judge

Feb. 23 (UPI) — A federal judge in Florida on Monday blocked the public release of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report on his investigation into classified documents held at President Donald Trump‘s Mar-a-Lago estate.

In the order, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Southern District of Florida said Smith’s report should not be made public after she previously ruled that he was illegally appointed to spearhead the case.

In July 2024, she said Smith’s appointment as special counsel by President Joe Biden violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. She took issue with what she described as the “broad power” given to Smith, the “indefinite” appropriate given to the task and his lack of supervision.

Biden appointed Smith to investigate whether Trump — then the former president — mishandled classified documents by storing them at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. Smith’s probe resulted in 41 criminal counts against Trump, but Cannon dismissed the case in 2024.

In her order Monday, she accused Smith of accelerating efforts to prepare the report after her ruling so it could be completed before he left his position in January 2025 upon Trump’s inauguration to a second term. She said Smith used “discover materials generated in this case,” and there was a 2023 protective order preventing the public release of such materials unless approved by a court.

Cannon said she’s also blocking the release of the report because doing so “would cause irreparable damage to former defendants” involved in the case. Also named in the indictment against Trump were his aide, Walton Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker accused of helping Nauta move 30 boxes of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago into a storage room under Trump’s direction.

Smith defended his investigation into the handling of classified documents — and another into Trump’s alleged attempts to interfere with the 2020 election — to Congress in December. He said if given the same evidence, he would charge Trump with crimes again.

“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power,” Smith said.

“Our investigation also developed powerful evidence that showed President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place.”

NEW ORLEANS — A U.S. appeals court has cleared the way for a Louisiana law requiring poster-sized displays of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms to take effect.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 12 to 6 to lift a block that a lower court first placed on the law in 2024. In the opinion released Friday, the court said it was too early to make a judgment call on the constitutionality of the law.

That’s partly because it’s not yet clear how prominently schools may display the religious text, whether teachers will refer to the Ten Commandments during classes or if other texts like the Mayflower Compact or the Declaration of Independence will also be displayed, the majority opinion said.

Without those sorts of details, the panel decided that it did not have enough information to weigh any 1st Amendment issues that might arise from the law. In other words, there aren’t enough facts available to “permit judicial judgment rather than speculation,” the majority wrote in the opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Circuit Judge James Ho, an appointee of President Trump, wrote that the law “is not just constitutional — it affirms our nation’s highest and most noble traditions.”

The six judges who voted against the decision wrote a series of dissents, with some arguing that the law exposes children to government-endorsed religion in a place they are required to be, presenting a clear constitutional burden.

Circuit Judge James L. Dennis, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote that the law “is precisely the kind of establishment the Framers anticipated and sought to prevent.”

The ruling is the result of the court’s choice to rehear the case with all judges present after three of them ruled in June that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional. The reversal comes from one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts, and one that’s known for propelling Republican policies to a similarly conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry celebrated the ruling Friday, declaring, “Common sense is making a comeback!”

The ACLU of Louisiana, one of several groups representing plaintiffs, pledged to explore all legal pathways to continue fighting the law.

Arkansas has a similar law that has been challenged in federal court. And a Texas law took effect on Sept. 1, marking the widest reaching attempt in the nation to hang the Ten Commandments in public schools.

Some Texas school districts were barred from posting them after federal judges issued injunctions in two cases challenging the law, but they have already gone up in many classrooms across the state as districts paid to have the posters printed themselves or accepted donations.

The laws are among pushes by Republicans, including Trump, to incorporate religion into public school classrooms. Critics say doing so violates the separation of church and state, while backers say the Ten Commandments are historical and part of the foundation of U.S. law.

Joseph Davis, an attorney representing Louisiana in the case, applauded the court for upholding the nation’s “time-honored tradition of recognizing faith in the public square.”

Families from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, have challenged the laws, as have clergy members and nonreligious families.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, another group involved in the challenge, called the ruling “extremely disappointing” and said the law will force families “into a game of constitutional whack-a-mole” where they will have to separately challenge each school district’s displays.

Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill said after the ruling that she had sent schools several correct examples of the required poster.

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose.

And in 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.

Schoenbaum and Boone write for the Associated Press.

Britain’s Got Talent returns on Saturday night – but without former Strictly star Bruno Tonioli as he quit the show in 2025 after just two years of service

Britain’s Got Talent fans will notice Bruno Tonioli is missing from the line-up when the show returns to ITV on Saturday night. The former Strictly Come Dancing judge exited the series after just two years.

Head judge Simon Cowell will be joined as usual by presenter Amanda Holden and singer Alesha Dixon as the long-running series returns for a 19th season. And the Bruno-shaped hole has been seamlessly filled by YouTube sensation KSI, who BGT fans will recall appeared on the 2025 season as a guest judge.

Fans of the ITV talent show were surprised when Bruno ditched rival BBC show Strictly to join the panel in 2023, replacing controversial judge David Walliams, who appeared on the panel from 2012 until 2022. After just two years and three seasons of red and golden buzzer bashing, Bruno decided it was time to vacate his Got Talent chair – but reportedly left the show on good terms. Here is a look back at the reason Bruno quit Britain’s Got Talent.

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

READ MORE: Man who struggled to lose weight sheds 7 stone and gets abs after spotting Instagram ad READ MORE: Amanda Holden breaks silence on Celeb Traitors and ‘boring boring’ Strictly names

Why did Bruno Tonioli quit Britain’s Got Talent in 2025?

Despite appearing on BGT for three seasons, Bruno Tonioli is arguably still best known for being a judge on the BBC’s Strictly Come Dancing from 2004 until 2019. The Italian TV star is also a judge on the American version of Strictly – Dancing With The Stars – and has appeared on the panel across the Atlantic since 2005.

While Bruno had been able to balance judging both Strictly and DWTS, the filming schedule for Britain’s Got Talent proved to be too challenging – with clashes ultimately forcing Bruno to walk away. In a statement released last year, Bruno explained why he was leaving the ITV show – and threw his support behind his replacement.

The 70-year-old star said: “After three incredible series, I’ve sadly had to walk away from a job which has opened my eyes to so much incredible talent and step down as a judge on BGT.

“And whilst I look forward to filming a new series of Dancing with the Stars in the US, I will miss the chaos and joy that BGT brings, as well as all the wonderful people I’ve had the privilege of working with. They truly are a brilliant team who make brilliant television, and I know KSI will be a fantastic judge too, as he’s already proven this year.”

Bruno previously opened up to the Daily Mail about the strain the constant travel between the UK and the USA was having on him. He revealed: “There is no animosity, it was a mutual decision with both of us saying, ‘Listen, this is not going to work like it used to.’ I just couldn’t do the flying anymore. I don’t know how I survived that schedule. To be honest, it’s a miracle.”

What has KSI said of replacing Bruno as a BGT judge?

Britain’s Got Talent fans will recall seeing YouTube star and rapper KSI – real name Olajide Olatunji, 32 – filling in for Bruno at certain points during the 2025 season as his busy schedule kept him away from the UK. After wowing audiences as well as the fellow judges, KSI seemed like an obvious choice to take over from Bruno full-time.

The rap star has been enthusiastic about his promotion as a full-time judge – and vowed to help the panel uncover more undisputable talent via the ITV show. He said in a past statement: “I’m so grateful and happy to be a part of Britain’s Got Talent team for another season.”

He added: “I had such a good time last year, and I can’t wait to see some more top talent. I’m full of energy, ready to go, and can’t wait to make this the most entertaining BGT season ever. Let’s do this.”

What has Simon Cowell said about losing Bruno as a judge?

While head judge Simon Cowell, 66, has not explicitly commented on Bruno’s BGT exit, it has been reported that he supported the dance expert’s decision to leave – and consulted his young son Eric, 12, before announcing KSI as a replacement. A source told The Sun last year: “Simon’s been friends with Bruno for over 35 years and loved working with him on BGT.

“It was really tough knowing he had to let Bruno go because they couldn’t get the filming dates to work out with his commitments on Dancing with the Stars. Simon is always looking for new ways to keep the show evolving and loves to get the opinion of his young son. Eric was a big influence for Simon in choosing Bruno’s replacement. He’s obsessed with him and adores him. KSI is Eric’s favourite influencer. Plus, he’s been such a hit as a guest judge, and Simon recognises they need to keep the show different by moving forward to keep attracting the younger audience.”

The source added: “Bruno was popular with the grannies, but KSI is for the youngsters. KSI has a huge social media presence and Simon knows how important it is to keep the show more modern.”

Britain’s Got Talent returns to ITV and ITVX on Saturday night at 7pm.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

RICHMOND, Va. — Democrats passed a new congressional map through the Virginia legislature on Friday that aims to help their party win four more seats in the national redistricting battle. It’s a flex of state Democrats’ political power, however hurdles remain before they can benefit from friendlier U.S. House district boundaries in this year’s midterm elections.

A judge in Tazewell, a conservative area in Southwest Virginia, has effectively blocked a voter referendum on the redrawn maps from happening on April 21 by granting a temporary restraining order, issued Thursday.

Democrats are appealing that decision and another by the same judge, who ruled last month that Democrats illegally rushed the planned voter referendum on their constitutional amendment to allow the remapping. The state’s Supreme Court picked up the party’s appeal of the earlier ruling.

The judge’s order prohibits officials from preparing for the referendum through March 18. But early voting for it was slated to start March 6, meaning Democrats would have to get a favorable court ruling within two weeks to stick with that timeline.

If Democrats get to carry out a referendum, voters will choose whether to temporarily adopt new congressional districts and then return to Virginia’s standard process after the 2030 census. Democrats wanted to publish the new map ahead of the April vote.

President Trump launched an unusual mid-decade redistricting battle last year by pushing Republican officials in Texas to redraw districts to help his party win more seats. The goal was for the GOP to hold on to a narrow House majority in the face of political headwinds that typically favor the party out of power in midterms.

Instead, it created a burst of redistricting efforts nationwide. So far, Republicans believe they can win nine more House seats in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats think they can win six more seats in California and Utah, and are hoping to fully or partially make up the remaining three-seat margin in Virginia.

Democratic lawmakers in Virginia have sought to portray their redistricting push as a response to Trump’s overreach.

“The president of the United States, who apparently only one half of this chamber knows how to stand up to, basically directed states to grab power,” Virginia’s Democratic Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell said in February. “To basically maintain his power indefinitely — to rig the game, rig the system.”

Republicans have sounded aghast. House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore described the remap as a way for liberals in northern Virginia’s Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William counties to commandeer the rest of the state.

“In southwest Virginia, we have this saying … They say, ‘Terry, you do a good job up there, but you know, Virginia stops at Roanoke,” Kilgore previously said, referring to how some people across Virginia’s Appalachian region feel unrepresented in state politics. “That’s not going to be the same saying anymore, because Virginia is now going to stop just a little bit west of Prince William County.”

Virginia is currently represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who ran in districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan legislative commission failed to agree on a map after the 2020 census.

Legislation that would put the Democrats’ more gerrymandered map into effect if voters approve the referendum now awaits the signature of Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who has indicated that she would support it.

“Virginia has the opportunity and responsibility to be responsive in the face of efforts across the country to change maps,” Spanberger said as she approved the referendum.

Democratic candidates are already lining up in anticipation. “Dopesick” author Beth Macy and former U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello launched campaigns in red areas that would be moved into districts with more registered Democrats.

Virginia Del. Dan Helmer and former federal prosecutor J.P. Cooney, who helped investigate Trump and was fired by him, have launched campaigns in a formerly rural district that would now mostly include voters just outside the nation’s capital. And former Democratic congresswoman Elaine Luria is mounting a comeback against Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans, who ousted her in 2022, in a competitive district that the map has made slightly more favorable to Democrats.

Diaz writes for the Associated Press.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Saturday threw out a lawsuit filed by President Trump’s campaign, dismissing its challenges to the battleground state’s poll-watching law and the campaign’s efforts to limit how mail-in ballots can be collected and which of them can be counted.

Elements of the ruling by U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan could be appealed by Trump’s campaign, with just over three weeks to go until election day in a state hotly contested by Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

The lawsuit was opposed by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration, the state Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP’s Pennsylvania office and other allied groups.

“The court’s decision today affirms what we’ve long known, that Pennsylvania’s elections are safe, secure and accurate, and residents can vote on Nov. 3 with confidence that their votes will be counted and their voices heard,” Wolf’s office said in a statement.

“The ruling is a complete rejection of the continued misinformation about voter fraud and corruption and those who seek to sow chaos and discord ahead of the upcoming election,” the statement added.

However, Trump’s campaign indicated in a statement that it would appeal and looked forward to a quick decision “that will further protect Pennsylvania voters from the Democrats’ radical voting system.”

The lawsuit is one of many partisan battles being fought in the state Legislature and the courts over mail-in voting amid the prospect that a presidential election result could be delayed for days by a drawn-out vote count in Pennsylvania.

In this case, Trump’s campaign wanted the court to bar counties from collecting mail ballots using drop boxes or mobile sites that are not “staffed, secured and employed consistently within and across all 67 of Pennsylvania’s counties.”

More than 20 counties — including Philadelphia and most other heavily populated Democratic-leaning counties — have told the state elections office that they plan to use drop boxes and satellite election offices to help collect mail-in ballots.

Trump’s campaign also wanted the court to free county election officials to disqualify mail-in ballots where the voter’s signature may not match their signature on file and to remove a county residency requirement for poll watchers.

In guidance last month, Wolf’s top elections official told counties that state law does not require or permit them to reject a mail-in ballot solely over a perceived signature inconsistency.

The Trump campaign had asked Ranjan to declare that guidance unconstitutional and to block counties from following it.

In throwing out the case, Ranjan wrote that the Trump campaign could not prove its central claim that election fraud in Pennsylvania threatened to cost Trump the election and that adopting the changes the campaign sought would remove that threat.

“While plaintiffs may not need to prove actual voter fraud, they must at least prove that such fraud is ‘certainly impending,’” Ranjan wrote. “They haven’t met that burden. At most, they have pieced together a sequence of uncertain assumptions.”

Ranjan also cited decisions in recent days by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in hot-button election cases, saying he should not second-guess decisions by state lawmakers and election officials.

The decision comes as Trump claims he can’t lose the state unless Democrats cheat, and, as he did in the 2016 campaign, suggests that the Democratic bastion of Philadelphia needs to be watched closely for election fraud.

Democrats counter that Trump is running on a conspiracy theory of election fraud because he cannot win on his own record of fraud and mismanagement.

Mahdawi, a Palestinian student activist, faced deportation proceedings amid a protest crackdown under the Trump administration.

An immigration judge in the United States has ruled against an attempt under President Donald Trump to deport Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student arrested last year for his protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The decision, issued on February 13, became public as part of court filings on Tuesday from Mahdawi’s lawyers.

The filing was submitted to a federal appeals court in New York, which has been considering a challenge from the Trump administration against Mahdawi’s release from custody.

In a public statement released through the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Mahdawi thanked the immigration court for its decision, which he framed as a strike in favour of free-speech rights.

“I am grateful to the court for honoring the rule of law and holding the line against the government’s attempts to trample on due process,” Mahdawi said. “This decision is an important step towards upholding what fear tried to destroy: the right to speak for peace and justice.”

But the ACLU indicated that the immigration court’s decision was made “without prejudice”, a legal term that means the Trump administration could refile its case against Mahdawi.

Raised in a Palestinian refugee camp in the occupied West Bank, Mahdawi is a lawful permanent resident who has lived in Vermont for 10 years.

He enrolled at Columbia, a prestigious Ivy League university, to study philosophy. But he was also a visible member of the campus’s activist community, founding a Palestinian student society alongside fellow student Mahmoud Khalil.

Columbia became a hub for pro-Palestinian protests in 2024, and Trump campaigned for re-election, in part, on cracking down on the demonstrations.

Khalil became the first student protester to be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in March of last year, less than three months into Trump’s second term.

Then, on April 14, Mahdawi was arrested at a meeting set up by the government, allegedly to process his citizenship application.

ICE detained him in “direct retaliation for his advocacy of Palestinian rights”, the ACLU said in a statement at the time.

The Trump administration attempted to transfer Mahdawi out of state to Louisiana, but a court order ultimately blocked it from doing so.

Mahdawi was ultimately released on April 30, after US Judge Geoffrey Crawford accused the Trump administration of doing “great harm” to someone who had committed no crime.

Human rights advocates have described the Trump administration’s attempts to deport foreign-born student activists as a campaign to chill free speech.

After his release last year, Mahdawi walked out of the court with both hands in the air, flashing peace signs as supporters greeted him with cheers.

As he spoke, he shared a message for Trump. “I am not afraid of you,” Mahdawi said to Trump.

He also addressed the people of Palestine and sought to dispel perceptions that the student protest movement was anything but peaceful.

“We are pro-peace and antiwar,” Mahdawi explained. “To my people in Palestine: I feel your pain, I see your suffering, and I see freedom, and it is very soon.”

Mahdawi’s arrest comes as part of a wider push by the Trump administration to target visa holders and permanent residents for their pro-Palestine advocacy.

Trump has also pressured top universities to crack down on pro-Palestine protests in the name of combating anti-Semitism. In some cases, the Trump administration has opened investigations into campuses where pro-Palestinian protests were prominent, accusing them of civil rights violations.

Last July, Columbia University entered into a $200m settlement with the Trump administration, with a further $21m given to end a probe into allegations of religious-based harassment.

The university, however, did not admit to wrongdoing.

Judge states Trump administration has made ‘one empty threat after another’ to deport Salvadoran national to Africa.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of US President Donald Trump cannot re-detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was wrongfully deported last year and who the federal government has sought to deport again.

US District Judge Paula Xinis stated on Tuesday that a 90-day detention period had passed without the administration presenting a workable plan to deport Abrego Garcia, whose lawyers say he is being punished because his wrongful detention embarrassed the government.

Xinis said that the government “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success”.

“From this, the court easily concludes that there is no ‘good reason to believe’ removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future,” he added.

The ruling is a victory for Abrego Garcia, who has been fighting his attempted deportation by US immigration authorities who have tried to send him to African nations such as Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia. Abrego Garcia was released from an immigration detention facility in December.

His wrongful deportation to El Salvador, where he was held in a prison known for poor conditions and widespread abuse, became an early flashpoint in the Trump administration’s push to deport non-citizens from the US, often with few efforts to abide by due process requirements. The Trump administration had also accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of the criminal group MS-13, without offering any evidence.

His mistaken deportation prompted widespread anger and calls for the Trump administration to bring him back to the US. After initially stating that it had no authority to do so, the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back to the US in June following a court order mandating his return. It has since charged him with human smuggling, an allegation that he denies.

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a Trump administration order slashing $600 million in federal grant funding for HIV programs in California and three other states, finding merit in the states’ argument that the move was politically motivated by disagreements over unrelated state sanctuary policies.

U.S. District Judge Manish Shah, an Obama appointee in Illinois, found that California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota were likely to succeed in arguing that President Trump and other administration officials targeted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for termination “based on arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional rationales.”

Namely, Shah wrote that while Trump administration officials said the programs were cut for breaking with CDC priorities, other “recent statements” by officials “plausibly suggest that the reason for the direction is hostility to what the federal government calls ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ or ‘sanctuary cities.’”

Shah found that the states had shown they would “suffer irreparable harm” from the cuts, and that the public interest would not be harmed by temporarily halting them — and as a result granted the states a temporary restraining order halting the administration’s action for 14 days while the litigation continues.

Shah wrote that while he may not have jurisdiction to block a simple grant termination, he did have jurisdiction to halt an administration directive to terminate funding based on unconstitutional grounds.

“More factual development is necessary and it may be that the only government action at issue is termination of grants for which I have no jurisdiction to review,” Shah wrote. “But as discussed, plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that defendants issued internal guidance to terminate public-health grants for unlawful reasons; that guidance is enjoined as the parties develop a record.”

The cuts targeted a slate of programs aimed at tracking and curtailing HIV and other disease outbreaks, including one of California’s main early-warning systems for HIV outbreaks, state and local officials said. Some were oriented toward serving the LGBTQ+ community. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said California faced “the largest share” of the cuts.

The White House said the cuts were to programs that “promote DEI and radical gender ideology,” while federal health officials said the programs in question did not reflect the CDC’s “priorities.”

Bonta cheered Shah’s order in a statement, saying he and his fellow attorneys general who sued are “confident that the facts and the law favor a permanent block of these reckless and illegal funding cuts.”

A United States judge has granted an injunction preventing the Department of Defense from stripping Senator Mark Kelly, a military veteran, of his retirement pension and military rank.

The Defense Department had taken punitive action against Kelly for critical statements he had made against President Donald Trump.

But on Thursday, Judge Richard J Leon, an appointee of Republican President George W Bush, issued a forceful rebuke, accusing the Trump administration of trying to stifle veterans’ free speech rights.

Leon directed much of his ruling at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a senior Trump official who announced on January 5 that Kelly would be censured for what he characterised as “seditious” statements.

“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote.

“If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights!”

History of the case

Thursday’s decision comes after Kelly, a Democratic member of Congress, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on January 12, alleging “punitive retribution”.

He had drawn the Trump administration’s ire with several public statements questioning the president’s military decisions.

Kelly, who represents the swing state of Arizona, had condemned the administration for sending military troops to quell protests in Los Angeles in June 2025.

Then, in November, he was also one of six former members of the US’s military and intelligence communities to participate in a video reminding current service members of their duty to “refuse illegal orders”.

That video quickly attracted Trump’s attention, and the president issued a string of social media posts threatening imprisonment and even the death penalty.

“This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP?” Trump wrote in one post.

In another, he suggested a harsher punishment: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Shortly thereafter, the Defense Department announced it had launched an investigation into the video and Kelly specifically, given his role as a retired Navy captain.

Hegseth accused Kelly of using “his rank and service affiliation” to discredit the US armed forces, and he echoed Trump’s claims that the video was “reckless and seditious”.

His decision to pen a formal letter of censure against Kelly prompted the senator to sue.

Such a letter serves as a procedural step towards lowering Kelly’s military rank at the time of his retirement, as well as curbing his post-military benefits.

But Kelly argued that such punishment would serve to dampen the rights of veterans to participate in political discourse – and would additionally hinder his work as a member of Congress.

An exclamation-filled ruling

In Thursday’s ruling, Judge Leon determined that Kelly was likely to prevail on the merits of his case – and, citing the folk singer Bob Dylan, he added that it was easy to see why.

“This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” Leon said in his often quippy ruling.

“After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, ‘You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.’”

Leon acknowledged that granting an injunction against the government is an “extraordinary remedy”. But he argued it was necessary, given the gravity of the case.

The judge conceded that the Defense Department does have the ability to restrict the speech of active-service military members, given the need for discipline among troops.

But the Trump administration argued in its court filings that those restrictions extended to retired military veterans as well.

Leon, however, dismissed that assertion with the verbal equivalent of a snort: “Horsefeathers!”

“Speech from retired servicemembers – even speech opining on the lawfulness of military
operations – does not threaten ‘obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps’ in the same way as speech from active-duty soldiers,” Leon wrote.

“Nor can speech from retired servicemembers ‘undermine the effectiveness of response to command’ as directly as speech from active-duty soldiers.”

Leon also acknowledged that Kelly’s role as a lawmaker in Congress compounded the harms from any attempts to curtail his free-speech rights.

“If legislators do not feel free to express their views and the views of their constituents without fear of reprisal by the Executive, our representative system of Government cannot function!” he wrote, in one of his many exclamatory statements.

The judge was also harshly critical of the Trump administration’s arguments that Kelly’s rank and retirement benefits were solely a military matter, not a judicial one.

Leon described Hegseth’s letter of censure as making Kelly’s punishment a “fait accompli” – a foregone conclusion – given that such a document cannot be appealed and could itself serve as the basis for a demotion.

“Here, the retaliation framework fits like a glove,” Leon said, appearing to validate the crux of Kelly’s lawsuit.

At another point, he rejected the government’s arguments by saying, “Put simply, Defendants’ response is anemic!”

The injunction he offered, though, is temporary and will last only until the lawsuit reaches a resolution.

Trump administration responds

In the wake of the injunction, Kelly took to social media to say the short-term victory was a win for all military veterans.

“Today a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said,” Kelly said in a video statement.

“But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they, too, can be censured or demoted just for speaking out.”

He added that the US faces a “critical moment” in its history, warning of the erosion of fundamental rights.

Kelly then proceeded to accuse the Trump administration of “cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples of anybody they can”. He also acknowledged that the legal showdown had only just begun.

“I appreciate the judge’s careful consideration of this case,” Kelly said. “But I also know that this might not be over yet, because this president and this administration do not know how to admit when they’re wrong.”

Within a couple of hours of Kelly’s post, Hegseth himself shared a message on social media, confirming that the Trump administration would forge ahead with contesting Thursday’s decision.

“This will be immediately appealed,” Hegseth said of the injunction. “Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain.’”

Kelly is considered a Democratic contender for the presidency in 2028.

Lawyers say immigration judge found that the Department of Homeland Security failed to prove the Tufts student should be removed from the US.

A judge in the United States has blocked the deportation of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish Tufts University student who was arrested last year as part of a crackdown on pro-Palestinian activists, according to her lawyers.

Ozturk’s lawyers detailed the decision in a letter filed at the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.

They said the immigration judge concluded on January 29 that the US Department of Homeland Security had not met its burden of proving she was removable and terminated the proceedings against her.

Ozturk, a PhD student studying children’s relationship to social media, was arrested last March while walking down a street as the administration of US President Donald Trump began targeting foreign-born students and activists involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

Video showed masked agents handcuffing her and putting her into an unmarked vehicle.

The sole basis authorities provided for revoking her visa was an editorial she co-authored in Tufts’ student newspaper a year earlier, criticising her university’s response to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

A petition to release her was first filed in federal court in Boston, where Tufts is located, and then moved to the city of Burlington in Vermont. In May of last year, a federal judge ordered her immediate release after finding she raised a substantial claim that her detention constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of her free speech rights.

Ozturk, who spent 45 days in a detention centre in southern Louisiana, has been back on the Tufts campus since.

The federal government appealed her release to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The January 29 decision, however, ends those proceedings for now.

Ozturk said it was heartening to know that some justice can prevail.

“Today, I breathe a sigh of relief knowing that despite the justice system’s flaws, my case may give hope to those who have also been wronged by the US government,” she said in a statement released by her lawyers.

Ozturk’s immigration lawyer, Mahsa Khanbabai, said the decision was issued by Immigration Judge Roopal Patel in Boston.

Patel’s decision is not itself public, and the Trump administration could challenge it ‌before the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the US Department of Justice.

Khanbabai hailed Patel’s decision, while slamming what she called the Trump administration’s weaponisation of the US immigration system to target “valued members of our society”.

“It has manipulated immigration laws to silence people who advocate for Palestinian human rights and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” she said. “With this ruling, Judge Patel has delivered justice for Rumeysa; now, I hope that other immigration judges will follow her lead and decline to rubber-stamp the president’s cruel deportation agenda.”

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in a statement that Judge Patel’s decision reflected “judicial activism”.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem “has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can ‌come to America and hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism – think again”.

The video of Ozturk’s arrest in the Boston suburb of Somerville was widely shared, turning her case into one of the highest-profile instances of the effort by Trump’s administration to deport non-citizen students with pro-Palestinian views.

Separately, a federal judge in Boston last month ruled that Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had adopted an unlawful policy of detaining and deporting scholars like Ozturk that chilled the free speech of non-citizen academics at universities.

The Justice Department on Monday moved to appeal that decision.

A federal judge on Monday struck down a new California law that banned federal immigration agents and other law enforcement officers from wearing masks in the state, but an effort already is underway to revive the statute.

U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder in Los Angeles ruled that the No Secret Police Act does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers because it excludes state law enforcement, and therefore “unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”

But, Snyder said, the ban does not impede federal officers from performing their federal functions, indicating that a revised law that remedies that discrimination may be constitutional.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the author of the legislation, on Monday proposed a new prohibition on mask-wearing by all law enforcement officers in California, a change he argued would bring the ban into compliance with Snyder’s ruling.

Wiener said he will immediately file his updated bill in order to unmask U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents conducting unconstitutional enforcement in the state as soon as possible.

“We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop,” Wiener said, calling Snyder’s ruling a “huge win.”

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who sued California to block the law from taking effect, cast the ruling in starkly different terms, as a win for the federal government and immigration agents doing a difficult job under intense scrutiny.

“ANOTHER key court victory thanks to our outstanding [Justice Department] attorneys,” Bondi wrote on X.

“Following our arguments, a district court in California BLOCKED the enforcement of a law that would have banned federal agents from wearing masks to protect their identities,” Bondi wrote. “These federal agents are harassed, doxxed, obstructed, and attacked on a regular basis just for doing their jobs.”

Wiener helped push two new California laws last year — the No Secret Police Act and the No Vigilantes Act — in the wake of intense and aggressive immigration enforcement by masked ICE and other federal agents in California and around the country.

The No Secret Police Act banned local law enforcement officers, officers from other states and federal law enforcement personnel from wearing masks except in specific circumstances — such as in tactical, SWAT or undercover operations. It did not apply those restrictions on California’s state law enforcement officers.

The No Vigilantes Act required any law enforcement officer operating in California to visibly display identification, including the name of their agency and their name or badge number, except in undercover and other specific scenarios.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measures into law in September, though the state agreed to not enforce the measures against federal agents in the state while the Justice Department’s challenge was heard in court.

In her ruling Monday, Snyder blocked only the ban on masking by federal agents, and on seemingly narrow grounds.

Snyder said that the court “finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks. However, because the No Secret Police Act, as presently enacted, does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers in the state, it unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”

“Because such discrimination violates the Supremacy Clause, the Court is constrained to enjoin the facial covering prohibition,” she wrote.

Weiner said it was “hard to overstate how important this ruling is for our efforts to ensure full accountability for ICE and Border Patrol’s terror campaign.”

Wiener said he and colleagues had crafted the No Secret Police Act in consultation with constitutional law experts, but had “removed state police from the bill” based on conversations with Newsom’s office.

“Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers,” Wiener said. “I will do everything in my power to expedite passage of this adjustment to the No Secret Police Act.”

He said ICE and Customs and Border Protection officers were “covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability. We won’t let them get away with it.”

Wiener is also pushing new legislation — called the No Kings Act — that would allow people in California to sue federal agents for violating their rights. Democrats in Congress are also demanding that immigration agents stop wearing masks as a condition for extending Department of Homeland Security funding.

In response to Wiener’s suggestion that he had removed state officers from the bill based on conversations with the governor’s office, Newsom’s office posted on X that Wiener “rejected our proposed fixes to his bill” and “chose a different approach, and today the court found his approach unlawful.”

In a separate statement, Newsom hailed Snyder’s upholding the identification requirement for officers as “a clear win for the rule of law.”

“No badge and no name mean no accountability. California will keep standing up for civil rights and our democracy.”

Bondi said her office would continue defending federal agents from such state action.

“We will continue fighting and winning in court for President Trump’s law-and-order agenda — and we will ALWAYS have the backs of our great federal law enforcement officers,” she said.

Feb. 7 (Asia Today) — A presiding judge at the Changwon District Court has been summarily indicted on suspicion of violating South Korea’s anti-graft law, prosecutors said Friday, days after he issued acquittals in a high-profile political funding case.

Legal sources said the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office filed a summary indictment against Judge Kim In-taek on Wednesday for alleged violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

Kim is accused of receiving luxury clothing worth several million won (several thousand dollars) last year from a duty-free shop employee identified only as a team leader surnamed A at HDC Shilla Duty Free. Prosecutors are also examining allegations that the employee covered expenses for an overseas trip taken with Kim.

Under the anti-graft law, public officials including judges who receive valuables exceeding 1 million won (about $681) in a single instance can face up to three years in prison or a fine of up to 30 million won (about $20,438).

On Thursday, Kim acquitted political broker Myung Tae-gyun and former People Power Party lawmaker Kim Young-sun of charges related to alleged political funding violations, ruling that money exchanged between them did not constitute political funds, according to the report. In the same case, the court convicted Myung of inducing the concealment of evidence and sentenced him to six months in prison, suspended for one year.

Kim is scheduled to transfer to the Suwon District Court on Feb. 23 under the judiciary’s regular personnel rotation.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260207010002588

NEW YORK — A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore funding to a new rail tunnel between New York and New Jersey, ruling just as construction was set to shut down and amid reports that President Trump was withholding the money unless Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer saw to it that Penn Station and Washington Dulles International Airport were renamed in the president’s honor.

The administration had sought to pressure Schumer (D-N.Y.) to help get the facilities renamed for Trump in exchange for releasing the money to fund the massive infrastructure project, according to the New York Times, citing top administration officials.

The judge’s decision Friday came months after the administration announced it was halting $16 billion in support for the project, citing the then-government shutdown and what a top federal budget official said were concerns about unconstitutional spending around diversity, equity and inclusion principles.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas in Manhattan approved a request by New York and New Jersey for a temporary restraining order barring the administration from withholding the funds while the states seek a preliminary injunction that would keep the money flowing while their lawsuit plays out in court.

“The Court is also persuaded that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs have adequately shown that the public interest would be harmed by a delay in a critical infrastructure project.”

The White House and the Department of Transportation did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Friday night.

New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James called the ruling “a critical victory for workers and commuters in New York and New Jersey.”

“I am grateful the court acted quickly to block this senseless funding freeze, which threatened to derail a project our entire region depends on,” James said in a statement. “The Hudson Tunnel Project is one of the most important infrastructure projects in the nation, and we will keep fighting to ensure construction can continue without unnecessary federal interference.”

The panel overseeing the project, the Gateway Development Commission, had said work would stop late Friday afternoon because of the federal funding freeze, resulting in the immediate loss of about 1,000 jobs as well as thousands of additional jobs in the future.

It was not immediately clear when work would resume. In a nighttime statement, the commission said: “As soon as funds are released, we will work quickly to restart site operations and get our workers back on the job.”

The new tunnel is meant to ease strain on an existing one that is more than 110 years old and connects New York and New Jersey for Amtrak and commuter trains, where delays can lead to backups up and down the East Coast.

New York and New Jersey sued over the funding pause this week, as did the Gateway Development Commission, moving to restore the Trump administration’s support.

The suspension was seen as a way for the Trump administration to put pressure on Schumer, whom the White House was blaming for a government shutdown last year. The shutdown was resolved a few weeks later.

Speaking to the media on Air Force One, Trump was asked about reports that he would unfreeze funding for the tunnel project if Schumer would agree to a plan to rename Penn Station in New York and Dulles International Airport in Virginia after the president.

“Chuck Schumer suggested that to me, about changing the name of Penn Station to Trump Station. Dulles airport is really separate,” Trump responded.

Schumer responded on social media: “Absolute lie. He knows it. Everyone knows it. Only one man can restart the project and he can restart it with the snap of his fingers.”

At a hearing in the states’ lawsuit earlier in Manhattan, Shankar Duraiswamy of the New Jersey attorney general’s office told the judge that the states need “urgent relief” because of the harm and costs that will occur if the project is stopped.

“There is literally a massive hole in the earth in North Bergen,” he said, referring to the New Jersey city and claiming that abandoning the sites, even temporarily, “would pose a substantial safety and public health threat.”

Duraiswamy said the problem with shutting down now is that even a short stoppage would cause longer delays because workers would be laid off and go off to other jobs and it would be hard to quickly remobilize if funding becomes available. And, he added, “any long-term suspension of funding could torpedo the project.”

Tara Schwartz, an assistant U.S. attorney arguing for the government, disagreed with the “parade of horribles” described by attorneys for the states.

She said that the states had not even made clear how long the sites could be maintained by the Gateway Development Commission. So the judge asked Duraiswamy, and he said they could maintain the sites for a few weeks and possibly a few months, but that the states would continue to suffer irreparable harm because trains would continue to run late because they rely on an outdated tunnel.

Izaguirre and Collins write for the Associated Press and reported from New York and Hartford, Conn.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Three-time Grammy Award winner Bad Bunny will headline the Super Bowl LX halftime show.

It will be Bad Bunny’s second Super Bowl halftime show performance after he made a guest appearance with Jennifer Lopez and Shakira during the 2020 Super Bowl halftime show.

“What I’m feeling goes beyond myself. It’s for those who came before me and ran countless yards so I could come in and score a touchdown,” Bad Bunny — whose real name is Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio — said in a statement, noting that “this is for my people, my culture and our history.”

Jay-Z’s Roc Nation, which has partnered with the NFL on halftime shows since 2019, will again produce the show.

Most Super Bowl halftime shows include special guest artists, but no one has been officially confirmed by Roc Nation or the NFL.

WASHINGTON — A government lawyer who told a judge that her job “sucks” during a court hearing stemming from the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota has been removed from her Justice Department post, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Julie Le had been working for the Justice Department on a detail, but the U.S. attorney in Minnesota ended her assignment after her comments in court on Tuesday, the person said. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter. She had been working for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before the temporary assignment.

At a hearing Tuesday in St. Paul, Minn., for several immigration cases, Le told U.S. District Judge Jerry Blackwell that she wishes he could hold her in contempt of court “so that I can have a full 24 hours of sleep.”

“What do you want me to do? The system sucks. This job sucks. And I am trying every breath that I have so that I can get you what you need,” Le said, according to a transcript.

Le’s extraordinary remarks reflect the intense strain that has been placed on the federal court system since President Trump returned to the White House a year ago with a promise to carry out mass deportations. ICE officials have said the surge in Minnesota has become its largest-ever immigration operation since ramping up in early January.

Several prosecutors have left the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota amid frustration with the immigration enforcement surge and the Justice Department’s response to fatal shootings of two civilians by federal agents. Le was assigned at least 88 cases in less than a month, according to online court records.

Blackwell told Le that the volume of cases isn’t an excuse for disregarding court orders. He expressed concern that people arrested in immigration enforcement operations are routinely jailed for days after judges have ordered their release from custody.

“And I hear the concerns about all the energy that this is causing the DOJ to expend, but, with respect, some of it is of your own making by not complying with orders,” the judge told Le.

Le said she was working for the Department of Homeland Security as an ICE attorney in immigration court before she “stupidly” volunteered to work the detail in Minnesota. Le told the judge that she wasn’t properly trained for the assignment. She said she wanted to resign from the job but couldn’t get a replacement.

“Fixing a system, a broken system, I don’t have a magic button to do it. I don’t have the power or the voice to do it,” she said.

Le and spokespeople for DHS, ICE and the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment.

Kira Kelley, an attorney who represented two petitioners at the hearing, said the flood of immigration petitions is necessary because of “so many people being detained without any semblance of a lawful basis.”

“And there’s no indication here that any new systems or bolded e-mails or any instructions to ICE are going to fix any of this,” she added.

Kunzelman and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Feb. 3 (UPI) — A federal judge denied bail for Anthony Kazmierczak, who is accused of disrupting a town hall by Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., in Minneapolis on Jan. 27 by spraying her with water and vinegar.

U.S. District Court of Minnesota Magistrate Judge David Schultz on Tuesday denied a motion by Kazmierczak, 55, to be released from custody while his case is active.

He is charged with assaulting and interfering with a member of Congress when he approached Omar, 43, while she stood at a lectern and used a plastic syringe to spray her midsection with what later was determined to be a mixture of apple cider vinegar and water.

He could be sentenced to a year in prison if he is convicted.

Kazmierczak interrupted Omar after she called for Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem to resign and accused the congresswoman of “splitting Minnesotans apart.”

Omar’s security staff tackled Kazmierczak and kept him detained until local police arrived to arrest him.

An FBI affidavit indicates that Kazmierczak has a history of making threatening comments toward Omar and years ago allegedly suggested “somebody should kill her.”

He also has been arrested many times during the past 40 years and was convicted in 1989 on a felony charge for vehicle theft.

Omar was born in Somalia and spent part of her childhood in a refugee camp in Kenya before her family migrated to the United States in the 1990s.

The congresswoman is a central figure in allegations of widespread fraud among the Somali community in Minneapolis and other parts of Minnesota.

President Donald Trump has accused Omar of profiting from the fraud and suggested that she have her citizenship status revoked.

He also wants Omar to be jailed and deported for alleged fraud after she recently reported her family has up to $30 million in assets, despite reporting a much lower amount two years ago.

On Tuesday, the president on social media posted a photo of U.S. forces striking ISIS and Somali leaders in a cave in Somalia in February 2025.

He prefaced the photo with the question: “Was Ilhan Omar there to protect her corrupt ‘homeland?'”

Omar also is a prominent opponent of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection efforts to remove “undocumented migrants” from the United States.

Omar became a U.S. citizen in 2000 and is the first Somali-American to be elected to Congress.

Feb. 2 (UPI) — A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitians in the United States, allowing at least half a million people from the island nation to remain in the country.

Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a temporary stay for more than 500,000 people from Haiti, who have fled their home country because of the ongoing dangerous instability there, The New York Times and the Guardian reported.

In her 83-page decision, Reyes called the Trump administration’s justification for ending the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program for people from Haiti is flawed, noting that it ignores that “TPS holders already live here, and legally so.”

Congress created the TPS program in 1990 to provide protection for foreign nationals who are in the United States until their countries are safe to return to — be it because of natural disasters, armed conflicts or other dangerous situations — according to a 2025 report from the Congressional Research Service.

Based on current law, the Secretary of Homeland Security can designate people from countries experiencing some type of dangerous circumstances for at least 6 to 18 months, but can extend the time frame based on conditions in these people’s home countries.

As of March 2025, there were more than 1.3 million people in the United States granted TPS status from 17 countries, CRS reported.

Over the course of 2025, however, DHS has revoked TPS status for at least seven of the countries since President Donald Trump was inaugurated back into office in January 2025.

TPS protection for Haitians in the United States, as well as employment authorization, is scheduled to end on Tuesday, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website, but Reyes’ ruling puts that on hold for an unknown period of time.

Monday’s ruling comes on the heels of three judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week ruling against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s efforts to end TPS protection not only for people in the U.S. from Haiti, but also from Venezuela.

On Monday evening, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Axios that the administration would appeal the ruling.

“Supreme Court, here we come,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. “Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from an activist judge legislating from the bench.”

Making his first major post-arrest television interview Monday on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” Don Lemon detailed the moments surrounding his incarceration and his experience as a journalist becoming the center of a news story.

“There’s a lot that I cannot say,” Lemon told Kimmel. “But what I will say is that I’m not a protester. I went there to be a journalist. I went there to chronicle and document and record what was happening … I do think that there is a difference between a protester and a journalist.”

The appearance arrived less than a week after the former CNN anchor — now an independent journalist who hosts a YouTube show — was arrested by federal agents in Los Angeles following his coverage of an anti-ICE protest at a Minnesota church earlier this month. Lemon, 59, was released without bond Friday and is expected to plead not guilty, according to his attorneys.

On Monday’s show, Kimmel began the conversation by asking Lemon how he was feeling: “I don’t know — that’s an honest answer,” Lemon said. “I’m OK. I’m not going to let them steal my joy, but this is very serious. These are federal criminal charges.”

Lemon was arrested — along with three others in attendance at the protest — at the direction of Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who said on X that it was in connection to what she described as a “coordinated attack” on the church, located in St. Paul. Lemon is charged with conspiracy to deprive the church congregants of their rights and interfering by force with someone’s First Amendment rights. Lemon has denied participating in the protest at the church — assembled to decry that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field officer apparently serves as a pastor there — saying he was present in a journalistic capacity.

Playfully acknowledging that he hasn’t been a favorite of President Trump’s since his time on CNN, Lemon said he hadn’t been concerned about his possible arrest — even with a re-post by Trump calling for it — until it gained steam by members of Trump’s cabinet, including Bondi and Todd Blanche, the U.S. deputy attorney general. Lemon said that after retaining a lawyer and volunteering to turn himself in to handle the matter without fanfare, he “never heard back from them.”

“That is customary in a situation like this, that someone would be allowed to turn themselves in,” Lemon said. “People who are who are accused of much worse things than I am accused of doing, they are allowed the courtesy. I mean, Donald Trump was allowed the courtesy to turn himself in …”

Lemon went on to detail the moments leading up to his arrest Thursday, which came after a night of covering a Grammys event for the Black Music Collective and attending a post-party celebration.

“I got back to the hotel, I walked in with my swag bag from the thing … and I pressed the elevator button and all of a sudden I feel myself being jostled, people trying to grab me and put me in handcuffs,” he recounted. “And I said, ‘What are you doing here?’ And they said, ‘We came to arrest you.’ I said, ‘Who are you?’ Then finally they identified themselves. And I said, ‘If you are who you are, then where’s the warrant?’ And they didn’t have a warrant, so they had to wait for the someone from outside, an FBI guy, to come in to show me a warrant on a cell phone … They took me outside FBI guys were out there. It had to be maybe a dozen people, which is a waste, Jimmy, of resources … They want to embarrass you. They want to intimidate you. They want to instill fear.”

He said he hadn’t realized how much attention his arrest had generated until he saw CNN broadcasting the story on a TV monitor where he was being held.

“I could see ‘Former CNN anchor Don Lemon arrested in Los Angeles,’” he said. “I said to the guy, ‘Is that happening a lot?’ He goes, ‘You’ve been on all morning, yeah. And he says, ‘This is a big deal.’”

During the conversation, Kimmel criticized what he felt was a lack of attention to the recent search by FBI agents of the home of a Washington Post reporter who covers the federal government. Lemon, who parted ways with CNN in 2023, attributed it to a fear among the leaders of corporate press enterprises.

“Corporate media has been neutered right now. They are afraid, and that’s the reason I’m so happy with what I do, because I’m closer to the ground,” he said. “This is not time for folly. It’s not time for false equivalence, and putting people on television and on news programs, giving them a platform, who come on just to lie. …. Some things are objectively bad and I think its important in this time to point that out.”

Lemon hitting the late-night circuit intensifies its spotlight as a free-speech battleground. The Trump era has prompted more pointed and passionate takes from most of the major hosts that, in turn, have captured the attention and ire of the president, who has provoked threats against them and their broadcasters.

Last year, CBS announced it was canceling “The Late Show” after a three-decade run — a decision the company attributed to financial reasons and not, as many have speculated, because of host Stephen Colbert’s criticism of a settlement between the Trump administration and Paramount, the parent company of CBS, over a 2024 “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

More recently, Kimmel faced a brief suspension last fall over comments regarding the killing of right-wing activist and influencer Charlie Kirk (ABC ultimately reinstated Kimmel following public backlash.) In fact, Lemon referenced that situation prior to his arrest, when a judge dismissed prosectors’ initial charging effort: “This is not a victory lap for me because it’s not over. They’re gonna try again,” Lemon told his followers on his YouTube show after the judge’s ruling. “Go ahead, make me into the new Jimmy Kimmel, if you want.”

Last Friday, addressing a crowd outside the courthouse upon his release, Lemon said, “There is no more important time than right now, this very moment, for a free and independent media that shines a light on the truth and holds those in power accountable. I will not stop now, I will not stop ever.”

Five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father, who were detained by immigration officers in Minnesota and held at an ICE facility in Texas, have been released a day after judge’s order, which excoriated the Trump administration for its conduct in the case. They have returned to Minnesota, according to the office of Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro.

The two were detained in a Minneapolis suburb on Jan. 20. He and his father were taken to a detention facility in Dilley, Texas.

Katherine Schneider, a spokesperson for Castro, a Democrat, confirmed that the two had arrived home. She said Castro picked them up from Dilley on Saturday night and escorted them home Sunday to Minnesota.

The Associated Press emailed the Department of Homeland Security for comment on the father and son’s release. There was no immediate response.

Images of the young boy wearing a bunny hat and Spider-Man backpack and surrounded by immigration officers drew outrage about the Trump administration’s crackdown in Minneapolis.

Neighbors and school officials say that federal immigration officers used the preschooler as “bait” by telling him to knock on the door to his house so that his mother would answer. The Department of Homeland Security has rejected that description. It said the father fled on foot and left the boy in a running vehicle in their driveway.

Castro wrote a letter to Liam while they were on the plane to Minnesota, in which he told the young boy he has “moved the world.”

“Your family, school and many strangers said prayers for you and offered whatever they could do to see you back home,” Castro wrote. A photo of the letter was posted on social media. “Don’t let anyone tell you this isn’t your home. America became the most powerful, prosperous nation on earth because of immigrants not in spite of them.”

In a social media post, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) welcomed the boy back to Minnesota, saying that he “should be in school and with family — not in detention,” adding, “Now ICE needs to leave.”

Jan. 31 (UPI) — Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul lost their bid to have a federal court order the Department of Homeland Security to end its immigration enforcement effort in the state.

U.S. District Court of Minnesota Judge Katherine Menendez on Saturday denied a motion to enjoin the federal government from continuing its immigration law enforcement surge in the Twin Cities.

“Even if the likelihood of success on the merits and the balance of harms each weighed more clearly in favor of plaintiffs, the court would still likely be unable to grant the relief requested: An injunction suspending Operation Metro Surge,” Menendez wrote in her 30-page ruling.

She cited a recent federal appellate court ruling that affirmed the federal government has the right to enforce federal laws over the objections of others.

“The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a much more circumscribed injunction, which limited one aspect of the ongoing operation, namely the way immigration officers interacted with protesters and observers,” Menedez said.

“The injunction in that case was not only much narrower than the one proposed here, but it was based on more settled precedent than that which underlies the claims now before the court,” she explained.

“Nonetheless, the court of appeals determined that the injunction would cause irreparable harm to the government because it would hamper their efforts to enforce federal law,” Menendez continued.

“If that injunction went too far, then the one at issue here — halting the entire operation — certainly would,” she concluded.

Menendez said her ruling does not address the merits of the case filed by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison on behalf of the state and two cities, which are named as the lawsuit’s three plaintiffs.

Those claims remain to be argued and largely focus on Ellison’s claim that the federal government is undertaking an illegal operation that is intended to force state and local officials to cooperate with federal law enforcement.

Menendez said Ellison has not proven his claim, which largely relies on a 2013 ruling by the Supreme Court in a case brought by Shelby County, Ala., officials who challenged the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The act placed additional restrictions on some states based on “their histories of racially discriminatory election administration,” Menendez said.

The Supreme Court ruled a “departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” requires the federal government to show that geographically driven laws are “sufficiently related to the problem that it targets” to be lawful, she wrote.

Ellison says that the ruling “teaches that the federal government cannot single out states for disparate treatment without strong and narrowly tailored justification,” according to Menendez.

But he does not show any other examples of a legal authority applying the “equal sovereignty ‘test'” and does not show how it would apply to a presidential administration’s decision on where to deploy federal law enforcement to “enforce duly enacted federal laws,” she said.

“There is no precedent for a court to micromanage such decisions,” and she can ‘readily imagine scenarios where the federal executive must legitimately vary its use of law enforcement resources from one state to the next,” Menendez explained.

Because there is no likelihood of success in claims based on equal sovereignty, she said Ellison did not show there is a likelihood that plaintiffs will succeed in their federal lawsuit, so the motion to preliminarily enjoin the federal government from continuing Operation Metro Surge is denied.

Former President Joe Biden appointed Menendez to the federal bench in 2021.

A federal judge in the United States has ordered the release of a five-year-old boy and his father from a facility in Texas amid an outcry over their detention during an immigration raid in Minnesota.

In a decision on Saturday, US District Judge Fred Biery ruled Liam Conejo Ramos’s detention as illegal, while also condemning “the perfidious lust for unbridled power” and “the imposition of cruelty” by “some among us”.

The scathing opinion came as photos of the boy – clad in a blue bunny hat and Spider-Man backpack as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers took him away in a suburb of the city of Minneapolis – became a symbol of the immigration crackdown launched by President Donald Trump’s administration.

“The case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children,” Biery wrote in his ruling.

“Ultimately, Petitioners may, because of ‌the arcane United States immigration system, return to their home country, involuntarily or by self-deportation. But that result should occur through a more orderly ‌and humane policy than currently in place.”

The judge did not specify the deportation quota he was referring to, but Stephen Miller, the White House chief of staff for policy, has previously said there was a target of 3,000 immigration arrests a day.

The ongoing crackdown in the state of Minnesota is the largest federal immigration enforcement operation ever carried out, according to federal officials, with some 3,000 agents deployed. The surge has prompted daily clashes between activists and immigration officers, and led to the killings of two American citizens by federal agents.

The deadly operation has sparked nationwide protests as well as mass mobilisation efforts and demonstrations in Minnesota.

According to the Columbia Heights Public School District in Minneapolis, Liam was one of at least four students detained by immigration officials in the suburb this month.

Columbia Heights Public Schools Superintendent Zena Stenvik said ICE agents took the child from a running car in the family’s driveway on January 20, and told him to knock on the door of his home, a tactic that she said amounted to using him as “bait” for other family members.

The government has denied that account, with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claiming that an ICE officer remained with Liam “for the child’s safety” while other officers apprehended his father.

Vice President JD Vance, who has vigorously defended ICE’s tactics in Minnesota, told a news conference that although such arrests were “traumatic” for children, “just because you’re a parent, doesn’t mean that you get complete immunity from law enforcement”.

The Trump administration has said that Conejo Arias arrived in the US illegally in December 2024 from Ecuador, but the family’s lawyer says they have an active asylum claim that allows them to remain in the country legally.

Following their detention, the boy and his father were sent to a facility in Dilley in Texas, where advocacy groups and politicians have reported deplorable conditions, including illnesses, malnourishment and a fast-growing number of detained children.

Texas Representatives Joaquin Castro and Jasmine Crockett visited the site earlier this week. Liam slept throughout the 30-minute visit, Castro said, and his father reported that he was “depressed and sad”.

Biery’s ruling on Saturday included a photo of the boy, as well as several Bible quotes: “Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these’,” and “Jesus wept”.

The episode, Biery wrote, made apparent “the government’s ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence”. Biery drew a comparison between Trump’s administration and the wrongdoings that then-author, future President Thomas Jefferson, mounted against England’s King George, including sending “Swarms of Officers to harass our People” and creating “domestic Insurrection”.

There was no immediate comment from the Department of Justice and DHS.

The Law Firm of Jennifer Scarborough, which is representing Liam and his father, Adrian Conejo Arias, said in a statement that the pair will soon be able to reunite with the rest of their family.

“We are pleased that the family will now be able to focus on being together and finding some peace after this traumatic ordeal,” the statement said.

Minnesota officials have been calling on the Trump administration to end its immigration ‍crackdown in the state. But a federal judge on Saturday denied a request from Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and other officials to issue a preliminary injunction that would have halted the federal operation.

Trump, meanwhile, has ordered DHS to, “under no circumstances”, get involved with protests in Democratic-led cities unless they ask for federal help, or federal property is threatened.

Jan. 31 (UPI) — Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials must release Adrian Arias and his 5-year-old son, Liam, from detention, a federal district court judge ruled on Saturday.

U.S. District Court of Western Texas Judge Fred Biery Jr. on Saturday granted a writ of habeas corpus petition naming the father and son.

Biery likened his strongly worded ruling to placing a “judicial finger in the constitutional dike.”

The petitioners “seek nothing more than some modicum of due process and the rule of law,” Biery wrote.

“The case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently, even if it requires traumatizing children,” he said.

“This court and others regularly send undocumented people to prison and orders them deported but do so by proper legal procedures,” Biery added.

He accused the federal officers of violating the Fourth Amendment via an unlawful search-and-seizure and said only judicial warrants enable them to arrest or detain people when there is no probable cause to do so.

“Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster,” he said.

“That is called the fox guarding the henhouse,” Biery said. “The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.”

He ordered the federal government to release both from custody no later than Tuesday.

Former President Bill Clinton appointed Biery to the federal bench in 1993.

Federal officers arrested Adrian Arias and detained Liam while enforcing an administrative warrant for the father on Jan. 20 in the Greater Minneapolis area.

The two were transferred to a detention center in Texas, while awaiting deportation.

Liam’s mother, Erika Ramos, told media that she watched from a window as ICE officers detained her son and partner.

She said they led her son to the door and knocked while her son asked her to open the door, but she wouldn’t because she feared she would be arrested.

“When I didn’t open the door, they took Liam to the ICE van,” Ramos said, adding that she thought the officers were using her son as “bait.”

Ramos said she is pregnant and has another child, whom she feared leaving alone if she had opened the door and was arrested.

Homeland Security officials on Jan. 22 said the ICE officers wanted Ramos to open the door so that they could leave her son with her.

“Our officers made multiple attempts to get the mother inside the house to take custody of her child. Officers even assured her that they would NOT take her into custody.

“She refused to accept custody of the child. The father told officers he wanted the child to remain with him.”

They said the officers’ primary concern was the child’s safety and welfare and that the father is from Ecuador and subject to deportation.