judge

Aug. 29 (UPI) — A federal judge in California on Friday ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution’s First and Fifth Amendments when it sought to deport international students critical of Israel.

Judge Noël Wise, of the Northern District of California, sided with student journalists at the Stanford Daily, which sued because some of its noncitizen writers had been afraid of deportation for expressing opinions critical of the administration’s policies.

“Foundational to America’s enduring democracy are our freedoms of speech and the press embodied in the First Amendment,” Wise wrote in a 90-page ruling. “In the United States, free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength.”

Wise ruled that it was unconstitutional for State Secretary Marco Rubio to use immigration law to deport students for their opinions.

Last year, Rubio sought the deportations of several student activists in the pro-Palestininan movement, including Columbia University’s Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University’s Rümeysa Öztürk.

Fearing similar repression, the Stanford Daily sued to stop the government from revoking the visas of other students with views critical of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Wise said the strength of the Constitution “is diminished when members of our society — citizens and noncitizens alike — must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation.”

“In March 2025, that retaliation was directed at those engaged in pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speech,” the judge continued. “In September 2025, caught in the government’s net were people critical of Charlie Kirk.

“In May 2026, it potentially included ‘weighing in on a peace deal that’s being negotiated’ in Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like.”

Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, whose Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued the government on behalf of the students, said, “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” the attorney added in a statement.

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Friday once again spurned President Trump’s effort to erase his hush money conviction, rejecting the president’s bid to move the state court case to federal court and have it dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein reiterated his earlier finding against Trump, saying that the reasons Trump cited for renewing his request were “neither new nor legally sufficient.”

The judge added: “He has failed to show good cause and diligence.”

It is the third time Hellerstein has blocked Trump from having the U.S. District Court in Manhattan seize control of the case from the New York court where he was tried and convicted.

And, like before, Trump will appeal, according to a spokesperson for his legal team who called Hellerstein’s ruling “baseless and lawless.”

“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed,” a statement issued on behalf of the legal team said. “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn.”

The guilty verdict, reached in May 2024 while Trump was between terms, made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. Trump is also challenging his conviction through the state court appellate process, which is pending.

Hellerstein’s decision came after a federal appeals court last year ordered him to reconsider his prior denial. The judge previewed his ruling during oral arguments in February, slamming Trump’s lawyers for legal maneuvers that amounted to taking “two bites at the apple.”

State prosecutors did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case centered on a payment to Stormy Daniels

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose claim of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier had threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, which left his conviction intact but spared him any punishment. He had long denied Daniels’ claim and said he did nothing wrong. He has sought to get the conviction overturned both by attempting to move the case to federal court and through the appeals process in state court, which is pending.

Hellerstein rejected Trump’s requests to move the case twice before. The first was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment. The second was after Trump’s trial, as his lawyers sought to nix his conviction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling that presidents and ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts and prosecutors can’t use official acts as evidence that unofficial actions were illegal.

Trump appealed Hellerstein’s post-trial ruling and, last November, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the judge to reconsider his decision, finding that he had failed to consider “important issues relevant” to the president’s request to move the case.

A three-judge appellate panel said it expressed no view on how he should rule but instructed Hellerstein to closely review evidence that Trump claimed was related to official acts and whether Trump could argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties.

The judges also instructed Hellerstein to determine if Trump had “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.

The judge questioned the Trump legal team’s strategy

During oral arguments in February, Hellerstein took issue with the Trump legal team’s decision-making after the Supreme Court ruling.

Instead of immediately seeking to move the case to federal court, he noted, Trump’s lawyers first asked the trial judge in state court, Juan Merchan, to throw out the verdict on immunity grounds. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. has ruled that exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Trump, a Republican, did not attend the arguments.

Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision and that Trump’s legal team was crunched for time after the high court’s ruling because his sentencing was scheduled for just 10 days later.

Trump’s lawyers did not ask Hellerstein to intervene until nearly two months later, while their request to Merchan was still pending. The judge called that a “strategic decision” and suggested that by going to the state court first, Trump’s lawyers cost him the right to pursue remedies in federal court.

“No, your honor,” Wall replied. “It is what any sensible litigant would do” in that situation.

“Not so,” Hellerstein replied.

“That is a decision on your part,” the judge added. “You didn’t have to do that. You could have come right to the federal court. Just by filing a notice of removal, there would be no sentencing.”

Trump’s lawyers “made a choice,” Hellerstein said, “and you sought two bites at the apple.”

In his written ruling Friday, Hellerstein said Trump was asking for a “‘second bite at the apple,’ a result the law disfavors.”

The judge added that “Trump’s delay in filing for removal constitutes a ‘quintessential strategic decision,’ and the ‘fact that he later came to view that decision as a poor one is not sufficient, by itself, to establish cause.’”

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.

Judge blocks Trump’s mail voting rules for a second time, just days before ballots go out for the midterms.

A United States federal judge has for a second time blocked the Trump administration’s overhaul of election rules aimed at limiting voting by mail.

District Judge Indira Talwani late on Thursday blocked the US Postal Service’s new ballot rules for 14 days, hours after the agency said they had taken effect.

The ruling is part of an ongoing battle prompted by President Donald Trump’s bid to limit voting by mail, which is heating up as the US heads towards midterm elections in November that will decide control of Congress and the Senate.

Nearly a third of American voters cast votes by mail. The first ballots for the midterms are due to be sent out in about a week.

The new rules require states to submit approved voter lists and follow new ballot formatting before USPS can deliver voting slips. The restrictions were enacted on Thursday after the Supreme Court cleared the way for them.

Talwani wrote in a statement late on Thursday that states “have neither time nor funds” to redesign ballots, update election systems or train officials on the new USPS portal before the upcoming election.

The fight traces back to March, when Trump ordered the Postal Service to withhold ballots unless states supplied approved voter lists and new formatting rules.

Voting rights groups and democratic officials sued, arguing only states and Congress, not the president, can set election rules. Talwani agreed, blocking the rules over the summer.

On Monday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority threw out that earlier ruling on a technicality, saying that the legal challenge on which it was based was filed too early.

Democratic officials and voting rights groups quickly refiled their challenge once the rules became official, allowing Talwani to block them once more in a late-night order.

Separately, attorneys general from 24 states filed a new lawsuit this week making the same core argument: that only the Senate and Congress, not the president, can have constitutional authority to set election rules.

A hearing on the refiled case is scheduled for September 3, just as ballots are set to go out. That timeline means whatever Talwani or a higher court decides next could take effect as voting begins, or after it is already under way.

Court order rules that Pentagon acted illegally, punishing AI company for criticism of government.

A United States judge has blocked the Pentagon’s blacklisting of technology company Anthropic.

In a 59-page written order issued on Thursday night, District Judge Rita Lin ruled that the Department of Defense had acted illegally when it designated the company a supply chain risk to national security.

The decision marks the latest turn in the Claude maker’s high-stakes fight with the US military over artificial intelligence safety on the battlefield. The government is expected to fight the ruling.

The judge’s order rebuked the Pentagon, saying it had targeted and punished Anthropic for the company’s public criticism of the Defense Department’s stance on AI deployment on the battlefield.

“The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics,” Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, wrote.

Autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance

Anthropic’s lawsuit in a California federal court alleges that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth overstepped his authority when he designated the company a national security supply-chain risk.

Hegseth’s move, which blocked Anthropic from military contracts, followed the company’s refusal to allow the military to use its Claude AI models for US surveillance or autonomous weapons.

Anthropic argues that AI models are not reliable enough for autonomous weapons and opposes domestic surveillance. The Pentagon maintains that private companies should not constrain military action.

Executives have said the ban could cost the company billions of dollars in lost business.

During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government’s position as “really troubling” and “at odds … with the First Amendment”, adding that the record had “gotten worse for the government” over time.

In the same hearing, Department of Justice lawyers argued that the nature of AI models is “so staggeringly enormous and opaque” that the Pentagon cannot evaluate them like physical hardware.

First use of obscure statute

Anthropic welcomed the ruling, stating it remained “focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology”.

The designation was the first time a US company has been publicly labelled a supply-chain risk under an obscure procurement statute aimed at protecting military systems from foreign sabotage.

In its lawsuit, Anthropic alleged the government violated its constitutional rights to free speech and due process by retaliating against its views on AI safety without allowing it to dispute the claim.

The lawsuit called the decision unlawful, unsupported by facts, and inconsistent with the military’s past praise of Claude.

There was no immediate comment from the Pentagon on the ruling.

The venue’s board of directors, stacked with supporters of the president, voted to add his name again despite past ruling.

A United States judge has questioned why the Kennedy Center is rushing to restore President Donald Trump’s name to the performing arts venue after it was ordered removed in a previous ruling.

US District Court Judge Christopher Cooper asked Trump administration lawyer Bradley Mayers on Thursday why the venue has said it must begin adding the president’s name back to the building by September 8.

“What’s magic about that date?” Cooper asked.

Mayers stated that the date is aligned with a vote by the centre’s board — composed of members selected by Trump, who then installed him as the head — earlier this month.

“That’s all fine and good,” Cooper responded. “What does that have to do with what Congress intended in these statutes? That’s really what’s before me.”

The legal saga around Trump’s effort to inscribe his name on the building of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, is one of several examples of the president’s desire to reshape the landscape of the national capital.

In addition to changes to the performing arts centre, Trump has demolished the East Wing of the White House and sought to replace it with an enormous ballroom.

He also has pushed forward with plans for an enormous triumphal arch to be erected in a traffic circle not far from the historic Arlington National Cemetery.

The president and his allies have faced numerous legal challenges to those efforts, with critics arguing that the projects require congressional approval.

Previously, in May, Cooper found that the addition of Trump’s name to the building was illegal and that Congress alone could rebrand the building.

He also struck down an attempt to close the building for two years. The board had described the effort as necessary to maintain the building, but critics saw the closure as retaliation against the backlash to the renaming effort.

Earlier this month, however, the Trump-aligned board renewed the push to add his name back to the facade, by adding the inscription, “Restored and Renovated By President Donald J Trump”.

The vote also called for the plaza in front of the venue to also be renamed after Trump.

On Tuesday, administration officials threatened to demolish the Kennedy Centre if the renovations do not go through. They warned the performing arts centre would become “decrepit” without the board’s interventions.

In Thursday’s hearing, however, Cooper rejected the idea that court orders were standing in the way of any repairs.

“No one is stopping the center from doing any necessary repairs,” Cooper said. “The notion that continued judicial involvement is standing in the way of accomplishing necessary repairs is not quite fair.”

The lawsuit against the board’s changes to the Kennedy Center was brought by Representative Joyce Beatty, a Kennedy Center trustee who represents the state of Ohio in Congress.

Lawyers for Beatty said on Thursday that they view the board’s recent actions “as outright defiance” against the court.

The Kennedy Center was named by Congress as a living memorial to John F Kennedy, the 35th US president who helped fundraise for its establishment. He was assassinated in 1963. Under the law, no other national memorial to Kennedy is allowed in Washington, DC.

BROWNSVILLE, Texas — An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer charged with shooting a man and lying about it during the immigration crackdown in Minneapolis was released from a Texas jail Thursday, after a judge refused to order his return to Minnesota.

Christian Castro was released at the break of dawn from a detention center in Brownsville. He motioned his hand toward a few camera operators and a reporter crowding around him and quickly got into an SUV that drove off.

A day earlier, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. wrote in an order that said he couldn’t prevent a county sheriff from releasing Castro or order Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to sign his extradition warrant.

Castro is charged in Minnesota with assault and falsely reporting a crime in the Jan. 14 shooting of 24-year-old Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis.

Castro is accused of firing gun through door of home

Castro is accused of firing a gun through the front door of a Minneapolis home, shooting Sosa-Celis in the leg. Prosecutors say Castro also falsely accused Sosa-Celis and another man of attacking an ICE officer with a broom handle and a snow shovel.

After a Minnesota judge issued a nationwide warrant for Castro’s arrest in May, authorities, including Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, arrested Castro in Cameron County on May 29. Minnesota authorities have sought his extradition since his arrest, but he remained in custody in Brownsville, a city bordering Mexico.

Under Texas law and barring extradition, Castro had to be released after 90 days of detention, which was Thursday.

Minnesota officials believe Castro could flee to Mexico.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a request for a temporary restraining order last week seeking to block Castro’s release or to order his return to Minnesota.

Abbott waiting for internal state investigation about Castro

Texas attorneys on Tuesday argued the judge could not rule on a decision that’s still pending. Abbott has not denied the extradition. Instead he is waiting for the outcome of an internal state investigation considering whether Castro was legally a “fugitive” under the Extradition Clause, the lawyers said.

The judge wrote in Wednesday’s order that the court couldn’t yet step in.

“The Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the case is not ripe for adjudication,” the order read. “Minnesota cannot premise its causes of action on the allegation that Governor Abbott may violate those authorities in the future; it must prove that a violation has already occurred.”

The judge said in his order that the extradition laws do not outline how long the Texas governor can take to make that decision.

Ellison said in a statement that his office would keep litigating the case but didn’t specify what it would do next.

Abbott’s press secretary, Andrew Mahaleris, welcomed the ruling and said it was the governor’s duty to carefully consider the merits of extradition requests.

Abbott said last week he would not respond to the extradition request, citing the ongoing investigation into fraud in government social service programs in Minnesota, which President Trump used to justify his immigration crackdown there.

Minnesota officials say Castro could flee the country, citing calls he made from jail to a woman in Mexico, talking “about marrying her and buying a house in Mexico when he is released,” according to the lawsuit.

The judge conceded that Castro could flee the country but added that “the threat of injury by itself does not create an issue ripe for adjudication.”

Michael Gonzalez and Valerie Gonzalez write for the Associated Press. Valerie Gonzalez reported from McAllen, Texas. AP writer Kathy McCormack in Concord, N.H., contributed to this report.

Dolly Parton may be gone, but her spirit of self-expression is still making waves — this time in a Texas federal court.

U.S. District Judge David Hittner on Tuesday cited the late artist in his decision to strike down Senate Bill 12, a 2023 law that sought to restrict drag shows. His decision, which blocks the Texas attorney general from enforcing the law, noted that the prohibition was “an unconstitutional restriction on speech.”

Just as many people “chastised Dolly Parton as a voluptuous sex symbol because of her big hair, flamboyant clothes and breast exposure … there are erotic elements in countless popular performances that could be subject to both civil and criminal penalties under S.B. 12,” Hittner wrote in his decision.

And because the law doesn’t specify who determines whether a performance “appeals to the prurient interest” or that the work be considered as a whole, a single sexual or erotic moment in a performance could result in penalties, he wrote. Those penalties include civil fines of up to $10,000 for businesses and a misdemeanor charge that carries up to a year in jail for participating individuals.

Hittner’s decision came down on the same day Parton, the 80-year-old legendary songwriter, actor and businesswoman, died following a brief battle with cancer.

Parton was referenced several times in court records associated with the case. One of the plaintiffs, Brigitte Bandit, a drag queen and longtime activist, frequently performs as the Grammy-winning artist.

In an Instagram post on Tuesday, Bandit wrote that Parton had been a “huge influence” on her life and her drag performances. She even brought a children’s book about Parton to testify at the Texas Capitol, which eventually got back to the country music star, who then gifted Bandit a signed rhinestone-covered guitar.

“Dolly has shaped much of my life as a drag artist,” Bandit wrote on Instagram, calling her a “queen who has changed the world with her love, artistry, and GLAM! my diva forever.”

After the 2016 mass shooting at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., Parton called herself a “patron saint” of the gay community in an interview with Billboard.

“All those drag queens, sometimes I see some of them look more like me than I do,” said the star, who famously lost a Dolly Parton lookalike contest.

Tuesday’s ruling wasn’t the first time the law, widely touted as a “drag ban,” has been deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

Hittner initially struck down the law in September 2023, just a few months after the Texas Legislature passed it. In November 2025, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s injunction and returned the case to district court with instructions on how to reconsider it.

In the end, the high court’s directions did not change Hittner’s determination that the law violates the 1st and 14th amendments.

Hittner wrapped up his decision with a suggestion for those who oppose or are offended by the performances: “[T]he solution is relatively simple … just don’t go.”

BROWNSVILLE, Texas — A federal judge on Wednesday refused to order Texas to extradite an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer charged with shooting a man and lying about it during the immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.

Christian Castro is charged in Minnesota with assault and falsely reporting a crime in the Jan. 14 shooting of 24-year-old Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis. Minnesota authorities have sought his extradition since his arrest, but he remains in custody in Brownsville, Texas, a city bordering Mexico.

Under Texas law and barring extradition, Castro must be released after 90 days of detention, which is Thursday.

Minnesota Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison filed a request for a temporary restraining order last week, asking a federal judge to prevent the sheriff in Cameron County, Texas, from releasing Castro, and to order Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to sign his extradition warrant.

Minnesota officials believe Castro could flee the country, citing calls he made from jail to a woman in Mexico, talking “about marrying her and buying a house in Mexico when he is released,” according to the lawsuit.

Castro is accused of firing a gun through the front door of a Minneapolis home, shooting Sosa-Celis in the leg. Prosecutors say Castro also falsely accused Sosa-Celis and another man of attacking an ICE officer with a broom handle and a snow shovel.

At a federal hearing in Brownsville on Tuesday, attorneys with the Minnesota attorney general’s office argued it would be hard to compel Castro to face charges in their state if he was released, and they fear Castro may flee the country, citing his phone conversations.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said last week he would not respond to the extradition request, citing the ongoing investigation into fraud in government social service programs in Minnesota, which President Trump used to justify his immigration crackdown there.

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.

ICE agent Christian Castro faces criminal charges for shooting a Minnesota man in the leg during an immigration raid.

A United States judge has denied a request to compel the extradition of a federal immigration agent charged with shooting a man during an immigration raid in the state of Minnesota and lying about it.

Wednesday’s decision concerns the case of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Christian Castro, who has been detained in a county jail in Texas since May.

Minnesota has sought his extradition as he faces charges of assault and falsely reporting a crime in Hennepin County, which covers Minneapolis.

Under Texas law, the state cannot hold the subject of an extradition order for more than 90 days. At that point, the suspect must either be transferred or released. The deadline for Castro is set to expire on Thursday.

Minnesota argued in a lawsuit this month that Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, has refused to authorise the extradition for political reasons.

But in Wednesday’s ruling, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr wrote that he could not intervene because Abbott has not yet acted – and has therefore not yet violated any law.

“The record reflects only that Governor Abbott has neither agreed nor refused to sign the rendition warrant as to Castro,” Rodriguez wrote.

Castro has been charged in connection with the non-fatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis during an immigration raid in Minnesota on January 14, part of a mass deportation effort under President Donald Trump.

Starting in December, Trump oversaw a large-scale deployment of federal agents to the Midwestern state, dubbed Operation Metro Surge.

The operation, which lasted less than three months, sparked protests and allegations of civil liberty violations from residents and watchdog groups.

Prosecutors say Castro fired a gun through the front door of a Minneapolis home, shooting Sosa-Celis in the leg.

Afterwards, he and another agent accused Sosa-Celis and another man of assaulting federal authorities with a broom handle and snow shovel. Those allegations were later disproven after video of the incident emerged. Criminal charges against Sosa-Celis were subsequently dropped.

Todd Lyons, then-acting director of ICE, confirmed in February that the agents appeared to have made “untruthful statements”. Castro and the second agent were placed on administrative leave.

Castro is currently in custody in Brownsville, Texas. Minnesota officials have warned that he may flee the country if released, citing calls he made from jail to a woman in Mexico.

During those calls, Castro talked “about marrying her and buying a house in Mexico when he is released”, according to Minnesota’s lawsuit.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a request for a temporary restraining order last week to stop Castro’s anticipated release and force Governor Abbott to sign the extradition warrant.

Ellison has framed Abbott’s decision not to take action as a way of supporting Trump’s mass deportation campaign and skirting federal extradition law.

“For nearly three months, Greg Abbott has refused to return ICE agent Christian Castro to Minnesota, where he’s charged with shooting a Minnesotan in his own home,” Ellison wrote in a social media post.

“Abbott has a legal obligation to return him. Instead, he’s chosen to ignore the law.”

A federal judge on Wednesday lifted a major obstacle to President Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting, even as Democratic state officials filed a new court challenge with the midterm elections fast approaching.

The fresh round of legal wrangling comes just two days after the Supreme Court handed down a procedural ruling in Trump’s favor, and could mean the issue lands before the high court again before the pivotal contests for control of Congress. The first mailed ballots are set to be sent out next week.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston agreed to lift an order prohibiting the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out Trump’s order for November’s elections. She wrote that she was “compelled” to do so after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that a similar injunction she granted in a separate case was premature.

Talwani nevertheless said the executive order could unleash “chaos” and referred to it as “likely unconstitutional.”

The administration can now move forward and implement a Postal Service rule published late Friday. It would require states to follow a uniform envelope style for mail ballots and to give the Postal Service a list of voters eligible to receive them. Talwani found on Tuesday that the rule’s issuance technically violated her injunction, but she declined to penalize the administration.

The new lawsuit, filed by about two dozen Democratically controlled states against the U.S. Postal Service, marked a new phase in the high-stakes litigation creating confusion around the midterm elections.

It came after the Supreme Court ruled against them in a separate case, but did not say Trump’s order was legal.

The high court majority found the initial Democratic lawsuit was premature, but that was before the Republican administration issued a rule governing Postal Service delivery of mail ballots. Election officials warn it will be impossible to implement before the first wave of mail ballots are sent out next week.

“Across the country, states are already deep into preparations for the 2026 elections. Now, at the last moment, the federal government is attempting to meddle in those preparations and potentially threaten countless Americans’ right to vote,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of 25 Democratic attorneys general filing the lawsuit, said in a statement. “USPS has no authority to decide who can and cannot vote by mail.”

The Trump administration plan faces a third lawsuit originally filed in May in the nation’s capital, though judges there have so far declined to block it.

All previous challenges were filed before the administration published its mail ballot rule Friday night.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis on Wednesday said the Postal Service’s proposals were “commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots” and that the administration would continue to work to implement them to boost “the safety and security of our elections.”

The Postal Service said it would not comment because of the pending lawsuit.

National Democrats on Tuesday cited the rule in asking the federal judge in the Washington case to block Trump’s order after he declined to do so last spring, saying the administration at the time had not taken concrete action. In Boston, Talwani also found that the administration had violated a separate injunction she had placed on the Postal Service in drafting the new rule, although she did not take any action against the government.

Talwani had issued the injunction against Trump’s executive order in the prior Democratic state case, which is the one the Supreme Court overturned on Monday. She also issued a second injunction Aug. 11 in a case filed by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, while the Supreme Court was considering the administration’s appeal of the judge’s first order.

Trump has long targeted mail voting, which he falsely blames for his 2020 election loss and is disproportionately used by Democrats as a result of Trump’s condemnations. Since returning to power, Trump has tried to claim authority over election rules, saying he thinks Republicans should “take over” vote counting in Democratic areas.

He issued his first election executive order just months after retaking office, attempting to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, among other changes. He has also been pushing a sweeping election bill that has stalled in the Senate amid opposition from Democrats and even some within his own party.

Riccardi and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

A Maryland court has ruled against a proposed constitutional amendment that could have paved the way for Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the 2028 elections.

The ruling Wednesday by a judge in the state’s capital city marks another setback in Democrats’ national attempts to counter a Republican redistricting movement pushed by President Trump ahead of this year’s elections. The judge ruled that the amendment cannot appear on the November ballot, but he paused the effect of that ruling to allow for an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Democrats already control seven of Maryland’s eight congressional seats. Democratic Gov. Wes Moore called lawmakers into a special session in August with a goal of making it easier to claim that final seat.

An amendment referred to the ballot by lawmakers seeks to sidestep a court ruling that struck down a previous Democratic redistricting plan in 2022. It would declare that a constitutional requirement for districts to be compact and take into account “natural boundaries” applies only to state legislative districts, not congressional ones.

That would allow Democratic state lawmakers to draw congressional districts that cross the Chesapeake Bay, reshaping a district east of the bay that is held by Republican Rep. Andy Harris, chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Robert Thompson ruled that lawmakers violated their own deadlines for ballot measures. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed a law signed by Moore that set a July 1 deadline for the secretary of state to certify summaries of all statewide ballot questions to the Maryland State Board of Elections.

The state attorney general’s office argued that deadline didn’t apply to the redistricting amendment because lawmakers wrote their own ballot summary for it, using their constitutional authority. The judge disagreed, instead siding with arguments by the conservative Oversight Project and Republican state lawmakers who sued.

Earlier this year, the Virginia Supreme Court also invalidated a redistricting ballot measure because of procedural violations by state lawmakers. In that case, voters had already approved an amendment in April authorizing mid-decade redistricting when the court ruled that lawmakers last year had waited too long to take an initial step necessary to qualify it for the ballot.

Virginia and Maryland both were seeking to follow the path of California, where voters approved a Democratic-backed amendment authorizing mid-decade redistricting. Democrats hope to gain as many as five congressional seats from California’s redrawn districts, plus an additional seat from new districts in Utah.

But Republicans hope to win as many as 16 additional seats from new U.S. House districts enacted in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.

Redistricting typically happens near the beginning of each decade, after new census data is released. But a mid-decade redistricting battle broke out after Trump urged Republican-led states to redraw congressional districts in hopes that it might help Republicans hold onto a slim House majority in this year’s midterm elections.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 26 (UPI) — A U.S. district court has blocked Texas from banning drag performances as unconstitutional, ruling that the solution to the problem is for those who find such events offensive to just not attend.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 12 into law in June 2023 to ban “sexually oriented performances” via civil penalties on businesses that host them and criminal penalties on performers.

It has been debated in the courts since, with a court ruling it unconstitutional in 2023 and an appeals court in February allowing it to take effect while sending the case back to the district court for review.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge David Hittner, a Reagan appointee who issued the 2023 ruling, declared Senate Bill 12 an unconstitutional restriction on speech and ordered that the state be permanently enjoined from enforcing it.

“Finally, for those who find such activities as described in this case offensive, the solution is relatively simple … just don’t go,” Hittner said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for the U.S. Senate with President Donald Trump‘s endorsement, called the ruling in a statement “flawed,” arguing without proof that it will endanger children while being “an affront to Texas values.”

“I will appeal this decision immediately and continue to fight to protect our kids,” he said online.

Meanwhile, civil rights and LGBTQ advocates celebrated the ruling.

“Today’s decision confirms that the legislature’s attempt to ban drag performances was unconstitutional from start to finish,” Brian Klosterboer, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, which filed the original lawsuit in August 2023, said in a statement.

“This law stifled free expression across our state and made people afraid to engage in or attend drag shows and other performances. But all Texans — no matter our gender or background — are guaranteed the right to free expression.”

Brigitte Bandit, a drag performer and a plaintiff in the case, said the ruling was “a relief.”

“As a lifelong Texan, I’m sick of this state trying to censor art and stoke hatred and violence against drag artists and the LGBTQIA+ community. No one should be punished for performing drag, and I wish lawmakers would take steps to protect kids from real dangers in our state instead of trying to divide and marginalize us.”

Aug. 25 (UPI) — A federal judge on Tuesday denied Ghislaine Maxwell’s attempt to overturn her conviction and prison sentence, slamming the petition as “demonstrably meritless.”

In the the ruling, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer said the petition by Maxwell, a co-conspirator of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was “generally based on speculation, distortions and/or outright falsehoods.”

“There is no fact that Maxwell fairly puts in dispute that has any potential to disturb the outcome of her trial,” Engelmayer wrote.

Maxwell sought to overturn her five felony convictions on the stance that her due process rights were violated, claiming the documents released by the Department of Justice this year supported this. She also made claims of juror misconduct, inaccurate evidence and “selective prosecution” on the part of the Justice Department.

Engelmayer wrote that Maxwell’s claim “incriminates her or reinforces the correctness of the legal rulings Maxwell challenges.”

Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022. She had been found guilty of conspiring to lure underage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. She is serving time in a minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas.

Epstein, already a convicted sex offender, was awaiting trial in 2019 when he died by suicide while in jail. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice released many documents related to Epstein’s activities under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress in November 2025.

The U.S. government has been criticized for the limited release of some of the files, in which names of alleged perpetrators were heavily redacted while many victim names were not.

The amended law was an attempt by state Republicans to crack down on unproven claims of voting by noncitizens.

A United States federal court has temporarily blocked an Ohio law that required proof of US citizenship from residents who wanted to register to vote while they obtained a driver’s license.

In his ruling on Tuesday, US District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr granted a preliminary injunction against the law, saying it likely violates the US National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) because it requires more information than necessary to determine a resident’s eligibility to vote.

“Election officials do not need documentary proof of citizenship to assess a voter registration applicant’s citizenship because signed attestation of citizenship is enough,” Oliver wrote.

The judge also pointed to a clause in the act that says each US state’s driver’s license application “shall serve as an application for voter registration with respect to election for Federal office unless the applicant fails to sign the voter registration application”.

Oliver said that Ohio must offer applicants the opportunity to register once they’ve submitted their driver’s license application, not after it’s been approved by the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV).

“To interpret this section of the NVRA otherwise would allow States to make registering to vote at the BMV more onerous, and could result in fewer voter registrations because the opportunity to apply was not proactively offered to otherwise eligible citizens,” Oliver added.

In 1995, Ohio passed a so-called “motor-voter” law that allowed residents the opportunity to register to vote when they applied for a driver’s license

But that law was amended last year by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature in an attempt to crack down on unproven claims, pushed in part by US President Donald Trump, that noncitizens were voting in the state’s election. US law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

The ruling marks a victory for voting rights advocates like Red Wine & Blue, which sued Ohio’s secretary of state, Frank LaRose, over claims that the law disenfranchised eligible voters and violated the NVRA.

One of the group’s lawyers, Ben Stafford, praised the ruling, calling it “a win for Ohio voters.”

“With the registration deadline just weeks away, eligible Ohioans will now have the opportunity to register to vote at the BMV without having to produce unnecessary paperwork that is not required by federal law,” Stafford, an attorney at Elias Law Group, said in a statement.

LaRose said his office disagrees with the decision and will appeal.

A federal judge in New York has vacated a Trump administration policy that suspended the processing of visas from 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Somalia, whose nationals the Trump administration deemed likely to require public assistance in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, an appointee of President Biden, described the policy Friday as “contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio exceeded his authority by issuing the policy, which “runs afoul” of the Immigration and Nationality Act by mandating “the refusal of visas to eligible applicants without any basis in law,” the judge ruled.

Power lies with consular officers, judge says

Vargas said the policy also undermines the congressional requirement that puts consular officers at the forefront of any visa decision.

“Congress imbued these officers with exclusive authority and discretion to determine if an immigrant is eligible for a visa based upon review of specific and detailed criteria set forth in the statute,” she wrote. “The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme.”

The policy was challenged by two nonprofit organizations along with 11 individuals, including six whose family members had been refused visas. The remaining five are outside the country and had filed “employment-based petitions” to come to the United States.

‘This case is about keeping families together,’ advocate says

“We welcome this ruling because, at its heart, this case is about keeping families together,” said Anna Gallagher, the executive director of CLINIC, a national nonprofit that provides training, resources and support to a network of immigration legal service providers and was one of the plaintiffs.

“Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and recognize the family as the foundation of society,” she said in a statement. “This decision affirms both those values and the rule of law, allowing families to once again move forward toward reunification.”

Another plaintiff is African Communities Together, a Harlem-based nonprofit. One of its leaders called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the rule of law.”

“This unlawful and racist ban caused immeasurable harm, cruelly keeping families and loved ones apart,” Diana Konate, deputy executive director for policy and advocacy, said in a statement. “Today, we are elated to tell our community members: this ban is no more.”

Trump expands anti-immigration agenda

President Trump has imposed a growing list of immigration and travel bans mostly for people from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The State Department said Saturday that the Trump administration is “protecting the American people by upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants,” and that it would not comment on pending litigation.

At the time the policy was issued, the State Department said it had instructed consular officers to halt immigrant visa applications from the 75 countries in accordance with a broader order in November that tightened rules around potential immigrants who might become “public charges.”

Relying on Council of Economic Advisors data, the State Department said that more than 30% of households with immigrants from these countries received some form of public assistance.

A separate notice sent to all U.S. embassies and consulates said that non-immigrant visa applicants also should be “fully vetted and screened” for the possibility that they might seek public benefits in the United States.

The cable, a copy of which was obtained by the Associated Press, noted several times that the applicant must prove they won’t apply for public benefits while in the U.S., and that consular officers who suspect the applicant might apply should require them to fill out a form proving their financial bona fides.

The ruling is the latest example of the courts upending Trump’s immigration agenda.

In June, a federal judge struck down a Trump administration policy that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to enter and stay in the United States — affecting elements including asylum, work permits, green cards and citizenship applications. That judge said the policy threw countless immigrants’ lives “into indeterminate legal limbo,” and accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 19 (UPI) — A Missouri judge ruled Wednesday against voters seeking to put a Republican redistricting effort in the state to a referendum, stating that the new GOP-favored maps can be used in November’s midterm elections.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green ruled that referendum provisions in the state’s constitution do not apply to congressional redistricting.

“The Missouri Constitution does not supply any statement — let alone a clear one — reallocating authority over congressional redistricting away from the General Assembly to a referendum process,” Green wrote in his ruling.

The People Not Politicians coalition that filed the lawsuit told UPI in an emailed statement that what was important was that a ruling had been made, while accusing the Republicans of stalling the litigation process and stating that the case can now move forward toward the Missouri Supreme Court.

“The most important thing that happened today is that there was a ruling,” PNP Executive Director Richard von Glahn said.

“The state has tried to slow down the judicial process for months and now that we are out of Cole County, the real decision will be made. Our case now moves forward.”

Missouri Republicans spearheaded efforts to redraw the state’s congressional map last summer as part of President Donald Trump‘s push for GOP-led states to create more GOP-favored seats for November’s midterm elections.

The map, signed into law in September, redraws a Democrat-held district in Kansas City to be more rural, positioning it to lean more favorably toward Republicans. Of the state’s eight House seats, two are currently held by Democrats. The redraw is expected to reduce that to one.

Voters have challenged the redistricting effort. In December, PNP submitted more than 300,000 signatures to Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, to trigger a statewide referendum on the issue. While PNP contended that delivering the signatures would pause use of the new map, Hoskins disagreed.

In May, the state Supreme Court upheld the new map, while rejecting an argument that submitting referendum petitions automatically suspended the map.

On the day of the Aug. 4 primary, Hoskins issued a certificate finding PNP’s referendum petition was insufficient, stating the state’s Constitution does not permit referenda on congressional maps, prompting PNP to file a lawsuit that evening.

Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, celebrated Wednesday’s decision in a social media statement, calling Green’s decision a “quick, common-sense ruling.”

“Missourians voted for candidates using this map in August, and they deserve the ability to elect those candidates in November,” he said.

The Republican Party also cheered it as a “resounding victory for Missouri voters and election integrity.”

“The court rejected Democrats’ latest scheme to overturn lawful congressional maps and create chaos ahead of the election. Missouri’s maps were fairly enacted by the legislature, upheld in court and used in this year’s primary. Today’s ruling makes clear those maps will stand,” Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters said in a statement.

The nationwide GOP effort to redraw maps comes as Trump has repeatedly voiced concern about potential impeachment proceedings if Republicans lose the House in November. Creating additional Republican-leaning seats increases the GOP’s chances of maintaining control of the chamber, making impeachment less likely while strengthening the Republicans’ ability to advance Trump’s agenda.

Texas was the first state to move on mid-decade redistricting, kicking off a gerrymandering arms race in which Democratic-led states sought to counter with their own maps and Republican-led states responded with additional redraws.

Since summer 2025, 17 statesMike Kehoe have moved to redistrict, with 10 states having changed their maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those 10 states, eight adopted GOP-favored maps while two adopted maps expected to benefit Democrats.

WASHINGTON — A Massachusetts woman who told police that she brought homemade firebombs to the U.S. Capitol to kill Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was sentenced on Tuesday to just over six years in prison.

Riley English, a 26-year-old transgender woman, said she was in the grips of a mental health crisis and abusing drugs when she drove to Washington in January 2025 and told Capitol police that she was there to kill Bessent on the day of his Senate confirmation.

“I never wanted to hurt anyone,” she told U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras. “I’m not a political person. I’m not a violent person.”

Contreras, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama, sentenced English to six years and one month of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. English has remained jailed since her arrest and will get credit for the nearly 20 months that she already has spent in custody. She pleaded guilty in March to two weapons charges.

“You’ve had a very difficult life,” Contreras told English. “Hopefully, the progress you’ve made in jail to this date has set you on the right path.”

Nobody was injured, and Contreras said her plan to harm Bessent had an “exceedingly low or non-existent” chance of success. Bessent wasn’t at the Capitol when English arrived on Jan. 27, 2025. The Molotov cocktails that English brought to the Capitol appeared to be incapable of igniting, the judge noted.

Prosecutors had recommended a prison sentence of 10 years and one month for English. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan Horan said English had been planning the “attempted political assassination” for at least a month at a time when the threat of politically motivated violence has been mounting in the U.S.

“This was not a chance encounter or an impulsive act,” Horan said.

The case against English fits a pattern of politically motivated violence that has plagued the U.S. over the past decade. In a letter addressed to the judge, Bessent said he worries the country “cannot survive this assault.”

“Political violence is an attack on the rule of law and on representative government itself,” Bessent wrote. “It also deprives our country of service by talented men and women with ability and integrity who may reasonably decide that no job is worth threats to themselves and their families.”

English’s prosecution drew comparisons to the case against California resident Sophie Roske, who was sentenced last October to over eight years in prison for attempting to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his Maryland home. Prosecutors had recommended a prison sentence of no less than 30 years for Roske, a transgender woman. They appealed Roske’s sentence by U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, calling it unreasonably lenient.

Defense attorney Maria Jacob said English was “terrified and traumatized” by fears of what would happen to transgender people under the second Trump administration.

“Our argument is that she was in a diminished mental state,” Jacob said.

Investigators said they found a folding knife, two homemade firebombs and a lighter in English’s possession at the Capitol.

English, of South Deerfield, Massachusetts, told police that she was influenced by Luigi Mangione, the man who was charged with fatally shooting the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. She said she was “on a mission” and “had been thinking about this for a while because of Luigi Mangione,” prosecutors said. English told officers that she was terminally ill and “wanted to do something before I go,” according to prosecutors.

English also said she traveled from Massachusetts to Washington intending to kill other Republican political figures — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and House Speaker Mike Johnson — and to burn down the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, according to police. English changed her target to Bessent after reading an internet post about his confirmation hearing, police said.

Jacob said English’s actions last year were “a cry for help.”

“There was no indication that she was acting rationally that day,” the judge said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

McKINNEY, Texas — The judge in the case of a Texas teenager convicted of fatally stabbing a 17-year-old athlete at a high school track meet was ordered removed Wednesday, as the defendant seeks a new trial in a case that drew national attention.

Karmelo Anthony, now 19, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison after a suburban Dallas jury in June rejected his claims of self-defense during a confrontation with Austin Metcalf in the stadium bleachers last year.

The case attracted national attention in part because of a flood of social media posts that amplified the killing in racial terms. Anthony is Black; Metcalf was white. Lawyers on both sides, however, told jurors the tragedy had nothing to do with race.

Dozens of Anthony supporters gathered inside and outside the Collin County courtroom for Wednesday’s hearing, and some chanted “Free Karmelo!” in the parking lot after visiting Judge Sid Harle’s order to remove state District Judge John Roach as Anthony seeks a retrial.

A new judge will be assigned for Thursday’s hearing on Anthony’s request for a retrial.

Anthony’s legal team argued Wednesday that a retrial is needed in part because Roach enforced overly strict courtroom rules and gave an interview after the trial was over.

In the interview that was played as Wednesday’s hearing began, Roach was asked if the jury got “it right.”

“Yeah, they did,” Roach said, adding: “Whatever they say, they got it right.”

Harle said he did not know Roach and he believed Roach would be fair in a hearing for a retrial. But Harle agreed to Anthony’s request to remove him because of the way it might look to a third party.

Anthony attended the hearing wearing a green jumpsuit. His parents and Metcalf’s parents also were in the courtroom. Attorneys for Anthony’s and Metcalf’s families did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Anthony did not testify during the trial where students described a heated exchange over Anthony’s refusal on a rainy spring day to leave a tent that belonged to Metcalf’s team. The teens went to different high schools.

Several schools were competing when Anthony sat under the Memorial High School tent that was perched in the bleachers. Austin Metcalf and others had repeatedly told Anthony to leave, witnesses testified, leading to an escalating confrontation.

Prosecutors said Anthony provoked Metcalf, and witnesses testified that Anthony was the aggressor.

Anthony at one point reached inside a bag and replied: “Touch me and see what happens,” according to a police report.

Metcalf pushed Anthony, according to witnesses, who said Anthony then pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the chest.

Stengle writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal district judge said Tuesday that paint tests on a 19th-century historic landmark building next to the White House can go ahead, advancing President Trump’s plans to add a new coat of white paint to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, for now.

Trump has suggested the massive building be painted as part of his push to remake and beautify the nation’s capital. Planners said the paint job would cost at least $7.5 million.

The proposal to paint the building has alarmed preservationists, architects, historians and others who argue that granite is not meant to be painted and that paint would trap moisture and degrade the stone.

U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich said plaintiffs in an ongoing case had not shown that minimal tests planned for the historic building would cause irreparable harm if those tests go ahead.

The plaintiffs, which include cultural preservationist groups, had sought a restraining order and a temporary injunction to stop the Trump administration from conducting tests and other preparatory work.

At issue was whether that work would get ahead of a larger question before the court over whether the General Services Administration could delegate its authority for such a project to the Executive Office.

“The plaintiffs’ motion rises and falls on irreparable harm,” Friedrich said from the bench. The test areas would include about 8 square feet of the building’s massive exterior and several panels that can’t be seen by the public, she said.

Friedrich said that while she was allowing that test to move ahead, she would not hesitate to step in and rule if the administration moved beyond the limited testing. She asked the parties to provide a status report by next Tuesday and ordered regular reports following that.

Gregory Werkheiser, a lawyer with Cultural Heritage Partners and one of the plaintiffs, said that while he and others challenging the painting plan were disappointed, “the reasons we brought this case are untouched by today’s decision.”

The larger issue, he said, is whether “the president has taken power illegally from the GSA and put it in his office in terms of this project and the implications of that. If that holds true for historic properties around the country, that could be devastating.”

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has refused to block the Trump administration from taking steps to build 62 miles of international border wall along part of a Native American tribe’s reservation without its consent.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington denied the Tohono O’odham Nation’s request for a court-ordered halt to border wall construction on its 2.8-million-acre reservation. Leon ruled Friday that the tribe hasn’t established that a border wall will change its reservation boundaries without congressional authority.

The judge also rejected the tribe’s claim that the planned border wall would illegally trespass on its reservation.

“And in any event, I find that the Government’s interests in securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and ensuring public safety outweigh any surviving irreparable harms at this juncture,” Leon wrote.

The tribe released a statement late Friday strongly disagreeing with the decision.

“Too many critical issues were not adequately addressed, such as inevitable impacts construction will have on the Nation’s land and the permanent destruction of sacred sites,” Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Verlon M. Jose said. “The Nation will consider all possible options for moving forward, as this issue is simply too important to the O’odham.”

The O’odham reservation in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona abuts 62 miles of the Mexico border. The tribe has more than 37,000 members, including thousands who live in Mexico.

Building the border wall would lead to “significant devastation” on the reservation, including the destruction of mountain peaks that are sacred to the O’odham, tribe attorneys said.

“It would fray the ties between O’odham communities and families on opposite sides of the border, interfere significantly with O’odham religious rituals and practices, and destroy plant and animal resources sacred to the O’odham,” the lawyers wrote.

In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt issued a proclamation reserving a 60-foot strip of public land along the U.S.-Mexico border for a buffer zone dubbed the “Roosevelt Reservation,” which was formed a decade before the reservation’s establishment.

Tribe attorneys say it is “fanciful at best” to suggest that border wall construction can be confined to a 60-foot-wide corridor.

During a July 22 hearing, Leon appeared to be skeptical that U.S. laws tip in favor of the tribe’s bid for a preliminary injunction, calling it an “extraordinary” request. Leon, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, said he couldn’t find a previous court ruling under comparable circumstances.

“This is a novel case with novel issues,” the judge said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Great British Sewing Bee contestant were left shocked after a huge twist was annouced

Great British Sewing Bee judges announced a huge twist.

During Tuesday’s (August 11) episode of the BBC hit show, the sewing room was transformed for Sports Week with the eight remaining sewers facing a series of challenges designed to test everything from technical precision to their creativity under pressure.

They had to go above and beyond to impress judges Patrick Grant and Esme Young and earn their place in next week’s episode. However, not long into the show, things took an unexpected turn as Patrick revealed a major change to the competition.

Everyone was left stunned when the Savile Row tailor delivered the biggest surprise of the episode and announced that the contestants would no longer be working individually.

Just before they could get stuck into the Transformation Challenge, Sophie told the sewers: “It’s time for the transformation challenge, where you take something that’s been through the mill and give it a new lease of life.”

She then turned to Patrick and asked: “So Patrick, what have you got for them?” Patrick revealed the unusual materials waiting for the contestants.

He said: “Well as you can see, we’ve given you wind surfer sails. We want you to transform these into a two-piece outfit but for the first time in the sewing room, you will be working and being judged in pairs.”

The announcement immediately left the contestants stunned, with everyone gasping at the unexpected twist but Patrick wasn’t finished. “Which, like all classic cup competitions, will be drawn at random,” he added, meaning the sewers had no control over who they would be teaming up with.

Fashion designer Esme then laid down the challenge for the newly formed teams. “We want you to make a cohesive outfit. So, remember teamwork makes the dream work,” she explained.

Rather than being judged solely on their own individual creation, the pairs had to produce two pieces that worked together as a complete outfit – making communication just as important as technical ability.

And the choice of material was certainly not straightforward as they were presented with windsurfing sails. They had to work out how to turn a tough, technical material designed for use on the water into something fashionable and wearable, all while working against the clock.

Adele was paired with Tim, Emma had to work with Heather, Beth worked with Minnie and Rebecca’s with Anna. Despite everyone’s hard work it was Rebecca and Anna who came out on top in first place after impressing the judges with their crisscross trouser suit.

Patrick explained: “We chose this one as our winner because it was so dramatically different from the sail. But the way the whole thing ties together is exemplary.” Meanwhile Esme added: “I think it’s brilliant.”

The Great British Sewing Bee is available to stream on BBC iPlayer

A judge in a Northern California county that has become a poster child for election skepticism has halted a voter-approved measure that would dramatically reshape elections there, including by eliminating most voting by mail and requiring ballots to be hand-counted.

Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin L. Hanna on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks Measure B, a citizens’ initiative approved by 56% of voters in the June primary.

None of the measure’s sweeping changes will be implemented for the November general election, and all active registered voters in Shasta County will receive ballots by mail, as mandated by state law, the county said in a statement.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the state’s top elections official, sued Shasta County in mid-June, days after the primary, arguing that Measure B violates multiple state election laws and must be struck down before the November election.

The case initially was filed in California’s 3rd District Court of Appeal, but judges there declined to review it, saying the case first should proceed through the trial court.

In his ruling last week, Hanna wrote that he was halting implementation of Measure B while the case proceeds because allowing it to go into effect now “would likely result in the disenfranchisement of many Shasta County voters who would be clearly eligible to vote under state law, but would not meet the improperly narrow criteria to vote under Measure B.”

The measure, Hanna wrote, “seeks to create a whole new electoral system that would require creation of new voter rolls and re-registration of existing voters.” Doing so “would be “difficult under normal time frames, let alone three months before the November general election.”

Hanna cited the state’s “high likelihood” of success in the lawsuit.

Weber said in a statement that the judge’s decision “made clear what we already know — creating unnecessary barriers does not strengthen our democracy, it weakens it.”

The new public observation room at the Shasta County elections office.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

The Shasta Election Task Force, the citizens’ group that wrote the initiative and collected thousands of signatures to get it on the ballot, said in a statement that Measure B “was enacted by the voters” and that they do not believe the state has established a lawful basis for blocking it “merely because Sacramento objects to the election reforms they adopted.”

The fight over election integrity in mostly-rural, deeply conservative Shasta County comes as President Trump — who remains fixated on his 2020 election loss — is calling for the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections and fighting to restrict voting by mail.

Measure B gained popularity amid Trump’s baseless claims of cheating. California’s anticipated but painfully slow vote count after the June primary — largely the result of the labor-intensive process for tallying millions of mailed ballots — only fueled such claims. But it also prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers this summer to allocate $40 million to help counties speed up the process.

The citizens’ initiative approved in Shasta County would limit voting by mail, the method used by an overwhelming majority of Californians, to only “the infirm, military, and U.S. citizens living overseas.”

Measure B would require elections to be held in person on a single day and create a separate county voter registration system disconnected from the state’s uniform system. It also would require residents to present government-issued photo identification to cast a ballot (as would a statewide ballot measure that voters will decide upon in November).

The measure drew steep opposition from numerous civil and voting rights organizations — including the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Disability Rights California, the Asian Law Caucus, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California — who said it would disenfranchise voters.

One prominent supporter of Measure B told The Times in May that he expected the county to be sued if voters approved it.

“We don’t like the state laws,” said Richard Gallardo, a leader of Save Shasta Elections. “We want to enact our own local election reform. … There’s a lot in there, so, yes, we do expect the state to sue us.”

Gallardo, an election integrity activist who once tried, unsuccessfully, to place all of the county supervisors under citizen’s arrest during the COVID-19 pandemic, is among the “real parties in interest” named in the state’s lawsuit. He said he believed the onus was on the county to “fully and fervently” defend Measure B in court because it’s “the will of the voters.”

Richard Gallardo, a leader of the citizens’ group that wrote Shasta County’s Measure B, is blocked by a guard in November 2022 after attempting to go into a restricted area to observe ballots at the elections office in Redding. At right is then-assistant county registrar Joanna Francescut.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

In recent years, the election skepticism movement bolstered by Trump has found a strong foothold in Shasta County.

In 2023, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, swept up in unfounded election fraud allegations promoted by the president, ditched Dominion voting machines and opted to hand-count ballots for the county’s more than 110,000 registered voters — quickly prompting a new state law that banned them from doing so.

Last year, the supervisors appointed Clint Curtis — a Florida-based attorney whose claims about rigged voting machines stretch back to the early 2000s — to be the Shasta County registrar of voters, a position vacated by two previous registrars who resigned for health reasons, saying they were exacerbated by the stress of the job.

Curtis promptly eliminated nine of the vast county’s 13 ballot drop boxes. He accused his predecessors in the registrar’s office, without evidence, of stuffing ballots to sabotage conservative Republicans. And he called for federal authorities to raid his office and seize ballots.

Curtis — a vocal proponent of hand-counting ballots who has worked with MyPillow Chief Executive and pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell — advocated for Measure B and is named as a defendant in the state’s lawsuit.

He was voted out of office in June and will be replaced in January by Joanna Francescut, the former longtime assistant registrar, whom he fired.