blocks

WASHINGTON — President Trump has told House Speaker Mike Johnson that he won’t be spending $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.

Trump, who sent a letter to Johnson, R-La., on Thursday, is using what’s known as a pocket rescission — when a president submits a request to Congress to not spend approved funds toward the end of the fiscal year, so that Congress cannot act on the request in the 45-day timeframe and the money goes unspent as a result. It’s the first time in nearly 50 years a president has used one. The fiscal year draws to a close at the end of September.

The letter was posted Friday morning on the X account of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It said the funding would be cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, an early target of Trump’s efforts to cut foreign aid.

The last pocket rescission was in 1977 by then-President Jimmy Carter, and the Trump administration argues that it’s a legally permissible tool. But such a move, if standardized by the White House, could effectively bypass Congress on key spending choices and potentially wrest some control over spending from the House and the Senate.

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act gives the president the authority to propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Congress can vote on pulling back the funds or sustaining them, but by proposing the rescission so close to Sept. 30 the White House ensures that the money won’t be spent and the funding lapses.

Trump had previously sought to get congressional backing for rescissions and succeeded in doing so in July when the House and the Senate approved $9 billion worth of cuts. Those rescissions clawed back funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid.

The Trump administration has made deep reductions to foreign aid one of its hallmark policies, despite the relatively meager savings relative to the deficit and possible damage to America’s reputation abroad as foreign populations lose access to food supplies and development programs.

In February, the administration said it would eliminate almost all of USAID’s foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall assistance abroad. USAID has since been dismantled, and its few remaining programs have been placed under State Department control.

The Trump administration on Wednesday appealed to the Supreme Court to stop lower court decisions that have preserved foreign aid, including for global health and HIV and AIDS programs, that Trump has tried to freeze.

The New York Post first reported the pocket rescission.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 29 (UPI) — A federal judge has prohibited the Trump administration from dismissing Voice of America director Michael Abramowitz, handing President Donald Trump a defeat in his effort to dismantle the government-run and federally funded international news organization.

In his ruling Thursday, Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of D.C. stated that the Trump administration cannot fire Abramowitz without approval of the International Broadcasting Advisory Board.

“The applicable statutory requirements could not be clearer: the director of Voice of America ‘may only be removed if such action has been approved by a majority of the vote,'” Lamberth wrote.

“There is no longer a question of whether the termination was unlawful.”

Trump has sought to dismantle Voice of America, a decades-old soft-power tool for the United States that broadcasts news internationally, since returning to the White House in January, stating the broadcaster creates anti-Trump and “radical propaganda.”

On taking office, Trump fired six of the seven International Broadcasting Advisory Board members, and then in March placed Abramowitz and 1,300 other Voice of American employees on administrative leave.

On July 8, the U.S. Agency for Global Media informed Abramowitz that he was being reassigned as chief management officer to Greenville, N.C., and if he did not accept the position, he would be fired.

Before the end of the month, Abramowitz sued.

Then on Aug. 1, USAGM sent Abramowitz a letter stating he would be fired effective the end of this month if he did not accept the Greenville transfer.

The government had argued before the court that Abramowitz’s claims are not valid because he has not yet been fired, and that the rule dictating advisory board approval for hiring and firing a VOA director interfered with Trump’s executive authority.

In response, Lamberth, a President Ronald Reagan appointee, countered that whether USAGM fired Abramowitz or transferred him, he would still be removed from his position without the board’s approval, and if the Trump wished to have a vote on the matter, he could replace the board members he removed.

“To the extent the Board’s current lack of quorum institutes a practical barrier to removing Abramowitz, the Broadcast Act gives the President a straightforward remedy: replacing the removed members,” he wrote.

“The defendants do not even feign that their efforts to remove Abramowitz comply with that statutory requirement. How could they, when the board has been without a quorum since January?”

STUDENT accommodation, colleges and disused tower blocks may replace migrant hotels as councils continue to revolt.

The move is part of Labour’s pledge to stop using hotels to house migrants by 2029,

4

4

4

However, nearly 200 hotels are still in use, putting up more than 32,000 people, according to recent figures.

Labour said it no longer wants to house migrants on large sites like military bases.

Instead, it is reportedly planning to use sites which are easier to make habitable and not as expensive to refurbish.

According to Dame Angela Eagle, the minister for border security, the plan is to use “medium-sized” sites like “voided tower blocks, old teacher training colleges or old student accommodation”.

This is because the Tories’ plans to use large sites like former military bases and the Bibby Stockholm barge would be too expensive.

She said the effort of tackling “asbestos-filled buildings and poisoned land” would be too pricey.

“I think that there are different, better ways of trying to achieve this kind of service than the ones that we’ve inherited,” she said.

It comes amid an urgent appeal from the Home Office, reportedly looking for 5,000 properties to house 20,000 migrants.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is already facing the humiliation of Labour councils revolting against his government’s loathed migrant hotel policy.

Huge pressure from councils run by every political party could hasten the end of the controversial Home Office policy.

A total of 32,059 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of Labour’s first year in Government, up 8 per cent on the same point 12 months ago, Home Office data shows.

But authorities are poised to follow Epping Forest council in Essex after it won a High Court injunction to halt asylum accommodation.

Now, it has been revealed that asylum accommodation contractors working for the Home Office “reached out” to property specialists earlier this month, seeking 5,000 residential units, reports the Telegraph.

Insiders told the outlet that each flat would likely have two bedrooms on average, with space to house four migrants.

ASYLUM SEEKER HOTEL PROTESTS

This Bank Holiday weekend, around 30 migrant hotels are bracing for a wave of protests as campaigners are bolstered by this week’s landmark ruling.

The High Court ordered the removal of migrants from the hotel in Essex, which has become the face of the row over asylum seeker accommodation.

It was the centre of protests after a migrant being housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl – which he denies.

Several other demonstrations cropped up around the UK as communities rebelled against the migrant hotels in their area.

It is understood that there is a fresh wave of protests – at least 27 – planned outside of hotels this Bank Holiday weekend.

However anti-racism groups have warned towns and cities could experience the most disruption since last year’s summer riots.

Councils are also pushing back, following the lead of Epping Forest Council, which argued for the hotel to be closed to reduce the threat of “violent protests” and for the safety of those living nearby.

Mr Justice Eyre ruled the owners may have breached planning rules by housing migrants rather than paying customers.

The Home Office argued that granting this application risks “acting as an impetus for further violent protests”.

The High Court ruling threatens Labour’s asylum seeker plans, as more and more councils express an intention to follow suit.

If more councils take action, ministers are unsure where more than 30,000 people in hotel rooms would live.

However Brighton and Hove City Council refused to launch a legal bid, saying it was a “proud city of sanctuary” and will continue to welcome and support asylum seekers.

Jacob Taylor, the local authority’s deputy leader, said “We will not comment on the location of hotels being used by the Home Office to provide temporary accommodation to people seeking asylum.

“I believe to do so in the current climate is irresponsible and risks causing division and unrest in our communities at a time when more than ever we need to bring people together.”

While some county councils will push for the closures, the legal steps to challenge the use of hotels falls to district and borough councils.

The Local ­Government Association called on the Home Office to work “much more closely” with ­authorities on asylum accommodation decisions.

The Home Office is scrambling to find accommodation for up to 138 men housed in the Bell Hotel in Epping before the September 12 deadline to empty it.

Pressed to give details of these contingency options, Minister of State for Security Dan Jarvis said: “With respect, the legal judgment was only handed down yesterday.”

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp has written to Yvette Cooper to demand that those in the Bell Hotel are not moved to apartments, houses in multiple occupation, or social housing which is “much needed for British people”.

When there is not enough housing, the Home Office – which has a legal obligation to provide accommodation to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute – can move people to alternatives such as hotels and large sites, like former military bases.

Amid hotel protests, campaigners including Rape Crisis and Refuge have warned conversations about violence against women and girls are being “hijacked by an anti-migrant agenda” which they argued fuels divisions and harms survivors.

4

RECORD NUMBERS OF MIGRANTS

It comes after it was revealed that a record number of people claimed asylum in the UK in the last year – with a massive 32,000 currently living in taxpayer-funded hotels.

Home Office data shows that 111,000 people claimed asylum in the year ending June 2025 up 14 per cent on last year.

It is higher than the previous recorded peak of 103,000 which was set in 2002.

The number of people claiming asylum in this country has almost doubled since 2021.

And just under half of all those applying for protection in the UK are granted it at the initial decision stage – 48 per cent.

It is lower than in 2022 when 77 per cent of those applying were given the green light.

Half of all those came via irregular routes – such as on a small boat or in the back of a lorry – while 37 per cent claimed asylum after previously arriving on a valid visa.

In the year up to March, the UK was the fifth biggest recipient of asylum seekers in the UK after Germany, Spain, Italy and France.

The sky-high figures come as the number of migrants being housed in hotels has INCREASED since Labour came into power.

A total of 32,059 asylum seekers were being housed in hotels at the end of Labour’s first year in Government up 8 per cent on the same point 12 months ago.

Around 210 hotels are currently open across the UK despite Labour’s manifesto pledge to end their use.

In the year to June, the top five nationalities of people arriving in Dover were Afghan, Eritrean, Iranian, Syrian and Sudanese.

A United States federal judge has granted a temporary block against a Texas law that would require the Ten Commandments from the Christian Bible to be displayed in the classrooms of every public school.

On Wednesday, US District Judge Fred Biery issued a preliminary injunction against Texas’s Senate Bill 10, which was slated to take effect on September 1.

Texas would have become the largest state to impose such a requirement on public schools.

But Judge Biery’s decision falls in line with two other court decisions over the past month: one in Arkansas and one in Louisiana, both of which ruled such laws are unconstitutional.

Biery’s decision opens by citing the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which bars the government from passing laws “respecting an establishment of religion”. That clause underpins the separation of church and state in the US.

The judge then argues that even “passive” displays of the Ten Commandments would risk injecting religious discourse into the classroom, thereby violating that separation.

“Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer. That is what they do,” Biery wrote.

“Teenage boys, being the curious hormonally driven creatures they are, might ask: ‘Mrs Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?’ Truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with sex education issues.”

Biery’s decision, however, only applies to the 11 school districts represented among the defendants, including Alamo Heights, Houston, Austin, Fort Bend and Plano.

The case stemmed from a complaint made by several parents of school-aged children, who were represented by groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

One of the plaintiffs was a San Antonio rabbi, Mara Nathan, who felt the version of the Ten Commandments slated to be displayed ran contrary to Jewish teachings. She applauded Wednesday’s injunction in a statement released by the ACLU.

“Children’s religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools,” Nathan said.

Other plaintiffs included Christian families who feared the schoolhouse displays of the Ten Commandments would lead to the teaching of religious interpretations and concepts they might object to.

The Texas state government, however, has argued that the Ten Commandments symbolise an important part of US culture and therefore should be a mandatory presence in schools.

“The Ten Commandments are a cornerstone of our moral and legal heritage, and their presence in classrooms serves as a reminder of the values that guide responsible citizenship,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. He pledged to appeal Wednesday’s ruling.

But in his 55-page decision, Judge Biery, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994, drew on a range of cultural references – from Christian scripture to the 1970s pop duo Sonny and Cher and the actress Greta Garbo – to sketch a history of the dangers of imposing religion on the public.

“The displays are likely to pressure the child-Plaintiffs into religious observance, meditation on, veneration, and adoption of the State’s favored religious scripture,” Biery wrote at one point.

He also said such displays risk “suppressing expression of [the children’s] own religious or nonreligious backgrounds and beliefs while at school”.

Biery even offered a winking, personal anecdote to illustrate the power that governments can hold over the adoption of religion.

“Indeed, forty years ago a Methodist preacher told a then much younger judge, ‘Fred, if you had been born in Tibet, you would be a Buddhist,’” Biery wrote.

A separate federal case involving Dallas area schools is also challenging the Ten Commandment requirement. It names the Texas Education Agency as a defendant.

Such cases are likely to eventually reach the Supreme Court, which currently has a six-to-three conservative supermajority and has shown sympathy for cases of religious displays.

In the 2022 case Kennedy v Bremerton School District, for instance, the Supreme Court sided with a high school football coach who argued he had the right to hold post-game prayers, despite fears that such practices could violate the First Amendment. The coach had been fired for his actions.

Judge Biery concluded Wednesday’s decision with a nod to how controversial such cases can be. But he appealed for common understanding with a prayer-like flourish.

“For those who disagree with the Court’s decision and who would do so with threats, vulgarities and violence, Grace and Peace unto you,” Biery wrote. “May humankind of all faiths, beliefs and non-beliefs be reconciled one to another. Amen.”

Aug. 19 (UPI) — A federal appeals court barred West Texas A&M University from enforcing a ban on drag shows on campus, overruling a lower court’s decision that said drag shows did not necessarily enjoy First Amendment protections.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of the LGBTQ+ Spectrum WT student group and two of its student leaders who sued the school in March 2023, after university president Walter Wendler unilaterally canceled their then-upcoming charity drag show by arguing such performances were comparable to blackface and against his religious beliefs.

The appeals court ruling puts a hold on Wendler’s ban, allowing the student group to host drag shows on campus amid litigation.

“FIRE is pleased that the Fifth Circuit has halted President Wendler’s unconstitutional censorship and restored the First Amendment at West Texas A&M,” JT Morris, supervising senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which filed the lawsuit, said in a statement.

“This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors.”

In March 2023, Spectrum WT was planning a drag show for adults on West Texas A&M University to raise money for the Trevor Project, an LGBTQ+ suicide prevention and crisis intervention nonprofit — but was barred from hosting the event by Wendler, who issued a ban on drag shows.

In a March 21, 2023, letter to students, Wendler stated he believes humans are created in God’s image and that drag shows do not preserve human dignity.

“As a performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood (sexuality, femininity, gender), drag shows stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood,” he said.

“Drag shows are derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny, no matter the stated intent,” he continued. “Such conduct runs counter to the purpose of WT.”

Spectrum WT then sued the school and held its performance off campus.

Before the court, Wendler argued that drag shows are not express conduct protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, and that drag shows should be restricted due to lewd conduct.

In September, the lower court agreed with Wendler that not all drag shows are inherently expressive and entitled to First Amendment protections, finding Wendler was right to cancel the performance because of “potential lewdness.”

Writing on behalf of the majority, Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, a President George W. Bush appointee, said the district court erred by concluding the student group was not likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment argument.

“Because theatrical performances plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, and because we find that plaintiffs’ drag show is protected expression, discrimination among such shows must pass strict scrutiny,” Southwick said in the ruling.

“President Wendler did not argue, either before the district court or on appeal, that restricting the intended drag show would survive strict scrutiny.”

Southwick also found that the group suffered ongoing irreparable injury to their free speech First Amendment rights as Wendler had canceled their planned show and would permit no future shows going forward.

Circuit Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee, in dissent agreed that drag shows are not inherently expressive and that if universities allow men to act as women in campus events, such as drag shows, “they may feel compelled to allow men to act as women in other campus events as well — like women’s sports.”

“What a university allows in an auditorium, it might have to allow on an athletic field, too.”

UPI has contacted West Texas A&M University for comment.

Some SoCal residents spent their summer at the beach, or at their local rooftop pool; others spent it indoors, hiding from ICE agents.

It’s why Riverside artist Perry Picasshoe spent his summer documenting the melting of 36 ice blocks on sidewalks across the Inland Empire.

He traveled to nine locations, a mix of parks, storefronts and gas stations, where immigration enforcement raids have taken place in the past few weeks. In each spot, he placed four 25-pound ice blocks on the ground and took photos of them as they melted. He would periodically check on the progress, he explained, and found that some were smashed into pieces or completely disappeared.

“I took it as a metaphor of what’s happening,” Picasshoe said, referencing the recent ICE raids taking place across Southern California. “I was also thinking a lot about having these blocks of ice as almost a stand-in for people.”

This latest art piece is just one of the many other Chicano-focused projects that Picasshoe has created in his hometown in the past three years. His goal, among all of the artworks, is to push its residents to reflect on the complexity of the Inland Empire’s Latino identity.

Perry Picasshoe and his father place an ice block near the epicenter of the city’s monthly arts walk in downtown Riverside on July 3, 2025.

(Daniel Hernandez)

Juan Carlos Hernandez Marquez is an emerging Mexican American multidisciplinary artist from Riverside who goes by the stage name Perry Picasshoe. The moniker, which he created as a teenager, is a play on Pablo Picasso’s name mixed with an early 2010s social media term “art hoe.” Under this pseudonym, Picasshoe first gained recognition for creating art that explored the complexities of his dueling identities of being an LGBTQ+ artist while surrounded by traditional Latino ideals.

While studying visual arts at UCLA, he reimagined Sandro Botticelli’s painting “The Birth of Venus” with LGBTQ+ imagery, created a 9-foot-tall Christmas cactus in honor of the time he spent with his father during the holidays and hosted a solo exhibition called “Mystic Garden,” which showcased pieces inspired by flowers given to him by an ex-partner. It’s also where he developed his signature red-dominant style in both his fashion and art.

“Red is my comfort color,” Picasshoe said.

He suffered from occasional panic attacks while studying at UCLA, he explained, which discouraged him from going to school. It continued for months — until he found himself wearing a bright red outfit, which brought him a sense of peace.

“It just kind of grew from there,” he added. “It just followed me everywhere that I went.”

Picasshoe also posted videos showcasing his pieces on social media. Like his artwork, his posts were intricately filmed and edited with bright red accents. They were also accompanied by narration detailing the work’s inspiration, creation process and meaning. His efforts amassed him almost 200,000 followers between TikTok and Instagram.

This rapid growth, both on social media and within his network, brought new opportunities to grow professionally in Los Angeles. Yet after graduating in 2022, he decided to continue his career in his hometown instead.

“It was just a different pace that I was not ready for,” he said. “The art scene out here is much more [based in] community, as opposed to [money] or clout. It’s more of making work that people here will get to enjoy.”

It’s a decision that’s worked in his favor.

This year, he’s been honored by the city at the Mayor’s Ball for the Arts with the Emerging Artist award and recognized as one of UCLA’s top 100 alumni entrepreneurs for 2025. Picasshoe’s decision to be a professional artist within the Inland Empire also came at a time when opportunities for Latino artists in the region have grown in recent years.

Cosme Cordova, long-time Riverside Chicano artist and Division 9 Gallery founder, explained that for decades, Latino artists considered Riverside a “boot camp” instead of a city where they could make a living. They would earn some money in their hometown, then travel to other prominent locations, like Los Angeles or Palm Springs, where artists felt their work was more respected. As the years went on, he said, the local community began to understand the value in supporting its artists.

“Then when the Cheech came, it’s got international attention, so it’s just gotten even better,” Cordova said. “I’m starting to see a lot of artists now more genuinely focused on just trying to showcase their work here in Riverside.”

The most prominent addition within the region has been the Cheech Marin Center for Chicano Art and Culture — known colloquially as “the Cheech.” The museum is widely considered the only space in the country that exclusively showcases Latino-made exhibitions, including some of Picasshoe’s work.

Since returning to the Inland Empire, Picasshoe’s artistic vision caught the attention of both community leaders and larger institutions. While hosting one of his first solo exhibitions, called “Red Thoughts,” at the Eastside Arthouse in Riverside, the directors of the Cheech took notice of his unique style.

“They approach their work with abandon, with any medium,” said María Esther Fernández, the center’s artistic director. “They had an installation and it was very interactive and immersive. I think pushing the boundaries of that is really fun and innovative.”

It would lead Picasshoe to work on a wide range of projects in collaboration with the Chicano art center for the next three years.

Perry Picasshoe stands in front of the Cheech Marin Center for Chicano Art & Culture in Riverside, Calif., on July 3, 2025.

(Daniel Hernandez)

Last year, Picasshoe teamed up with Inland Empire-based artist Emmanuel Camacho Larios to curate an exhibition for the Cheech’s community gallery called “Desde los Cielos.”

“It was a group show that explored what the term ‘alien’ meant in the context of Chicanxs, and alien in the political, the social and the queerness of it all,” Picasshoe said. “I also made a huge painting for that one, the largest that I’ve ever done so far.”

The seven-foot-tall painting, called “Simulacra of Guillermo Hernandez, Beethoven, y los Guachimontones,” depicts his late grandfather sitting on the bed of a pickup truck alongside a small chihuahua. In the background, looming over his abuelo, is a giant circular pyramid built by the Teuchitlán people. A golden pyramid, made from Abuelita Mexican Chocolate bricks, was placed in front of the painting; the bricks were free for the taking during the exhibition’s debut.

After the time for his co-curated exhibition ended, another installation named “Queer Wishes” was featured in the Cheech for an exhibition co-curated by the Eastside Arthouse’s founder and resident artist.

The piece is a three-dimensional black box with a white dress made from bath towels and bedazzled gems displayed on a dress form mannequin inside. Next to the mannequin is a small black vanity desk and mirror with makeup and porcelain wishbones filling the table’s surface.

“The first time I was really able to express myself was when I would get out of the bathroom, put my bath towel on and pretend it was a dress,” Picasshoe said. “I know I’m not the only one with that experience of being in the bathroom and having that be the only time you have to yourself.”

Since debuting the installation at the Cheech, Picasshoe had hoped to take a step back from creating larger community-focused pieces and spend time finalizing some personal projects. However, as immigration enforcement raids ramped up in Southern California, Picasshoe felt the need to create artwork to express his frustration.

Picasshoe and his father drove the family truck to Fontana on July 3 to pick up three translucent ice slabs, each about 40 inches tall and weighing around 300 pounds, and brought them back to downtown Riverside.

They arrived 45 minutes before the start of the city’s monthly arts walk, an event where dozens of local vendors set up booths to sell their artwork to hundreds of residents.

Picasshoe and his father slowly unloaded the slabs from the truck’s bed onto a dolly and wheeled the installations out into the three chosen locations: the front of the Cheech Marin Center for Chicano Art and Culture, the epicenter of the city’s monthly arts walk event and the front of the Riverside County Superior Court.

A wooden platform was placed under each slab, with the words “life,” “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness,” written upside down and divided between the three art pieces, along with a QR code explaining its meaning.

He chose this day, he said, because of its high foot traffic. It was the best opportunity to help some passersby feel represented while confronting others with a hard truth.

“Art should be lived in,” Picasshoe said. “It’s prevalent in a lot of my work, and especially this one, since it’s meant to be commenting on something regarding the public.”

Planned Parenthood says one million patients could lose coverage if it was cut off from Medicaid funds.

A United States federal judge has ruled against President Donald Trump’s effort to defund Planned Parenthood, a reproductive health services organisation that has long attracted conservative ire.

In a decision on Monday, US District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that Planned Parenthood clinics must continue to receive reimbursements for Medicaid, a government health programme for the poor.

“Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,” Talwani stated in her Monday order. “In particular, restricting Members’ ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.”

Planned Parenthood had filed a lawsuit over a provision in a recent Republican tax and spending bill that cut off Medicaid payments for one year to abortion providers who received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023.

The US already prevents federal funds from paying for abortion services, and organisations that provide abortions, such as Planned Parenthood, also offer reproductive health services such as contraception, pregnancy tests and STD testing.

The organisation estimated that the provision in the bill could result in the closure of 200 clinics across 24 states, with more than one million patients at risk of losing coverage.

Conservative politicians have long sought to restrict access to federal funds for Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion provider, as part of a larger push to roll back access to reproductive health services.

Since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, a previous 1973 decision that had established abortion as a constitutional right, in June 2022, numerous Republican-led states have passed new restrictions on abortion or banned it entirely.

“Today, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the provision in the reconciliation law that unconstitutionally ‘defunds’ Planned Parenthood from going back into effect,” Planned Parenthood said in a statement on Monday.

“This means that patients can use Medicaid at Planned Parenthood health centers, and Planned Parenthood health centers can receive reimbursements for the essential services they provide.”

July 26 (UPI) — An impeachment proceeding against Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte can’t proceed due to a constitutional limit on the annual number of impeachments, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled.

The Philippine Constitution bans multiple impeachment proceedings in a given year, so Duterte could not be impeached until February, the nation’s Supreme Court announced on Friday, the BBC reported.

The ruling does not prevent Duterte’s impeachment, but it delays it until an impeachment proceeding would not violate the Philippine Constitution.

“It is not our duty to favor any political result,” the court said in its ruling. “Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the rule of just law.”

The court said it is prepared to address the claims against Duterte “at the proper time and before the appropriate forum.”

Lawmakers in the Philippine Parliament’s lower house in February voted to impeach Duterte for allegedly misusing taxpayer dollars and threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

It was the fourth impeachment case received by the lower chamber from December to February, one of which was transferred to the Senate.

Duterte is the daughter of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and formerly was a close political ally of Marcos. She is considered to be a viable candidate for the nation’s presidency during the 2028 election cycle after she and Marcos had a political fallout.

Duterte and Marcos in 2022 formed what they called the “Uniteam,” which temporarily united two of the nation’s most powerful political families. After the pair secured wins in the May 2022 elections, the Uniteam began to fray.

Duterte’s father called Marcos a “drug addict,” and Duterte in November said she ensured the president would be killed if she were killed first.

The elder Duterte afterward was extradited to the Hague to be tried for alleged crimes against humanity due the deaths of thousands arising from his administration’s war on drugs.

Rodrigo Duterte was president for six years from June 2016 to June 2022.

Sara Duterte says the accusations against her are politically motivated, although many supporting her impeachment note that 12 of the nation’s 15 Supreme Court justices were appointed by her father.

July 12 (UPI) — A federal judge in California issued two restraining orders blocking federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from conducting random detentions of people in Los Angeles and denying access to legal advice.

The ruling this week by U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong was in response to a lawsuit filed by a collection of plaintiffs, including two individual American citizens.

“The individuals and organizations who have brought this lawsuit argue that this organization had two key features, both of which were unconstitutional: ‘roving patrols’ indiscriminately rounding up numerous individuals without reasonable suspicion and, having done so, denying these individuals access to lawyers who could help them navigate the legal process they found themselves in,” Frimpong wrote in the 52-page ruling.

“On this, the federal government agrees: Roving patrols without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and denying access to lawyers violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

“What the federal government would have this Court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening.”

The lawsuit was filed earlier in the month and names Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, FBI Director Kash Patel and several other federal officials as defendants.

The suit comes as ICE officers and agents from other federal agencies, including the FBI and DEA, continue immigration raids in the Los Angeles area at the direction of President Donald Trump.

The raids have entered their second month as Trump continues his promised crack down on immigration.

Demonstrators this week clashed with federal agents in Ventura County outside a cannabis growing operation.

Earlier in the week, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass indicated the city would join the lawsuit to block the Trump administration’s immigration raids, but the municipality is not named as a plaintiff in the suit filed in District Court.

In her ruling, Frimpong pointed to several instances where people were questioned indiscriminately by federal agents and in some cases detained without lawyers for lengthy periods of time.

The two restraining orders remain in place for 10 days. The plaintiffs are seeking a more permanent preliminary injunction.

A federal judge in New Hampshire has blocked United States President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship as part of a class-action lawsuit.

Thursday’s ruling is the first to test the limits of a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions. It is expected to face an immediate appeal from the Trump administration.

Birthright citizenship is a right protected under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. That amendment establishes that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”.

For decades, that amendment has been understood to grant citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parentage.

But Trump has argued that undocumented parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US and therefore their US-born children cannot be considered citizens.

On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order that would restrict birthright citizenship based on the immigration status of a newborn’s parents — but critics have warned that decision could render babies stateless.

That concern has prompted a slew of legal challenges, including the one that came before US District Judge Joseph Laplante on Thursday.

In his federal courtroom in Concord, New Hampshire, Laplante announced that a class-action lawsuit representing all children affected by Trump’s order could proceed.

Then he proceeded to award a preliminary injunction on behalf of the plaintiffs, suspending Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship. He added that his decision was “not a close call”.

“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” he said. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

Laplante, however, did place a stay on his injunction, allowing the Trump administration seven days to appeal it.

What are the origins of this case?

Thursday’s case is one of several seeking to overturn Trump’s executive order.

It was brought on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their children born during Trump’s second term. But they filed their lawsuit as a class action, meaning it represents an entire group — or “class” — of people.

In court filings made on Tuesday, the plaintiffs argued they needed immediate relief from Trump’s executive order, which could deprive the children of Social Security numbers and access to other government services.

“Tens of thousands of babies and their parents may be exposed to the order’s myriad harms in just weeks and need an injunction now,” the plaintiffs wrote in their lawsuit.

The individual parents and children are not identified by name in the lawsuit. But they did speak to the uncertainty they faced as a result of the executive order.

The pregnant woman, for example, explained that she is seeking asylum in the US after fleeing gangs in her home country of Honduras. Her child is expected to be born in October.

“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote in the court filings. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”

Another plaintiff is a father from Brazil who has lived in Florida for five years. He and his wife are in the process of applying for permanent residency, and they welcomed their first child in March.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote, pointing out that his wife’s father is a US citizen.

The Trump administration, however, has argued that the longstanding interpretation of birthright citizenship encourages undocumented immigration to the US, a trend it has compared to an “invasion”.

Furthermore, it asserts that the modern understanding of birthright citizenship is based on a misinterpretation of the law.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in response to the New Hampshire case.

How has the Supreme Court affected these cases?

The Trump administration had previously faced setbacks in court, with three federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions against the executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

But those injunctions were overturned on June 27, in a Supreme Court ruling with sweeping implications.

In a six-to-three decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority ruled that the lower court judges had exceeded their authority by issuing “universal injunctions”.

It suggested federal court injunctions should only apply to the plaintiffs in the case at hand.

“Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority.

There was an exception, however: class-action lawsuits.

By definition, those suits could seek protection for a whole class of people. But class-action complaints must follow specific rules, clearly defining the class in question and ensuring no members of that group would be disadvantaged by their inclusion in the lawsuit.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision risked prompting a tsunami of class-action lawsuits in the federal court system.

“District courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23,” Alito wrote, referencing the procedures that define what constitutes a class action.

“Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief’.”

The Supreme Court gave a 30-day window for plaintiffs to adjust their lawsuits in the wake of its decision. That window is set to expire on July 27, allowing Trump’s executive order to take effect.

The court has not yet ruled on the merits of birthright citizenship itself and is expected to do so in its next term, which begins in October.

Meanwhile, lower courts are weighing how to address the Supreme Court’s decision.

A group of states that brought a case challenging Trump’s executive order, for instance, has asked that a Massachusetts federal court consider whether an injunction they were awarded would still apply under the Supreme Court’s ruling. A hearing is set for July 18.

Advocates estimate more than 150,000 babies could be denied citizenship each year if Trump’s executive order is allowed to stand.

The court ruled that Trump’s presidential powers did not authorise him to set up an ‘alternative immigration system’.

A federal court has ruled that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority by barring asylum claims at the southern border of the United States, as part of his broader immigration crackdown.

On Wednesday, US District Judge Randolph Moss warned that Trump’s actions threatened to create a “presidentially decreed, alternative immigration system” separate from the laws established by Congress.

The country had previously enshrined the right to asylum in its laws. But on January 20, upon taking office for a second term, President Trump issued a proclamation invoking the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

“This authority,” Trump wrote, “necessarily includes the right to deny the physical entry of aliens into the United States and impose restrictions on access to portions of the immigration system.”

But Judge Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, pushed back on that assertion in his 128-page decision (PDF).

“Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation,” Moss wrote.

He emphasised that the president had no power to “replace the comprehensive rules and procedures” in US immigration law with an “extra-statutory, extraregulatory regime”.

Asylum is the process by which individuals request protection on foreign soil when they fear persecution or harm. While asylum applications face a high bar for acceptance, successful applicants are allowed to remain in the country.

But Trump has framed immigration across the US’s southern border with Mexico as an “invasion” led by foreign powers.

He has used that rationale to justify the use of emergency powers to suspend rights like asylum.

Judge Moss, however, ruled that suspending asylum could result in significant harms to those facing persecution.

“A substantial possibility exists that continued implementation of the Proclamation during the pendency of an appeal will effectively deprive tens of thousands of individuals of the lawful processes to which they are entitled,” Moss wrote.

Nevertheless, he gave the Trump administration a 14-day window to appeal. The administration is expected to do so.

“A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in response to Wednesday’s ruling. “We expect to be vindicated on appeal.”

In court filings, the administration had also argued that it alone had the right to determine whether or not the US was facing invasion.

“The determination that the United States is facing an invasion is an unreviewable political question,” government lawyers wrote.

Judge Moss expressed sympathy with another administration argument that the asylum processing system had simply become swamped with applications.

“The Court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,” he wrote.

But, he concluded, US laws did not award President Trump “the unilateral authority to limit the rights of aliens present in the United States to apply for asylum”.

The ruling comes as the result of a class-action complaint filed by immigrant rights groups, including the Florence Project, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and RAICES.

The American Civil Liberties Union applauded Wednesday’s decision as an important step in protecting Congress’s powers to pass laws – and protecting immigrants’ rights.

“The president cannot wipe away laws passed by Congress simply by claiming that asylum seekers are invaders,” ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said to US media.

NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary legal status for more than 500,000 Haitians who are already in the United States.

District Court Judge Brian M. Cogan in New York ruled that moving up the expiration of the temporary protected status, or TPS, by at least five months for Haitians, some of whom have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade, is unlawful.

The Biden administration had extended Haiti’s TPS status through at least Feb. 3, 2026, due to gang violence, political unrest, a major earthquake in 2021 and several other factors, according to court documents.

But last week, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was terminating those legal protections as soon as Sept. 2, setting Haitians up for potential deportation. The department said the conditions in the country had improved and Haitians no longer met the conditions for the temporary legal protections.

The ruling comes as President Trump works to end protections and programs for immigrants as part of his mass deportations promises.

The judge’s 23-page opinion states that the Department of Homeland Security’s move to terminate the legal protections early violates the TPS statute that requires a certain amount of notice before reconsidering a designation.

“When the Government confers a benefit over a fixed period of time, a beneficiary can reasonably expect to receive that benefit at least until the end of that fixed period,” according to the ruling.

The judge also referenced the fact that the plaintiffs have started jobs, enrolled in schools and begun receiving medical treatment with the expectations that the country’s TPS designation would run through the end of the year.

Manny Pastreich, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, which filed the lawsuit, described the ruling as an “important step” but said the fight is not over.

“We will keep fighting to make sure this decision is upheld,” Pastreich said in a statement. “We will keep fighting for the rights of our members and all immigrants against the Trump Administration – in the streets, in the workplace, and in the courts as well. And when we fight, we win.”

DHS did not immediately respond to an email from the Associated Press requesting comment. But the government had argued that TPS is a temporary program and thus “the termination of a country’s TPS designation is a possibility beneficiaries must always expect.”

Haiti’s TPS status was initially activated in 2010 after the catastrophic earthquake and has been extended multiple times, according to the lawsuit.

Gang violence has displaced 1.3 million people across Haiti as the local government and international community struggle with the spiraling crisis, according to a report from the International Organization for Migration. There has been a 24% increase in displaced people since December, with gunmen having chased 11% of Haiti’s nearly 12 million inhabitants from their home, the report said.

In May, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to strip Temporary Protected Status from 350,000 Venezuelans, potentially exposing them to deportation. The order put on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept the legal protections in place.

The judge’s decision in New York also comes on the heels of the Trump administration revoking legal protections for thousands of Haitians who arrived legally in the U.S. through a humanitarian parole program.