Senate Confirms Trump Nominee Anne-Leigh Moe As U.S. District Judge
The United States Senate on Tuesday advanced the confirmation of President Donald Trump’s nominee Anne-Leigh Moe to serve as U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida. The vote was 53–46.
Advertisement
Trump celebrated the confirmation with a post on his Truth Social account.
“I am pleased to announce the nomination of Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe to serve as Judge on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,” Trump wrote.
“Anne-Leigh has fiercely advocated for Sunshine State residents as a Judge on Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals, and as Trial Judge on Florida’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court. Anne-Leigh will prioritize LAW AND ORDER unlike other activist Judges who put the safety of Illegal Criminals over the safety of AMERICANS. Congratulations Anne-Leigh!” Trump added.
Moe has served as a judge on Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal since 2022. Before that, she spent nearly a decade as a circuit judge in the state’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, which includes Hillsborough County. She previously worked as an assistant state attorney in Tampa.
Advertisement
Her confirmation marks another major judicial win for the Trump administration as it continues to fill vacancies across the federal courts.
President Trump appears to be in no hurry to resolve the ongoing government shutdown, according to analysis by CNN’s Harry Enten.
That’s because, according to the CNN data analyst, it doesn’t seem to be hurting him politically as much as it is hurting Democrats. In fact, Enten says, Trump’s faring well.
Enten compared Trump’s current net approval rating to his standing during the 2018–2019 shutdown, noting that at a similar point in that earlier standoff, Trump’s approval had already declined by three percentage points and “would fall considerably more.”
In contrast, Enten said the current shutdown has so far had no measurable impact on Trump’s overall support and in fact, he’s even up by a point.
“This shutdown hasn’t eaten into Donald Trump support at all. His net approval rating is actually up a point in terms of his popular support,” Enten said. “So the bottom line is this: the first shutdown during Trump’s first term, 2018-2019, was hurting Donald Trump. This one is not hurting him at all. There’s no real reason Donald Trump might say, at least when it comes to popular support, ‘I want to get out of this shutdown.’”
Enten said Trump’s approval ratings have remained stable because fewer Americans hold him responsible for the current government shutdown than during his first term. During the 2018–2019 shutdown, 61 percent of respondents blamed Trump for the impasse, compared with 48 percent now, according to Enten.
“Again, it’s no real wonder that Donald Trump, at this point, looking at the shutdown, says, ‘You know what? It’s not actually harming me politically,’ in large part, because he’s getting less of the blame,” Enten said.
It also needs to be noted that Congress is responsible for passing funding bills — not the president. So it’s unclear why he would ever get the blame.
Democrats have pledged to block any spending legislation that fails to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire at year’s end, while Republicans have so far declined to negotiate a bipartisan agreement to end the shutdown.
With only slim majorities in Congress, Republicans would need support from several Senate Democrats to pass a short-term funding measure to reopen the government — meaning they, not Republicans, are now responsible for the ongoing shutdown.
With only slim majorities in Congress, Republicans would need support from several Senate Democrats to pass a short-term funding measure to reopen the government — meaning they, not Republicans, are now responsible for the ongoing shutdown.
Clarence Thomas Blasts Supreme Court For Refusing Florida Case
Florida argued the two states were undermining public safety by allowing individuals without legal immigration status — and, in some cases, insufficient English-language proficiency — to obtain commercial trucking licenses despite federal standards intended to govern interstate transportation safety.
The dispute gained national attention after a deadly 2025 crash on the Florida Turnpike involving an undocumented truck driver reportedly licensed through California or Washington.
According to the lawsuit, the driver allegedly made an illegal U-turn and was unable to properly interpret roadway signage, resulting in a collision that killed three people.
Joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Thomas argued the high court had a constitutional obligation to hear the interstate dispute because Florida had no other legal forum available to challenge another state’s policies.
The court’s majority denied Florida’s request without explanation.
The case underscores the growing national clash over immigration enforcement, state licensing authority, and whether states with looser immigration policies are creating broader public safety consequences for the rest of the country.
Thomas ripped the majority for refusing to hear the lawsuit since disputes between states can only be brought before the Supreme Court.
“If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas argued that Florida’s allegations against California and Washington raised serious public safety concerns, warning that failures to properly follow federal commercial driver licensing (CDL) laws can create dangerous conditions on American roadways.
Thomas pointed to the fatal Florida highway crash involving truck driver Harjinder Singh, who he said “could not read the road signs,” and argued Florida deserved a chance to pursue its claims.
Two blue states – California and Washington – issued Singh a CDL.
“An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer,” Thomas wrote.
“Federal law and regulations prohibit States from providing commercial driver’s licenses to applicants unless they pass a driver’s test, sufficiently understand the English language, and show appropriate immigration status,” he added.
Thomas argued that while the Supreme Court of the United States may have broad discretion when deciding whether to hear ordinary appeals, disputes between states occupy a different category because the Constitution grants the high court exclusive jurisdiction over those cases.
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas wrote.
He also accused the court of failing to follow the Constitution by refusing to hear disputes between states.
“This Court has adopted a discretionary approach to its exclusive original jurisdiction based on policy judgments that are in conflict with the policy choices that Congress made in the statutory text,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas argued that if Florida, California, and Washington were separate sovereign nations rather than American states, a dispute involving one government allegedly allowing unsafe drivers into another jurisdiction could trigger major diplomatic conflict.
Thomas suggested that in an international context, such disputes would likely be addressed through international courts, treaties, or direct government action.
“By entering the Union, States agree to instead have such disputes resolved by this Court,” he wrote.
The issuance of commercial driver’s licenses to non-citizens came under increased scrutiny from the Department of Transportation last summer following a series of deadly crashes involving undocumented immigrant truck drivers.
Last September, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced stricter federal requirements for non-citizens seeking commercial driver’s licenses, part of a broader push by the Trump administration to tighten transportation and immigration enforcement standards, Fox News reported.
Duffy also warned that California could risk losing federal transportation funding if the state continued allowing commercial licenses to remain active for individuals deemed ineligible under revised federal guidelines.
