Appeals

Sept. 10, 2026 12:04 PM PT

WASHINGTON — An appeals court on Thursday upheld a block on President Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting, a decision that comes as the Supreme Court considers the same case and states have already started sending out ballots for the high-stakes midterm elections.

The three-judge panel refused to lift a preliminary injunction against the order issued last week by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani. It prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from implementing Trump’s directive. The Postal Service has said it would not deliver ballots from states that did not pre-clear their envelope design with the federal government and submit a list of voters to an online portal, which has yet to be activated.

Election officials warn that it’s impossible to comply with those terms, especially with the first mail ballots already being sent out in Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

The panel of three judges nominated by former President Biden agreed with the plaintiffs that the president does not have the power to regulate states’ election policy.

“Appellants have not made a strong showing that the district court erred in determining that the Final Rule is likely unlawful,” they wrote, a reference to a rule published by the Postal Service to implement Trump’s order.

The panel wrote that the Trump administration had done little to dispel arguments by many election officials that the changes would bring “chaos and widespread disenfranchisement.”

“Indeed, appellants have not even seriously challenged this aspect of the district court’s ruling, much less demonstrated why it is clearly erroneous,” the order states.

The government also hasn’t shown evidence of past fraud to justify the restrictions, the judges said.

A request for comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

The panel’s decision comes even as the Supreme Court is already considering the same case, which is part of a frenzied legal rush as states are beginning to send out mail ballots for this fall’s midterm elections. Democrats and civil rights groups in a separate lawsuit in Washington, D.C., also are trying to halt the executive order.

The 1st Circuit also had upheld a previous hold Talwani placed on the executive order. But that ruling was lifted by the Supreme Court in a procedural decision that did not determine whether the plan was constitutional.

The plaintiffs swiftly filed new lawsuits after the Postal Service finalized its rule governing mail ballots.

Riccardi and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

The discrepancy between the official F1 measurement and the possible shorter distance did not mean that the official measurement was incorrect, the court said.

While it was concluded after the race that a shorter line was possible, the court of appeal ruled that “sporting fairness absolutely precludes the retrospective replacement” of an established calibration parameter “by a different geometric or measurement approach for the purpose of re-adjudicating an individual competitor’s result”.

The controversy arose from the fact that there was a 77-centimetre discrepancy between the officially measured distance of the pit lane and the real shortest route a driver could take.

It was established at Alpine’s appeal in June that Gasly had not exceeded the pit-lane speeding limit by this new measurement, which was why the penalty was overturned.

However, McLaren appealed on the grounds of sporting fairness and their own competitive interests, as Piastri had lost two points as a consequence of the situation.

The Australian was one of several drivers who did serve a five-second pit-lane speeding penalty.

The court of appeal verdict rests on the following conclusions:

Alpine said in a statement: “While we disagree with the decision, and still fully maintain that car 10 (Gasly) did not exceed the pit-lane speed limit at any point during the race, the team acknowledges the decision of the judging panel from the recent hearing in Paris.

“While the result is not what we had hoped for, as we feel that we have been unjustly punished, the team is firmly focused on continuing to improve its performance on track and remains in a close and very competitive championship fight.”

McLaren said: “We welcome the decision of the FIA international court of appeal, a decision which provides important clarity for teams and all the sport’s stakeholders and helps protect the integrity of the sport and trust in its regulatory framework.

“Our appeal was not directed at any competitor or at the FIA. It was brought, and pursued to its conclusion, in the interests of the sport and to support the consistent and fair application of the regulations for all participants.”

The court of appeal did not address the question of whether the pit-lane speeding penalties awarded to Ferrari’s Lewis Hamilton, Russell and Piastri were correct under the established measurement, or whether their cars ever physically exceeded the 60km/h limit.

That was not relevant to the bounds of the hearing, which was to address McLaren’s and Red Bull’s protest against the decision to rescind Gasly’s penalty.

Mercedes also contend that Russell never exceeded 60km/h. He was running ahead of Hadjar and Gasly before his first penalty.

He was demoted out of the points because Mercedes failed to correctly serve the penalty at a subsequent pit stop. That offence earned a drive-through penalty which dropped him to 12th place.

Alpine say they have sent the trophy for third place over to Red Bull’s Milton Keynes base, and that they are considering their options as to whether to take the case further.

Their only remaining likely course of action, should they wish to pursue it, would be to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — A judge who vacated the conviction of former U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in 2023 lacked the jurisdiction to do so, a federal appeals court ruled.

The case of Bergdahl, who walked off an Army base in Afghanistan in 2009 and was captured by the Taliban, has stretched for years. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday reinstates Bergdahl’s dishonorable discharge from the military and other punishment.

“Obviously, we are disappointed by the outcome,” said Eugene R. Fidell, Bergdahl’s lawyer, The New York Times reported. “This entire controversy has lasted a very long time. But it continues to be an important case, not only for Sergeant Bergdahl but for the integrity of the military justice system.”

Fidell said Bergdahl can request a rehearing before the same panel or seek a review by the entire appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the ruling Tuesday, the judges said the case “presents nuanced questions regarding jurisdiction and the evolving relationship between [federal district] courts and military courts.”

“Jurisdiction here turns on whether the remedy sought falls within a district court’s power to grant,” the ruling said. “Because Article III district courts lack jurisdiction on collateral review to vacate court-martial judgments, the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Bergdahl’s claims. Therefore, we remand the case to the District Court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”

In July 2023, federal district court Judge Reggie Walton vacated all judgments against Bergdahl after Oct. 16, 2017.

That is the date Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for his actions in Afghanistan — and the date the military judge in that court martial, Jeffery Nance, applied to become an immigration judge during President Donald Trump‘s first term, Walton’s ruling said. The Justice Department later hired Nance.

During his first presidential campaign, Trump called Bergdahl “a dirty, rotten traitor” and called for him to be executed or returned to the Taliban.

Nance refused a defense request to dismiss the case against Bergdahl because of those remarks, saying he was “completely unaffected” by them and that Bergdahl would still have a fair sentencing hearing. That hearing took place at the end of October 2023.

Walton, in his 2023 ruling, said that based on Nance’s application as an immigration court judge, any reasonable person could conclude that Nance’s impartiality was jeopardized.

An Army investigation found in 2015 that Bergdahl intended to hike to another Army post and report issues in his unit when he left his base in Afghanistan in 2009. He was captured not long after leaving and held and tortured by the Taliban over five years. In 2014, President Barack Obama secured Bergdahl’s release in a prison exchange.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against a policy by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that greatly expanded detention for migrants living in the country for years.

Under the Trump administration, ICE has changed its policies to treat people with extensive ties to the United States as still “seeking admission.”

That policy shift allows the agency to subject people who have lived in the country for years to mandatory detention without bond.

On Friday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the policy, marking the eighth time ICE has been rejected over this same issue in federal appeals court.

In more than 13,000 cases challenging the policy, judges have ruled against ICE more than 90% of the time, Politico reported.

The federal panel said ICE’s policy is incongruent with the law, which is to be applied differently depending on how recently a specific person entered the country.

“Contrary to the Government’s view, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (‘IIRIRA’) retained two tracks for detention even though it overhauled the procedures for removing noncitizens from the United States,” the court wrote in its decision.

“Before IIRIRA, noncitizens arriving in the United States were subject to ‘exclusion’ and those already in the country were subject to ‘deportation’ — the former were held in mandatory detention while the latter were afforded bond.”

The appeals court also ruled that ICE’s policy violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

“The Supreme Court has recognized the Fifth Amendment’s ‘Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.'”

The court added: “Because Petitioners here have lived in the United States for decades, they have ‘established connections’ in the country and are entitled to due process rights beyond those provided to noncitizens at the border.”

Aug. 27 (UPI) — A divided federal appeals court has ruled that Rep. LaMonica McIver is not immune from prosecution on charges stemming from a confrontation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents outside a federal immigration detention facility in 2025.

The New Jersey Democrat was charged with three federal counts of impeding and interfering with federal immigration officers over alleged conduct on May 9, 2025, as they were attempting to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka during an unannounced congressional oversight inspection of Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility.

McIver denies the allegations and has sought their dismissal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 Wednesday that two of the three charges against McIver may proceed to trial, while the third was sent back to a lower court for reconsideration.

McIver said she disagrees with the ruling and was “exploring” her options.

“To protect the people, their elected representatives must be authorized to conduct oversight of the executive branch without fear of retaliation,” McIver said in a statement.

“Today’s decision chills that authority and emboldens the Trump administration to continue persecuting our most vulnerable communities, those who try to defend them and anyone who dares hold the president or his lackeys accountable.

“I will not fold to this administration,” she continued. “The administration will not stop me from doing my job or standing for what is right. This is not over.”

Federal prosecutors charged McIver in a three-count indictment in June 2025, a month after the incident at Delaney Hall.

According to the court document, she and two other members of Congress were at the facility to conduct an unannounced congressional oversight inspection of the facility as a protest was occurring outside against the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policy and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

After arriving at the facility, Baraka entered but was informed by a federal officer he was not authorized to be there, according to federal prosecutors, who said McIver prevented the federal officers from arresting the mayor, who was allegedly given multiple warnings to leave.

Outside the facility, McIver allegedly placed herself in front of Baraka and wrapped her arms around him to prevent his arrest. During the situation she is accused of having “slammed her forearm into the body of one law enforcement officer,” whom she also allegedly tried to retrain by grabbing him.

Court documents also accuse her of striking a second officer with both of her forearms.

Video of the incident posted online shows a chaotic scene that day outside the facility.

Baraka was eventually arrested and charged with trespassing, though the case against him was later dropped.

McIver moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing it violated the Speech or Debate Clause and the constitutional principle of separation of powers as well as under selective prosecution and enforcement claims, while also arguing selective and vindictive prosecution and enforcement.

All three counts accuse her of forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with federal officers. However, the appeals court sent count three back to the lower court to review whether it includes conduct that can be considered legislative acts.

While counts one and two identify specifics act, count three encompasses a range of alleged conduct over a broad time frame, both inside and outside the facility, the court said.

Numerous Democrats came to McIver’s defense, arguing it is an attack on congressional oversight.

“Donald Trump wants Congressmembers to fall in line & not conduct oversight of detention centers,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts said in a statement.

“And he wants to make an example out of @RepLaMonica. But we’re not letting up.”

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill similarly said that she continues to stand with her friend.

“Trump weaponizing the Department of Justice to target members of Congress simply for doing their jobs is straight out of his corruption playbook,” she said in an online statement.

“It’s a brazen and unlawful abuse of power, and a direct attack on congressional oversight.”