Memorial Day weekend, which kicks off the summer, is set to break a new travel record this year.A massive 45.1 million Americans are set to travel at least 50 miles from their home during the long weekend, AAA announced.Of the millions of Americans traveling, AAA predicts 3.61 million will be flying to their destinations. That's a 2% increase from last year.FLIGHT PASSENGERS WARN OF REAL ID APOCALYPSE WHILE OTHERS ACKNOWLEDGE AMERICANS CAN STILL FLY"While this Memorial Day weekend isnt expected to set an air travel record (that was set back in 2005 with 3.64 million travelers), this years numbers are projected to surpass pre-pandemic levels by 12%," states the AAA press release.Travelers should arrive a minimum of two hours before their scheduled domestic flights and three hours before scheduled international flights, the TSA advised.The AAA release said the most popular destinations are Chicago, Seattle, Orlando, Denver and New York.Those visiting the New York area may want to rethink what airport they are flying into amid recent air disruptions at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR).HIDDEN REAL ID HASSLES FACING AIRLINE TRAVELERS AND STATES TO AVOIDThe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) instituted yet another ground delay at EWR on Monday, just one day after the previous delay, with flyers' frustrations growing.Gary Leff, a Texas-basedtravel industryexpert and author of the blog "View From the Wing," told Fox News Digital that passengers should avoid New York airports for connecting flights."If you're connecting, it's often a good idea to avoidNew York airports.If you originate in New York, it really depends on where in the city you're based," he said.Brandon Blewett, the Texas-based author of "How to Avoid Strangerson Airplanes,"told Fox News Digital that travelers going to and from New York City should look at other airports.For more Lifestyle articles, visit foxnews.com/lifestyle"Id consider alternatives to EWR like LGA and JFK until the runway reopens and ATC staffing stabilizes," said Blewett."It may be more of a headache in traffic, but it seems youre less likely to be stranded for the time being."On May 7, theREAL ID requirementtook effect, requiring flyers to obtain the new identification with a star in the upper right corner in order to fly.Flyers have expressed worries about possible delays during the security process if they, or fellow travelers, are unable to present the proper identification.CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTERThose who do not have a compliant ID may receive additional screening, which would take more time.A TSA spokesperson told Fox News Digital the agency continues to urge passengers to get REAL IDs or bring other acceptable forms of ID for travel."Summer travel is upon us, and there is still time to get a REAL ID," said the spokesperson."Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant at TSA checkpoints and who do not have another acceptable alternative form of ID will be notified of their non-compliance, may be directed to a separate area, and may receive additional screening," the spokesperson added.

Americans have mixed feelings about President Donald Trump's administration accepting a $400 million gift from Qatar, with some telling Fox News Digital that it was a "bad idea" to accept a luxury jet from a foreign government."I think that's a bad idea. There's no such thing as a free gift and there's some sort of strings or attachments or something else that's probably going to go along with that and that's just concerning," Karisa from Knoxville, Tennessee, told Fox News Digital.Trump has received backlash for planning to accept the jumbo Boeing 747-8 jet from the Qatari royal family on behalf of the U.S. government since news of the gift broke on Sunday. The luxury jet, which was offered to the United States because of delays in Boeing's production of the new Air Force One fleet, will serve as a temporary method of transportation so that the current presidential plane doesn't have to be flown."I think it's a good idea for the country to accept that. We've accepted other gifts from other countries, including the Statue of Liberty, so I can't see a problem with that," Carrie of Kentucky, who was visiting Knoxville, said.TRUMP DEFENDS QATAR JUMBO JET OFFER AS TROUBLED BOEING FAILS TO DELIVER NEW AIR FORCE ONE FLEETAnother person from Detroit, Michigan, said, "That's kind of crazy."The Boeing 747 offered to the United States by Qatar will be given to the Department of Defense, Trump said Tuesday, responding to questions about the legality of accepting a gift from a foreign power.The White House has pushed back against criticism of the president, saying any gift from a foreign power is always accepted in full compliance with all laws."If it's a gift to the U.S., that's different. But if it's a gift just to Trump, then I wouldn't be for it," John, from Houston, told Fox News Digital.CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTUREAnother suggested it might be "ethically muddy" when asked about the gift."There's a lot of ethics that need to be discussed around that. I haven't really heard too much about it, but I would say, you know, a state accepting such a pricey gift on behalf of whatever. It might be a little ethically muddy," Krishna, from Detroit, told Fox News Digital.Fox News' Louis Casiano and Elizabeth Pritchett contributed to this report.

On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the argument in a series of cases that ask the court to decide whether individual district court judges can unilaterally stop the federal government from enforcing a law or policy nationwide. The court should jump at the chance to end this practice.Normally, when a district court sides with a plaintiff's challenge to a federal policy, the courts injunction only applies to that plaintiff.In the 1960s, however, some judges invented a new tool called a universal injunction to impose their will on the country. Instead of addressing the concerns of one plaintiff, these judges began enjoining the government from enforcing the policy against anyone, anywhere.The universal injunction gives individual judges extraordinary power. Dont like a law passed by Congress? Gone. Dont like an agencys regulation? Dead. Dont like one of the presidents policies? Sayonara.THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS OF RADICAL DISTRICT JUDGESAt first, these universal injunctions were uncommon. Courts issued only 27 universal injunctions up until the 21st century. But in recent decades, they have become a fact of life. President Joe Biden faced 14 universal injunctions in his four-year term, and President Donald Trump has surpassed that number in less than four months.Nowhere does the Constitution say that district courts have this immense power. Nor has Congress ever authorized courts to issue universal injunctions. Universal injunctions also were not recognized in England, where America sourced much of its jurisprudence.Yet individual judges around the country still claim they have the authority to bring the entire federal government to a screeching halt with the stroke of a pen.ROGUE, LEFTIST JUDGES CAUSED BY AN OBSESSION WITH FEELINGS, NOT FACTSTo make matters worse, judges often issue these universal injunctions after preliminary hearings with limited debate by the parties. Theres no jury. Theres no trial. Theres no real testing of the evidence at all. It also means courts have little time to consider gnarly legal issues. Thats why judges are able to shut down federal policies nationwide within days or even hours.This practice gives virtually unfettered discretion to the countrys most extreme jurists. The government could successfully defend a policy before hundreds of district judges, but a single judge who disagrees could still wipe out the policy nationwide.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONBecause the injunction can prohibit enforcement of the law or policy anywhere, the federal government understandably feels compelled to immediately appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. This rushed process undermines judicial decision-making.The Supreme Court prefers when cases take their time and legal issues percolate in the lower courts. That ensures many legal scholars and judges have an opportunity to share their views and fully vet an issue. But universal injunctions often force the Supreme Court to abandon this thorough, deliberative process in favor of a hurried ruling based on half-baked briefs.One rogue judge shouldnt be able to force the Supreme Court to rush on complex legal issues because he or she assumed the power to enjoin a federal policy nationwide.This isnt an ideological issue. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan have all expressed concerns about universal injunctions short-circuiting the American judicial system. Nor is this a partisan issue. Solicitor generals for both Presidents Biden and Trump have asked the Supreme Court to put an end to universal injunctions.These individuals understand better than anyone that the rampant use of universal injunctions by district court judges is threatening to destabilize the judiciary, and indeed, our entire system of government. I hope the court will take advantage of the opportunity to end this unlawful practice once and for all.CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. JOHN KENNEDY

Malaki Starks got the best of both worlds on draft night.Sure, everyone wants to be an early selection, but more often than not, that leads to landing on a subpar team. While Starks was not a top-20 pick, he still heard his name called in the first round, and he now calls a Super Bowl contender his new home.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMThe defensive back was selected by the Baltimore Ravens with the 27th pick late last month, who two seasons ago were in the AFC Championship. This past season, they were oh-so close to getting back.This year figures to be similar for Baltimore, as long as they have MVP candidate Lamar Jackson at the helm.The difference in skill from college to the NFL does not need explaining, but Starks said there is another concern on his mind in the leap to the pros."There are a lot of rules that are a lot different than it is in college," Starks told Fox News Digital. "The dimensions, Im still used to the hashed being farther in. I spent time after practices walking through my steps because Im so programmed to go to a certain spot. Just really relearning all the rules, dimensions, things like that."GIANTS ROOKIE ABDUL CARTER SETTLES ON JERSEY NUMBER AFTER LAWRENCE TAYLOR, PHIL SIMMS FIASCOHowever, Starks has "a good group of elite guys" to learn from.Starks has been a part of a perennial winner for a long while. He spent his college days at Georgia. And ahead of the draft, he did even more winning while teaming up with Tide to participate in their Laundry Games alongside Spice Adams and fellow draftee Matthew Golden."We did this thing where you had a laundry thing on your head and had to balance it walking back and forth. Matthew couldnt do it. I got to rub it in his face," Starks joked."People think prep starts on the field, but it actually starts in the laundry room. You feel good when you look good."Perhaps Starks may feel some added pressure, though, given his team's expectations. However, being a Bulldog, that is already instilled in him."Its kind of what Im used to since I went to the University of Georgia. They were just off their first natty in forever, so coming in and filling those shoes, its the standard that the organization has and run their business," he said. "Im excited to come into this organization and learn from a lot of the older guys and what it means to play like a Raven."Follow Fox News Digitalssports coverage on X,and subscribe tothe Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

A small public radio station in rural Western North Carolina faces low morale as the Trump administration seeks to strip federal funding, but management is adamant residents who rely on the local outlet dont have to worry about it shuttering as a result.President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this month instructing theCorporation for Public Broadcastingand other federal agencies "to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS." Blue Ridge Public Radio (BPR), the home of NPR in Western North Carolina,receives roughly $300,000 from the CPB on an annual basis.BPR CEO and general manager Ele Ellis said the money would start to dry up when its new fiscal year begins on October 1 if the Trump administration gets its way."We would start to feel it almost as soon as it happens," Ellis told Fox News Digital.PBS, NPR BLAST 'BLATANTLY UNLAWFUL' TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER HALTING PUBLIC FUNDING, VOW CHALLENGES"We would not shut down," she continued. "I want to be clear that we would not shut down, but I think raising $300,000 a year is a very, very hard thing."BPR consists of 22 staffers with eight of them working in the newsroom, and all of their livelihoods are at stake as the Trump administration has targeted public media when attempting to cut back on government spending. Ellis said employees are focused on doing their jobs, but Trumps executive order is certainly at the top of everyones mind."Its definitely impacting morale. They know that now we have to raise $300,000 that we didnt have to raise before and that affects people," Ellis said."But I will also say, I think our staff is incredibly appreciative of our listeners and members and we are working hard to make sure they know whats on the table and trying to get their help," she added. "Our last drive did very well."Other local NPR outlets have made fundraising pleas in direct response to the Trump administration's actions. Stations receive community service grants from the CPB twice a year, and the funds for 2025 have already been distributed, but the money for fiscal year 2026 that starts on October 1 has not yet been parceled out.PBS CHIEF WARNS CUTTING FEDERAL MONEY WILL 'DEVASTATE' LOCAL STATIONS AS WHITE HOUSE SEEKS TO PULL FUNDINGBPR serves 14 counties in Western North Carolina, including some rural areas where citizens rely on the station for local news and emergency information. The station was critical last year during Hurricane Helene, when much of the region was devastated by record rainfall, historic flooding and widespread power outages.While BPR typically airs NPR content for much of the day, it is able to quickly pivot when residents of the 14 counties it serves need critical information. Ellis believes Americans in larger cities who support public media being stripped of funding might not understand the consequences, which include the emergency system to notify residents a tornado or other natural disaster is looming, or when localized information is critical."One of the things that I think people dont realize about the CPB is that it's the backbone of all of that emergency services," Ellis said.WHITE HOUSE URGES CONGRESS TO CUT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR NPR, PBSEllis explained that some people relied on hand-crank radios in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene to find information about the devastating storm when power was out across the area."During Hurricane Helene we went live for days," Ellis said. "Right now, we are still doing a lot of coverage about Hurricane Helene relief and the aftermath. Were doing it very well, and were doing it locally."She is concerned that if the small group of BPR employees are forced to dedicate resources to raising the $300,000 it would lose from the CPB, they would have fewer means to focus on journalism and provide vital information to the Americans who rely on the station. "Thats why public radio is here we were the source where people listened every day to hear the local meetings saying where could get clean, potable water. We were the source telling people where you could get food and aid," Ellis said."Going after local newsrooms when there is so little local news anyway seems like the wrong thing to be doing," she added.Ellis, who took the reins at BPR in April after working at Milwaukees NPR for five years, is well aware that Trump and many of his supporters believe NPR is too partisan, or even "woke," but she doesnt believe its a fair assessment of the stations coverage."I disagree that its liberal," she said."Its hard, because we do hours and hours and hours of coverage and people hear one thing or one hour and dont hear the other side, the other hour, or the next day," she said. "That always makes me sad."ROUGHLY 180 NPR MEMBER STATIONS COULD SHUTTER IF GOVERNMENT FUNDING IS CUT OFF: REPORTEllis believes the Trump administration and its supporters are irked over "national politics," such as when NPR famously failed to cover Hunter Bidens scandalous laptop leading up to the 2020 election.NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who was named CEO of NPR in 2024 and was not with the taxpayer-backed outlet at the time the laptop story first broke, has famously conceded that her organization missed the mark in its lack of serious coverage pertaining to the laptop story.Veteran NPR editor Uri Berliner also detailed his now-former employers "absence of viewpoint diversity" in a stunning 2024 piece about liberal groupthink invading the Washington, D.C., newsroom that rocked themedia industry.But while the laptop ordeal and Berliners claims that both vexed conservatives are national issues, Ellis said local stations are the ones who are going to suffer."When [critics] really listen to what local stations do, and I think BPR is a really good example of this, were doing coverage that is important to the 14 counties that we cover. And that coverage is not about the things that theyre complaining about," Ellis said.Ellis recently penned a piece for BPRs website urging listeners to stand by the station with a charitable donation, noting that a loss of funding would "devastate" many rural outlets and underserved communities."Research has also shown that the loss of local journalism leads to increases in corruption and decreases in voter turnout, civic engagement, and government efficiency. It also leads directly to increased polarization and erodes the shared identity that helps make community possible," she wrote.Meanwhile, as the Trump administration cracks down on excess spending, Ellis said that local public radio receives less than $1 per year from each taxpayer in America."Its so interesting to me that people feel like this is a tax issue when there are so many other things that we pay taxes for that cost so much more, and what were talking about is making sure that you can hear a tornado siren," Ellis told Fox News Digital.Fox News Digitals Bradford Betz and Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report.

King Charles is being urged to make peace with his son or it could cost his legacy.Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams claimed to Fox News Digital that Prince Harrys pleas to reconcile with his family, while also airing dirty laundry, could undermine Charles leadership as a monarch who is battling cancer."Charles reign is not being overshadowed by the feud, but it is being damaged by it because of the huge amount of publicity," said Fitzwilliams. "In Harrys recent interview, he seemed angry and pretty gutted It would be a serious problem for the royal family if he and Meghan launched further attacks."PRINCE HARRYS NUCLEAR INTERVIEW WOULD HAVE HORRIFIED QUEEN: EXPERTFitzwilliams claims came shortly after The New York Times reported that the patriarch, 76, is being eclipsed by his estranged son whenever he airs his grievances."It has become a familiar pattern for the 76-year-old monarch," read the report. "Two years after his coronation, his reign is shaping up as both eventful and oddly unchanging in its core narrative: that of a beleaguered father managing a messy brood.""Some royal watchers warn that unless Charles finds a way to heal that rift, it could define his reign, undercutting the messages of tolerance and inclusiveness that he has long championed," it warned.British royal expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital that the kings feud with the Duke of Sussex is "a test" of not only the monarchys resilience, but also the kings leadership and discipline."It has been extremely important and admirable that Charles has been able, despite his love for his wayward son Harry, to maintain royal protocol, family unity and to maintain the monarchys dignified public image," said Fordwich."A lesser man might well engage in a squalid tit-for-tat public back and forth with Harry," she said. His resilience, at such a vulnerable time suffering from cancer, has garnered the admiration of so many, now even more so, in stark contrast to Harrys constant moaning."CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTERHarry has been estranged from his family since he and his wife, Meghan Markle, quit royal duties in 2020 and moved to California, alleging hostility and racist attitudes by the press and royal establishment. Following their royal exit, a government committee decided that Harrys security arrangements should be decided on a case-by-case basis whenever he visits the U.K.The couple went on to publicly detail their struggles with royal life and make eyebrow-raising accusations about "The Firm" in televised interviews and documentaries. Harrys tell-all 2023 memoir "Spare," stuffed with private details and embarrassing revelations, made things worse.On May 2, Harry told the BBC he wanted to reconcile with his family after losing a court battle over his publicly funded security, which he said led his father to stop talking to him. Sources close to Harry previously told People magazine that Charles hasnt responded to the 40-year-olds calls or letters."I would love reconciliation with my family," said Harry. "Theres no point in continuing to fight anymore. I dont know how much longer my father has."Buckingham Palace has declined to comment to Fox News Digital about the kings current relationship with his son. The New York Times reported that the palace pushed back on Harrys insistence that his father could have done more to help have his police protection reinstated whenever he visits Britain."All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion," said a spokesman for the palace.LIKE WHAT YOURE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS"The royal family cannot trust the Sussexes as they constantly go to the media to air their grudges," Fitzwilliams claimed. "It has also cost the monarchy some popular support, especially among the 18-24-year-olds. [But] Charles, backed by Prince William and greatly helped by Queen Camilla, is prioritizing his health and engagements. Given his errant sons behavior, he has no choice.""The monarchy has a pivotal part to play in the current geopolitical situation, especially regarding links with the United States," he pointed out. "If the Sussexes had remained senior working royals they would have been an important part of this process, especially given Meghans American roots Instead, they opted out after only a couple of years."British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard doesnt believe Charles reign will be overshadowed by "the Prince Harry debacle." She called that idea "a load of poppycock."WATCH: PRINCE HARRY LOOKING TO RECONCILE WITH KING CHARLES, ROYAL FAMILY"Throughout history, there has been royal family drama, dysfunctional family dynamics, family differences and prodigal sons," Chard explained. "Time is a great healer, and soon, the much-discussed feud will be yesterdays news.""King Charles cannot be held responsible for the family fallout," she said. He doesnt want his son to be unhappy he certainly doesnt need the friction. His health is of the utmost importance. Queen Camilla will make sure his energy is spent keeping well. Prince Harry may be fragile, but he also needs to learn. He has misfired yet again with his disastrous BBC interview. When he doesnt get his way, he hurls hurtful public [claims] toward his family.""King Charles cannot pander to Prince Harrys behavior and unreasonable requests," Chard stressed. "Harry is obsessive about his crusades without considering the consequences. Prince Harry wouldnt have arranged the BBC interview if he genuinely wanted family reconciliation Allegedly, it is thought that Prince William should be assigned the job of appeasing the Prince Harry situation on behalf of his father. However, it seems for now that the door is firmly shut."Harry said he was devastated to lose the case, which has been a source of friction with his father. Harry has met with him once briefly since his diagnosis early last year."He wont speak to me because of this security stuff," Harry told the BBC hours after the ruling. He noted that the court verdict meant it would be impossible to safely bring his family back to the U.K."While King Charles has publicly championed inclusivity, the British public opinion polls reflect the national sentiment that Harry has behaved despicably in general, and certainly toward his flesh and blood," said Fordwich."Harrys recent whinging to the BBC has further reinforced King Charles perception of Harry being rather a loose cannon," Fordwich claimed. "Prince William is even more staunchly opposed to any form of reconciliation than his father. He urged Princess Catherine to refrain from further contact with Harry."Royal expert Ian Pelham Turner claimed to Fox News Digital that the royal family has more important things to worry about and it has nothing to do with Harry."The destiny of the royal family is, in my view, less certain than they think," he said. "Twenty-somethings in Britain see them as an outdated and unnecessary institution costing millions of pounds."I constantly state that it is the blood, sweat and tears of the British taxpayers who pay for their existence. They do not have a choice, in my opinion, other than to unite publicly and swallow their differences privately."Still, Chard doesnt believe a royal reconciliation will happen anytime soon, even if it guarantees a greater rise in Charles popularity."Prince Harry and the royal family's painful rift is a sorry state of affairs and most definitely is not going to be resolved overnight," she said.

Americans have mixed feelings about President Donald Trump's administration accepting a $400 million gift from Qatar, with some telling Fox News Digital that it was a "bad idea" to accept a luxury jet from a foreign government."I think that's a bad idea. There's no such thing as a free gift and there's some sort of strings or attachments or something else that's probably going to go along with that and that's just concerning," Karisa from Knoxville, Tennessee, told Fox News Digital.Trump has received backlash for planning to accept the jumbo Boeing 747-8 jet from the Qatari royal family on behalf of the U.S. government since news of the gift broke on Sunday. The luxury jet, which was offered to the United States because of delays in Boeing's production of the new Air Force One fleet, will serve as a temporary method of transportation so that the current presidential plane doesn't have to be flown."I think it's a good idea for the country to accept that. We've accepted other gifts from other countries, including the Statue of Liberty, so I can't see a problem with that," Carrie of Kentucky, who was visiting Knoxville, said.TRUMP DEFENDS QATAR JUMBO JET OFFER AS TROUBLED BOEING FAILS TO DELIVER NEW AIR FORCE ONE FLEETAnother person from Detroit, Michigan, said, "That's kind of crazy."The Boeing 747 offered to the United States by Qatar will be given to the Department of Defense, Trump said Tuesday, responding to questions about the legality of accepting a gift from a foreign power.The White House has pushed back against criticism of the president, saying any gift from a foreign power is always accepted in full compliance with all laws."If it's a gift to the U.S., that's different. But if it's a gift just to Trump, then I wouldn't be for it," John, from Houston, told Fox News Digital.CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTUREAnother suggested it might be "ethically muddy" when asked about the gift."There's a lot of ethics that need to be discussed around that. I haven't really heard too much about it, but I would say, you know, a state accepting such a pricey gift on behalf of whatever. It might be a little ethically muddy," Krishna, from Detroit, told Fox News Digital.Fox News' Louis Casiano and Elizabeth Pritchett contributed to this report.

On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the argument in a series of cases that ask the court to decide whether individual district court judges can unilaterally stop the federal government from enforcing a law or policy nationwide. The court should jump at the chance to end this practice.Normally, when a district court sides with a plaintiff's challenge to a federal policy, the courts injunction only applies to that plaintiff.In the 1960s, however, some judges invented a new tool called a universal injunction to impose their will on the country. Instead of addressing the concerns of one plaintiff, these judges began enjoining the government from enforcing the policy against anyone, anywhere.The universal injunction gives individual judges extraordinary power. Dont like a law passed by Congress? Gone. Dont like an agencys regulation? Dead. Dont like one of the presidents policies? Sayonara.THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS OF RADICAL DISTRICT JUDGESAt first, these universal injunctions were uncommon. Courts issued only 27 universal injunctions up until the 21st century. But in recent decades, they have become a fact of life. President Joe Biden faced 14 universal injunctions in his four-year term, and President Donald Trump has surpassed that number in less than four months.Nowhere does the Constitution say that district courts have this immense power. Nor has Congress ever authorized courts to issue universal injunctions. Universal injunctions also were not recognized in England, where America sourced much of its jurisprudence.Yet individual judges around the country still claim they have the authority to bring the entire federal government to a screeching halt with the stroke of a pen.ROGUE, LEFTIST JUDGES CAUSED BY AN OBSESSION WITH FEELINGS, NOT FACTSTo make matters worse, judges often issue these universal injunctions after preliminary hearings with limited debate by the parties. Theres no jury. Theres no trial. Theres no real testing of the evidence at all. It also means courts have little time to consider gnarly legal issues. Thats why judges are able to shut down federal policies nationwide within days or even hours.This practice gives virtually unfettered discretion to the countrys most extreme jurists. The government could successfully defend a policy before hundreds of district judges, but a single judge who disagrees could still wipe out the policy nationwide.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONBecause the injunction can prohibit enforcement of the law or policy anywhere, the federal government understandably feels compelled to immediately appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. This rushed process undermines judicial decision-making.The Supreme Court prefers when cases take their time and legal issues percolate in the lower courts. That ensures many legal scholars and judges have an opportunity to share their views and fully vet an issue. But universal injunctions often force the Supreme Court to abandon this thorough, deliberative process in favor of a hurried ruling based on half-baked briefs.One rogue judge shouldnt be able to force the Supreme Court to rush on complex legal issues because he or she assumed the power to enjoin a federal policy nationwide.This isnt an ideological issue. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan have all expressed concerns about universal injunctions short-circuiting the American judicial system. Nor is this a partisan issue. Solicitor generals for both Presidents Biden and Trump have asked the Supreme Court to put an end to universal injunctions.These individuals understand better than anyone that the rampant use of universal injunctions by district court judges is threatening to destabilize the judiciary, and indeed, our entire system of government. I hope the court will take advantage of the opportunity to end this unlawful practice once and for all.CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. JOHN KENNEDY

Malaki Starks got the best of both worlds on draft night.Sure, everyone wants to be an early selection, but more often than not, that leads to landing on a subpar team. While Starks was not a top-20 pick, he still heard his name called in the first round, and he now calls a Super Bowl contender his new home.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMThe defensive back was selected by the Baltimore Ravens with the 27th pick late last month, who two seasons ago were in the AFC Championship. This past season, they were oh-so close to getting back.This year figures to be similar for Baltimore, as long as they have MVP candidate Lamar Jackson at the helm.The difference in skill from college to the NFL does not need explaining, but Starks said there is another concern on his mind in the leap to the pros."There are a lot of rules that are a lot different than it is in college," Starks told Fox News Digital. "The dimensions, Im still used to the hashed being farther in. I spent time after practices walking through my steps because Im so programmed to go to a certain spot. Just really relearning all the rules, dimensions, things like that."GIANTS ROOKIE ABDUL CARTER SETTLES ON JERSEY NUMBER AFTER LAWRENCE TAYLOR, PHIL SIMMS FIASCOHowever, Starks has "a good group of elite guys" to learn from.Starks has been a part of a perennial winner for a long while. He spent his college days at Georgia. And ahead of the draft, he did even more winning while teaming up with Tide to participate in their Laundry Games alongside Spice Adams and fellow draftee Matthew Golden."We did this thing where you had a laundry thing on your head and had to balance it walking back and forth. Matthew couldnt do it. I got to rub it in his face," Starks joked."People think prep starts on the field, but it actually starts in the laundry room. You feel good when you look good."Perhaps Starks may feel some added pressure, though, given his team's expectations. However, being a Bulldog, that is already instilled in him."Its kind of what Im used to since I went to the University of Georgia. They were just off their first natty in forever, so coming in and filling those shoes, its the standard that the organization has and run their business," he said. "Im excited to come into this organization and learn from a lot of the older guys and what it means to play like a Raven."Follow Fox News Digitalssports coverage on X,and subscribe tothe Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

A small public radio station in rural Western North Carolina faces low morale as the Trump administration seeks to strip federal funding, but management is adamant residents who rely on the local outlet dont have to worry about it shuttering as a result.President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this month instructing theCorporation for Public Broadcastingand other federal agencies "to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS." Blue Ridge Public Radio (BPR), the home of NPR in Western North Carolina,receives roughly $300,000 from the CPB on an annual basis.BPR CEO and general manager Ele Ellis said the money would start to dry up when its new fiscal year begins on October 1 if the Trump administration gets its way."We would start to feel it almost as soon as it happens," Ellis told Fox News Digital.PBS, NPR BLAST 'BLATANTLY UNLAWFUL' TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER HALTING PUBLIC FUNDING, VOW CHALLENGES"We would not shut down," she continued. "I want to be clear that we would not shut down, but I think raising $300,000 a year is a very, very hard thing."BPR consists of 22 staffers with eight of them working in the newsroom, and all of their livelihoods are at stake as the Trump administration has targeted public media when attempting to cut back on government spending. Ellis said employees are focused on doing their jobs, but Trumps executive order is certainly at the top of everyones mind."Its definitely impacting morale. They know that now we have to raise $300,000 that we didnt have to raise before and that affects people," Ellis said."But I will also say, I think our staff is incredibly appreciative of our listeners and members and we are working hard to make sure they know whats on the table and trying to get their help," she added. "Our last drive did very well."Other local NPR outlets have made fundraising pleas in direct response to the Trump administration's actions. Stations receive community service grants from the CPB twice a year, and the funds for 2025 have already been distributed, but the money for fiscal year 2026 that starts on October 1 has not yet been parceled out.PBS CHIEF WARNS CUTTING FEDERAL MONEY WILL 'DEVASTATE' LOCAL STATIONS AS WHITE HOUSE SEEKS TO PULL FUNDINGBPR serves 14 counties in Western North Carolina, including some rural areas where citizens rely on the station for local news and emergency information. The station was critical last year during Hurricane Helene, when much of the region was devastated by record rainfall, historic flooding and widespread power outages.While BPR typically airs NPR content for much of the day, it is able to quickly pivot when residents of the 14 counties it serves need critical information. Ellis believes Americans in larger cities who support public media being stripped of funding might not understand the consequences, which include the emergency system to notify residents a tornado or other natural disaster is looming, or when localized information is critical."One of the things that I think people dont realize about the CPB is that it's the backbone of all of that emergency services," Ellis said.WHITE HOUSE URGES CONGRESS TO CUT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR NPR, PBSEllis explained that some people relied on hand-crank radios in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene to find information about the devastating storm when power was out across the area."During Hurricane Helene we went live for days," Ellis said. "Right now, we are still doing a lot of coverage about Hurricane Helene relief and the aftermath. Were doing it very well, and were doing it locally."She is concerned that if the small group of BPR employees are forced to dedicate resources to raising the $300,000 it would lose from the CPB, they would have fewer means to focus on journalism and provide vital information to the Americans who rely on the station. "Thats why public radio is here we were the source where people listened every day to hear the local meetings saying where could get clean, potable water. We were the source telling people where you could get food and aid," Ellis said."Going after local newsrooms when there is so little local news anyway seems like the wrong thing to be doing," she added.Ellis, who took the reins at BPR in April after working at Milwaukees NPR for five years, is well aware that Trump and many of his supporters believe NPR is too partisan, or even "woke," but she doesnt believe its a fair assessment of the stations coverage."I disagree that its liberal," she said."Its hard, because we do hours and hours and hours of coverage and people hear one thing or one hour and dont hear the other side, the other hour, or the next day," she said. "That always makes me sad."ROUGHLY 180 NPR MEMBER STATIONS COULD SHUTTER IF GOVERNMENT FUNDING IS CUT OFF: REPORTEllis believes the Trump administration and its supporters are irked over "national politics," such as when NPR famously failed to cover Hunter Bidens scandalous laptop leading up to the 2020 election.NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who was named CEO of NPR in 2024 and was not with the taxpayer-backed outlet at the time the laptop story first broke, has famously conceded that her organization missed the mark in its lack of serious coverage pertaining to the laptop story.Veteran NPR editor Uri Berliner also detailed his now-former employers "absence of viewpoint diversity" in a stunning 2024 piece about liberal groupthink invading the Washington, D.C., newsroom that rocked themedia industry.But while the laptop ordeal and Berliners claims that both vexed conservatives are national issues, Ellis said local stations are the ones who are going to suffer."When [critics] really listen to what local stations do, and I think BPR is a really good example of this, were doing coverage that is important to the 14 counties that we cover. And that coverage is not about the things that theyre complaining about," Ellis said.Ellis recently penned a piece for BPRs website urging listeners to stand by the station with a charitable donation, noting that a loss of funding would "devastate" many rural outlets and underserved communities."Research has also shown that the loss of local journalism leads to increases in corruption and decreases in voter turnout, civic engagement, and government efficiency. It also leads directly to increased polarization and erodes the shared identity that helps make community possible," she wrote.Meanwhile, as the Trump administration cracks down on excess spending, Ellis said that local public radio receives less than $1 per year from each taxpayer in America."Its so interesting to me that people feel like this is a tax issue when there are so many other things that we pay taxes for that cost so much more, and what were talking about is making sure that you can hear a tornado siren," Ellis told Fox News Digital.Fox News Digitals Bradford Betz and Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report.