block

BOSTON — President Trump ’s administration asked a federal appeals court Friday to block a judge’s order that it distribute November’s full monthly SNAP food benefits amid a U.S. government shutdown, even as at least some states said they were moving quickly to get the money to people.

The judge gave the Trump administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.

The court filing came even as Wisconsin said Friday that some SNAP recipients in the state already got their full November payments overnight on Thursday.

“We’ve received confirmation that payments went through, including members reporting they can now see their balances,” said Britt Cudaback, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

Uncertainty remains for many SNAP recipients

The court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for the food program that serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.

An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income. For many SNAP participants, it remains unclear exactly how much they will receive this month, and when they will receive it.

Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, N.J., waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.

“Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.

Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corp. food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.

“If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”

The legal battle over SNAP takes another twist

Because of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.

In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.

In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”

States are taking different approaches to food aid

Some states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services said it directed a vendor servicing its SNAP electronic benefit cards to issue full SNAP benefits soon after the federal funding is received.

Benefits are provided to individuals on different days of the month. Those who normally receive benefits on the third, fifth or seventh of the month should receive their full SNAP allotment within 48 hours of funds becoming available, the Michigan agency said, and others should receive their full benefits on their regularly scheduled dates.

Meanwhile, North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services said that partial SNAP benefits were distributed Friday, based on the Trump administration’s previous decision. Officials in Illinois and North Dakota also said they were distributing partial November payments, starting as soon as Friday for some recipients.

In Missouri, where officials had been working on partial distribution, the latest court jostling raised new questions. A spokesperson for the state Department of Social Services said Friday that it is awaiting further guidance about how to proceed from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP.

Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.

On Thursday, Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Jim Pillen downplayed the effect of paused SNAP benefits on families in his state, saying, “Nobody’s going to go hungry.” The multimillionaire said food pantries, churches and other charitable services would fill the gap.

Lieb, Casey and Bauer write for the Associated Press. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo., and Bauer from Madison, Wisc. AP writers Margery Beck in Omaha; Mike Catalini in Newark, N.J.; Jack Dura in Bismarck, N.D.; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Del.; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Ill.; and Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Senate approved a resolution Tuesday evening that would nullify President Trump’s tariffs on Brazil, including oil, coffee and orange juice, as Democrats tested GOP senators’ support for Trump’s trade policy.

The legislation from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, passed on a 52-48 tally.

It would terminate the national emergencies that Trump has declared to justify 50% tariffs on Brazil, but the legislation is likely doomed because the Republican-controlled House has passed new rules that allow leadership to prevent it from ever coming up for a vote. Trump would almost certainly veto the legislation even if it were to pass Congress.

Still, the vote demonstrated some pushback in GOP ranks against Trump’s tariffs. Five Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — all voted in favor of the resolution along with every Democrat.

Kaine said the votes are a way force a conversation in the Senate about “the economic destruction of tariffs.” He’s planning to call up similar resolutions applying to Trump’s tariffs on Canada and other nations later this week.

“But they are also really about how much will we let a president get away with? Do my colleagues have a gag reflex or not?” Kaine told reporters.

Trump has linked the tariffs on Brazil to the country’s policies and criminal prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro. The U.S. ran a $6.8 billion trade surplus with Brazil last year, according to the Census Bureau.

“Every American who wakes up in the morning to get a cup of java is paying a price for Donald Trump’s reckless, ridiculous, and almost childish tariffs,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

Republicans have also been increasingly uneasy with Trump’s aggressive trade policy, especially at a time of turmoil for the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last month that Trump’s tariff policy is one of several factors that are expected to increase jobless rates and inflation and lower overall growth this year.

In April, four Republicans voted with Democrats to block tariffs on Canada, but the bill was never taken up in the House. Kaine said he hoped the votes this week showed how Republican opposition to Trump’s trade policy is growing.

To bring up the votes, Kaine has invoked a decades-old law that allows Congress to block a president’s emergency powers and members of the minority party to force votes on the resolutions.

However, Vice President JD Vance visited a Republican luncheon on Tuesday in part to emphasize to Republicans that they should allow the president to negotiate trade deals. Vance told reporters afterwards that Trump is using tariffs “to give American workers and American farmers a better deal.”

“To vote against that is to strip that incredible leverage from the president of the United States. I think it’s a huge mistake,” he added.

The Supreme Court will also soon consider a case challenging Trump’s authority to implement sweeping tariffs. Lower courts have found most of his tariffs illegal.

But some Republicans said they would wait until the outcome of that case before voting to cross the president.

“I don’t see a need to do that right now,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, adding that it was “bad timing” to call up the resolutions before the Supreme Court case.

Others said they are ready to show opposition to the president’s tariffs and the emergency declarations he has used to justify them.

“Tariffs make both building and buying in America more expensive, “ said Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former longtime Republican leader, in a statement. ”The economic harms of trade wars are not the exception to history, but the rule.”

His fellow Kentuckian, Republican Sen. Rand Paul, told reporters, “Emergencies are like war, famine, tornado. Not liking someone’s tariffs is not an emergency. It’s an abuse of the emergency power. And it’s Congress abdicating their traditional role in taxes.”

In a floor speech, he added, “No taxation without representation is embedded in our Constitution.”

Meanwhile, Kaine is also planning to call up a resolution that would put a check on Trump’s ability to carry out military strikes against Venezuela as the U.S. military steps up its presence and action in the region.

He said that it allows Democrats to get off the defensive while they are in the minority and instead force votes on “points of discomfort” for Republicans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Footage shows Israeli protesters blocking aid trucks at the Kerem Shalom crossing. They say Hamas broke ceasefire terms. WHO warns deliveries remain only a “fraction of what’s needed” and estimates $7 billion to rebuild Gaza’s shattered health system.

Oct. 22 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday extended her order blocking the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago before the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in.

District Judge April Perry, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, decided to keep the ban until there’s a full trial on the issue or the high court rules.

On Oct. 9, Perry issued the original order that was to expire Thursday.

Five days earlier, Trump ordered the deployment to Chicago.

Her earlier decision came as 200 members of the Texas National Guard arrived at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the south Chicago suburb of Broadway. People opposed to the ICE presence have protested there.

The deployment also included 300 members of the Illinois National Guard and 16 troops from California.

Perry had found there was “no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois.” She said the Department of Homeland Security’s information of protests are “unreliable.”

On Thursday, the three-judge 7th Circuit Court of Appeals backed Perry’s ruling, writing that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

The Trump administration accused the appeals judges of “judicially micromanaging the exercise of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers.”

The federal government filed an emergency appeal to the high court.

Originally, Department of Justice lawyers proposed extending that order another 30 days in a Tuesday filing.

But because a temporary restraining order can only be extended once, the judge warned Wednesday that “whatever extension we make has to be the right one” to prevent a gap in judicial orders “that would allow troops be deployed on the streets.”

In a filing Friday to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer said the judicial branch has no right to “second guess” a president’s judgment on national security or military actions. He said the guard is needed to protect federal immigration agents and property from protesters.

Even if the high court stays Perry’s temporary restraining order, the state would seek a “quick trial” or other expedited injunction hearing, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office said.

In Portland, Ore., an expedited trial is planned for next week after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday overturned another temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, blocking National Guard deployment there.

On Wednesday night, the Trump administration asked the full circuit not to examine the three-judge ruling.

The district judge in Oregon is planning a hearing on Friday to consider whether to dissolve or suspend the temporary restraining order.

The Trump administration is planning to send dozens of federal agents to San Francisco on Thursday, a source told CNN.

Tension between Indiana University and its student newspaper flared last week with the elimination of the outlet’s print editions and the firing of a faculty advisor who refused an order to keep news stories out of a homecoming edition.

Administrators may have been hoping to minimize distractions during its homecoming weekend as the school prepared to celebrate a Hoosiers football team with its highest-ever national ranking. Instead, the controversy has entangled the school in questions about censorship and student journalists’ 1st Amendment rights.

Advocates for student media, Indiana Daily Student alumni and high-profile supporters including billionaire Mark Cuban have excoriated the university for stepping on the outlet’s independence.

The Daily Student is routinely honored among the best collegiate publications in the country. It receives about $250,000 annually in subsidies from the university’s Media School to help make up for dwindling ad revenue.

On Tuesday, the university fired the paper’s advisor, Jim Rodenbush, after he refused an order to force student editors to ensure that no news stories ran in the print edition tied to the homecoming celebrations.

“I had to make the decision that was going to allow me to live with myself,” Rodenbush said. “I don’t have any regrets whatsoever. In the current environment we’re in, somebody has to stand up.”

Student journalists still call the shots

A university spokesperson referred an Associated Press reporter to a statement issued Tuesday, which said the campus wants to shift resources from print media to digital platforms both for students’ educational experience and to address the paper’s financial problems.

Chancellor David Reingold issued a separate statement Wednesday saying the school is “firmly committed to the free expression and editorial independence of student media. The university has not and will not interfere with their editorial judgment.”

It was late last year when university officials announced they were scaling back the cash-strapped newspaper’s print edition from a weekly to seven special editions per semester, tied to campus events.

The paper published three print editions this fall, inserting special event sections, Rodenbush said. Last month, Media School officials started asking why the special editions still contained news, he said.

Rodenbush said IU Media School Dean David Tolchinsky told him this month that the expectation was print editions would contain no news. Tolchinsky argued that Rodenbush was essentially the paper’s publisher and could decide what to run, Rodenbush said. He told the dean that publishing decisions were the students’ alone, he said.

Tolchinsky fired him Tuesday, two days before the homecoming print edition was set to be published, and announced the end of all Indiana Daily Student print publications.

“Your lack of leadership and ability to work in alignment with the University’s direction for the Student Media Plan is unacceptable,” Tolchinsky wrote in Rodenbush’s termination letter.

The newspaper was allowed to continue publishing stories on its website.

Student journalists see a ‘scare tactic’

Andrew Miller, the Indiana Daily Student’s co-editor in chief, said in a statement that Rodenbush “did the right thing by refusing to censor our print edition” and called the termination a “deliberate scare tactic toward journalists and faculty.”

“IU has no legal right to dictate what we can and cannot print in our paper,” Miller said.

Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel at the Student Press Law Center, said 1st Amendment case law going back 60 years shows student editors at public universities determine content. Advisors such as Rodenbush can’t interfere, Hiestand said.

“It’s open and shut, and it’s just so bizarre that this is coming out of Indiana University,” Hiestand said. “If this was coming out of a community college that doesn’t know any better, that would be one thing. But this is coming out of a place that absolutely should know better.”

Rodenbush said that he wasn’t aware of any single story the newspaper has published that may have provoked administrators. But he speculated the moves may be part of a “general progression” of administrators trying to protect the university from any negative publicity.

Blocked from publishing a print edition, the paper last week posted a number of sharp-edged stories online, including coverage of the opening of a new film critical of arrests of pro-Palestinian demonstrators last year, a tally of campus sexual assaults and an FBI raid on the home of a former professor suspected of stealing federal funds.

The paper also has covered allegations that IU President Pamela Whitten plagiarized parts of her dissertation, with the most recent story running in September.

Richmond writes for the Associated Press.

Indonesia has denied visas to Israel athletes ahead of the upcoming world championships in the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation.

Gymnastics’ governing body has given a muted reaction to Indonesia’s announcement that it would block Israeli athletes from competing at the upcoming world championships in Jakarta.

“The FIG takes note of the Indonesian government’s decision not to issue visas to the Israeli delegation registered for the 53rd FIG Artistic Gymnastics, which will be held in Jakarta from 19-25 October, and recognizes the challenges that the host country has faced in organizing this event,” it said in a short statement on Friday

The statement did not threaten to take the event away from Indonesia, as stipulated in FIG statutes for cases where the host refuses to issue visas.

“The FIG hopes that an environment will be created as soon as possible where athletes around the world can enjoy sports safely and with peace of mind,” it said.

Indonesia’s decision to deny visas to the Israeli athletes came after their planned participation had prompted intense opposition in the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation, which has long been a staunch supporter of Palestinians.

Israel is among 86 countries registered to compete at the worlds, with a team highlighted by 2020 Olympic gold medallist and defending world champion Artem Dolgopyat in the men’s floor exercise.

Now its participation is in doubt, even though the Israeli Gymnastics Federation said in July that it had been assured by Indonesian officials that it would be welcome at the worlds. That would have gone against Indonesia’s longstanding policy of refusing to host Israeli sports delegations for major events.

On Thursday, Indonesia’s senior minister of law, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, made it clear the Israeli team will not be allowed into the country, despite Israel and Hamas having agreed to a ceasefire.

“We respect every decision taken by the government with various considerations,” Indonesian Olympic Committee president Raja Sapta Oktohari told a news conference in Jakarta on Friday.

Indonesian Gymnastics Federation chairwoman, Ita Yuliati, said that she has briefed FIG president Morinari Watanabe about the decision and claimed “the FIG has expressed support”.

The gymnastics spat is the latest example of how the global backlash against Israel over the humanitarian toll of the war in Gaza has spread into the arenas of sports and culture.

Indonesia was stripped of hosting rights for football’s Under-20 World Cup in 2023, only two months before the start of the tournament, amid political turmoil regarding Israel’s participation.

Instead of disciplining Indonesia, FIFA awarded the country hosting rights to a different youth World Cup later that year, which Israel had not qualified for.

Indonesian football was seen to benefit from its leader Erick Thohir’s close ties with FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who, like Thohir, is a member of the International Olympic Committee.

Officials accuse Trump of ‘unlawful and unconstitutional’ use of National Guard in latest effort to stop deployment.

Illinois has become the latest state to launch legal action in hopes of blocking United States President Donald Trump from deploying the National Guard.

The lawsuit filed on Monday by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and the city of Chicago officials came just hours after a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked Trump from sending the National Guard to the state’s largest city, Portland.

Trump has sought to expand the use of the US military during his second term, including to aid in domestic immigration and law enforcement. That has come amid a wider effort to portray Democratic-run cities as violence-ridden and lawless.

In a post on X, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker decried Trump’s latest plan, which would involve federalising 300 of the state’s National Guard troops and deploying another 400 from Texas, as “unlawful and unconstitutional”.

Attorney General Raoul said US citizens “should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly for the reason that their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor “.

Since taking office in January, Trump has already deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles in the state of California and the federal district of Washington, DC, and has floated sending troops to at least eight other major cities.

In September, a federal judge ruled the Trump administration ” wilfully ” broke federal law by deploying guard troops to Los Angeles amid protests over immigration raids.

In the Oregon case, Judge Karin Immergut temporarily blocked Trump’s plan to deploy 200 National Guard troops from neighbouring California, saying anti-immigration enforcement protests there “did not pose a danger of rebellion”.

Karin also chided the Trump administration for appearing to disregard an order she had issued just a day earlier.

“Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order?” she said on Sunday. “Why is this appropriate?”

Under US law, the US military cannot be used for domestic law enforcement unless the president deems the situation an insurrection and invokes the insurrection act. However, the National Guard can be used in a support capacity for federal law enforcement agents in some instances.

Despite the legal setbacks, Trump has remained defiant.

Speaking to US military commanders last week, Trump referred to “civil disturbances” as the “enemy within”. He further vowed to straighten out US cities “one by one”.

In one particularly remarkable statement, Trump said: “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military”.

Beyond the National Guard, the Trump administration has surged federal law enforcement and immigration agents to cities across the country.

In Chicago, protesters have frequently rallied near an immigration facility outside of the city, where they arrested 13 people on Friday.

On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security said that federal agents shot a woman in Chicago’s southwest.

A department statement said the shooting happened after Border Patrol agents patrolling the area “were rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars”. The woman, who survived the shooting, was taken into federal custody soon afterwards .

Oct. 5 (UPI) — The Justice Department has appealed a ruling by a lower court judge blocking the mobilization of 200 National Guard troops to Portland.

A judge on Saturday ordered the Trump administration to stop its mobilization of the soldiers to protect the ICE building and officers in the city. There have been nightly protests since the troops were ordered to patrol.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will rule on the case.

Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsome called the Trump administration’s move to send National Guard troops to Portland an abuse of law and power.

“The Trump administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words – ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents.

Hundreds of protestors marched at the Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement office Saturday, the latest in a series of demonstrations in the city since the Trump administration announced it would deploy the troops.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., criticized President Donald Trump in a social media post referring to the court’s order to block the deployment that said Trump’s “determination is simply untethered from the facts.”

A White House spokesperson said that Trump “exercised his authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement.”

A BLOCK of flats erupted has into flames – with dozens of firefighters rushing to the scene.

Ten fire engines and 70 personnel are battling the blaze this morning in Enfield, London.

London Fire Brigade received reports of the fire at two second storey flats in Maybury Close at just before 5.20am.

An LFB statement said: “Ten fire engines and around 70 firefighters have been called to a flat fire on Maybury Close in Enfield.

“Two flats on the second floor of a three storey block of flats are alight.

“The Brigade’s 999 Control officers received their first call about the fire at 0519. They mobilised crews from Enfield, Edmonton and surrounding fire stations who are currently in attendance.

“The cause of the fire is not known at this stage.”

Have you been affected by this incident? Email [email protected]

1

More than 80,000 police have been deployed as demonstrators rally against Macron’s government and austerity policies.

French police have arrested hundreds of people as protests led by left-wing forces under the label “Block Everything” were launched across the country.

More than 200 people were reported to have been arrested in the morning hours as demonstrators set fire to rubbish bins and blocked highways, spurred by frustration with President Emmanuel Macron’s government amid a national political crisis.

The 80,000 police deployed across the nation responded with bouts of tear gas and detainments.

The demonstrations – part of a grassroots movement called “Bloquons Tout” or “Block Everything” – sought to use work strikes, blockades and other acts of defiance to express long-simmering anger over the government and its austerity measures.

Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau reported that a bus was set on fire in the western city of Rennes and that damage to a power line had blocked trains in the southwest. However, the protests initially appeared more tame than previous bouts of unrest against Macron’s leadership.

The plan to “block everything” emerged after former Prime Minister Francois Bayrou lost a confidence vote on Monday and Macron named close ally, Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu, to replace him.

He is France’s fifth premier in less than two years, and the fourth in 12 months.

Florent, a protester in Lyon, told the AFP news agency that Macron’s decision to appoint his close ally to the top job “is a slap in the face”.

“We are tired of his successive governments; we need change,” he said.

The Block Everything movement, which has gone viral on social media, has been fuelled by increased dismay over budget-tightening policies that Bayrou championed, as well as broader concerns with poverty and inequality, which have risen sharply in recent years, according to France’s statistics bureau.

Its spontaneity is reminiscent of the “Yellow Vest” movement that rocked Macron’s first term as president, when yellow-clad protesters across the nation challenged rising fuel prices and pro-business policies for weeks on end in protests that became increasingly violent.

Sept. 8 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned a lower court’s rulings blocking federal immigration officials from conducting raids in California seen by critics as unconstitutional racial profiling.

The high court voted 6-3 in favor of lifting temporary restraining orders preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement from carrying out the raids.

“This is a win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin of the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said in a statement.

“DHS law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor.”

Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued two restraining orders in July, saying roving patrols “indiscriminately” rounded up people without reasonable suspicion, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. She also said that ICE denied the individuals access to lawyers, a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority on Monday, said it was reasonable to question people gathered in places seeking day work, landscaping, agriculture, construction and other types of jobs that don’t require paperwork and are therefore attractive to undocumented immigrants. He said reasonable suspicion cannot rely alone on ethnicity, but he called it a “relevant factor.”

“Under this court’s precedents, not to mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The three dissenters — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — agreed with civil rights activists who said that ICE’s approach of questioning people who appear to be of Hispanic origin or work in certain jobs would target many U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

“We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish and appears to work a low-wage job,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

The high court’s decision was swiftly rebuked by civil rights organizations, unions and Democrats.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who has fought against President Donald Trump‘s raids, described the action as an “attack” that not only targeted her city, but “an attack on every person in every city in this country.”

“Today’s ruling is not only dangerous — it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S.,” she said in a statement on X.

The federal government raids in Los Angeles began June 6, sparking protests that prompted Trump to deploy thousands of National Guardsmen to the city.

On July 2, several people who were arrested in the operation filed a class action lawsuit against the federal government, calling on the courts to end the stop and arrests and to up hold due process and rights for immigration detainees to access to legal counsel.

Janet Murguia, president and CEO of UnidosUS, a nonpartisan nonprofit Hispanic civil rights organization, lambasted the ruling as opening the door for the federal government to indiscriminately stop and arrest minorities.

“It authorizes targeting by authorities that makes all immigrants, Hispanics and other non-White Americans, suspects simply because of the color of their skin or the language they speak. In doing so, the court has put the civil rights of every person in the United States at risk, Murguia said in a statement emailed to UPI.

“The Supreme Court, without proper review of explanation, has signaled that the administration can, with impunity, use profiling-based tactics nationwide.”

A legal aid group has sued to preemptively block any efforts by the U.S. government to deport a dozen Honduran children, saying it had “credible” information that such plans were quietly in the works.

The Arizona-based Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, known as FIRRP, on Friday added Honduran children to a lawsuit filed last weekend that resulted in a judge temporarily blocking the deportation of dozens of migrant children to their native Guatemala.

In a statement, the organization said it had received reports that the U.S. government will “imminently move forward with a plan to illegally remove Honduran children in government custody as soon as this weekend, in direct violation of their right to seek protection in the United States and despite ongoing litigation that blocked similar attempted extra-legal removals for children from Guatemala.”

FIRRP did not immediately provide the Associated Press with details about what information it had received about the possible deportation of Honduran children. The amendment to the organization’s lawsuit is sealed in federal court. The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to email requests for comment Friday and Saturday.

Over Labor Day weekend, the Trump administration attempted to remove Guatemalan children who had come to the U.S. alone and were living in shelters or with foster care families in the U.S.

Advocates who represent migrant children in court filed lawsuits across the country seeking to stop the government from removing the children, and on Sunday a federal judge stepped in to order that the kids stay in the U.S. for at least two weeks.

Children began crossing the border alone in large numbers in 2014, peaking at 152,060 in the 2022 fiscal year. July’s arrest tally translates to an annual clip of 5,712 arrests, reflecting how illegal crossings have dropped to their lowest levels in six decades.

Guatemalans accounted for 32% of residents at government-run holding facilities last year, followed by Hondurans, Mexicans and Salvadorans. A 2008 law requires children to appear before an immigration judge with an opportunity to pursue asylum, unless they are from Canada and Mexico. The vast majority are released from shelters to parents, legal guardians or immediate family while their cases wind through court.

The lawsuit was amended to include 12 children from Honduras who have expressed to the Florence Project that they do not want to return to Honduras, as well as four additional children from Guatemala who have come into government custody in Arizona since the suit was initially filed last week.

Some children have parents who are already in the United States.

The lawsuit demands that the government allow the children their legal right to present their cases to an immigration judge, have access to legal counsel and be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.

Willingham writes for the Associated Press.

NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court has vacated a ruling that a Texas law giving police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. was unconstitutional.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday vacated a ruling by a three-judge panel, and now the full court will consider whether the law can take effect.

The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 4 in 2023, but a federal judge in Texas ruled the law unconstitutional. Texas appealed that ruling.

Under the proposed law, state law enforcement officers could arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally. Once in custody, detainees could agree to a Texas judge’s order to leave the country or face a misdemeanor charge of entering the U.S. illegally. Migrants who don’t leave after being ordered to do so could be arrested again and charged with a more serious felony.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a social media post Friday that the court’s decision was a “hopeful sign.”

WASHINGTON — The street, normally quiet, was abuzz. The block lit up with flashing police cruisers and officers in tactical vests. Some had covered their faces. Neighbors came out of homes. Some hurled insults at the police, telling them to leave — or worse. Dozens joined in a chant: “Shame on you.”

Aaron Goldstein approached two officers. “Can you tell me why you couldn’t do this at 10:30 or 9:30, and why you had to terrorize the children in our neighborhood?” the man asked the officers as they turned their gazes away from him. Both wore dark sunglasses against the morning sun.

They said nothing.

The arrest shattered the routine of the neighborhood around Bancroft Elementary School, a public school where more than 60% of students are Latino. It came on the third day of a new school year, and immigration fears had already left the neighborhood on edge. Groups of residents had started escorting students to school from two nearby apartment complexes.

It was just another morning in Washington, D.C., in Summer 2025 — the summer of President Trump’s federal law-enforcement intervention in the nation’s capital.

A confrontation that was one among many

Some interludes unfold calmly. During others, nothing happens at all. But the boil-over Wednesday morning was one among many that have erupted across the city since Trump’s police takeover, offering a glimpse into daily life in a city where emotions have been pulled taut. Sightings of police activity spread quickly, attracting residents who say the federal infusion is unwelcome.

Families and children had been making their way toward a bilingual elementary school in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood when federal and local police officers descended on an apartment building just blocks from the school. Neighbors had been on high alert amid fears of increased immigration enforcement.

Now officers were flooding the street, some in plainclothes and face coverings. Some carried rifles or riot shields. Neighbors gathered outside and began yelling at the police to leave. Blocks away, as word spread, an assistant principal waiting to greet students sprinted to the scene.

In an interview, Goldstein, the Mount Pleasant resident, said it felt like a violation of the neighborhood, which he described as a “peaceful mix of white professionals and migrant neighbors, with a lot of love in it.”

“People are on Signal chats and they’re absolutely terrified, and everyone is following this,” said Goldstein, 55, who had just dropped off his third-grade daughter at Bancroft. “It’s distressful. We feel invaded, and it’s really terrible.”

The standoff continued after police arrested a man who they said is accused of drug and firearm crimes. Dozens of residents trailed officers down a side street and continued the jeers. “Quit your jobs.” “Nobody wants you here.” “You’re ruining the country.”

Asked about the episode later at a news conference, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said it attracted “a significant number of protesters” but “we were able to maintain calm.” Said Bowser: “I know there’s a lot of anxiety in the District.”

One officer, in the middle of it all, tries to talk

The conflict was punctuated by a remarkably candid conversation led by a Metropolitan Police Department sergeant who took questions from neighbors in what he described as “not an official press conference.”

“This is just me talking to community members,” Sgt. Michael Millsaps said, leaning back against the rear bumper of a cruiser.

Millsaps said the city’s police department was carrying out a planned arrest of a “suspected drug dealer” with support from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The suspect was taken into custody and a search of his apartment uncovered narcotics and an illegal firearm, Millsaps said.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers joined only as a distraction to prevent protesters from disrupting the operation, he said.

“The immigration folks were parked over there to get y’all to leave us alone,” he said. ICE officials did not immediately comment.

Residents told Millsaps that their trust of the city’s police had been broken. They said they felt less safe amid Trump’s crackdown. Millsaps said he was sorry to hear it. “I hear your frustrations. My job is to take it.”

Still, he described a different response from residents east of the Anacostia River, in some of the city’s highest crime areas. “I go on the other side of the river now, it’s the opposite. People come outside and thank us,” he said.

Mount Pleasant resident Nancy Petrovic was among those yelling at city and ATF officers after the arrest. Petrovic, a lifelong resident of the area, rushed out of her home when she heard yelling shortly after 8 a.m. She counted at least 10 police cars lined up across the block.

“Kids are going to school, they’re walking to school, and it’s frightening to them and their parents,” said Petrovic, who said the street is usually quiet and has no need for more police. “We want them to go away.”

Asked about the timing of the arrest, Millsaps said it was a planned operation similar to countless others.

“I’ve been doing this for 14 years, serving these warrants at the same time of day,” he said. “The only difference is you’ve got a big crowd here, which added even more police presence. But this was just a normal police operation.”

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — California Republicans again asked the state Supreme Court on Monday to block Gov. Gavin Newsom’s redistricting plan from the November ballot, arguing that the hastily assembled initiative violates the state Constitution.

In a 432-page lawsuit, Republican lawmakers said the effort by Democrats to unwind the state’s nonpartisan congressional districts is a violation of Californians’ rights to fair and nonpartisan electoral maps. The party made a similar argument last week in an emergency petition to the state Supreme Court that was denied without a hearing.

The ballot measure was crafted by Democrats as a retaliatory strike against the GOP-led Texas Legislature, which has passed new congressional districts that would help Republicans pick up five seats in the 2026 midterm elections.

The California plan, which is headed to voters Nov. 4 under the name Proposition 50, would throw out the state’s nonpartisan maps in favor of boundaries that would tilt the scales for Democrats.

The lawsuit filed Monday against California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber and the state Legislature argues that the ballot measure is actually asking voters to answer two questions: first, whether Congress should amend the U.S. Constitution to require independent redistricting nationwide; and second, whether to scrap the nonpartisan districts in the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections in favor of partisan lines that help Democrats.

That double-barreled question is an “illegal, take-it-or-leave-it choice,” said Michael Columbo, an attorney for the plaintiffs, that “forces a person in favor of independent commissions into a conundrum” and violates the state constitution, which limits ballot measures to a single issue.

That argument is “weak,” said David A. Carrillo, the executive director of Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center.

“The common subject here obviously is redistricting,” Carrillo said.

President Trump said Monday that the Justice Department will sue California over the plan “pretty soon, and I think we’re going to be very successful in it.” He didn’t explain what legal standing the administration would have to challenge the state Legislature.

In a post on the social media site X, Newsom said of the Trump threat: “BRING IT.”

A spokesperson for Weber said the department had no comment on the lawsuit.

“Trump’s toadies already got destroyed once in court,” said Hannah Milgrom, a spokesperson for the Yes on 50 campaign, in a statement. “Now they are trying again, to protect Trump’s power grab and prevent voters from having their say on Prop 50. They will lose.”

The lawsuit also argues that the state Legislature violated the state Constitution by proposing new congressional districts, despite the fact that voters in 2010 passed a measure giving that power to an independent panel.

Republicans argue that in order to comply with the state’s current redistricting laws, Democrats should have first asked voters to suspend independent redistricting, then passed new maps afterward.

At the heart of the legal fight, Carrillo said, is voters’ tremendous power to amend the California Constitution, including who drafts the state’s congressional districts.

“Voters gave this power to the commission they created,” Carrillo said. “The voters can therefore modify or withdraw the power they conferred.”

The California Supreme Court has occasionally removed voter initiatives from the ballot, Carrillo said, but it’s rare, controversial and reserved for the most extreme cases. It’s “very unlikely the court would reach for the nuclear option,” he said.

Also Monday, opponents of the ballot measure filed a public records act request with state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, seeking communications between his office, Newsom and prominent Democratic strategists about how Prop. 50 will appear on the ballot.

The group, formed by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield and run by former California GOP chair Jessica Millan Patterson, said Democrats had called for transparency and ought to provide it too.

“Voters deserve to know if these top Democrats are actively trying to put their thumb on the scale for how their partisan power grab will be portrayed in what should be an impartial analysis,” Patterson said.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

It’s been a disappointing year for these two companies. As of Aug. 21, Block (XYZ 6.78%) shares have tanked 13% in 2025. PayPal (PYPL 3.43%) has fared worse, with its shares down 21% this year. If that weren’t bad enough, both are trading more than 70% below their all-time highs, a gut-wrenching reality that might scare most investors away.

But to be clear, both companies have positive attributes. Between Block and PayPal, which is the better fintech stock to buy?

Image source: Getty Images.

Block’s two ecosystems continue to grow

Block operates two successful ecosystems that can be viewed as separate businesses. Square posted 11% gross profit growth last quarter (Q2 2025, ended June 30), offering tools and services to merchants. Cash App, which serves individuals, is growing at a faster clip. And it has 57 million monthly active users.

The business continues to innovate to drive further growth. For instance, Square AI gives merchants access to valuable data insights. And Cash App Borrow, a short-term lending product, saw originations rise 95% year over year. Block’s expansion playbook is focused on introducing new products and services to bring more merchants and consumers into the fold. Then it’s about boosting use and monetization.

Looking ahead, it’s clear that Bitcoin will slowly become a bigger factor in Block’s success. Founder and CEO Jack Dorsey is very bullish on this crypto. And he has overseen new projects, like the development of a hardware wallet and mining equipment, to further accelerate Bitcoin’s adoption. Should the digital asset continue on its impressive trajectory, this could be a boon for Block over the long term.

PayPal has long been a leader in digital payments

PayPal has a presence in more than 200 countries across the globe. It handled $443 billion in total payment volume in the second quarter (ended June 30). And it counts 438 million active users. This scale demonstrates just how important PayPal is in the world of online commerce. And with its two-sided platform, PayPal benefits from a network effect.

But the company has dealt with slower growth in recent years, which prompted a leadership change. Alex Chriss, who has been CEO since September 2023, is doing a good job so far of righting the ship. He has brought innovation back to the forefront.

For instance, a key recent initiative is PayPal World. Set to launch later this year, it’s a global platform that will connect different digital wallets and payment systems. This could provide a more seamless experience. PayPal also has its own stablecoin, called PYUSD, to lower costs and speed up transactions.

Under Chriss, PayPal is also better monetizing its Venmo segment, which essentially competes directly with Block’s Cash App. Venmo is trying to become more than a peer-to-peer payment service, for example, with its very popular debit card. Venmo posted greater-than-20% revenue growth in Q2, better than that of the company overall.

Despite the stock’s performance, PayPal operates from a position of financial strength. Earnings per share calculated according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) soared 20% in Q2. Free cash flow is expected to be $6 billion to $7 billion for the full year.

The final verdict

There’s no denying that both of these companies have established themselves as powerful forces in the fintech industry. Block operates with a bigger presence in physical commerce, while PayPal leads in online payments. Nonetheless, both of these businesses face a lot of competition.

Investors who have a higher risk tolerance might want to consider Block. The company’s focus on Bitcoin activities adds upside, but it also introduces uncertainty, as ultimate success isn’t guaranteed. On the other hand, investors who want to own a financially sound digital payments powerhouse will favor PayPal. The company’s much cheaper forward price-to-earnings ratio of 12.9 is also hard to overlook.

And, of course, those who want more exposure to the fintech space could choose to own both of these stocks.

Aug. 23 (UPI) — A federal judge has extended his preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump administration from withholding funds for 34 sanctuary jurisdictions.

The “sanctuary cities” include Boston, Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who serves in San Francisco, wrote in the 15-page ruling issued Friday night that the government offered to reason for the opposition to the preliminary injunction except it was “wrong in the first place.”

The judge, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also blocked the Trump administration from imposing conditions on grants that are “for a variety of critical needs.”

On April 24, he issued a preliminary order that “the Cities and Counties are likely to succeed on the merits “because they were unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers and spending clause doctrines and violated the Fifth Amendment, Tenth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act.”

His original injunction listed 16 plaintiffs that were mainly jurisdictions in western states, including San Francisco, Portland and San Diego, but on Aug. 5 expanded it to other cities that include Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles.

On Friday, he wrote that the executive orders by President Donald Trump were “coercive threat (and any actions agencies take to realize that threat, or additional Executive Orders the President issues to the same end) is unconstitutional, so I enjoined its effect. I do so against today for the protection of the new parties in this case.”

On the day Trump became president on Jan. 20, he signed an order that sanctuary cities “do not receive access to Federal funds.” The president a few weeks later ordered that federal funding shouldn’t “facilitate the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration.”

In May, the Department of Homeland Security publicly listed 500 cities, counties and states that hadn’t adhered to the interpretation of immigration laws. That list has since been removed.

Attorney General Palm Biondi also sent letters to jurisdictions last week, threatening them with legal recourse because they have “undermined” and “obstructed” federal forces.

The White House didn’t respond to inquiries from The Hill and CBS News on the latest judge’s order.

Sanctuary cities don’t assist federal personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from apprehending those in the country illegally.

In those jurisdictions, law enforcement is limited from sharing information about a person’s immigration status and entering jails or courthouses for arrests or interviews with a warrant signed by a judge.

People are also protected from encounters in public places, including schools and healthcare facilities.

The massive spending bill, which was signed into law on July 4, increased funds for enforcement. ICE’s budget grew from $3.5 billion to $48.5 billion.

Deportation raids have increased in cities run by Democrats.

Several lawsuits have been filed, including one last week by 20 states over the DOJ tying crime victim grants to immigration enforcement.

Aug. 15 (UPI) — The District of Columbia is suing the Trump administration Friday, alleging overreach after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi installed an emergency police chief.

“We are suing to block the federal government takeover of D.C. police,” Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb posted to social media Friday. “By illegally declaring a takeover of [the Metropolitan Police Department], the Administration is abusing its temporary, limited authority under the law.”

The district filed both a complaint and a request for a temporary restraining order that would block President Donald Trump‘s memorandum which mobilized the district’s National Guard for policing purposes and deny Bondi’s installation of DEA Administrator Terrence Cole as the temporary police chief.

“This is the gravest threat to Home Rule DC has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” he added.

The Home Rule Act, passed in 1973, puts a mayor and a legislative council in charge of the district.

“The federal government’s power over DC is not absolute, and it should not be exercised as such,” Schwalb said in a separate post.

Schwalb continued in a series of posts, calling the Trump administration’s actions “brazenly unlawful,” and called the federal appropriation of policing control a “hostile takeover.”

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Ana Reyes has since scheduled both parties in the case to appear at a 2 p.m. EDT Friday hearing at which Reyes will rule on the district’s restraining order request.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s capital challenged President Trump’s takeover of its police department in court on Friday, hours after his administration stepped up its crackdown on policing by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department, with all the powers of a police chief.

District of Columbia Atty. Gen. Brian Schwalb said in a new lawsuit that Trump is going far beyond his power under the law. Schwalb asked a judge to find that control of the department remains in district hands and sought an emergency restraining order.

“The administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” Schwalb said.

The lawsuit comes after Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday night that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume “powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police.” The Metropolitan Police Department “must receive approval from Commissioner Cole” before issuing any orders, Bondi said. It was unclear where the move left the city’s current police chief, Pamela Smith, who works for the mayor.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back, writing on social media that “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

Justice Department and White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment on the district’s lawsuit Friday morning.

Chief had agreed to share immigration information

Schwalb had said late Thursday that Bondi’s directive was “unlawful,” arguing it could not be followed by the city’s police force. He wrote in a memo to Smith that “members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor,” setting up the legal clash between the heavily Democratic district and the Republican administration.

Bondi’s directive came even after Smith had told MPD officers hours earlier to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief’s directive because it allowed for continued enforcement of “sanctuary policies,” which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.

Bondi said she was rescinding that order as well as other MPD policies limiting inquires into immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants. All new directives must now receive approval from Cole, the attorney general said.

The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the U.S. illegally.

It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city’s homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the administration has portrayed.

Residents are seeing a significant show of force

A population already tense from days of ramp-up has begun seeing more significant shows of force across the city. National Guard troops watched over some of the world’s most renowned landmarks and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train station. Volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments — to where was often unclear.

Department of Homeland Security police stood outside Nationals Park during a game Thursday between the Washington Nationals and the Philadelphia Phillies. DEA agents patrolled The Wharf, a popular nightlife area, while Secret Service officers were seen in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood.

Bowser, walking a tightrope between the Republican White House and the constituency of her largely Democratic city, was out of town Thursday for a family commitment in Martha’s Vineyard but would be back Friday, her office said.

The uptick in visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high-traffic areas, has been striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he’ll re-evaluate as that deadline approaches.

Officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.’s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. Troops were stationed outside the Union Station transportation hub as the 800 Guard members who have been activated by Trump started in on missions that include monument security, community safety patrols and beautification efforts, the Pentagon said.

Troops will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic control posts and crowd control, National Guard Major Micah Maxwell said. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control equipment, Maxwell said.

National Guard troops are a semi-regular presence in D.C., typically being used during mass public events like the annual July 4 celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.

Whitehurst, Khalil and Richer write for the Associated Press.