Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is scheduling a June 4 hearing for the first slate of nominated judges of President Trump's second term — a push for speedy confirmations, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: Trump and his allies, including Grassley, have railed against federal courts hamstringing the administration. Now, Senate Republicans aim to put more GOP-friendly judges on the bench.

Trump took longer to nominate judges this time around than he did in 2017 or former President Biden did in 2021. Grassley is now setting the hearing for the earliest day possible.

Committee rules require him to wait 28 days after receiving the nominations.

What he's saying: "Far too many judges are attempting to play policymaker instead of plainly interpreting the law, as our Constitution requires," Grassley said in a statement provided to Axios.

"It's clear the federal judiciary needs more constitutionalist judges, and that's what President Trump's judicial nominees will deliver."

Trump has nominated Zachary Bluestone, Joshua Divine, Maria Lanahan and Cristian Stevens to serve on the U.S. District Court in Missouri.

He also nominated Whitney Hermandorfer to serve on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Roger Parloff
‪@rparloff.bsky.social‬

WD Pennsylvania Judge Stephanie Haines finds Trump's proclamation COMPLIES with Alien Enemies Act BUT govt is NOT currently providing adequate notice.
/1
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pawd.318716/gov.uscourts.pawd.318716.72.0_4.pdf

She rejects both sides definitions of "predatory incursion," but adopts her own, which she says is satisfied. (It relies a lot on the fact that Secy Rubio designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization in February.)
/2

She finds that 21 days notice is required (rather than the 12-24 hours now being used by govt) ...
/3

Dear Justice Thomas,

I write to you in desperation. I need every possible Supreme Court vote to stand against the current racial reordering of American society along apartheid lines, and I have come to the admittedly wild conclusion that yours is the most gettable among my judicial enemies.

The court is considering a number of cases stemming from Donald Trump’s attempts to rewrite the Constitution by executive fiat: revoking birthright citizenship, firing federal employees, refusing to provide funds authorized by Congress, abducting documented immigrants and sending them to concentration camps, and detaining students who speak out on behalf of Palestine. I assume you believe that Trump has the authority to do all or most of this. I also assume that you are not an idiot and can therefore see that Trump’s actions largely target people whose primary infraction is their failure to be white. Your liberal colleagues on the court oppose this racism. If you could be moved to join them in some way, your vote and voice would be a powerful, and in some cases decisive, factor against Trump’s—and Elon Musk’s—white supremacist regime.

I write to you because you are the only black person the current ruling class of whites would even consider listening to. Your long-standing opposition to the civil rights movement, or really anything else that could wean this country off of its addiction to racial oppression, has made you uniquely positioned to speak truth to these particular powers. Trump himself won’t listen to you (or your court, or the Constitution, or the rule of law), but even a simple note from you admonishing this administration for its racial animus would be noticed by what passes as the intellectual elite in the MAGA firmament.

I know all too well that you do not believe that you have any special responsibility to protect racial equality in this country, and you’ve long abandoned any concern for the advancement of colored people. You’ll note that I did not even capitalize the “b” in the word black earlier, because I know you think it’s silly. No appeal to the history of the people whose shoulders you stand on will persuade you, and I make no such appeal.

But the very worst white people this country has to offer might listen to you now, because you have helped them so much. You have given them license. You have succeeded in reshaping the law, and much of American political discourse, in your ungenerous image. You have relentlessly argued against the extension of civil rights in this country. You’ve asserted that programs meant to help black Americans overcome this country’s history of racial oppression actually hobble us. You’ve provided key votes to gut the Voting Rights Act, thereby limiting black people’s access to the very means of democratic self-government. You’ve taken similarly harsh stances against women and the LGBTQ community, and now nearly all of your most nefarious ideas have been codified in case law. You’ve set out to destroy the progress made by our ancestors, and you have largely done just that.

In 2021, when Texas passed an abortion ban enforced through private lawsuits, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan sarcastically derided the architects of the law as “some geniuses” who’d found the “chink in the armor” to sidestep Roe v. Wade.

Four years later, those same folks are back with a new play to restrict the flow of abortion-inducing drugs into the state and a fresh set of never-before-seen legal tools that experts say would undermine the balance of power in the state.

Senate Bill 2880, which passed the Senate last week, allows anyone who manufactures, distributes, mails, prescribes or provides an abortion-inducing drug to be sued for up to $100,000. It expands the wrongful death statute to encourage family members, especially men who believe their partner had an abortion, to sue up to six years after the event, and empowers the Texas Attorney General to bring lawsuits on behalf of “unborn children of residents of this state.”

The bill has been referred to a House committee, where a companion bill faced significant pushback earlier this month.

That the Texas Senate passed a bill to crack down on abortion pills isn’t surprising. But the protections written into this bill, which says the law cannot be challenged as unconstitutional in state court, could have ripple effects far beyond the question of abortion access.

“This is absolutely unprecedented, what they’re trying to do here,” Joanna Grossman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, said. “I haven’t reviewed every law in Texas, but I think it’s safe to say this has never been tried.”

Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

BREAKING: The Eleventh Circuit, on a 2-1 vote, holds that Florida’s anti-drag law is likely unconstitutional and upholds the injunction barring enforcement of the ban.
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202312160.pdf

Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

BREAKING: The Eleventh Circuit, on a 2-1 vote, holds that Florida’s anti-drag law is likely unconstitutional and upholds the injunction barring enforcement of the ban.
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202312160.pdf

In the four years since its first flight, Avelo Airlines has gained loyal customers by serving smaller cities like New Haven, Conn., and Burbank, Calif.

Now, it has a new, very different line of business. It is running deportation flights for the Trump administration.

Despite weeks of protests from customers and elected officials, Avelo’s first flight for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement appears to have departed on Monday morning from Mesa, Ariz., according to data from the flight-tracking services FlightAware and Flightradar24.

According to FlightAware, the plane is expected to arrive in the early afternoon at Alexandria International Airport in Louisiana, one of five locations where ICE conducts regular flights. Avelo declined to comment on the flight and ICE did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The airline’s decision to support President Trump’s effort to accelerate deportations of immigrants is unusual and risky. ICE outsources many flights, but they are usually operated by little-known charter airlines. Commercial carriers typically avoid this kind of work so as not to wade into politics and upset customers or employees.

Two weeks after quitting the Democratic Party and becoming a no-party-affiliated member of the Legislature, state Sen. Jason Pizzo said he’ll enter the governor’s race.

Pizzo, of Sunny Isles Beach, told CBS News Miami on May 9 he’ll be a candidate. As an NPA candidate, he’ll forgo a primary campaign and be on the November 2026 ballot.

“We need somebody who can balance a checkbook, who understands finance, not just economic theory; who's concerned about infrastructure and resiliency and the environment and education and all of these things that are top of mind for people that are just trying to keep a roof over their head, keep their kids clothed and educated," Pizzo said.

A former assistant state attorney for the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office, the 48-year-old Pizzo was first elected to the Senate in 2018. He was reelected in 2022 and became the Senate Democratic leader after the 2024 election. He'll be term-limited next year.

But Pizzo was more centrist than the rest of his caucus and on April 24 announced he was stepping down as Democratic leader and leaving the party, declaring the Florida Democratic Party “dead.” That remark was ripped by Democrats who insisted the party still has a pulse in the Sunshine State.

The Trump administration on Monday formally lifted a shield on deportation of Afghans in the U.S., arguing improving conditions in the Taliban-run country mean its U.S.-based citizens no longer merit such protections.

The announcement from the Department of Homeland Security would end temporary protected status (TPS) for Afghans, a protection offered by the Biden administration after the U.S. withdrawal amid deteriorating conditions in the country.

TPS can be initiated when the administration concludes it’s not safe to deport people to their country due to civil unrest or other dangerous conditions.

“This administration is returning TPS to its original temporary intent,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Monday in a release.

“We’ve reviewed the conditions in Afghanistan with our interagency partners, and they do not meet the requirements for a TPS designation. Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country.”