President Donald Trump on Saturday announced Israel has agreed to the ‘initial withdrawal line’ in Gaza, which the U.S. has shared with Hamas.

Pending Hamas confirmation, the agreement will trigger an immediate ceasefire and exchange of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners.

‘After negotiations, Israel has agreed to the initial withdrawal line, which we have shown to, and shared with, Hamas. When Hamas confirms, the Ceasefire will be IMMEDIATELY effective, the Hostages and Prisoner Exchange will begin, and we will create the conditions for the next phase of withdrawal, which will bring us close to the end of this 3,000 YEAR CATASTROPHE,’ Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Saturday. ‘Thank you for your attention to this matter and, STAY TUNED!’

The announcement comes hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement Saturday morning noting they were ‘on the verge of a very great achievement.’

‘It is not yet final; we are working on it diligently, and I hope, with God’s help, that in the coming days, during the Sukkot holiday, I will be able to inform you about the return of all our hostages, both living and deceased, in one phase, while the IDF remains deep within the Strip and in the controlling areas within it,’ Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu claimed that after intense military and diplomatic pressure, Hamas was pressured into agreeing to Israel’s proposed plan — rejecting the fact that Hamas had previously been ready to release the Israeli hostages without a full withdrawal from Gaza.

In the first stage of the withdrawal plan, he said Hamas will release all Israeli hostages while the IDF redeploys but maintains control over key strategic areas deep inside the Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu will send his negotiating team, headed by Minister Ron Dermer, to Egypt to finalize the technical details of the hostage release, which he expects to conclude within a few days. 

The prime minister emphasized that both Israel and the U.S. intend to prevent any stalling or delay tactics by Hamas. 

In the second stage of the plan, Netanyahu said Hamas will be disarmed and the Gaza strip demilitarized—either through diplomatic means under the Trump Plan or, if necessary, by military force. 

‘I also said this in Washington: Either it will be achieved the easy way, or it will be achieved the hard way—but it will be achieved,’ he said. 

‘Together, we pushed back our enemies’ plans of destruction. From Gaza to Rafah, from Beirut to Damascus, from Yemen to Tehran, together we have achieved great things,’ Netanyahu added. ‘From victory to victory—we are changing the face of the Middle East together. Together we will continue to act to ensure the eternity of Israel.’

Netanyahu thanked Trump for his assistance in dispatching the B2 planes to bomb the nuclear facility in Fordo, and for his ‘steadfast support.’

President Donald Trump has an almost flawless record on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket this year, a streak that has delivered crucial moments of relief to the government as it fights hundreds of lawsuits challenging the president’s agenda.

The Supreme Court has ruled in Trump’s favor on government cuts, nationwide injunctions, immigration policies and more, leading the White House to tout what it recently counted as 21 victories before the high court.

Those victories are, however, temporary. The upcoming term, which begins Monday, will allow the justices to begin weighing the full merits of some of these court disputes and ultimately cement or undo key parts of the Trump agenda.

Jonathan Adler, a William & Mary Law School professor, attributed the interim wins to the Supreme Court’s desire to narrow the judicial branch’s role in policymaking.

Speaking during a Federalist Society panel this week, Adler said the high court’s thinking might be that ‘lower courts are doing too much. We’re going to scale that back because it’s not our place, and it’s for the executive branch and the legislative branch to figure that out.’

The Trump administration has only challenged about one-fifth of the adverse rulings it has received from the lower courts. Adler said Solicitor General John Sauer, who represents the government, is strategically selecting which cases to bring to the high court. 

‘If you go through them, setting Humphrey’s Executor stuff slightly to the side, what they all have in common is that there’s a kind of clear argument that … district courts were a little too aggressive here,’ Adler said.

He acknowledged that some might have a different view, that the Trump administration has been ‘too muscular’ and that court intervention is a necessary check.

The emergency docket, sometimes known as the shadow or interim docket, allows the Trump administration or plaintiffs to ask the Supreme Court to quickly intervene in lawsuits and temporarily pause lower court rulings. The process can take a couple of days, weeks or months, and is viewed as a much speedier, albeit temporary, way to secure court relief than if the high court were to fully consider the merits of a case, which can include a long briefing schedule and oral arguments.

The Supreme Court’s emergency docket this year has been extraordinarily active. Attorney Kannon Shanmugam, who has argued dozens of cases before the high court, said Trump’s high volume of executive actions is partly the reason for that.

‘[An increase in emergency motions] coincides with the rise of executive orders and other forms of unilateral executive action really as the primary form of lawmaking in our country with the disappearance of Congress, and that has posed enormous challenges for the court,’ Shanmugam said.

Through the emergency docket, the Supreme Court has greenlit Trump’s mass firings of career employees and high-profile terminations of Democratic appointees. It has curtailed nationwide injunctions and cleared the way for controversial deportations and immigration stops. The high court has said the government can, for now, withhold billions of dollars in foreign aid and discharge transgender service members from the military.

In other instances, parties on both sides in a court fight have construed Supreme Court outcomes as wins.

In one such order, the Supreme Court said the Trump administration must attempt to return Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the government admitted in court to improperly deporting to a Salvadoran prison. But at the same time, the high court noted that district court judges must also be deferential to the executive branch’s authority over foreign policy.

Similarly, the high court said the administration must allow deportees under the Alien Enemies Act a reasonable chance to fight their removal through habeas corpus petitions. The justices have not yet weighed in on the merits of Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, one of his most aggressive deportation tactics, which the president employed to swiftly remove alleged Tren de Aragua members.

Conservative lawyer Carrie Severino, president of the legal watchdog JCN, said one criterion the Supreme Court considers when making fast decisions is whether parties are at risk of irreparable harm.

As an example, Severino pointed to the Supreme Court recently allowing Trump to fire Biden-appointed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a case that the high court is now using as a vehicle to revisit in the coming months the 90-year precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Severino said, ‘If one assumes, ‘Okay, if Trump’s right,’ then this is a serious burden on the government to have a good chunk of their four years being taken up with not being able to actually staff the government as they want to. If Trump’s wrong, then Commissioner Slaughter should have been in that position, and they can remedy that by providing her back pay.’

‘When you’re balancing those types of harms, this is the kind of case where the government’s going to have a leg up,’ Severino said.

In a small defeat for Trump on Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to allow the president to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and instead said it would hear her case in January. The move was a deviation from the court’s typical posture and underscored its unique view on the Federal Reserve compared with other agencies.

The Supreme Court’s majority has often split along ideological lines and offered little reason for its emergency decisions. This differs from final orders from the court, which can be lengthy and include numerous concurring opinions and dissents.

Attorney Benjamin Mizer, who served as a top DOJ official during the Biden administration, cautioned during the panel that the Supreme Court could reverse its shadow docket positions down the road.

‘As cases reach the court on the merits, we shouldn’t presume that the administration will win them all,’ Mizer said.

The federal government entered its third day of a shutdown without a clear off-ramp in sight as the Senate gears up to once again vote on a short-term funding extension Friday.

Lawmakers will again vote on the GOP’s continuing resolution (CR) and congressional Democrats’ counter-proposal on Friday. There’s been little movement on Capitol Hill since the last failed vote, given that some either left Washington, D.C., or did not come to the Hill, in observance of Yom Kippur.

In fact, the Senate floor was open for less than three hours on Thursday, with only a handful of lawmakers giving remarks to a mostly empty chamber.

Republicans hope that more Senate Democrats will peel off and vote for their bill, but it’s unlikely. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and most of his caucus are firmly rooted in their position that expiring Obamacare tax credits must be dealt with now.

And Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he isn’t planning on keeping lawmakers in town over the weekend if the House GOP’s bill fails for a fourth time. Still, bipartisan talks are happening among the rank-and-file members to find some way to reopen the government.

‘I’m glad that people are talking,’ Thune said. ‘I think there are a lot of Democrats who want out of this, you know, grapple that Schumer is running now, so I’m hoping that perhaps that will lead somewhere. But it all starts with what I’ve said before, reopen the government, and I think that’s what we got to have … happen first.’

There are some ideas being tossed back and forth among Senate Republicans and Democrats, like agreeing to work on the subsidies until Nov. 21 under the GOP plan, or compromising on a shorter CR that lasts until Nov. 1 to coincide with the beginning of open-enrollment for Obamacare.

‘We’re not asking for a full repair of a broken system,’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said. ‘We understand how badly the healthcare system is working, but it’s going to be so much worse if the Republicans continue on this path of cutting healthcare for millions of Americans.’

Thune threw cold water on the latter idea.

‘Well, and what’s the House going to come back and vote on, a one-month as opposed to seven weeks? I mean, think about this right now. We’re really kind of quibbling over pretty, pretty small stuff,’ he said.

Schumer made clear over the last several days that he wants bipartisan negotiations to craft a funding extension with Democratic and Republican input, but the GOP argues that their bill, which is backed by President Donald Trump, would unlock future bipartisan negotiations on spending bills.

But Republicans argue that his insistence on negotiating is more about political optics than actually finding a path out of the shutdown.

‘This Democrat shutdown is nothing but a cynical political shutdown, with Senator Schumer kowtowing to his radical left-wing extremists,’ Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., said on the Senate floor. ‘He’s desperately recoiling, fighting to stave off a primary and to save his party from the piranhas in their own midst.’

And while talks at the lower level are ongoing, some contend that ultimately it will be Trump’s decision on what happens next.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said on the Senate floor, ‘Unfortunately, right now, our Republican colleagues are not working with us to find a bipartisan agreement to prevent the government shutdown and address the healthcare crisis.’

‘We know that even when they float ideas, which we surely do appreciate, in the end, the president appears to make the call,’ Klobuchar said. 

Senate Democrats appear ready for the long haul as the government shutdown continues and are putting the onus of reopening the government on Republicans.

The Senate was out Thursday to observe the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur and is expected to return to action Friday to again vote on the dueling proposals to reopen the government. Though three Democratic caucus members have voted for the GOP’s plan, an end to the shutdown still seems a ways out.

Senate Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have largely unified around the push for expiring Obamacare tax credits that they say must be dealt with now rather than at the end of the year when they are set to end.

Republicans argue that any negotiations for the expiring subsidies can happen once the government reopens.

‘Democrats know we need to reopen the government, and they know that they’re appropriately getting blamed for shutting it down, and we’re going to continue to bring up the continuing resolution,’ Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said. ‘There’s things they want to negotiate, and we can do that once the government is open.’

The White House, particularly Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought, and President Donald Trump have ramped up pressure on Senate Democrats, too, with targeted spending cuts to blue states and threats of mass firings of federal workers.

But Vought’s targeted cuts likely do not help Democrats move closer to supporting the GOP’s continuing resolution (CR).

‘Russ Vought is a menace whether the government is open or closed. He wakes up figuring, ‘What damage can I do today?’ That’s what he does,’ Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said. ‘So, the status of government [being] open or closed, it’s not relevant to Russell Vought. He just goes on his rampage every day.’

Senate Democratic leadership also appears unwilling to cave this early into a shutdown as Republicans plan to continue bringing their short-term extension to the floor. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that he planned to continue to vote down the GOP’s plan.

‘How long can Republicans explain to the American people that they want to do nothing to help pay for health insurance?,’ he asked.

When asked if he was concerned by Vought targeting projects in blue states, Durbin said, ‘Sadly, it’s a consistent pattern.’

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., charged that Trump didn’t have ‘superpowers during a shutdown’ to fire federal workers and slash additional funding.

‘The news today is that the president is deciding to act illegally and shut down funding for Democratic states and keep money flowing for Republican states,’ Murphy said. ‘This is not a functioning democracy if the president seizes spending power in order to reward his friends and punish his enemies.’

Murphy said Democrats would not ‘get run over’ during the shutdown, and that the government would reopen when the GOP gets ‘serious about talking to Democrats.’

Early negotiations on a path forward materialized on the Senate floor on Wednesday, but no real deal came from those talks. Instead, Republicans and Democrats in the impromptu meeting said that they left with a better understanding of either side’s desires.

Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., previously voted with Schumer in March to keep the government open. The retiring senator was also one of the nearly dozen lawmakers in a bipartisan huddle on the Senate floor that sparked early negotiations on the expiring credits.

Peters said that it was ‘premature’ to say there was a deal or plan locked in after those talks, but he warned that deeper issues were still at play for congressional Democrats when it came to dealing with the GOP and White House.

‘There are all sorts of trust issues, both in the Senate and the House, so we have to work through all of that,’ he said.

And Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., was one of just three Democratic caucus members who have now voted twice with Republicans on their CR. While she supported reopening the government, she still blamed Republicans for ignoring the Obamacare tax credits.

‘[Republicans] created this crisis … and they need to address it,’ she said. ‘They have no moral standing, no moral standing to stand back and say that this is all on the Democrats. They are in control, they created this crisis. People are suffering.’

When asked if she trusted Republicans in negotiations, Cortez Masto countered, ‘You tell me.’

‘They’re already entrenched in their positions, unfortunately, and not thinking about the American public,’ she said. 

A judicial consensus is forming against climate lawfare, but the U.S. Supreme Court must still end environmental extortion of American energy. In two landmark cases, the court will soon have the opportunity to reassert the federal government’s authority over questions of national energy and environmental policy. 

Environmental groups believe that energy use increases global temperatures, causes sea levels to rise and creates more destructive weather. Their campaign to curtail energy has taken many forms — including asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to block pipelines and the Interior Department to deny oil and gas leases — but it met a roadblock with the 2024 election and the Trump administration’s subsequent blizzard of executive orders lifting overregulation.  

Rather than pursue their interests in Congress or before the electorate, environmental extremists have now allied with bankrupt cities and trial lawyers to use the courts to shake down the energy industry. Blue cities and states have filed tort suits in state courts to extract money for allegedly causing weather-related costs in their jurisdictions. 

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to take up one of those cases, Boulder County v. Suncor Energy, following a ruling this year from the Colorado Supreme Court that allowed the county’s case to move forward in state court. Borrowing theories of liability from tobacco and opioid litigation, Boulder alleges that energy companies sold their products without disclosing climate risks. Such claims plainly intrude on federal authority over interstate pollution. 

Other climate cases are still progressing in lower state courts. In Hawaii, summary judgment motions are pending in a case seeking damages for rising sea levels. Hawaii’s highest court allowed this litigation to move forward in 2023 with Justice Todd Eddins issuing a remarkable concurrence, declaring that litigation would proceed under the ‘Aloha Spirit,’ regardless of federal precedent.  

In Rhode Island, the state judge presiding over a similar lawsuit against the energy industry compared it to developing nations devastated by natural disasters, citing Kenya, Tanzania and the Seychelles. The suggestion that Rhode Island has suffered comparable ‘severe destruction’ is telling: judges are inflating rhetoric to justify climate claims, not grounding them in law.  

Meanwhile, other states are effectively trying to replace federal authority over environmental policy. In Louisiana, plaintiffs obtained a $750 million judgment (potentially over $1 billion with interest) against Chevron for coastal erosion that they claimed was caused by oil extraction during World War II. Those companies had been under federal contracts to supply aviation fuel for the war effort. Yet eight decades later, Louisiana claims it can punish those practices retroactively. 

The energy firms sought to move the case to federal court because of its genesis in work for the federal government. But a divided 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel refused to allow it. As Judge Andrew Oldham rightly noted in dissent, crude oil extraction plainly ‘relates to’ war production. If states can sue private businesses for their wartime work generations later, future cooperation with the federal government will be chilled, raising the costs of national defense. This coming term, the Supreme Court will review the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 

Despite some disappointing rulings from activist judges, a growing number of state courts are beginning to resist such frivolous claims. A Maryland judge rejected Baltimore’s lawsuit that alleged fossil fuels caused sea rises that have harmed the city; the Maryland Supreme Court will hear the appeal later in October. A South Carolina court dismissed Charleston’s similar claims, which blue city officials will almost certainly appeal as well. Likewise, nearly identical state and municipal lawsuits have been similarly dismissed in Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware and New Jersey. 

Notwithstanding some recent wins, climate lawfare is like Hydra — new cases are constantly being brought. Even if higher courts ultimately overturn them, simply forcing the industry to defend against these suits imposes enormous litigation costs. That alone is a victory for environmental radicals. At this stage, the Supreme Court must act to reaffirm federal authority over national energy and environmental policy.  

If climate change is producing harmful effects nationwide, then the nation should decide how to address it. As the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in a 2021 case rejecting New York City’s lawsuit against Chevron, ‘the question before us is whether a nuisance suit seeking to recover damages for the harms caused by global greenhouse gas emissions may proceed under New York law. Our answer is simple: no.’ However, they frame their aims, blue cities and states are trying to set nationwide climate policy through litigation — violating federal law and tort principles. 

As the country decides how to respond to climate change, those choices — including the possibility of not acting — must have nationwide legitimacy. Courts cannot allow a handful of blue jurisdictions, aided by trial lawyers and environmental activists, to dictate those decisions for the rest of America.