cases

WASHINGTON — A federal judge said Friday she would open a “formal inquiry” to investigate if attorneys for the Trump administration violated ethical boundaries during a legal dispute about a golf course project — one in a pair of plans that are revealing the breadth of the president’s attempts to mold parts of the District of Columbia to his own vision.

The two cases, unfolding at the same time in the same federal courthouse, also showcase the underlying executive authority claims that lie beneath them — a glimpse into the uses of presidential power under Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes’ declaration that the court would appoint a “special master” into whether agency officials, and Justice Department attorneys, had made misrepresentations in the court is a far cry from her relationship with the government until this month. She had rejected numerous motions from the plaintiffs to step in, saying she trusted the government attorneys.

The cases involved are an impending shutdown and reconfiguration of a historic public golf course and the construction of a monumental arch that, at 250 feet, would be 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty is from its base to the top of the torch. The two projects are barely three miles apart.

The hearing on the golf course change began as other recent ones have: Reyes questioned Associate Atty. Gen. Stanley Woodward Jr. over how Trump’s desires to turn the golf course, near the National Mall, into a world-class facility have become urgent plans that match his public pronouncements.

Reyes stopped the hearing several times and adjourned to her chambers to check previous transcripts of the trial as she questioned Woodward. Among things she wants examined: Was a National Park Service official told to exclude details in a court declaration? Did witnesses offer misleading testimony about the extent of plans in place for the course’s closure and renovation?

At one point, Reyes read the code of conduct to government attorneys on presenting erroneous or false information during a hearing.

Reyes ordered Friday’s hearing after multiple Truth Social posts by Trump indicated that there were plans for the golf course and construction was expected to begin Nov. 15. Trump said the park would be closed for 15 months while work goes on.

The presidential posts, which began Oct. 18, created a tense dynamic in multiple court hearings afterward when officials from the Interior Department, Justice and Park Service could not confirm the existence of the plans under questioning from Reyes. She eventually asked whom she should trust. The Justice Department filed notice Wednesday night that the plans were real.

“On Friday, October 30, 2026, the National Park Service will submit to the National Capital Planning Commission for review a rendering designed by Tom Fazio for a World Class, championship-level golf course that is capable of hosting major events,” the notice said.

Reyes locked in on the filing and Trump’s multiple Truth Social announcements as she questioned Woodward.

At one point, as they talked about plans that Woodward said came about only this week, he slipped and included tree cutting as part of the preparation for the closure.

Reyes responded immediately: “News flash.” She allowed him to correct himself that the tree cutting, which occurred earlier this month, was not part of the plan to close the East Potomac Park Golf Course.

The golf course lawsuit was one of two cases in court Friday dealing with the Trump administration’s push to expand its executive authority as the president remakes the federal areas of the capital near the National Mall and along the Potomac River.

Three courtrooms away, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was to hold a hearing on a motion asking that she call a temporary halt to plans to begin construction as early as Nov. 5 on the memorial arch. The arch is opposed by a small group of veterans and an architectural historian who sued in federal court in Washington, saying Congress must endorse the project.

“The public interest leans heavily against allowing defendants to blaze ahead,” the plaintiffs said in seeking the injunction. “This court should enter a preliminary injunction blocking defendants from beginning construction on Memorial Circle in the hope that they can render the arch a fait accompli before this Court has made a final determination.”

Legal experts who have been watching the numerous cases underway say that what might appear at first glance to be vanity projects are in truth cases that test the limits of presidential power.

Past administrations pursued legal theories that were sometimes legally sound, sometimes not, said David Super, law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

“But there was always the assumption that you would try to do things that were legal,” he said. “What we’re seeing here now is that if you think the federal courts can’t stop you,” you can break the law.

That’s ”going to do long-term damage to the country,” Super said.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

The U.S. government seems to be coming for California (again). Big surprise.

But scratch the surface of the recent Department of Justice voter fraud blitz and the ugly truth peeks through — this is an attack on immigrants of color, no different than accusing the Haitians of Ohio of eating cats and dogs or the aggressive escalation of detaining and deporting Black and brown people with no criminal record.

It’s meant to excite and appease the Christian nationalist contingent of MAGA voters — including Trump advisor Stephen Miller — who make no secret of their belief that even some naturalized citizens should be forced out of the country if they aren’t white.

Just a few days ago, the White House posted on social media that “If you import the third world, you become the third world.” Not be be outdone, the fine Americans at the Department of Homeland Security responded with what seems to be a problematic mission statement that may wind up in court documents: “Reject the third world. Export the third world.” So far in President Trump’s second term, only 20% of the nearly 1 million people deported had a criminal record, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

Speaking of court documents, wow, do we have a lot to go through. Turns out not a lot of judges are into voter suppression.

After First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the son of Lebanese immigrants and the first Muslim to serve in the California Legislature, announced charges against 28 Californians — all immigrants — who allegedly registered or voted illegally, the legal battles went into overdrive.

There’s the U.S. Justice Department case claiming California is somehow stopping the feds from enforcing federal voting laws, despite those 28 cases. There’s a ruling in a different case that prevents the Department of Homeland Security from going door-to-door in California and other places checking on immigration status and voter registration — a terrifying overreach of power meant to intimidate legal voters.

And there’s the ongoing lawsuit from the UCLA Voting Rights Project and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in a Washington courtroom — a case that could take the lead in protecting the midterms.

Here’s what you need to know about all three, and what comes next.

Stop the knocks

Starting around August, Homeland Security began knocking on the doors of residents in California and eight other states in what it dubbed a “surge” in investigations on voter fraud.

These in-person checks were based on lists of folks the government thought might not be legally allowed to cast a ballot — and focused on naturalized citizens, according to court documents. They were also, according to the court, unreliable and included “instances where DHS simply did not have data to determine that the individual did not engage in voter fraud,” the California judge in the case wrote, meaning it was a giant fishing expedition.

In addition, Homeland Security was apparently investigating nonprofits and other organizations that help get out the vote, including interrogating the staff and covertly infiltrating their operations, according to court documents.

That’s McCarthyism-level scary. The California Nurses Assn. and its parent union, National Nurses United, filed a lawsuit to stop the Homeland Security surge, arguing in part that one of their core missions is political organizing and turning out voters, and that the operation directly harmed them by scaring their members away from that work.

They also have a lot of members who are naturalized citizens. Four union members told the court that they didn’t want to participate in the union’s election work because they were afraid of being targeted by the government, citizens or not.

The court found that fear “objectively reasonable” and ordered Homeland Security to stop the door-knocking until after the election. The judge then stayed that order until Friday to give the government time to appeal. So far, the government hasn’t filed that objection.

“So many people in the United States are suffering under Trump’s corrupt and cruel policies on behalf of the billionaire class that he knows cannot hold onto power in these upcoming elections without illegally suppressing our vote through outright harassment, intimidation, and even detention,” said Puneet Maharaj, executive director of the two nurses groups.

Emergency relief

At the same time, the Department of Justice this week filed a suit against California seeking an emergency order to force the state to segregate 20,000 ballots of folks it claims may not be citizens — an unprecedented ask in furtherance of the long-running conspiracy theory that immigrants who lack legal status are in a scheme with Democrats to vote en masse.

State Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has asked the court to throw out the case, in part because the federal government can’t prove it’s actually being harmed in any way by state law. The feds have already filed charges in those 28 cases claiming voter fraud, so it’s hard to argue that state law is preventing them from going after illegal voters.

But the feds are arguing that the state is aiding and abetting illegal voting by not segregating those ballots, even though there is no proof they are in the hands of noncitizens. A review by the Los Angeles County registrar’s office found that about 40% of those on the list were born in the United States.

Trump even threatened that election officials could be jailed for not bending to his will.

Attorneys general from other states filed a friend of the court brief siding with California, arguing that the Justice Department is basically trying to create a new law where “the executive branch can invent new election requirements, unmoored from any constitutional or statutory authority, and demand that States enforce them in the middle of an election.”

The court will rule on that next week.

Beyond Nov. 3

Our final case takes us to Washington, where the UCLA Voting Rights Project and the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, are asking for their own temporary restraining order — this one stopping the government from carrying out its ballot segregation scheme and from using its flawed, janky methods for supposedly identifying noncitizen voters.

I’ve written about this lawsuit before, and how the Voting Rights Project beat back Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s attempt to snatch ballots. The court will probably make a ruling in that one next week as well.

But election day is less than two weeks away, and many have already voted. So what does it all mean?

It means we’re in for a rough ride. The Trump administration is not dumb. Midterms might not go the way Republicans would like, potentially even giving control of both the House and Senate to Democrats. Some experts and legislators are concerned that all these ballot drama is posturing for that midterm loss — creating a reason to potentially question results or even refuse to seat newly elected Democrats when the time comes.

That would be unthinkable, unprecedented, a constitutional crisis. But impossible? Nope.

And almost certainly, no matter what voters decide, Trump will spin it back to that white nationalism — the idea that “true” Americans are being replaced through fraud, violence and vote stealing, a trio of conspiracies glued together by the sticky, tricky manipulations of a man who will do anything for power.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: How Meta struck a deal to keep Mark Zuckerberg in California despite looming billionaire tax
The California angle: As companies leave California, is the state’s $4.25-trillion economy really in trouble?
The L.A. Times Special: In Trumpworld, dogs who commit voter fraud aren’t as bad as immigrants

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The biggest tech battles many people face are things like frequent two-factor authentication, a time suck that makes you want to hurl a device across the room, and sigh-inducing texts to parents letting them know that the video of a cat cooking eggs they 100% believe is real is actually AI slop.

But in “Cupertino,” the legal minds at the center of the show are taking on more consequential tech disputes in the courtroom.

The series joins a wave of recent films and TV shows exploring and confronting the rapidly evolving tech sector. Created by Robert and Michelle King, veterans of the legal drama genre with shows like “The Good Wife” and its spinoff “The Good Fight,” the Silicon Valley-set courtroom drama is interested in David vs. Goliath tension. It follows Michael Price (Mike Colter), an attorney fired by his tech startup employer S-Talk, as he teams up with fellow ousted lawyer Olivia Siffre (Rachel Keller) to launch their own ad-hoc law firm to take on cases — including their own — for everyday people against tech giants.

“There are big companies that have a lot of money, deep pockets — they could suffocate you, they can bog you down in litigation to the point where you can’t financially match them,” Colter said. “They’re planning on people just rolling over because they don’t want to deal with it. That’s where Michael and Olivia come in. We get the justice for people who otherwise won’t see any. I’m just excited and intrigued by the stories they [the Kings] want to tell here.”

The Kings’ exploration of tech’s litigation underbelly arrives at at a critical moment. High-stakes conflicts over artificial intelligence, data privacy, workplace culture, antitrust laws and other issues are dominating the news and defining our modern era. “The headlines, the way that it lines up is crazy,” Keller said. “It’s really important some of the cases they’re bringing to the show — real things that are happening to real people.”

But the show’s origins are grounded in personal history — Robert grew up in San José; his father worked on mainframes for IBM and the now-defunct Control Data Corp. before personal computers took over — and a desire to bring a fresh backdrop to the Kings’ signature legal drama style.

“When you go back and visit family, you started to see how Silicon Valley — we just call it the Bay Area — was changing,” Robert said. “Not only in the make of cars that everyone was buying, but in these massive offices that were taking over suburban streets; homes were just being plowed under and house values were going up. There was good and bad. It started with that — how much it was changing the world.”

They were also inspired to explore a new legal angle: “It felt like other shows weren’t really looking at the way tech was impacting the law,” he said.

“We were less interested in looking at the tech titans than the Davids of this world — the people that were fighting them,” Michelle added. But she stresses the show is not anti-tech or meant to be a soapbox, even while showing the power everyday people can and do wield: “It wasn’t created to be vegetables. It’s created to be crème brûlée — it’s meant to be funny, or tasty. If it isn’t delicious to people, I really feel as though we’ve wasted our time.”

Fans of “The Good Wife” or “The Good Fight” are familiar with how the Kings turned emerging tech issues — particularly ones involving Google, Amazon or Facebook — into narrative catalysts for cases. It was often through the lens of a fictional tech giant known as ChumHum, a Google-like search engine created by a guy named Neil Gross (John Benjamin Hickey), that got embroiled in a variety of cases, including ones about secrecy and search result modifications. “Cupertino” blends real and fictitious companies.

The second episode of the CBS drama aired Thursday. We spoke with the Kings to unpack some of the cases they chose to kick off the season.

Nairobi, Kenya – Kenya’s response to an imported Ebola case has demonstrated its ability to mobilise a national response in the capital.

But a suspected case in the northeastern county of Wajir has raised a critical question: whether the country’s preparedness measures can protect communities far from major hospitals, laboratories and transport hubs.

The suspected case in Wajir tested negative, according to county officials, easing fears of wider transmission. Yet the incident highlighted the importance of local health facilities being able to recognise suspected infections, isolate patients safely and communicate reliable information to residents.

For communities near Kenya’s borders, preparedness requires more than screening travellers at airports and official crossings.

It also depends on trained health workers, appropriate protective equipment, functioning isolation facilities and clear referral procedures. Residents must know where to seek care and how to respond when health authorities raise the alarm.

Wajir’s readiness under scrutiny

Garad Saney Mohamed, communications director for Wajir county, told Al Jazeera that the county had established an isolation centre in Wajir town and formed a rapid response team to strengthen its preparedness.

He said the county was also using radio campaigns, community health promoters, school health programmes and posters to raise awareness about Ebola. A preparedness plan and budget had been put in place, he added.

However, the county did not provide details on the isolation centre’s capacity, the number of health workers trained specifically in Ebola response or the budget allocated to these efforts. Without that information, it is difficult to assess whether the county has the personnel and resources needed to manage suspected infections safely or respond to a wider outbreak.

The suspected case involved a 20-year-old man who had travelled from the Democratic Republic of the Congo through Uganda before reaching his home in Wajir on September 20. He was assessed at Habaswein Subcounty Hospital in Wajir South after presenting with a severe febrile illness.

His sample tested negative for Ebola, according to county officials. He was to remain under observation while receiving medical care.

The case prompted precautionary action, but it does not establish whether Wajir’s wider preparedness systems would be sufficient during an outbreak. That would depend on factors including the availability of protective equipment, staff trained in infection prevention and control, safe sample transport and reliable links between local facilities and designated testing laboratories.

Wajir’s proximity to Somalia, which lies 110km (70 miles) to the east, and the movement of people and goods across the border make surveillance and public communication particularly important. Screening at formal entry points remains essential, but it cannot replace the ability of local health facilities and community health workers to recognise warning signs and guide people towards appropriate care.

National screening, local challenges

Kenya’s national response intensified after an Ebola case was linked to a Kenyan travelling from the Democratic Republic of the Congo through Uganda. The patient arrived in Nairobi on October 3, was diagnosed with Bundibugyo virus of the disease and died on October 5, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Kenya notified the WHO on October 6.

The patient had fallen ill while living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and travelled by road to Kampala before flying to Nairobi. Laboratory tests at the National Virology Reference Laboratory and the Kenya Medical Research Institute confirmed the infection, according to the Ministry of Health.

On October 14, Kenya confirmed a second case of Bundibugyo virus disease involving a 39-year-old man who was a close family member of the first patient. He was already in quarantine and under daily monitoring when he developed symptoms, including fever, fatigue and joint pains, on October 13.

Laboratory tests confirmed the infection, and he was transferred to a designated treatment centre for supportive care. The Ministry of Health said the two cases were linked and there was no evidence of transmission in the wider community.

Authorities subsequently intensified surveillance at points of entry, contact tracing and public communication. The negative test result in Wajir underscored the importance of investigating suspected infections promptly and using laboratory testing to establish whether the virus is present.

As of October 6, Kenya had screened 652,584 travellers, tested 267 samples and trained 4,971 healthcare workers in Ebola prevention and management, according to the Ministry of Health.

By October 12, the WHO reported that more than 665,000 travellers had been screened and 127 contacts had been listed, with 94 in quarantine. Five laboratories had been designated to test for the disease, and nearly 5,000 health workers had received training.

These figures demonstrate the scale of the national response. But the number of travellers screened or health workers trained does not, on its own, establish how effectively those resources are distributed or whether individual counties can manage suspected infections.

For Wajir, the key questions concern the readiness of local facilities, the availability of trained personnel and protective equipment, and the speed with which samples can be transported for testing. The county has outlined the measures it has taken, but the available information does not provide a complete picture of its operational capacity.

Preparedness means more than the numbers

Health workers need to recognise suspected cases, follow infection-prevention protocols, collect and transport samples safely, and refer patients without exposing others. Facilities must also have appropriate protective equipment and clear procedures for managing suspected infections.

The WHO reported that Kenya’s national preparedness score rose from 66 percent in May to 82 percent in July. The assessment covered measures including surveillance, laboratory testing, isolation and treatment facilities, and trained response teams.

The improvement suggests that preparedness measures had advanced before the imported case was confirmed. However, a national score cannot establish whether every county has the equipment, staffing and referral arrangements needed to respond effectively. Assessments of local capacity are essential to identifying gaps that national figures may not reveal.

The Kenya Red Cross has also supported preparedness and public awareness efforts. Dr Paul Olale, a representative of the organisation, told Al Jazeera about a preparedness assessment. However, the basis of the separate figure attributed to the organisation was not established in the information available for this report, making it difficult to determine what it measured or whether it identified county-level weaknesses.

The organisation has highlighted the need to counter misinformation. During an outbreak, rumours can leave people uncertain about symptoms, how the virus spreads and whether they should seek medical attention.

For residents, information needs to be practical. People should know where to seek care, how to report a suspected illness and what to do while awaiting medical advice. Communication must also address stigma and reassure people that reporting a suspected illness can help protect their families and communities.

Community health promoters, local radio stations, schools and trusted community leaders can help deliver information in languages and formats residents understand. But awareness campaigns are most effective when they are consistent and backed by health services capable of responding promptly to concerns.

Wajir’s experience illustrates why Kenya’s Ebola preparedness must be measured not only by national screening figures and training totals, but also by the ability of individual counties to respond safely when a suspected case emerges.

An isolation centre, a rapid response team and public awareness campaigns are important components of an effective response. Their existence alone, however, does not establish whether facilities have adequate equipment, staff can follow established protocols or residents can access reliable information when they need it.

Kenya has demonstrated its ability to mobilise a national response, expand screening and undertake laboratory testing. The challenge is ensuring that these measures translate into effective protection beyond major transport hubs, including in remote communities where access to healthcare and timely information may be more difficult.

Dr Mary Muthoni, Kenya’s principal secretary for public health and professional standards, underscored the importance of protecting frontline staff in remarks delivered on behalf of Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale, according to a WHO statement released on October 12.

“No health worker in this country should be asked to attend to a suspected Ebola case without the right protective equipment.”

Yemen has reported 8,034 suspected cases and 27 deaths this year, with a quarter of cases from the last four weeks.

Suspected cholera cases in Yemen have tripled in the past three weeks, the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned, as civilians have fled renewed fighting and sought safety in unsanitary camps.

Ramped up combat, which has pushed more than 200,000 people to flee their homes, the WHO added in a report on Tuesday, driving suspected cases from 217 in the week of September 6-12 to 647 in the week of September 27 to October 3.

“Families fleeing conflict are now facing another threat from diseases that can be prevented and treated,” said Annette Heinzelmann, the UN agency’s emergency director for the region.

“Without urgent funding and unimpeded access to safe water, vaccination and essential health services, outbreaks could spread rapidly among already vulnerable communities.”

This year, the global health watchdog said, Yemen had reported 8,034 suspected cases and 27 deaths, with a quarter of the suspected cases occurring in the last four weeks.

Five governorates hosting large numbers of displaced people in the southwest – Abyan, Lahij, al-Dhalea, Taiz and Aden – account for 92 percent of reported cases, they reported. The disease has also reached remote displacement camps in Hadramout in the country’s east that are particularly difficult for medical teams to access.

Emergency response underfunded

Cholera has ebbed and flowed for years as the conflict in Yemen has continued. In 2024, the WHO warned that the country was facing the “highest burden” of a global cholera outbreak. In 2017, a wave of the disease infected hundreds of thousands and killed at least 2,000.

Yemen was already suffering one of the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis” and has seen an escalation of circumstances since fighting reignited between the Houthis – an armed group known as Ansar Allah (Arabic for Supporters of God), and the internationally recognised Yemeni government.

Cholera is an acute intestinal infection that spreads through food and water contaminated with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae, often from faeces. It causes severe diarrhoea, vomiting and muscle cramps.

Contracting the illness can be deadly when not treated with oral rehydration or antibiotics for more severe cases.

The Geneva-based WHO said it had only secured $3.78m of the $31m needed for its 90-day emergency response in Yemen.

The funding is intended to help expand disease surveillance in displacement sites, deploy rapid response teams, strengthen cholera treatment and improve infection prevention in health facilities and cholera treatment sites.

The United States Department of Justice has filed 40 new cases seeking to strip naturalised Americans of their citizenship over alleged crimes they have committed.

In a statement on Monday, federal prosecutors said they were targeting individuals accused of “serious offenses”, including money laundering, child sexual abuse, visa fraud and tax evasion.

The statement touted the 40 cases as the largest volume of denaturalisation petitions submitted in such a short period under President Donald Trump. The petitions were filed from late August through early October.

“Today’s announcement marks the largest denaturalization effort in modern history,” said Attorney General Todd Blanche.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Justice will continue to employ the denaturalization process to maintain our national security and protect the American people.”

The 40 citizens targeted in Monday’s announcement include people from a range of countries, including Mexico, Pakistan, China and Sierra Leone.

They are accused of concealing criminal acts and other facts about themselves as they sought to obtain citizenship. Their criminal convictions largely came after they took their oaths of citizenship.

Two people on the list are also accused of engaging in espionage on behalf of China. Committing these crimes before they became citizens, the Department of Justice alleges, meant these individuals lacked “good moral character” and should have been denied citizenship.

Expanded use of denaturalisation law

The laws to denaturalise US citizens have been used for decades, but historically, they have been reserved for serious crimes.

After World War II, for instance, the US government moved to denaturalise dozens of citizens accused of concealing involvement in the Holocaust or engaging in war crimes.

Notable cases include that of Emma Goldman, a Lithuanian-born anarchist and women’s rights activist who was jailed in 1917 for her antiwar activities, before being denaturalised and deported to the Soviet Union.

But the practice has become much less frequent since the end of the Cold War.

Top officials in the Trump administration, however, have sought to expand denaturalisation as part of a push to conduct the largest deportation operation in US history.

Under US law, prosecutors can ask courts to strip citizenship from those born outside the country if they wilfully concealed a “material fact” during their citizenship application that would have otherwise disqualified them.

But Trump’s efforts to widen denaturalisation proceedings have received pushback from human rights groups, which argue they could leave people stateless.

Critics have also warned that Trump has sought to leverage denaturalisation against specific groups he perceives to be political rivals or enemies.

Last year, for instance, the Trump administration indicated it would seek to denaturalise large numbers of Somali Americans after allegations emerged in Minnesota of daycare fraud involving the Somali diaspora.

“Send them back from where they came, Somalia, perhaps the worst, and most corrupt, country on earth,” Trump wrote at the time.

Members of Trump’s Republican Party, notably Representative Andy Ogles, have also floated the possibility of yanking citizenship from New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who was born in Uganda. Trump himself has falsely suggested Mamdani may be in the country illegally.

At one point, Trump even floated the idea of withdrawing citizenship from tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, a close ally and adviser to his second administration, after the two men had a falling-out in 2025.

Trump has also pushed to do away with birthright citizenship, which is granted to virtually all children born in the US. The few exceptions include the babies of diplomats and foreign military forces.

Birthright citizenship is protected under the US Constitution and cannot be taken away the way naturalised citizenship can.

In June, the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s efforts to dismantle birthright citizenship, but legal battles continue after the president issued a second executive order also seeking to restrict how birthright citizenship is applied.