injunction

Federal officials on Friday confirmed that Florida has been reimbursed $608 million for the costs of building and running an immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades, exposing “Alligator Alcatraz” to the risk of being ordered to close for a second time.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in an email that the state of Florida was awarded its full reimbursement request.

The reimbursement exposes the state of Florida to being forced to unwind operations at the remote facility for a second time because of a federal judge’s injunction in August. The Miami judge agreed with environmental groups who had sued that the site wasn’t given a proper environmental review before it was converted into an immigration detention center and gave Florida two months to wind down operations.

The judge’s injunction, however, was put on hold for the time being by an appellate court panel in Atlanta that said the state-run facility didn’t need to undergo a federally required environmental impact study because Florida had yet to receive federal money for the project.

“If the federal defendants ultimately decide to approve that request and reimburse Florida for its expenditures related to the facility, they may need to first conduct an EIS (environmental impact statement),” the three-judge appellate court panel wrote last month.

The appellate panel decision allowed the detention center to stay open and put a stop to wind-down efforts.

President Trump toured the facility in July and suggested it could be a model for future lockups nationwide as his administration pushes to expand the infrastructure needed to increase deportations.

Environmental groups that had sued the federal and state governments said the confirmation of the reimbursement showed that the Florida-built facility was a federal project “from the jump.”

“This is a federal project being built with federal funds that’s required by federal law to go through a complete environmental review,” Elise Bennett, Florida and Caribbean director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “We’ll do everything we can to stop this lawless, destructive and wasteful debacle.”

Schneider writes for the Associated Press.

When they chose to continue their college careers, both USC offensive lineman DJ Wingfield and UCLA wide receiver Kaedin Robinson thought the courts and NCAA had cleared the way for them to play a fifth season of football.

USC had told Wingfield as much, offering him $210,000 in NIL to join the Trojans’ offensive line. UCLA, meanwhile, offered Robinson $450,000 to be one of the Bruins’ top wideouts.

But after first seeing their waivers rejected in the spring, then suing the NCAA this summer, a U.S. District Court judge has now shut the door on either Wingfield or Robinson suiting up this fall.

Both players had hoped to prove this week in court that they were deserving of a preliminary injunction that would allow them to play out the season at USC and UCLA. Their attorneys argued that the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule, which limits athletes to four seasons in five years, violated antitrust laws by limiting athletes’ eligibility — and thus, their NIL earning potential. To block Wingfield and Robinson from playing this season, their attorneys argued, would mean causing “irreparable harm.”

But after a hearing was held for both Monday, a judge in California’s Central District court quickly rejected those claims, denying the request for injunctive relief from both players, as well as San Diego linebacker Jagger Giles.

Either could appeal the decision, but it’s unlikely that either player’s case would be heard soon enough to play the 2025 season.

Others who have challenged the NCAA’s eligibility rules in court have had inconsistent results. But in the case of Wingfield and Robinson, Judge James Selna held that the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule was not “commercial in nature” but rather a “true eligibility rule,” and therefore was not beholden to antitrust scrutiny.

Not every judge has come to the same conclusion, as a cascade of similar eligibility cases have been filed in the months since Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia won a preliminary injunction in his case against the NCAA. Pavia was granted a fifth season after challenging that the NCAA’s rule counting his junior college tenure toward his overall NCAA eligibility would unfairly limit his ability to earn NIL compensation.

The judge in Wingfield and Robinson’s case was less swayed by that argument.

“There is a subtle difference between a rule that retrains NIL compensation and a rule that limits one’s potential to negotiate a NIL agreement,” the judge wrote. “Putting aside the NIL agreements, the question of whether a player’s time has run remains in full force. The eligibility question is not tethered to the question of compensation or commercial transaction.”

In Wingfield’s case, the judge also found that the five-month delay in Wingfield requesting a temporary restraining order after being ruled ineligible in March weakened the urgency of his claims of “irreparable harm.”

Losing Wingfield will undoubtedly deal a significant blow to USC, which had been counting on Wingfield to step into a starting role along the offensive line. Without him, the Trojans will enter the season perilously thin on the interior.

Wingfield’s collegiate career began in 2019 at El Camino College, a junior college in Torrance. He left El Camino during the 2020 season because of the COVID-19 pandemic, then returned in 2021 before transferring to New Mexico in the spring of 2022.

An injury ended his first season with the Lobos before he finished a single game, but he returned to play in nine games in 2023 before transferring to Purdue, where he started along the Boilermakers’ line as a fifth-year senior in 2024.

Robinson took a similar path as Wingfield through junior college, spending one season at ASA College in Brooklyn before the pandemic, then redshirting for a season at Central Florida in 2021 before spending the next three years at Appalachian State.

Robinson was an All-Sun Belt selection at receiver last season with 53 catches for 840 yards and two touchdowns. He was expected to be one of the Bruins’ top receivers this season.

Critics argue President Trump has overstepped his constitutional authority by slashing congressionally approved aid.

A United States appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump can proceed with efforts to slash foreign aid payments, despite such funds being designated by Congress.

The two-to-one ruling on Wednesday overturned a previous injunction that required the Department of State to resume the payments, including about $4bn for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and $6bn for HIV and AIDS programmes.

But the majority opinion from the appeals court did not weigh the merits of whether Trump could nix congressionally approved funds.

Instead, it decided the case based on the idea that the plaintiffs did not meet the legal basis to qualify for a court injunction.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Karen Henderson said the groups in question “lack a cause of action to press their claims”. They include the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network, both recipients of federal aid.

“The grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,” wrote Henderson, who was appointed by former President George HW Bush.

She was joined in her decision by Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee.

However, the panel’s third judge — Florence Pan, nominated under former President Joe Biden — issued a dissenting opinion that argued Trump should not be allowed to violate the separation of powers by cutting the aid.

“The court’s acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive’s unlawful behaviour derails the carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power that serves as the greatest security against tyranny — the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch,” Pan wrote in her opinion.

The ruling hands a victory to the Trump administration, which has faced a series of legal challenges to Trump’s efforts to radically reshape the federal government.

That includes dramatic cuts to spending and government agencies like USAID, which was established by an act of Congress.

Almost immediately upon taking office, Trump announced a 90-day pause on all foreign aid.

He has since moved to gut USAID, prompting outcry from two of his predecessors, Presidents Barack Obama and George W Bush.

By March, the Trump administration had announced it planned to fold USAID into the State Department, fundamentally dismantling the agency. That same month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said he had cancelled 83 percent of USAID’s contracts.

Part of Trump’s reasoning for these changes was to reduce “waste” and “bloat” in the government. He also sought to better align government programming with his “America First” agenda.

But critics say the executive branch does not have the power to tear down congressionally mandated agencies. They also argue that Congress has the power to designate funds for aid, framing Trump’s efforts as a push for extreme presidential power.

Republicans, however, control both houses of Congress, and in July, Congress passed the Rescission Act of 2025, allowing the government to claw back nearly $9bn in foreign aid and funding for public broadcasting.

US District Judge Amir Ali previously ruled that the Trump administration must pay its agreed-upon funds to humanitarian groups and other contractors that partnered with the government to distribute aid.

Administration officials in February estimated there was $2bn in outstanding aid payments due by the deadline Judge Ali set.

But the appeals court’s ruling has set back cases to restore the foreign aid to the contractors.

Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision on Wednesday, stating that the Department of Justice would “continue to successfully protect core Presidential authorities from judicial overreach”.

BOSTON — President Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in the U.S. illegally will remain blocked as an order from one judge went into effect Friday and another seemed inclined to follow suit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week his order went into effect.

“The judge’s order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,” said Cody Wofsy, the ACLU attorney representing children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions. “The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.”

The Trump administration could still appeal or even ask that LaPlante’s order be narrowed, but the effort to end birthright citizenship for children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily can’t take effect for now.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

Meanwhile, a judge in Boston heard arguments from more than a dozen states who say Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for essential services. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin was asked to consider either keeping in place the nationwide injunction he granted earlier or consider a request from the government either to narrow the scope of that order or stay it altogether. Sorokin, located in Boston, did not immediately rule but seemed to be receptive to arguments from states to keep the injunction in place.

Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be “tailored to the States’ purported financial injuries.”

Much of the hearing was focused on what a narrower ruling would look like. The plaintiffs raised concerns that some alternatives floated by the Trump administration — such as giving children in states affected by the birthright citizenship order Social Security numbers, but not citizenship — would be costly and unworkable.

They said such a system would burden these states with having to set up new administrative systems, sow confusion among the parents whose children are affected and possibly turn these states into magnets for families from other states looking to access the benefits.

Government lawyers didn’t seem tied to any one alternative, but told Sorokin the scope of his injunction should be limited. When pressed on how they would do that, a lawyer for the government, Eric Hamilton, would only commit to complying with whatever order was issued.

“If the court modifies the preliminary injunction or stays the preliminary injunction, it should be at most tailored to injuries plaintiffs are alleging, which are primary financial,” Hamilton said.

Sorokin pushed back, at one point using an analogy of someone who sued a neighbor over loud music. The defendant offers to build a wall to limit the noise but Sorokin wondered how they could ensure it met the zoning code and was something the defendant could afford.

“What you are telling me is we will do it but, in response to my question, you have no answer how you will do it,” Sorokin said.

LaPlante issued the ruling last week prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit, and a Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.

The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.