process, seeking quick, end-around Supreme Court review on consequential questions of law only when it loses.The debate over birthright citizenship and injunctions is expected to expose further ideological divides on the court's 6-3 conservative majority.That is especially true when it comes to the 13 challenges over Trump policies that have reached the justices so far, with six of them awaiting a ruling.The court's three more liberal justices have pushed back at several preliminary victories for the administration, including its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport scores of illegal immigrants suspected of criminal gang activity in the U.S.TRUMP'S REMARKS COULD COME BACK TO BITE HIM IN ABREGO GARCIA DEPORTATION BATTLEDissenting in one such emergency appeal over the deportations to El Salvador, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "The Governments conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law.""Our job is to stand up for people who can't do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes," Sotomayor separately told an American Bar Association audience last week. "But, right now, we can't lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight."Trump has made no secret of his disdain for judges who have ruled against his policies or at least blocked them from being immediately implemented.He called for the formal removal of one federal judge after an adverse decision over deporting illegal immigrants. That prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public statement, saying, "Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."And in separate remarks last week, the chief justice underscored the judiciary's duty to "check the excesses of Congress or the executive."The first section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."Trump said last month he was "so happy" the Supreme Court will hear arguments, adding, "I think the case has been so misunderstood."The president said the 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to people born in the U.S., was ratified right after the Civil War, which he interpreted as "all about slavery.""If you look at it that way, we would win that case," the president said in Oval Office remarks.Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," would deny it to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are illegal immigrants. And it bans federal agencies from issuing or accepting documents recognizing citizenship for those children.An estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 are living with an unauthorized immigrant parent, according to the Pew Research Center. There are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, 3.3% of the population. Although some census experts suggest those numbers may be higher.But in its legal brief filed with the high court, the Justice Department argues the issue now is really about judges blocking enforcement of the president's policies while the cases weave their way through the courts, a process that could last months or even years. The government initially framed its high court appeal as a "modest request."CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS ADDRESSES DIVISIONS BETWEEN JUSTICES AFTER SEVERAL RECENT SCOTUS SKIRMISHES"These injunctions exceed the district courts authority under Article III [of the Constitution] and gravely encroach on the Presidents executive power under Article II," said Solicitor General John Sauer, who will argue the administration's case Thursday. "Until this Court decides whether nationwide injunctions are permissible, a carefully selected subset of district courts will persist in granting them as a matter of course, relying on malleable eye-of-the-beholder criteria."The plaintiffs counter the government is misguided in what it calls "citizenship stripping" and the use of nationwide injunctions."Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay," said Nicholas Brown, the attorney general of Washington state. "If this Court steps in when the applicant [government] is so plainly wrong on the law, there will be no end to stay applications and claims of emergency, undermining the proper role and stature of this Court. This Court should deny the applications."The consolidated cases are Trump v. CASA (24a884);Trump v. State of Washington (24a885);Trump v. New Jersey (24a886).

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday fired back at Democrat Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell's public accusation that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents "do not share [the state's] values of safety" after a Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) operation in coordination with ICE resulted in nearly 200 illegal immigrant arrests.ICE and THP announced 196 arrests of illegal immigrants during the Nashville effort, 95 of whom had prior criminal convictions and pending criminal charges.More than 30 were previously removed individuals who reentered the U.S. illegally, a felony offense under federal law.ICE TOUTS RECORD-BREAKING IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT DURING TRUMP'S FIRST 100 DAYSDespite the operation's success in protecting Americans from illegal immigrants, DHS officials wrote in a news release that OConnell "stands by pro-illegal policies, claiming that these operations were done by people who do not share our values of safety."DHS noted "attacks and demonization of ICE" have resulted in officers facing a 413% increase in assaults."You would think all public officials would unite around DHS bringing violent criminal illegal aliens to justice and removing them from American communities," DHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a news release. "However, pro-open borders politicians like Mayor OConnell would rather protect illegal aliens than American citizens."TRUMP NABS 30K ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, 1,100 GANG MEMBERS IN 100 DAYS: 'CRIME WILL GO DOWN,' EX-FBI AGENT SAYS"This operation resulted in getting gang members, sex offenders, and other violent criminals off Nashvilles streets," McLaughlin added. "President [Donald] Trump and [DHS] Secretary [Kristi] Noem will continue to stand with victims and the brave ICE agents who are on the front lines, making America safe again."Though OConnell launched the "Belonging Fund" to provide taxpayer dollars for illegal immigrants in Nashville, DHS officials stood firm, saying, "BOTTOM LINE: DHS is [a] law enforcement agency, and it will continue to enforce the law and work with all state and local partners so that Americans do not continue to be victimized by criminal aliens."Below are detainees who ICE officials said were nabbed during the Nashville operation.Jassim Jafaf Al-Raash, a 60-year-old illegal immigrant from Iraq, was previously convicted of rape, for which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, according to DHS officials.He was also convicted of larceny and false imprisonment, for which he was sentenced to nearly a year in prison, and charged with failure to register as a sex offender.Al-Raash had a final order of removal dated Sept. 1, 2021, according to DHS.Franklin Oswaldo Velasquez, a 33-year-old illegal immigrant from El Salvador, is allegedly affiliated with the MS-13 gang, according to DHS.He has an active Red Notice in El Salvador for aggravated murder, which is a worldwide wanted alert.Velasquez was convicted of possession of methamphetamines, possession of drug paraphernalia, failure to appear and criminal impersonation, according to DHS.NEARLY 800 ILLEGAL ALIENS ARRESTED IN MASSIVE FLORIDA ICE OPERATION: TIDAL WAVEInmar Antonio Penado-Membreno, a 34-year-old illegal immigrant from El Salvador, was previously convicted of possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell cocaine, for which he was sentenced to eight years in prison, according to DHS.Penado-Membreno was also convicted of aggravated assault, for which he was sentenced to four years in prison, officials said.Richard St. Baptiste, a 36-year-old illegal immigrant from Haiti, was previously convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, for which he was sentenced to eight years of probation, according to DHS.He was also convicted of marijuana possession, for which he was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment, according to officials.Carlos Reinaldo Alvarado-Rodriguez, a 39-year-old illegal immigrant from Guatemala, was previously convicted of aggravated assault, for which he was sentenced to four years in prison, according to DHS.DHS and O'Connell's office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digitals request for comment.

A federal grand jury indicted a Wisconsin circuit court judge on Tuesday, who was arrested last month for allegedly shielding an illegal immigrant from federal agents.Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested and charged with obstruction of an official proceeding on April 25, after evidence became known that she had shielded an illegal immigrant from federal agents, according to a criminal complaint. She was also charged with concealing an individual to prevent discovery and arrest.Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury after listening to testimony regarding charges that she allegedly tried to help an illegal alien escape arrest in her courtroom.On Tuesday, a federal grand jury convened to consider the indictment, hearing testimony that included statements from Eduardo Flores-Ruiz's attorney, who has since withdrawn from his case, and Dugan's court clerk.MILWAUKEE JUDGE HANNAH DUGAN 'TEMPORARILY RELIEVED OF HER OFFICIAL DUTIES' BY WISCONSIN SUPREME COURTAlso giving testimony was Milwaukee County Judge Kristela Cervera, a misdemeanor judge whose courtroom is next to Dugan's. The panel was expected to decide whether to indict Dugan ahead of her previously scheduled preliminary court hearing.Dugan's attorneys told Fox News, "As she said after her unnecessary arrest, JudgeDugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court."Dugan is expected back in federal court on May 15, to face federal charges of felony obstruction of a federal agency and concealing a person to help them avoid arrest, which is a misdemeanor. She is expected to enter a plea on the charges during the hearing.MILWAUKEE JUDGE HANNAH DUGAN ADDS FORMER BUSH SOLICITOR GENERAL TO DEFENSE TEAMThe FBI arrested Dugan for allegedly hiding a previously deported illegal immigrant in her jury room to stop him from being arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.Federal agents from ICE, FBI, CBP and DEA attempted to arrest Flores-Ruiz after his scheduled criminal court appearance before Dugan on April 18, to face three misdemeanor battery charges for allegedly beating up two people.Dugan demanded that the officers proceed to the chief judges office and, after his hearing ended, escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a restricted jury door, bypassing the public area where agents were waiting in order to help him avoid arrest, per the complaint.WISCONSIN JUDGE THREATENS COURTROOM BOYCOTT OVER HANNAH DUGAN ARRESTHer attorney, Craig Mastantuono, told the court last month, "Judge Dugan wholeheartedly regrets and protests her arrest. It was not made in the interest of public safety."Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem told Jesse Watters on Tuesday that she was "grateful" Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury."She will be held accountable for that," Noem said. "That was a great decision, coming forward, to recognize that nobody can facilitate breaking the law. We shouldnt be able to allow that in this country, and we need to make sure that even judges are held accountable for their actions."Attorney General Pam Bondi previously blasted Dugan's actions on Fox's "America Reports.""We could not believe that a judge really did that," Bondi said. "You cannot obstruct a criminal case. And really, shame on her. It was a domestic violence case of all cases, and she's protecting a criminal defendant over victims of crime."Bondi said Flores-Ruiz beat up two people, "a guy and a girl.""[He] beat the guy, hit the guy 30 times, knocked him to the ground, choked him, beat up a woman so badly; they both had to go to the hospital," she said.Fox News' Patrick McGovern, Michael Dorgan, Jake Gibson and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

The NFL is playing seven international games during the 2025 season, and there is some history involved on multiple levels.Almost all the games and teams involved were announced on Tuesday, and each destination has been set.London, which has been the sight of NFL regular-season games since 2007, will have three contests. The NFL is also heading back to Brazil and Germany, while two countries will have its first taste of regular season football this year.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMDublin, Ireland and Madrid, Spain will also host teams vying for the Vince Lombardi Trophy next season. Heres the full rundown of who will be playing in each game:FOX ANNOUNCES SATURDAY NFL DIVISION RIVAL DOUBLEHEADER WHEN PLAYOFF RACES GET SPICYIt was reported the Kansas City Chiefs were going to travel to Brazil to face their AFC West-rival Chargers, though the announcement with exact opponents should come Wednesday.Also, its worth noting that the Vikings will become the first team in NFL history to play in two separate countries on back-to-back weeks. Their dynamic offense, which is expected to be led by J.J. McCarthy next season, will be on full display in Ireland and the United Kingdom early in the schedule.Continuing the global initiative is what the NFL has made a point in doing, and that includes increasing the number of international games on the regular season schedule.London was the main hub for building NFL fandom, but in 2022, the league also started to make its presence known in Germany. The Falcons-Colts matchup will be the fifth game played in the country since that year.The Philadelphia Eagles and Green Bay Packers made history this past season with a game in So Paulo, which was the start of Saquon Barkleys Offensive Player of the Year season with his new squad.And while the league is excited to see games in two different countries this season, there is already a plan in place to get one down under in Melbourne, Australia in 2026.The season schedule for every team in the league will drop on Wednesday.Follow Fox News Digitalssports coverage on X, and subscribe tothe Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced a bill aimed at criminalizing pornography and defining what is obscene and what is not.Lee and Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) for all states, which, if passed, would make it illegal to transmit obscene content across state lines while also making it easier to prosecute."Obscenity isnt protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children," Lee said in a news release. "Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted."The IODA attempts to clarify the definition of obscenity in all states and gives updated descriptions that are suited to modern content.LAWS PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM ONLINE PORN ARE WINNING IN SOME STATES AS ACTIVISTS PUSH NATIONWIDE SOLUTIONSpecifically, the new definition removes the current laws dependence on ever-changing and elusive public opinion and replaces it with practical standards that make obscenity identifiable, according to Lees team.Lee and Miller could not be reached by Fox News Digital for comment on their proposed bill.The current legal definition of obscenity originated from a 1973 Supreme Court case, and the standards are subjective and vague, making it difficult to apply to any material.PORNHUB SHUTS DOWN WEBSITE IN TEXAS AFTER GETTING SUED UNDER AGE VERIFICATION LAWBecause the pre-internet standards are so vague, they often present challenges in court when it comes to defining what is obscene and ultimately allow "criminals to evade prosecution," the press release said.Lees IODA defines "obscenity" within the Communications Act of 1934 and "appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion."PORNHUB PARENT COMPANY SUED BY TEXAS AG FOR FAILING TO VERIFY USERS' AGESThe bill also "depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sex acts" intended to "arouse, titillate or gratify" a persons sexual desires. Adding to that, the bill identifies obscene material as that which "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."The IODA also removes the "intent" requirement, which only prohibits the transmission of obscene material for the purpose of abusing, threatening or harassing an individual."The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act equips law enforcement with the tools they need to target and remove obscene material from the internet, which is alarmingly destructive and far outside the bounds of protected free speech under the Constitution," Miller said."Im proud to lead this effort in the House with Sen. Lee to safeguard American families and ensure this dangerous material is kept out of our homes and off our screens."

FIRST ON FOX: Army veteran and business executive Kendall Qualls has officially launched his campaign to challenge former Democrat vice presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz to be the next governor of Minnesota.While Walz has not yet formally announced a third consecutive gubernatorial bid, Qualls, who also ran for governor in 2022, framed the race for Minnesota's highest office as an opportunity to fix the problems Walz created."I'm running because, after a 16-year reign of failed leadership, the citizens of Minnesota are looking for a different direction. They're looking for new leadership, and I'm here to make sure they get it," Qualls told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview ahead of his campaign launch on Tuesday night.In a statement shared first with Fox News Digital, Qualls said he is the only candidate who can help Minnesota reach its potential.WALZ SAYS HARRIS PICKED HIM FOR VP TO 'CODE TALK TO WHITE GUYS'"I dont need to tell you that Minnesota is at a crossroads," Qualls said in a statement. "Tim Walz took us further down the road of lost jobs, fleeing companies, rising crime and cratering education. Now, hes spending more time outside the state on a vanity tour than he is trying to move Minnesota forward. Thats not leadership."WHITE HOUSE TORCHES TIM WALZ'S SPEECH ABOUT TRUMP'S 'GULAGS,' 'CHAOS': 'HIS LARGEST CITY BURNED TO THE GROUND'Qualls explained that Minnesotans want to build the economy, feel safe in their communities and improve education, but "we're not going to get any of those changes from Tim Walz.""Im the only candidate who can help Minnesota live up to its potential. If we are going to fix the budget Tim Walz broke, we need a proven leader with real-world business experience. If we are going to take back our streets and our classrooms, we need a candidate with a conservative backbone and law and order credentials," Qualls said.Qualls said the only way to create the change that Minnesotans are asking for is to bring in a political outsider like himself."Much like President Trump with his experience in business and leadership, my background has been in business. And before that, I was an officer in the United States Army. And even before that, I grew up in dire poverty. I know that there's a formula for success in this country, even if we don't come from a background of privilege," Qualls said.The gubernatorial candidate said he wants Americans to know there is a pathway forward in the United States for anyone to succeed, regardless of their background or where they went to school. But Qualls said the government has a responsibility to get out of the way of those pathways to success."There are pathways out. And unfortunately, what I'm finding with the Democrats is that they have been closing those doors of prosperity. When I turned 18 years old, I registered as a Republican, and I never looked back. I didn't know any Republicans. I didn't have a country club membership, but what I did know was what the Democrats were doing in the Black community was something I didn't want to be a part of. They weren't helping. They were making things worse," Qualls said, who grew up in poverty in Harlem in New York and in a trailer park in Oklahoma.While Qualls is presenting his campaign as the only alternative to what he describes as the destruction of Minnesota's current Democrat rule, it's not his first time running for the state's highest office."In this last election, I finished number two out of seven candidates in the Republican endorsement process. I agreed to abide by the endorsement. I actually endorsed. The candidate that won. But unfortunately, in that election in 2022, we lost everything, the governorship, Senate, House, attorney general, everything. And a lot of people felt that maybe we had the wrong candidate at the top of the ticket," Qualls said.But Qualls said this time is different."I worked around the state for four years helping candidates raise money, just rallying the troops," Qualls said. "There's a sense of true leadership that people haven't seen before."Leaning on his increased name recognition this time around, Qualls said he is focused on building a grassroots coalition of Minnesota Republicans who are ready for change.Walz did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

The case on the Supreme Court's docket this week ostensibly deals with a challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship.But overriding that important constitutional debate is a more immediate and potentially far-reaching test of judicial power: the ability of individual federal judges to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, preventing temporary enforcement of President Donald Trump's sweeping executive actions.That will be the focus when the nine justices hear oral arguments Thursday morning about how President Trump's restrictions on who can be called an American citizen can proceed in the lower federal courts.Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office that would end automatic citizenship for children of people in the U.S. illegally.SUPREME COURT POISED TO MAKE MAJOR DECISION THAT COULD SET LIMITS ON THE POWER OF DISTRICT JUDGESSeparate coalitions of about two dozen states, along with immigrant rights groups, and private individuals including several pregnant women in Maryland have sued.Three separate federal judges subsequently issued orders temporarily blocking enforcement across the country while the issues are fully litigated in court. Appeals courts have declined to disturb those rulings.Now the three consolidated cases come to the high court in an unusual scenario, a rare May oral argument that has been fast-tracked for an expected ruling in coming days or weeks.The executive order remains on hold nationwide until the justices decide.But the cases will likely not be decided on the merits at this stage, only on whether to narrow the scope of those injunctions. That would allow the policy to take effect in limited parts of the country or only to those plaintiffs actually suing over the president's authority.SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASEA high court decision could be sweeping, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 and counting federal lawsuits against White House actions filed since Jan. 20, according to a Fox News data analysis.Of those, more than 200 judicial orders have halted large parts of the president's agenda from being enacted, almost 40 of them nationwide injunctions. Dozens of other cases have seen no legal action so far on gateway issues like temporary enforcement.While the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the use of universal injunctions, several conservative justices have expressed concerns over power.Justice Clarence Thomas in 2018 labeled them "legally and historically dubious," adding, "These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch."And it comes to the Supreme Court as part of the so-called emergency or "shadow" docket, time-sensitive appeals known officially as "applications" that usually arrive in the early stages.They seek to temporarily block or delay a lower court or government action that, despite its procedurally narrow posture, can have immediate and far-reaching implications.Things like requests for stays of execution, voting restrictions, COVID vaccine mandates or access to a federally approved abortion medication and, since January, Trump's sweeping executive reform plans.Some members of the court have expressed concern that these kinds of appeals are arriving with greater frequency in recent years, high-profile issues leading to rushed decisions without the benefit of full briefing or deliberation.'ACTIVIST' JUDGES KEEP TRYING TO CURB TRUMPS AGENDA HERES HOW HE COULD PUSH BACKJustice Elena Kagan last year said the shadow docket's caseload has been "relentless," adding, "Weve gotten into a pattern where we're doing too many of them."The pace this term has only increased with the new administration frustrated at dozens of lower court setbacks."We've seen a lot of justices critical of the fact that the court is taking an increasing number of cases and deciding them using the shadow docket," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department lawyer and a top appellate advocate."These justices say, 'Look, we don't have to decide this on an emergency basis. We can wait.'"Many progressive lawyers complain the Trump administration has been too eager to bypass the normal district and intermediate appellate court process, seeking quick, end-around Supreme Court review on consequential questions of law only when it loses.The debate over birthright citizenship and injunctions is expected to expose further ideological divides on the court's 6-3 conservative majority.That is especially true when it comes to the 13 challenges over Trump policies that have reached the justices so far, with six of them awaiting a ruling.The court's three more liberal justices have pushed back at several preliminary victories for the administration, including its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport scores of illegal immigrants suspected of criminal gang activity in the U.S.TRUMP'S REMARKS COULD COME BACK TO BITE HIM IN ABREGO GARCIA DEPORTATION BATTLEDissenting in one such emergency appeal over the deportations to El Salvador, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "The Governments conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law.""Our job is to stand up for people who can't do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes," Sotomayor separately told an American Bar Association audience last week. "But, right now, we can't lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight."Trump has made no secret of his disdain for judges who have ruled against his policies or at least blocked them from being immediately implemented.He called for the formal removal of one federal judge after an adverse decision over deporting illegal immigrants. That prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public statement, saying, "Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."And in separate remarks last week, the chief justice underscored the judiciary's duty to "check the excesses of Congress or the executive."The first section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."Trump said last month he was "so happy" the Supreme Court will hear arguments, adding, "I think the case has been so misunderstood."The president said the 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to people born in the U.S., was ratified right after the Civil War, which he interpreted as "all about slavery.""If you look at it that way, we would win that case," the president said in Oval Office remarks.Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," would deny it to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are illegal immigrants. And it bans federal agencies from issuing or accepting documents recognizing citizenship for those children.An estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 are living with an unauthorized immigrant parent, according to the Pew Research Center. There are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, 3.3% of the population. Although some census experts suggest those numbers may be higher.But in its legal brief filed with the high court, the Justice Department argues the issue now is really about judges blocking enforcement of the president's policies while the cases weave their way through the courts, a process that could last months or even years. The government initially framed its high court appeal as a "modest request."CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS ADDRESSES DIVISIONS BETWEEN JUSTICES AFTER SEVERAL RECENT SCOTUS SKIRMISHES"These injunctions exceed the district courts authority under Article III [of the Constitution] and gravely encroach on the Presidents executive power under Article II," said Solicitor General John Sauer, who will argue the administration's case Thursday. "Until this Court decides whether nationwide injunctions are permissible, a carefully selected subset of district courts will persist in granting them as a matter of course, relying on malleable eye-of-the-beholder criteria."The plaintiffs counter the government is misguided in what it calls "citizenship stripping" and the use of nationwide injunctions."Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay," said Nicholas Brown, the attorney general of Washington state. "If this Court steps in when the applicant [government] is so plainly wrong on the law, there will be no end to stay applications and claims of emergency, undermining the proper role and stature of this Court. This Court should deny the applications."The consolidated cases are Trump v. CASA (24a884);Trump v. State of Washington (24a885);Trump v. New Jersey (24a886).

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday fired back at Democrat Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell's public accusation that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents "do not share [the state's] values of safety" after a Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) operation in coordination with ICE resulted in nearly 200 illegal immigrant arrests.ICE and THP announced 196 arrests of illegal immigrants during the Nashville effort, 95 of whom had prior criminal convictions and pending criminal charges.More than 30 were previously removed individuals who reentered the U.S. illegally, a felony offense under federal law.ICE TOUTS RECORD-BREAKING IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT DURING TRUMP'S FIRST 100 DAYSDespite the operation's success in protecting Americans from illegal immigrants, DHS officials wrote in a news release that OConnell "stands by pro-illegal policies, claiming that these operations were done by people who do not share our values of safety."DHS noted "attacks and demonization of ICE" have resulted in officers facing a 413% increase in assaults."You would think all public officials would unite around DHS bringing violent criminal illegal aliens to justice and removing them from American communities," DHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a news release. "However, pro-open borders politicians like Mayor OConnell would rather protect illegal aliens than American citizens."TRUMP NABS 30K ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, 1,100 GANG MEMBERS IN 100 DAYS: 'CRIME WILL GO DOWN,' EX-FBI AGENT SAYS"This operation resulted in getting gang members, sex offenders, and other violent criminals off Nashvilles streets," McLaughlin added. "President [Donald] Trump and [DHS] Secretary [Kristi] Noem will continue to stand with victims and the brave ICE agents who are on the front lines, making America safe again."Though OConnell launched the "Belonging Fund" to provide taxpayer dollars for illegal immigrants in Nashville, DHS officials stood firm, saying, "BOTTOM LINE: DHS is [a] law enforcement agency, and it will continue to enforce the law and work with all state and local partners so that Americans do not continue to be victimized by criminal aliens."Below are detainees who ICE officials said were nabbed during the Nashville operation.Jassim Jafaf Al-Raash, a 60-year-old illegal immigrant from Iraq, was previously convicted of rape, for which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, according to DHS officials.He was also convicted of larceny and false imprisonment, for which he was sentenced to nearly a year in prison, and charged with failure to register as a sex offender.Al-Raash had a final order of removal dated Sept. 1, 2021, according to DHS.Franklin Oswaldo Velasquez, a 33-year-old illegal immigrant from El Salvador, is allegedly affiliated with the MS-13 gang, according to DHS.He has an active Red Notice in El Salvador for aggravated murder, which is a worldwide wanted alert.Velasquez was convicted of possession of methamphetamines, possession of drug paraphernalia, failure to appear and criminal impersonation, according to DHS.NEARLY 800 ILLEGAL ALIENS ARRESTED IN MASSIVE FLORIDA ICE OPERATION: TIDAL WAVEInmar Antonio Penado-Membreno, a 34-year-old illegal immigrant from El Salvador, was previously convicted of possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell cocaine, for which he was sentenced to eight years in prison, according to DHS.Penado-Membreno was also convicted of aggravated assault, for which he was sentenced to four years in prison, officials said.Richard St. Baptiste, a 36-year-old illegal immigrant from Haiti, was previously convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, for which he was sentenced to eight years of probation, according to DHS.He was also convicted of marijuana possession, for which he was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment, according to officials.Carlos Reinaldo Alvarado-Rodriguez, a 39-year-old illegal immigrant from Guatemala, was previously convicted of aggravated assault, for which he was sentenced to four years in prison, according to DHS.DHS and O'Connell's office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digitals request for comment.

A federal grand jury indicted a Wisconsin circuit court judge on Tuesday, who was arrested last month for allegedly shielding an illegal immigrant from federal agents.Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested and charged with obstruction of an official proceeding on April 25, after evidence became known that she had shielded an illegal immigrant from federal agents, according to a criminal complaint. She was also charged with concealing an individual to prevent discovery and arrest.Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury after listening to testimony regarding charges that she allegedly tried to help an illegal alien escape arrest in her courtroom.On Tuesday, a federal grand jury convened to consider the indictment, hearing testimony that included statements from Eduardo Flores-Ruiz's attorney, who has since withdrawn from his case, and Dugan's court clerk.MILWAUKEE JUDGE HANNAH DUGAN 'TEMPORARILY RELIEVED OF HER OFFICIAL DUTIES' BY WISCONSIN SUPREME COURTAlso giving testimony was Milwaukee County Judge Kristela Cervera, a misdemeanor judge whose courtroom is next to Dugan's. The panel was expected to decide whether to indict Dugan ahead of her previously scheduled preliminary court hearing.Dugan's attorneys told Fox News, "As she said after her unnecessary arrest, JudgeDugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court."Dugan is expected back in federal court on May 15, to face federal charges of felony obstruction of a federal agency and concealing a person to help them avoid arrest, which is a misdemeanor. She is expected to enter a plea on the charges during the hearing.MILWAUKEE JUDGE HANNAH DUGAN ADDS FORMER BUSH SOLICITOR GENERAL TO DEFENSE TEAMThe FBI arrested Dugan for allegedly hiding a previously deported illegal immigrant in her jury room to stop him from being arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.Federal agents from ICE, FBI, CBP and DEA attempted to arrest Flores-Ruiz after his scheduled criminal court appearance before Dugan on April 18, to face three misdemeanor battery charges for allegedly beating up two people.Dugan demanded that the officers proceed to the chief judges office and, after his hearing ended, escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a restricted jury door, bypassing the public area where agents were waiting in order to help him avoid arrest, per the complaint.WISCONSIN JUDGE THREATENS COURTROOM BOYCOTT OVER HANNAH DUGAN ARRESTHer attorney, Craig Mastantuono, told the court last month, "Judge Dugan wholeheartedly regrets and protests her arrest. It was not made in the interest of public safety."Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem told Jesse Watters on Tuesday that she was "grateful" Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury."She will be held accountable for that," Noem said. "That was a great decision, coming forward, to recognize that nobody can facilitate breaking the law. We shouldnt be able to allow that in this country, and we need to make sure that even judges are held accountable for their actions."Attorney General Pam Bondi previously blasted Dugan's actions on Fox's "America Reports.""We could not believe that a judge really did that," Bondi said. "You cannot obstruct a criminal case. And really, shame on her. It was a domestic violence case of all cases, and she's protecting a criminal defendant over victims of crime."Bondi said Flores-Ruiz beat up two people, "a guy and a girl.""[He] beat the guy, hit the guy 30 times, knocked him to the ground, choked him, beat up a woman so badly; they both had to go to the hospital," she said.Fox News' Patrick McGovern, Michael Dorgan, Jake Gibson and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.