Tag

Slider

Browsing

The FBI identified Keith Michael Lisa as the suspect wanted in connection to an attack this week on U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s office.

A reward of up to $25,000 is being offered by the FBI for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Lisa.

‘Keith Michael Lisa is wanted for allegedly entering the Peter W. Rodino Federal Building in Newark, New Jersey, on November 12, 2025, while in possession of a bat,’ according to the FBI. ‘After being denied entry, he discarded the bat and returned. Once inside the building, he proceeded to the U.S. Attorney’s Office where he damaged government property.’

‘A federal arrest warrant was issued for Lisa on November 13, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey after he was charged with Possession of a Dangerous Weapon in a Federal Facility and Depredation of Federal Property,’ the FBI added.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Thursday that an individual attempted to confront Alina Habba on Wednesday night, ‘destroyed property in her office’ and then ‘fled the scene.’

‘Thankfully, Alina is ok,’ Bondi added. ‘Any violence or threats of violence against any federal officer will not be tolerated. Period. This is unfortunately becoming a trend as radicals continue to attack law enforcement agents around the country.’

Habba said following the incident that, ‘I will not be intimidated by radical lunatics for doing my job.’

Lisa, 51, is described by authorities as being around 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing between 200 to 230 pounds.

The FBI said Lisa has ties to New York City and Mahwah, N.J., and ‘should be considered dangerous.’

On its website, the Justice Department said that as Acting U.S. Attorney and Special Attorney to the United States Attorney General, Habba ‘is responsible for overseeing all federal criminal prosecutions and the litigation of all civil matters in New Jersey in which the federal government has an interest.’

‘Including the offices in Newark, Camden, and Trenton, Ms. Habba supervises a staff of approximately 155 federal prosecutors and approximately 130 support personnel,’ according to the Justice Department.

Fox News’ Alexis McAdams contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

More than 1,000 unionized Starbucks workers went on strike at 65 U.S. stores Thursday to protest a lack of progress in labor negotiations with the company.

The strike was intended to disrupt Starbucks’ Red Cup Day, which is typically one of the company’s busiest days of the year. Since 2018, Starbucks has given out free, reusable cups on that day to customers who buy a holiday drink. Starbucks Workers United, the union organizing baristas, said Thursday morning that the strike had already closed some stores and was expected to force more to close later in the day.

Starbucks Workers United said stores in 45 cities would be impacted, including New York, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, San Diego, St. Louis, Dallas, Columbus, Ohio, and Starbucks’ home city of Seattle. There is no date set for the strike to end, and more stores are prepared to join if Starbucks doesn’t reach a contract agreement with the union, organizers said.

Starbucks emphasized that the vast majority of its U.S. stores would be open and operating as usual Thursday. The coffee giant has 10,000 company-owned stores in the U.S., as well as 7,000 licensed locations in places like grocery stores and airports.

As of noon Thursday on the East Coast, Starbucks said it was on track to meet or exceed its sales expectations for the day at its company-owned stores.

“The day is off to an incredible start,” the company said in a statement.

Around 550 company-owned U.S. Starbucks stores are unionized. More have voted to unionize, but Starbucks closed 59 unionized stores in September as part of a larger reorganization campaign.

Here’s what’s behind the strike.

Striking workers say they’re protesting because Starbucks has yet to reach a contract agreement with the union. Starbucks workers first voted to unionize at a store in Buffalo in 2021. In December 2023, Starbucks vowed to finalize an agreement by the end of 2024. But in August of last year, the company ousted Laxman Narasimhan, the CEO who made that promise. The union said progress has stalled under Brian Niccol, the company’s current chairman and CEO. The two sides haven’t been at the bargaining table since April.

Workers say they’re seeking better hours and improved staffing in stores, where they say long customer wait times are routine. They also want higher pay, pointing out that executives like Niccol are making millions and the company spent $81 million in June on a conference in Las Vegas for 14,000 store managers and regional leaders.

Dochi Spoltore, a barista from Pittsburgh, said in a union conference call Thursday that it’s hard for workers to be assigned more than 19 hours per week, which leaves them short of the 20 hours they would need to be eligible for Starbucks’ benefits. Spoltore said she makes $16 per hour.

“I want Starbucks to succeed. My livelihood depends on it,” Spoltore said. “We’re proud of our work, but we’re tired of being treated like we’re disposable.”

The union also wants the company to resolve hundreds of unfair labor practice charges filed by workers, who say the company has fired baristas in retaliation for unionizing and has failed to bargain over changes in policy that workers must enforce, like its decision earlier this year to limit restroom use to paying customers.

Starbucks says it offers the best wage and benefit package in retail, worth an average of $30 per hour. Among the company’s benefits are up to 18 weeks of paid family leave and 100% tuition coverage for a four-year college degree. In a letter to employees last week, Starbucks’ Chief Partner Officer Sara Kelly said the union walked away from the bargaining table in the spring.

Kelly said some of the union’s proposals would significantly alter Starbucks’ operations, such as giving workers the ability to shut down mobile ordering if a store has more than five orders in the queue.

Kelly said Starbucks remained ready to talk and “believes we can move quickly to a reasonable deal.” Kelly also said surveys showed that most employees like working for the company, and its barista turnover rates are half the industry average.

Unionized workers have gone on strike at Starbucks before. In 2022 and 2023, workers walked off the job on Red Cup Day. Last year, a five-day strike ahead of Christmas closed 59 U.S. stores. Each time, Starbucks said the disruption to its operations was minimal. Starbucks Workers United said the new strike is open-ended and could spread to many more unionized locations.

The number of non-union Starbucks locations dwarfs the number of unionized ones. But Todd Vachon, a union expert at the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, said any strike could be highly visible and educate the public on baristas’ concerns.

Unlike manufacturers, Vachon said, retail industries depend on the connection between their employees and their customers. That makes shaming a potentially powerful weapon in the union’s arsenal, he said.

Starbucks’ same-store sales, or sales at locations open at least a year, rose 1% in the July-September period. It was the first time in nearly two years that the company had posted an increase. In his first year at the company, Niccol set new hospitality standards, redesigned stores to be cozier and more welcoming, and adjusted staffing levels to better handle peak hours.

Starbucks also is trying to prioritize in-store orders over mobile ones. Last week, the company’s holiday drink rollout in the U.S. was so successful that it almost immediately sold out of its glass Bearista cup. Starbucks said demand for the cup exceeded its expectations, but it wouldn’t say if the Bearista will return before the holidays are ove

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

A group of former federal judges sharply criticized a top Justice Department official this week for characterizing the court fights playing out in President Donald Trump’s second term as a ‘war’ against so-called ‘activist judges,’ remarks they described as unnecessarily inflammatory and amounting to ‘pouring oil’ on an already fast-burning fire.

Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, spoke colorfully last week during a fireside chat hosted by the Federalist Society. Blanche used his time to excoriate federal judges for pausing or blocking some of Trump’s biggest executive orders and actions since January and to urge young lawyers and law students in the audience to fight back. 

‘It is a war,’ Blanche said, ‘and it is something we will not win unless we keep on fighting.’

The judges ‘have a robe on, but they are more political, or as political, as the most liberal governor or DA,’ Blanche added. 

His remarks prompted a rebuke from the New York State Bar Association and from the Article III Coalition, a group of 50 former federal judges appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents. 

This type of rhetoric, ‘especially when voiced by high-ranking officials — not only endangers individual judges and court staff, but also undermines the public’s trust in the judiciary as an impartial and co-equal branch of government,’ the judges said in a letter. 

In a series of interviews this week, several former judges told Fox News Digital they were shocked by Blanche’s remarks, which they described as a departure from longstanding Justice Department norms and a threat to the judiciary both as an institution and to the individual judges who serve on the bench.

One judge said Blanche’s remarks were ‘wildly different from all prior decades and under all prior administrations’ he experienced in his more than 60-year career in D.C.

‘I’ve been in Washington since 1974, continuously, and I’ve never seen anything like it,’ Paul R. Michel, the former chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, told Fox News Digital in an interview.

Michel served as a special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation, a role in which he personally interviewed former President Nixon. 

‘It’s just startling for the deputy attorney general to be functioning as a PR ‘hatchet man’ instead of a law enforcement official,’ he said of Blanche’s remarks.

Michel and others in the group of retired judges told Fox News Digital they fear the rhetoric used could further erode public trust in the judiciary, a branch that the framers designed to interpret the law impartially and to serve as a check against excesses of the other branches, regardless of politics or the administration in charge. 

They noted that while parties often disagree with a decision or a near-term temporary order or motion, both the Justice Department and the opposing parties have a readily available mechanism to seek relief via the appeals process. 

Parties looking to challenge a temporary order or other form of injunctive relief can proceed with having the district court evaluate a case on its merits, kick it to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and, in some cases, the Supreme Court, for review, Philip Pro, a former U.S. district judge in Nevada appointed by President Ronald Reagan, told Fox News Digital.

Federal judges have attempted to issue near-term or emergency orders temporarily blocking some of Trump’s top policy priorities, including on immigration enforcement, birthright citizenship and sweeping layoffs across the federal government. The administration has responded to the lower court actions by seeking emergency relief from the higher courts, via emergency stays, which Blanche also touted during his remarks last week. 

Judges are ‘totally reactive’ by design, Pro said. ‘We’re sitting in our districts. The cases are randomly assigned.’

‘There is nothing ‘rogue’ about these decisions,’ Pro added. ‘Those wheels grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly well, and that’s the way you get resolution.’

Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law who attended the fireside remarks, told Fox News Digital in an interview he is sympathetic to the concerns voiced by the judges, but he also understands the broader issue Blanche may have been trying to get at, which is the power the courts have to review the actions of the executive branch. 

This has emerged as a particular pain point not only for Trump but for his predecessors, each of whom has sought to enact some of their policy priorities via executive order in a bid to sidestep a clunky and slow-moving Congress.

Those actions are therefore more vulnerable to emergency intervention from the federal courts, Blackman said, though the degree to which judges can or should act in this space is the subject of ongoing debate.

‘I don’t see Blanche’s comments as calling for violence,’ Blackman said. ‘I think it’s more trying to say that there’s just this struggle between the executive branch and the judiciary that is not normal.’ 

Trump is far from the first president to publicly complain about ‘activist’ judges for hampering his policies. Such criticisms stretch back decades and include former presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, among others. 

Still, the judges say they are concerned by Blanche’s remarks, which are a stark departure from what they experienced in their own careers, including while serving as federal prosecutors.

‘Calling judges ‘rogue’ because they apply the law in a politically unfavorable way is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary in our constitutional structure,’ Allyson K. Duncan, a former judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, said in a statement. 

Michel, the former special prosecutor for the Watergate investigation, noted he worked for two successive deputy attorneys general in the ‘exact post Blanche now holds,’ but who gave much different marching orders.

‘Their instructions to me were, ‘Politics are outside the boundaries for Justice Department employees,’ and politics are ‘not to have any influence,” he said. ‘We were not to pay any attention to what somebody in the White House might say, or in the media or elsewhere. We were to be a ‘politics-free zone.’

‘That seemed to me to be entirely appropriate,’ Michel said. ‘The power to investigate, the power to indict and the power to prosecute and convict are awesome, awesome powers,’ he added.

The group also cited concerns for their colleagues who remain on the bench at a time when public threats to judges have increased, according to data from U.S. Marshals. This includes online harassment, threats of physical violence and ‘doxxing’ judges at their home addresses by sending them unsolicited pizzas. Some deliveries have been made in the name of a judge’s son who was shot and killed in 2020 after opening the door to a disgruntled individual disguised as a delivery person.

The number of threats made against federal judges in 2025 has outpaced threats from the past 12-month period, according to the U.S. Marshals Service, prompting a push for Congress to take action. 

‘Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s remarks reflect a reality the Department of Justice confronts every day — a growing number of activist judges attempting to set national policy from the bench,’ a spokesperson for the Justice Department told Fox News Digital on Friday in response to a request for comment. 

‘The department will continue to follow the Constitution, defend its lawful authorities and push back when activist rulings threaten public safety or undermine the will of the American people.’ 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS