Appeals

WASHINGTON — An appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access, a key pillar of the Republican president’s plan to crack down on migration at the southern border of the U.S.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that immigration laws give people the right to apply for asylum at the border, and the president can’t circumvent that.

The panel concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act doesn’t authorize the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making,” allow him to suspend plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating their anti-torture claims.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Biden.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement that the appellate ruling is “essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the Trump administration’s unlawful and inhumane executive order.”

Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, wrote a partial dissent. He said the law gives immigrants protections against removal to countries where they would be persecuted, but the administration can issue broad denials of asylum applications.

Walker, however, agreed with the majority that the president cannot deport migrants to countries where they will be persecuted or strip them of mandatory procedures that protect against their removal.

Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was nominated by Democratic President Obama, also heard the case.

Judges say Trump’s order for swift removal at the border ‘cast aside federal laws affording’ right to seek asylum.

An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s ban on asylum applications in the United States is unlawful, dealing a setback to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

In a decision released on Friday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, found that existing laws — namely the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — give people the right to apply for asylum at the border.

Trump had issued the asylum ban in a proclamation on January 20, 2025, on the first day of his second term.

But the appeals court questioned whether suspending asylum unilaterally was within the president’s power.

“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the ruling said.

“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections.”

The decision validated a ruling by a lower court. While the judges blocked Trump’s order, it is unclear what its immediate impact will be. Already, the White House has signalled it plans to appeal.

Trump made immigration a major pillar of his 2024 re-election campaign, pledging to repel what he describes as an “invasion” of migrants by shutting down the southern border of the US.

Asylum in the US can be granted to people facing “persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group”. Such protections have been recognised as a fundamental human right under international law.

But unauthorised border crossings reached record levels during the administration of President Joe Biden, which had itself imposed asylum restrictions.

Millions of migrants — many suffering from gang violence and political persecution in Central and South America — have claimed asylum upon reaching the US.

Nearly 945,000 filed for asylum in 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

In his January 2025 decree, Trump suspended “the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border”.

The proclamation was quickly challenged in court, as other measures in Trump’s immigration crackdown have been.

But the appeals court panel concluded that the INA does not authorise the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making”.

Nor does it allow him to suspend the plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating claims of torture and persecution.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee.

The Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling to the full appellate court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.

The White House stressed after the court’s decision that banning asylum is part of Trump’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief.

“We have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

April 22 (UPI) — A U.S. appeals court has ruled that Texas can require schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments, finding the legislation that mandates the Decalogue in classrooms does not require students to believe in the religious teachings.

The Tuesday ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for Texas conservatives and Christians who have fought to further include religion in public spaces. The decision is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

“This is a major victory for Texas and our moral values,” the state’s Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, said in a statement.

“The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it’s important that students learn from them every single day.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 10 into law June 10, directing every classroom in all Texas public schools to display the Ten Commandments starting Sept. 1, but has been tied up in litigation since.

While proponents argue the Decalogue is foundational to American life, opponents state that mandating it in schools is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented multi-faith Texas families in the case, said it was “extremely disappointed” by the decision and expects the Supreme Court to reverse it.

“The court’s ruling goes against fundamental First Amendment principles and binding U.S. Supreme Court authority,” the ACLU of Texas said in a statement.

“The First Amendment safeguards the separation of church and state, and the freedom of families to choose how, when and if to provide their children with religious instruction. This decision tramples those rights.”

The appeals court on Tuesday ruled 9-7 to overturn a lower court’s preliminary injunction that found S.B. 10 likely unconstitutional.

In its ruling, the appeals court found S.B. 10 “looks nothing like a historical religious establishment.”

“S.B. 10 authorizes no religious instruction and gives teachers no license to contradict children’s religious beliefs (or their parents’). No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them or affirm their divine origin,” the court said.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge must end his “intrusive” contempt investigation of the Trump administration for failing to comply with an order to turn around planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador last year, a divided appeals court panel ruled Tuesday.

Chief Judge James Boasberg abused his discretion in forging ahead with criminal contempt proceedings over the March 2025 deportation flights, according to the majority opinion by a three-judge panel from U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

President Trump’s administration has a “clear and indisputable” right to the termination of the contempt proceedings, Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

“The legal error at the heart of these criminal contempt proceedings demonstrates why further investigation by the district court is an abuse of discretion,” Rao wrote. “Criminal contempt is available only for the violation of an order that is clear and specific. (Boasberg’s March 2025 order) did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody.”

Rao was nominated by Trump, a Republican. Boasberg, chief judge of the district court in Washington, D.C., was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama.

On March 15, 2025, two planes transporting Venezuelan migrants from the U.S. to El Salvador were in the air when Boasberg ordered the administration to turn them around.

Administration officials claim Boasberg is biased and overstepped his authority.

Boasberg has said the Trump administration may have acted in bad faith by trying to rush Venezuelan migrants out of the country in defiance of his order blocking their deportations to El Salvador. In an April 16, 2025 order, the judge said he gave the administration “ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions” but concluded that “none of their responses has been satisfactory.”

Trump has called for impeaching Boasberg. Last year, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint accusing Boasberg of making improper public comments about Trump and his administration. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rejected calls for Boasberg’s impeachment.

The case is assigned to Rao and Circuit Judges Justin Walker and J. Michelle Childs. Walker, also a Trump nominee, wrote a separate opinion concurring with Roa’s. Childs, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, dissented from the majority.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

April 11 (UPI) — A panel of judges said Saturday it will allow construction on the White House ballroom to continue for now.

The panel of three judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit told the lower court judge who halted the project to seek more information about the national security risk that President Donald Trump claims the pause in construction causes.

In an earlier filing, the Trump administration said that stopping construction “would imperil the President and national security, and indefinitely leave a large hole beside the executive residence.”

The planned construction includes bomb shelters, a hospital, medical area and other “top secret military installations, structures and equipment,” the administration said.

Construction of the 90,000-square-foot building began with the demolition of the East Wing of the White House in October. The new building was to cost $200 million, but the ballroom’s price tag has since doubled. Trump said it will be financed by private donors.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon for the District of Columbia halted the work on April 1.

“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” Leon said in his opinion.

The appeals court said work on the project can continue until at least April 17.

“It remains unclear whether and to what extent the development of certain aspects of the proposed ballroom is necessary to ensure the safety and security of those below-ground national security upgrades or otherwise to ensure the safety of the White House and its occupants while the appeal proceeds,” the judges in the majority wrote.

The judges, Patricia Ann Millett, Bradley Garcia and Neomi Rao, were not unanimous. Rao dissented, arguing that the National Trust for Historic Preservation lacked standing to sue.

Trump has also said that the military was building a “massive complex” under the ballroom, but he hasn’t released any details.

The National Trust told the appeals court that Trump was confusing the above-ground ballroom with the below-ground bunker.

“As is obvious, the absence of a massive ballroom on White House grounds has not stopped this (or any other) President from residing at the White House or hosting events there,” the lawyers said in a filing. “Temporarily halting the ballroom project until it complies with the law will not irreparably harm defendants or the nation.”

Justice Department lawyers had asked the court to shelve Leon’s ruling.

“The upgrades to the East Wing are not cosmetic; instead, they involve the use of missile-resistant steel columns, beams, drone-proof roofing materials, and bullet-, ballistic- and blast-proof glass windows,” they said in a filing. “They also include the installation of bomb shelters, hospital and medical facilities, protective partitioning and top-secret military installations, air conditioning, heating, venting and more.”

On April 2, The National Capital Planning Commission voted Thursday to approve Trump’s plans for the White House ballroom. Though, that vote doesn’t override the court’s rulings.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has notched a string of wins on the Supreme Court ’s emergency docket, in part because the conservative justices believe that blocking executive policies is a blow that can’t be easily fixed, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Thursday.

The increase in emergency appeals by the Trump administration is “unprecedented in the court’s history,” she said in a speech at the University of Alabama School of Law.

The high court sided with the Trump administration in about two dozen decisions last year, often lifting the orders of lower court judges who found their policies were likely illegal on topics as diverse as immigration and steep federal funding cuts.

While designed to be short-term, those orders have largely allowed Trump to move ahead for now with key parts of his sweeping agenda.

The emergency docket, which is made up of appeals seeking quick intervention from the justices in cases that are still playing out in lower courts, is itself a source of disagreement among the justices. That spilled into public view when two other justices, liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson and conservative Brett M. Kavanaugh, publicly sparred over the emergency docket in an unusual exchange last month.

Sotomayor has disagreed with many of the decisions in Trump’s favor, but the conservatives who form the court’s majority often reason that blocking those policies — or laws passed by Congress — causes legal harm that can’t be easily fixed, she said. It’s a bar that’s tough for the other side to overcome, even for plaintiffs like immigrants who could be newly exposed to deportation or states where schools are losing teacher-training funding.

“If you start with the presumption that there is irreparable harm to one side, then you’re going to have more grants of emergency relief. Because the other side is going to have a much harder time,” she said. “It has changed the paradigm on the court.”

Her comments provided a window into the Supreme Court decisions that are often released with little explanation. While many emergency docket orders have gone Trump’s way, the court also struck down his sweeping tariffs, a central plank of his economic platform, after a longer process of full briefing and oral arguments.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

ORLANDO, Fla. — Environmental groups on Tuesday asked a federal appellate court panel to drop its temporary halt of a lower court’s order instructing state officials to close an immigration detention center in the heart of the Florida Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz.”

The Everglades facility remains open, still holding detainees, because the appellate court in early September relied on arguments by Florida and the Trump administration that the state had not yet applied for federal reimbursement, and therefore wasn’t required to follow federal environmental law. State officials opened the detention center last summer to support President Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Questions by the three appellate judges during oral arguments in a Miami courtroom focused on how much control the federal government had over the state-built facility and under what circumstances an environmental review was required to be in compliance with federal law. The judges did not indicate when they would rule.

Jesse Panuccio, an attorney for the Florida Department of Emergency Management, told the judges federal funding and federal control of the facility were the two criteria for determining if the federal environmental law would apply and the federal agencies had no control over the state-run detention center.

Florida was notified in late September that FEMA had approved $608 million in federal funding to support the center’s construction and operation.

“You need both,” Panuccio said. “Even with funding, I don’t think that would follow because they don’t have federal control.”

An attorney for the environmental groups said the law requiring a review applied to the facility because the Department of Homeland Security had authorized the funding and immigration was a responsibility of the federal government, not the state.

“What is different about this property is that immigration is constitutionally a federal function,” said Paul Schwiep,” an attorney representing the Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity. “The state has no role.”

The federal district judge in Miami in mid-August ordered the facility to wind down operations over two months because officials had failed to do a review of the detention center’s environmental impact according to federal law. That judge concluded that a reimbursement decision already had been made. The appellate court halted the order on an appeal.

The environmental lawsuit was one of three federal court challenges to the Everglades facility since it opened. In the others, a detainee said Florida agencies and private contractors hired by the state had no authority to operate the center under federal law. The challenge ended after the immigrant detainee who filed the lawsuit agreed to be removed from the United States.

In the third lawsuit, a federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., ruled the Everglades facility must provide detainees there with better access to their attorneys, as well as confidential, unmonitored, unrecorded outgoing legal calls.

Schneider writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is arguing that a judge’s order to halt construction of a $400-million ballroom creates a security risk for President Trump as it asks a federal appeals court to pause the ruling.

In a motion filed Friday, National Park Service lawyers say that the federal judge’s order to suspend construction of the East Wing ballroom is “threatening grave national-security harms to the White House, the President and his family, and the President’s staff.”

“Time is of the essence!” the lawyers write, citing materials that will be installed to make a “heavily fortified” facility. The ballroom construction also includes bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility, according to the filing. The ballroom is part of Trump’s plans to remake public buildings and institutions in Washington during his remaining years in office.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington on Tuesday ordered the temporary pause of the construction project that has included demolishing the East Wing of the White House. He concluded that unless Congress approves the project, the preservationist group suing to stop it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

The White House is owned by the federal government, not the president. Even the website of the National Park Service, which filed the motion, makes clear that “the White House is owned by the American people.”

The judge suspended enforcement of his order for 14 days, acknowledging that the administration would appeal his decision.

Leon’s ruling and the appeal come the same week a key agency tasked with approving construction on federal property in the Washington region gave final approval to the project.

In his ruling, Leon, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, suspended enforcement of his order, recognizing that “halting an ongoing construction project may raise logistical issues.”

Leon also addressed national security in his ruling, saying that he reviewed information that the government privately submitted to him and concluded that halting construction wouldn’t jeopardize national security. He exempted any construction work that is necessary for the safety and security of the White House from the scope of the injunction.

Trump lashed out at the ruling, while noting that it would allow work on underground bunkers and other security measures around the White House grounds to continue — even though those will be paid for by taxpayers. Trump has pledged that he, along with private donors, will cover the costs for the ballroom itself.

But the National Park Service argues in its motion that the president has “complete authority to renovate the White House” and the current state of the grounds, which is an open construction site, make it harder to protect the White House.

“Canvas tents, which are necessary without a ballroom, are significantly more vulnerable to missiles, drones, and other threats than a hardened national security facility,” the motion says.

The Trump administration is asking the appeals court to make a decision on its request by Friday. It also asked that the 14-day suspension of Leon’s order be extended by two weeks so the case can be taken to the Supreme Court.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

April 2 (UPI) — A Colorado appeals court on Thursday threw out the sentence of Tina Peters, a former elections clerk, who was convicted in an election data case.

Peters was sentenced to nine years in prison in August 2024 on seven of the 10 counts for which she was charged.

She allowed an unauthorized person to make copies of voting machine hard drives that included classified information. The data from those drives was then leaked online by conspiracy theorists who falsely said it proved President Donald Trump correct in his assertion that the 2020 election was “stolen.”

Trump later pardoned Peters, but Colorado officials said he has no power to do so because she was convicted by the state. He has since pressured Colorado Gov. Jared Polis to pardon her.

The judges of the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that District Judge Matthew Barrett wrongfully used Peters’ beliefs and promotion of election fraud conspiracy theories in his sentencing.

“We reverse her sentence because it was based in part on improper consideration of her exercise of her right to free speech,” the court wrote, sending her case back to the trial judge. Now Barrett must re-sentence Peters without using her beliefs to make the decision, the appeals judges said.

At the sentencing, Barrett said Peters had no remorse and called her a “charlatan” who abused her position to “peddle snake oil.”

“I am convinced you would do it all over again if you could,” The Hill reported Barrett said. “You’re as defiant as any defendant this court has ever seen.”

In its decision, the appeals court said her beliefs shouldn’t color the sentencing.

“Her offense was not her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud; it was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence of such fraud. Indeed, under these circumstances, just as her purported beliefs underlying her motive for her actions were not relevant to her defense, the trial court should not have considered those beliefs relevant when imposing sentence.”

The appeals court did not overturn Peters’ conviction and formally said Trump doesn’t have the power to pardon a person for state law offenses.

“The crux of Peters’ argument is that the phrase ‘Offences against the United States’ includes an offense against any of the states in the union,” the court wrote. “We join what appears to us to be every other appellate court that has addressed the issue and reject such an expansive reading of the phrase.”

Peters served as a clerk in Mesa County, Colo., whose county seat is Grand Junction, in western Colorado.

She was convicted on three counts of attempting to influence a public servant and one count each of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree misconduct, violation of duty and failure to comply with the requirements of the secretary of state.

Morocco believe their successful appeal against their 1-0 defeat by Senegal means the case of the AFCON crown is closed.

Senegal may still possess the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) trophy and have launched a legal battle against the decision to strip them of it, but as far as new champions Morocco are concerned, the case is closed.

Although the Atlas Lions lost 1-0 in the January final, the Confederation of African Football awarded them a 3-0 victory last week because of several Senegal players leaving the pitch in protest at the award of a penalty.

Morocco drew 1-1 against Ecuador on Friday in a friendly in Madrid, in their first match since the final and the controversial decision to punish Senegal.

It was new coach Mohamed Ouahbi’s first game at the helm, just three months out from the 2026 World Cup.

After becoming the first African side to reach the final four in Qatar in 2022, expectations are high for Morocco, and they are looking to the future, despite Senegal’s outrage.

“We’re focused on what’s to come and not getting into that [topic],” Morocco goalkeeper Yassine Bounou told reporters.

“The answer from us [about whether the decision was fair] would be what our federation said, and that’s all … we’re looking forwards.”

Thousands of Morocco fans, many draped in their country’s flag and tooting vuvuzelas, are convinced justice was served.

“If someone says there are regulations, you have to follow them,” said Yassine el-Aouak, 35, a Morocco supporter who travelled to the game from Italy.

“I think we will bring the trophy home [eventually] – we know that we deserve it.”

Before being awarded victory against Senegal, Morocco had won the Africa Cup of Nations only once, in 1976.

“The rules are the rules … they are so clear, you go outside the pitch without any reason, you lose 3-0,” said another Morocco supporter, Taha El Hadiguy, 22.

“It’s very different to winning on the night of the final, to win two months later, but a win is a win. We have one more star on our shirt.”

Like the players, the Moroccan media was more concerned with the upcoming World Cup and Ouahbi’s tactical approach than whether Senegal are right to feel aggrieved.

Ecuador’s coach Sebastian Beccacece said his were satisfied with a draw against the “African champions”.

Ouahbi’s team are now technically unbeaten in 25 matches, despite falling 1-0 on a dramatic night in Rabat against Senegal in the AFCON final.

They lacked precision in attack against Ecuador, but Ouahbi, who led Moroccan youngsters to Under-20 World Cup glory last year, highlighted the strength of his team.

“I don’t talk in terms of weaknesses. They’re not weaknesses. We are a top-level team – the Ecuadorian coach reminded us of that,” Ouhabi told reporters.

“If you are a top-level team, ranked eighth in the world and World Cup semifinalists, you don’t have weaknesses.

“You only have strengths, and then any qualities we’re missing, areas where we’re not performing, we have to make up for collectively.”

Morocco will face record five-time World Cup winners Brazil in their first game at the tournament this summer on June 13, one of the most intriguing match-ups of the group phase.

Before then, the Moroccan Federation’s lawyers may have to defend their status as African champions against Senegal’s case, but Ouahbi and his players are only looking forward to the summer, when they have a chance to win another trophy, this time on the pitch.

The U.S. can continue to detain immigrants without bond, an appeals court ruled on Wednesday, handing a victory to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

The opinion from a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis overturned a lower court ruling that required that a native of Mexico arrested for lacking legal documents be given a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

It’s the second appeals court to rule in favor of the administration on this issue. The 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled last month that the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country was consistent with the Constitution and federal immigration law.

Both appeals court opinions counter recent lower court decisions across the country that argued the practice is illegal.

In November, a district court decision in California granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing and had implications for noncitizens held in detention nationwide.

Under past administrations, most noncitizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border had an opportunity to request a bond hearing while their cases wound through immigration court. Historically, bond was often granted to those without criminal convictions who were not flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border crossers.

In the case before the 8th Circuit, Joaquin Herrera Avila of Mexico was apprehended in Minneapolis in August 2025 for lacking legal documents authorizing his admission into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security detained Avila without bond and began deportation proceedings.

He filed a petition seeking immediate release or a bond hearing. A federal judge in Minnesota granted the petition, saying the law authorized detention without bond when a person seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to being admitted. The judge found this was not the case for Avila because he had lived in the country for years without seeking naturalization, asylum or refugee status and thus wasn’t “seeking admission.”

Circuit Court Judge Bobby E. Shepherd wrote for the majority in a 2-1 opinion that the law was “clear that an ‘applicant for admission’ is also an alien who is ‘seeking admission,’” and so Avila couldn’t petition on these grounds.

Circuit Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson dissented, saying that Avila would have been entitled to a bond hearing during his deportation hearings if he had been arrested during the past 29 years. Now, he wrote, the Circuit Court has ruled that Avila and millions of others would be subject to mandatory detention under a novel interpretation of “alien seeking admission” that hasn’t been used by the courts or five previous presidential administrations.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Avila, didn’t immediately return an email message seeking comment.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi hailed the ruling, writing in a social media post: “MASSIVE COURT VICTORY against activist judges and for President Trump’s law and order agenda!”

At question is the issue of whether the government is required to ask a neutral judge to to determine whether it is legal to imprison someone.

It’s based on the habeas corpus, which is a Latin legal term referring to the constitutional right for people to legally challenge their detention by the government.

Immigrants have filed more than 30,000 habeas corpus petitions in federal court alleging illegal detention since Trump took office, according to a tally by the Associated Press. Many have succeeded.

McAvoy writes for the Associated Press.

TUCSON — Savannah Guthrie is renewing pleas to neighbors, friends and residents of Tucson to jog their memories in hopes of sparking new leads in the disappearance of her mother, Nancy.

The “Today” show co-host posted a new family statement on her personal Instagram account Sunday morning, hours after the show’s Instagram account shared it.

After expressing gratitude to the community, the family said in its statement that it believes someone in Tucson or in southern Arizona may “hold the key to finding the resolution in this case.”

“Someone knows something. It’s possible a member of this community has information that they do not even realize is significant.”

The family urged people to go over their memories of Jan. 31 — when Nancy Guthrie was last seen — and Feb. 1 as well as the evening of Jan. 11.

“Please consult camera footage, journal notes, text messages, observations, or conversations that in retrospect may hold significance,” the statement said. “No detail is too small.”

They also acknowledged in the statement that their family’s matriarch may no longer be alive.

“We cannot grieve; we can only ache and wonder.”

Nancy Guthrie was reported missing Feb. 1. Authorities believe the 84-year-old was abducted or otherwise taken against her will. The FBI released surveillance videos of a masked man who was outside Guthrie’s front door on the night she vanished.

The Guthrie family has offered a $1-million reward for information leading to the recovery of their mother.

On March 5, Savannah Guthrie visited the NBC “Today” show studio in New York City for the first time since her mother’s disappearance. The show said she plans to return to the air at some point but “remains focused right now supporting her family and working to help bring Nancy home.”

Tucson is a little more than 100 miles south of Phoenix and 70 miles north of the Mexico border. The Catalina Foothills, the neighborhood where Nancy Guthrie lives, is known as an affluent area with popular hiking trails.

Savannah Guthrie has been a co-anchor of the longtime NBC morning show since 2012. One of her former colleagues, Hoda Kotb, has returned to “Today” to fill in during Guthrie’s absence.