judge

Nov. 13 (UPI) — A federal judge was set to hear arguments Thursday that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was improperly in her role when she brought charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Attorneys for Comey and James are attending a rare joint hearing to put their case before U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie in Virginia. Currie traveled to Virginia from her normal jurisdiction, the District of South Carolina, to hear the case to avoid a potential conflict of interest, NBC News reported.

The attorneys have argued that Halligan, a former personal attorney for President Donald Trump, is improperly in her position as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Trump handpicked her to replace Erik Siebert, whom the president ousted in September after he refused to bring charges against people considered political opponents of his. Siebert had also served in the U.S. attorney position on an interim basis since May.

Within days of being named interim U.S. attorney, Halligan brought charges against Comey on obstruction charges related to the Russian collusion investigation and, separately, against James on charges she committed bank fraud related to a property she purchased in 2023.

Under federal law, U.S. attorney posts may be served on an interim basis for only 120 days without a Senate confirmation.

James and Comey’s attorneys said that 120 days had already passed under Siebert’s leadership by the time Halligan was named to the post in September. Additionally, they argue that 120-day timer does not reset when a new interim U.S. attorney is named, CNN reported.

Currie’s ruling on the matter could upend the Justice Department’s cases against James and Comey. Comey’s lawyers additionally said Halligan didn’t have the ability to bring charges against him because a five-year statute of limitations had passed.

Both James and Comey have pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against them.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Wednesday denied a request from the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena seeking a temporary restraining order in their attempt to keep UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl, saying those entities had not demonstrated an emergency that would necessitate such an action.

Judge James C. Chalfant said previous cases in which the New York Yankees, New York Jets and Minnesota Twins were barred from moving games did not apply to this situation because those teams were scheduled to play in a matter of days or weeks and UCLA’s next scheduled game at the Rose Bowl after its home season finale against Washington on Nov. 22 isn’t until the fall of 2026.

The judge also said there was no indication that the Rose Bowl or Pasadena would suffer imminent financial harm because a contract to construct a field-level club in one end zone had not been signed.

The legal saga is far from over. Chalfant suggested the plaintiffs’ attorneys seek discovery information regarding the school’s discussions with SoFi Stadium and file a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Nima Mohebbi, an attorney representing the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena, said he had filed a public records request in an attempt to gather information about those discussions and was pleased with the judge’s statements.

“Even though he found that there was no immediate emergency,” Mohebbi said, “he made very clear in a lot of his statements that there’s irreparable harm, that UCLA has an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044 and we’re very confident in our facts of this case. So I think all in, we feel very, very good.”

After the hearing ended, Mary Osako, vice chancellor of strategic communications, said in a statement that “the court’s ruling speaks for itself. As we have said, while we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement or UCLA football home games, no decision has been made.”

UCLA has played its home football games at the Rose Bowl since 1982. In 2014, Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California system, signed a long-term lease amendment that did not include an opt-out clause in exchange for the stadium committing to make nearly $200 million in improvements through the issue of public bonds. When the judge asked attorneys representing UCLA if they intended to terminate the agreement, they shook their heads in denial.

But Mohebbi accused UCLA of participating in a shell game in which it had furtively explored options for moving to SoFi Stadium.

“What they really want is to have a back-room discussion where they can offer some certain amount of money and pay the city off without having to account for this publicly,” Mohebbi said. “… UCLA has not only attempted to terminate [the contract], they have indicated in no uncertain terms that they are terminating.”

After Jordan McCrary, an attorney representing UCLA, contended that his counterparts in the dispute refused to engage with the school in resolution discussions, Mohebbi said, “there’s nothing to talk about. They have an obligation — we’re not negotiating a way out of this agreement.”

McCrary disputed Mohebbi’s contention that UCLA attorneys had signaled an intention to leave the Rose Bowl through direct conversations between counsel, saying “we believe they were settlement negotiations and we don’t believe they’re admissible” in future court proceedings.

When a UCLA attorney contended during the roughly 80-minute court session that the school’s relationship with the Rose Bowl was breaking down, Chalfant said, “I don’t know why UCLA can’t just show up and play football at the Rose Bowl. You don’t need to talk to them at all.”

Chalfant said he did not agree with the UCLA attorneys’ contention that the Rose Bowl lease amounted to a personal services contract for which specific performance — essentially an order compelling the Bruins to remain tenants — was not available. The judge said specific performance could be available in a situation involving an actual breach or an anticipatory breach of the contract.

Rose Bowl officials have filed litigation intended to compel the Bruins to honor a lease that runs through the 2043 season, saying that monetary damages would not be enough to offset the loss of their anchor tenant.

They are also seeking to prevent the case from being settled through arbitration.

“I know UCLA really wants to have this out of the public sphere,” Mohebbi said, “but the reality is this is a public interest case and there are issues here that absolutely require this case to be in a public forum.

“We’re talking about two public entities. This is not the Rams, or this is not the Lakers. This is a public institution playing with public money going up against another public institution that relies on this other public institution to protect its own taxpayers from dipping into the general fund that goes to things like police services, fire services. I mean, God forbid there’s a fire like the Eaton fire this last year that we’re not going to be able to even cover the bond payments through the general reserves.”

Nov. 12 (UPI) — Hundreds of Chicago Immigrations and Customs Enforcement detainees will be freed soon after a judge ordered them released on bond.

On Wednesday, District Judge Jeff Cummings ordered bond for at least 615 people in a lawsuit brought by civil rights groups. The people held were arrested in Operation Midway Blitz, President Donald Trump‘s law enforcement operation in Chicago.

Those who will be released must be granted bond by noon Nov. 21, the ruling said. People eligible are those who have no mandatory detention orders and do not pose significant risk.

NBC 5 Chicago investigated the claim that the government has arrested the “worst of the worst,” showing that 85% of those arrested have no criminal convictions.

Cummings ordered the Department of Justice to review all remaining arrests through Wednesday and have a list by Nov. 19.

The plaintiffs in the case, the National Immigrant Justice Center, argued that hundreds of arrests by ICE agents were carried out in violation of a consent decree in Illinois and five neighboring states, according to 7 Eyewitness News. The decree puts limits on warrantless arrests.

The decree said that to arrest someone without a warrant, ICE agents must pre-determine if there is probable cause to believe the person is in the country illegally, and whether they are also a flight risk. Immigrant advocates say ICE has ignored those rules.

“As we’re digging into it, we are very concerned that many, if not most [of ICE arrests], are violations of our consent decree,” Mark Fleming of the National Immigrant Justice Center told 7 Eyewitness News.

“Our initial analysis is that it’s over 3,000 arrests,” that are in violation of the consent decree, Fleming said.

“We’ve started to dig into the case file that they produced to us, and the vast majority are violations. If they did not have a prior order of removal, in almost all circumstances, they’ve been uniformly violating the consent decree.”

The government’s attorneys have argued that Congress had stripped the courts of the power to grant parole to large groups of immigrants in ICE custody.

“Federal courts cannot order the Department of Homeland Security to release any aliens on parole because Congress has stripped them of that authority,” they said.

Nearly a decade after his 2016 novel, “All That Man Is,” was passed over for the Booker Prize, David Szalay has taken home gold with his latest work, “Flesh.”

“Flesh,” Szalay’s sixth novel, follows István, a socially isolated Hungarian teen who through circumstances beyond his control is thrust into London’s upper echelon. In the coming decades, he finds himself caught between his traumatic past and growing appetite for prestige. Szalay is the first Hungarian British writer to receive the prestigious award, which he accepted at Monday’s ceremony in London with visible surprise.

“I felt ‘Flesh’ is quite a risky novel, a risky book. It felt risky to me writing it,” Szalay said in his acceptance speech.

“I think it’s very important that the publisher — the novel-making community, if I can put it like that — embraces that sense of risk rather than shuns it,” he said.

In the judges’ view, Szalay’s risks more than paid off, yielding an “extraordinary, singular novel.”

“The judges discussed the six books on the shortlist for more than five hours,” said Roddy Doyle, chair of the judging panel. “The book we kept coming back to, the one that stood out from the other great novels, was ‘Flesh’ — because of its singularity.”

“We had never read anything quite like it. It is, in many ways, a dark book but it is a joy to read,” he said.

Despite chronicling decades of István’s life, “Flesh,” through narrative omissions, leaves readers with an inscrutable protagonist they nonetheless remain deeply invested in.

“I don’t think I’ve read a novel that uses the white space on the page so well,” Doyle said, adding that in “Flesh,” “Every word matters; the spaces between the words matter.”

The Booker Prize is an annual award given to the best English-language novel published in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

“Flesh” triumphed over five other shortlisted books: Kiran Desai’s “The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny,” Andrew Miller’s “The Land in Winter,” Susan Choi’s “Flashlight,” Katie Kitamura’s “Audition” and Ben Markovits’ “The Rest of Our Lives.”

“Flesh” has also received praise from writer Zadie Smith and singer Dua Lipa, who selected the novel for her Service95 Book Club.

“I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a character who has so little to say as István and yet by the end of it I cared about him so deeply,” Lipa told Szalay in an October interview at the New York Public Library.

During their conversation, Szalay shared that while “Flesh” was the file name for the book on his computer, he never expected it to get to the final press.

Yet his team couldn’t think of another title more fitting for the novel.

“The kind of slight unease that I think it provokes, that sense of tawdriness, I think that they really fit the book, ultimately,” Szalay said.

SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah judge on Monday rejected a new congressional map drawn by Republican lawmakers, adopting an alternate proposal creating a Democratic-leaning district ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Republicans hold all four of Utah’s U.S. House seats and had advanced a map poised to protect them.

Judge Dianna Gibson ruled just before a midnight deadline that the Legislature’s new map “unduly favors Republicans and disfavors Democrats.”

She had ordered lawmakers to draw a map that complies with standards established by voters to ensure districts don’t deliberately favor a party, a practice known as gerrymandering. If they failed, Gibson warned she may consider other maps submitted by plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led her to throw out Utah’s existing map.

Gibson ultimately selected a map drawn by plaintiffs, the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. It keeps Salt Lake County almost entirely within one district, instead of dividing the heavily Democratic population center among all four districts, as was the case previously.

The judge’s ruling throws a curveball for Republicans in a state where they expected a clean sweep as they’re working to add winnable seats elsewhere. Nationally, Democrats need to net three U.S. House seats next year to wrest control of the chamber from the GOP, which is trying to buck a historic pattern of the president’s party losing seats in the midterms.

The newly approved map gives Democrats a much stronger chance to flip a seat in a state that has not had a Democrat in Congress since early 2021.

“This is a win for every Utahn,” said state House and Senate Democrats in a joint statement. “We took an oath to serve the people of Utah, and fair representation is the truest measure of that promise.”

In August, Gibson struck down the Utah congressional map adopted after the 2020 census because the Legislature had circumvented anti-gerrymandering standards passed by voters.

The ruling thrust Utah into a national redistricting battle as President Trump urged other Republican-led states to take up mid-decade redistricting to try to help the GOP retain control of the House in 2026. Some Democratic states are considering new maps of their own, with California voters approving a map last week that gives Democrats a shot at winning five more seats. Republicans are still ahead in the redistricting fight.

Redistricting typically occurs once a decade after a census. There are no federal restrictions to redrawing districts mid-decade, but some states — more led by Democrats than Republicans — set their own limitations. The Utah ruling gives an unexpected boost to Democrats, who have fewer opportunities to gain seats through redistricting.

If Gibson had instead approved the map drawn by lawmakers, all four districts would still lean Republican but two would have become slightly competitive for Democrats. Their proposal gambled on Republicans’ ability to protect all four seats under much slimmer margins rather than create a single-left leaning district.

The ruling came minutes before midnight on the day the state’s top election official said was the latest possible date to enact a new congressional map so county clerks would have enough time to prepare for candidate filings for the 2026 midterms.

Republicans have argued Gibson does not have legal authority to enact a map that wasn’t approved by the Legislature. State Rep. Matt MacPherson called the ruling a “gross abuse of power” and said he has opened a bill to pursue impeachment against Gibson.

Gibson said in her ruling she has an obligation to ensure a lawful map is in place by the deadline.

Schoenbaum writes for the Associated Press.

A judge on Monday allowed the continued deployment of more than 300 West Virginia National Guard members to patrol the streets of Washington, D.C., as part of President Trump’s push to send the military into Democratic-run cities.

Kanawha County Circuit Judge Richard D. Lindsay made the ruling after hearing arguments in a lawsuit by a civic organization that argued Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey exceeded his authority when he authorized the Guard’s deployment in August.

“The question before this court is whether or not state law allows West Virginia to do this,” Lindsay said. “… This court believes that the federal law allows for the request made by the president to the governor.”

West Virginia is among several states that sent National Guard members to the nation’s capital. While the state National Guard has said its deployment could last until the end of November, it is consulting with the governor’s office and others on the possibility of extending the stay.

Formal orders were issued last week extending the deployment of the District of Columbia’s National Guard in the city through the end of February.

“We are pleased with the judge’s decision,” Jace Goins, the state’s chief deputy attorney general, said outside the court in Charleston. “The National Guard are going nowhere. They’re staying in D.C. They’re not going to be redeployed to West Virginia.

“The judge made the determination that the governor made a lawful decision deploying the National Guard to D.C. by a lawful request of the president.”

The West Virginia Citizen Action Group, which filed the lawsuit, argued that under state law, the governor could deploy the National Guard out of state only for certain purposes, such as responding to a natural disaster or another state’s emergency request.

The civic group claimed that it was harmed by the deployment by being forced to refocus its resources away from government accountability and transparency. The state attorney general’s office sought to reject the case, saying the group has not been harmed and lacked standing to challenge Morrisey’s decision.

“It was a simple issue of a broad, lawful request by the president and a lawful deployment by the governor. That’s all,” Goins said.

Aubrey Sparks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s West Virginia chapter, said she didn’t believe it was the correct decision.

“I think that West Virginia law is clear,” Sparks said. “I think what the state was permitted to do here is to skirt past West Virginia law simply because Trump asked them to. And that’s not how the law works. We remain deeply concerned about it.”

Trump issued an executive order in August declaring a crime emergency in the nation’s capital, although the Department of Justice itself says violent crime there is at a 30-year low.

Within a month, more than 2,300 Guard troops from eight states and the District of Columbia were patrolling under the Army secretary’s command. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist them.

Separately, a federal judge heard arguments Oct. 24 on District of Columbia Atty. Gen. Brian Schwalb ’s request for an order that would remove National Guard members from Washington streets. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Biden, did not rule from the bench.

Raby writes for the Associated Press.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Friday that President Trump’s administration failed to meet the legal requirements for deploying the National Guard to Portland after the city and state sued in September to block the deployment.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial last week in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.

The administration said the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property in a city that Trump described as “war ravaged” with “fires all over the place.”

In a 106-page opinion, Immergut found that even though the president is entitled to “great deference” in his decision on whether to call up the Guard, he did not have a legal basis for doing so because he did not establish that there was a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or that he was unable to enforce the law with regular forces.

“The trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence,” Immergut wrote. “The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws.”

The Trump administration criticized the judge’s ruling.

“The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Oregon Atty. Gen. Dan Rayfield said in an e-mailed statement. “From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.”

Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — have been pushing back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty.

Immergut issued two orders in early October that had blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. The first order blocked Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard; the second, issued a day later, blocked him from deploying members of any state’s National Guard to Oregon, after he tried to evade the first order by sending California troops instead.

Immergut has called Trump’s apocalyptic descriptions of Portland “simply untethered to the facts.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ordered that the troops not be deployed pending further action by the appeals court. The trial Immergut held further developed the factual record in the case, which could serve as the basis for further appellate rulings.

Witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to the president’s National Guard announcement.

The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion.”

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., because of safety concerns.

R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in Homeland Security about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem or Trump. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.

Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the Police Department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.

The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer because of property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.

Rush and Johnson write for the Associated Press. Johnson reported from Seattle. AP staff writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report from Palm Beach, Fla.

A US judge will not allow President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard members to the city of Portland, Oregon.

The ruling is the latest in a weeks-long court battle over whether the president violated federal law when he sent troops to a US city despite objections from local officials.

Troops had been blocked from deploying to the city due a temporary court order. Now, that order is permanent.

The Portland deployment is part of a series of efforts by Trump administration to subdue protests against federal immigration raids in primarily Democrat-led cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington DC.

The decision by US District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, is the first time the Trump administration was permanently blocked from deploying troops to a city.

The administration is widely expected to appeal the decision, though, and the issue could end up before the Supreme Court.

When she ruled against the Trump administration earlier this month, Judge Immergut issued two temporary restraining orders. One blocked Trump from mobilising the Oregon National Guard to Portland, while another, broader order stopped him from sending in any troops from any state to Oregon. Trump had tried to send forces from California and Texas.

In the 106-page ruling, Judge Immergut said that she was not blocking the president from ever using National Guard troops, but said that in Portland “the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard”.

She wrote that there was neither a rebellion or danger of a rebellion where the president needed to deploy troops.

She also said Trump had violated the 10th amendment of the US Constitution, which gives states any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.

The judge added that she would leave it to a higher court to set a standard for when a president can “deploy the military in the streets of American cities”, but that “wherever this line precisely is, defendants have failed to clear it. “

In Oregon, there have been competing narratives between state and local officials and the Trump administration on what exactly is happening on the ground.

The Department of Justice has described the city as “war-ravaged” and said there has been a violent siege at a Portland immigration detention facility.

“As we have always maintained, President Trump is exercising his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent riots that local leaders have refused to address,” the White House previously said.

But local officials and many city residents have said the violence is not widespread and is contained by Portland police.

“This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” Portland’s attorney Caroline Turco said.

US district judge blocks Donald Trump’s use of military force to tackle protests against immigration officers.

United States President Donald Trump unlawfully ordered National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, a federal judge has ruled, marking a legal setback for the president’s use of the military for policing duties in US cities.

The ruling on Friday by US District Judge Karin Immergut is the first to permanently block Trump’s use of military forces to quell protests against immigration authorities.

Immergut, a Trump appointee, rejected the administration’s claim that protesters at an immigration detention facility were waging a rebellion that legally justified sending troops to Portland.

Democrats have said Trump is abusing military powers meant for genuine emergencies such as an invasion or an armed rebellion.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield described the ruling as a “huge victory” and the “decision confirms that the President cannot send the Guard into Oregon without a legal basis for doing so”.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Rayfield said in a post on social media.

BREAKING NEWS: We just secured a final court order blocking National Guard deployment!

Today’s ruling is a huge victory for Oregon. The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/ffzgj0zCjM

— Attorney General Dan Rayfield (@AGDanRayfield) November 8, 2025

Portland’s Mayor Keith Wilson also applauded the decision, saying it “vindicates Portland’s position while reaffirming the rule of law that protects our community”.

“As I have said from the beginning, the number of federal troops needed in our city is zero,” Wilson said, according to local media reports.

The City of Portland and the Oregon Attorney General’s Office sued in September, alleging that the Trump administration was exaggerating occasional violence to justify sending in troops under a law permitting presidents to do so in cases of rebellion.

Echoing Trump’s description of Portland as “war-ravaged”, lawyers from the Department of Justice had described a violent siege overwhelming federal agents in the city.

But lawyers for Oregon and Portland said violence has been rare, isolated and contained by local police.

“This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” Portland’s lawyer Caroline Turco had said.

The Trump administration is likely to appeal Friday’s ruling, and the case could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.

A review by the Reuters news agency of court records found that at least 32 people were charged with federal crimes stemming from the Portland protests since they began in June. Of the 32 charged, 11 pleaded guilty to misdemeanours, and those who have been sentenced received probation.

About half the defendants were charged with assaulting federal officers, including 14 felonies and seven misdemeanours.

Prosecutors dismissed two cases.

Charging documents describe protesters kicking and shoving officers, usually while resisting arrest.

Three judges, including Immergut, have now issued preliminary rulings that Trump’s National Guard deployments are not allowed under the emergency legal authority cited by his administration.

BOSTON — President Trump ’s administration asked a federal appeals court Friday to block a judge’s order that it distribute November’s full monthly SNAP food benefits amid a U.S. government shutdown, even as at least some states said they were moving quickly to get the money to people.

The judge gave the Trump administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.

The court filing came even as Wisconsin said Friday that some SNAP recipients in the state already got their full November payments overnight on Thursday.

“We’ve received confirmation that payments went through, including members reporting they can now see their balances,” said Britt Cudaback, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

Uncertainty remains for many SNAP recipients

The court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for the food program that serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.

An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income. For many SNAP participants, it remains unclear exactly how much they will receive this month, and when they will receive it.

Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, N.J., waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.

“Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.

Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corp. food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.

“If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”

The legal battle over SNAP takes another twist

Because of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.

In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.

In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”

States are taking different approaches to food aid

Some states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services said it directed a vendor servicing its SNAP electronic benefit cards to issue full SNAP benefits soon after the federal funding is received.

Benefits are provided to individuals on different days of the month. Those who normally receive benefits on the third, fifth or seventh of the month should receive their full SNAP allotment within 48 hours of funds becoming available, the Michigan agency said, and others should receive their full benefits on their regularly scheduled dates.

Meanwhile, North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services said that partial SNAP benefits were distributed Friday, based on the Trump administration’s previous decision. Officials in Illinois and North Dakota also said they were distributing partial November payments, starting as soon as Friday for some recipients.

In Missouri, where officials had been working on partial distribution, the latest court jostling raised new questions. A spokesperson for the state Department of Social Services said Friday that it is awaiting further guidance about how to proceed from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP.

Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.

On Thursday, Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Jim Pillen downplayed the effect of paused SNAP benefits on families in his state, saying, “Nobody’s going to go hungry.” The multimillionaire said food pantries, churches and other charitable services would fill the gap.

Lieb, Casey and Bauer write for the Associated Press. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo., and Bauer from Madison, Wisc. AP writers Margery Beck in Omaha; Mike Catalini in Newark, N.J.; Jack Dura in Bismarck, N.D.; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Del.; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Ill.; and Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

Nov. 7 (UPI) — A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction barring federal authorities from using force against protesters, journalists and others in Chicago as the Trump administration conducts an immigration crackdown in the city.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued her ruling Thursday, in a case brought against the Trump administration in early October alleging that federal agents in Chicago have responded to protests and negative media coverage “with a pattern of extreme brutality in a concerted and ongoing effort to silence the press and civilians.”

The ruling explicitly states that the federal agents are prohibited from using crowd control weapons such as batons, rubber or plastic bullets, flash-bang grenades and tear gas against civilians unless there is “a threat of imminent harm to a law enforcement officer.”

In a bench ruling, reported on by The New York Times, Ellis said government officials, including Gregory Bovino, a top Border Patrol official leading the operation in Chicago, lied repeatedly about the tactics they employed against protesters.

The ruling comes amid growing criticism of the Trump administration’s deployment of federal immigration authorities executing Operation Midway Blitz, which began on Sept. 9, targeting undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

Videos circulating online, however, show masked agents hauling a woman, later identified as U.S. citizen Dayanne Figueroa, from her vehicle, which they crashed into, and forcibly detaining a teacher from a daycare in front of school children. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., said they detained the woman without a warrant, calling the actions of the immigration agents “domestic terrorism.”

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson earlier Thursday said during a press conference the daycare employee’s arrest “shocked the conscience of every single Chicagoan.”

In her bench ruling Thursday, Ellis, a President Barack Obama appointee, rejected the government’s description of Chicago as a violent- and riot-riddled city, saying, “That simply is untrue, and the government’s own evidence in this case belies that assertion.”

With pointed remarks at Bovino, she said the federal agent “admitted that he lied” about being hit in the head with a rock in October, which was his reasoning for deploying tear gas canisters.

“Video evidence ultimately disproved this,” she said, CNN reported.

Lawyers with Lovey & Lovey who brought the case before the court described it as protecting the right to protest.

Steve Art, a partner at the firm, called Ellis’ preliminary injunction in a press conference a “powerful ruling.”

“For weeks, the Trump administration has deployed Gregory Bovino and his gang of thugs to terrorize our community. They have tear gassed dozens of residential neighborhoods, they have abused the elderly, they have abused pregnant women, they have abused young children. On our streets, they have used weapons of war,” he said.

“We want to be clear every person who is associated with or who has enabled the Trump administration’s violence in Chicago should be ashamed of themselves.”

Nov. 6 (UPI) — The Trump administration has one day to fully distribute Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Court of Rhode Island Judge Jack McConnell ordered the program funding after earlier requiring the Trump administration to access available money to at least partially fund SNAP benefits amid the federal government shutdown.

McConnell required the Trump administration to apprise the court on Wednesday of efforts to fund the program formerly known as “food stamps.”

“People have gone without for too long,” McConnell said during an emergency hearing on Thursday, as reported by CNN.

“Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable,” he added.

He said the Trump administration has not done enough to access an estimated $4.65 billion in contingency funds to partially fund the SNAP benefits that cost about $9 billion per month to help 42 million recipients put food on their tables.

If SNAP is not funded fully, “people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur,” McConnell said on Thursday, according to CNBC.

“That’s what irreparable harm here means,” he continued. “Last weekend, SNAP benefits lapsed for the first time in our nation’s history.”

He called it a “problem that could have and should have been avoided.”

McConnell ordered the Trump administration to provide the full amount of November SNAP benefits to respective states by Friday, which would enable them to distribute benefits to their residents within a few days.

The federal judge also referenced a Truth Social post made by President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

In that post, the president said SNAP benefits only would be funded “when the radical-left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before.”

The social media post served as evidence that the Trump administration would ignore McConnell’s prior order requiring it to access as much funding as possible to distribute SNAP benefits.

He criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision not to access contingency funds to continue SNAP benefits instead of allowing them to be suspended as of Saturday.

“Even when Nov. 1 came, [the] USDA refused to use the congressionally mandated contingency funds,” McConnell said.

“USDA cannot now cry that it cannot get timely payments to the beneficiary for weeks or months because states are not prepared to make partial payments.”

McConnell is presiding over one of two federal cases filed by up to 25 states seeking to continue federal funding of SNAP benefits despite the record 37-day federal government shutdown that started on Oct. 1.

New York is party to both suits, and state Attorney General Letitia James welcomed McConnell’s ruling on Thursday.

“A judge in Rhode Island just stopped the federal government from starving millions of Americans,” James said in a prepared statement.

“I am relieved that people will get the food they need,” she added, “but it is outrageous that it took a lawsuit to make the federal government feed its own people.”

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to find the money to fully fund SNAP benefits for November.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. gave President Trump’s administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though it’s unlikely the 42 million Americans — about 1 in 8, most of them in poverty — will see the money on the debit cards they use for groceries nearly that quickly.

The order was in response to a challenge from cities and nonprofits complaining that the administration was only offering to cover 65% of the maximum benefit, a decision that would have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

“The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” McConnell said in a ruling from the bench after a brief hearing. “They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

McConnell was one of two judges who ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the federal shutdown.

The Trump administration chose partial payments this week

Last month, the administration said that it would halt SNAP payments for November if the government shutdown wasn’t resolved.

A coalition of cities and nonprofits sued in federal court in Rhode Island and Democratic state officials from across the country did so in Massachusetts.

The judges in both cases ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

The partial funding brought on complications

McConnell harshly criticized the Trump administration for making that choice.

“Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” he said. “This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here.”

Tyler Becker, the attorney for the government, unsuccessfully argued that the Trump administration had followed the court’s order in issuing the partial payments. “This all comes down to Congress not having appropriated funds because of the government shutdown,” he said.

Kristin Bateman, a lawyer for the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations, told the judge the administration had other reasons for not fully funding the benefits.

“What defendants are really trying to do is to leverage people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight,” Bateman told the court.

McConnell said last week’s order required that those payments be made “expeditiously” and “efficiently” — and by Wednesday — or a full payment would be required. “Nothing was done consistent with the court’s order to clear the way to expeditiously resolve it,” McConnell said.

There were other twists and turns this week

The administration said in a court filing on Monday that it could take weeks or even months for some states to make calculations and system changes to load the debit cards used in the SNAP program. At the time, it said it would fund 50% of the maximum benefits.

The next day, Trump appeared to threaten not to pay the benefits at all unless Democrats in Congress agreed to reopen the government. His press secretary later said that the partial benefits were being paid for November — and that it is future payments that are at risk if the shutdown continues.

And Wednesday night, it recalculated, telling states that there was enough money to pay for 65% of the maximum benefits.

Under a decades-old formula in federal regulations, everyone who received less than the maximum benefit would get a larger percentage reduction. Some families would have received nothing and some single people and two-person households could have gotten as little as $16.

Carmel Scaife, a former day care owner in Milwaukee who hasn’t been able to work since receiving multiple severe injuries in a car accident seven years ago, said she normally receives $130 a month from SNAP. She said that despite bargain hunting, that is not nearly enough for a month’s worth of groceries.

Scaife, 56, said that any cuts to her benefit will mean she will need to further tap her Social Security income for groceries. “That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,” she said. “But that’s the only way I can survive.”

The next legal step is unclear

This type of order is usually not subject to an appeal, but the Trump administration has challenged other rulings like it before.

An organization whose lawyers filed the challenge signaled it would continue the battle if needed.

“We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement, “but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.”

It often takes SNAP benefits a week or more to be loaded onto debit cards once states initiate the process.

Mulvihill and Casey write for the Associated Press. AP writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, La.; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn.; and Gary Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

The DOJ argued that the federal judge did not have the authority to make the decision.

A United States judge in Texas has approved the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss a criminal case against Boeing despite his objections to the decision.

On Thursday, Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court in Fort Worth dismissed the case, which will allow the plane maker to avoid prosecution over charges related to two deadly 737 MAX crashes: the 2018 Lion Air crash in Indonesia and the 2019 Ethiopian Airlines crash.

O’Connor said he disagreed with the Justice Department’s argument that ending the case served the public interest, noting that he lacked the authority to overrule it.

The government argued Boeing has improved, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is providing enhanced oversight. Boeing and the government argued O’Connor had no choice but to dismiss the case.

He said the deal with the aerospace giant “fails to secure the necessary accountability to ensure the safety of the flying public”.

In September, O’Connor held a three-hour hearing to consider objections to the deal, questioning the government’s decision to drop a requirement that Boeing face oversight from an independent monitor for three years and instead hire a compliance consultant.

O’Connor said the government’s position is “Boeing committed crimes sufficient to justify prosecution, failed to remedy its fraudulent behaviour on its own during the [deferred prosecution agreement], which justified a guilty plea and the imposition of an independent monitor, but now Boeing will remedy that dangerous culture by retaining a consultant of its own choosing”.

The DOJ first criminally charged Boeing for the crashes in January 2021, but also agreed to deferred prosecution in the case.

The plane maker was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the US. Courts found that Boeing deceived the FAA about what is called the manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system, which affects flight control systems on the aircraft.

“Boeing’s employees chose the path of profit over candor by concealing material information from the FAA concerning the operation of its 737 Max airplane and engaging in an effort to cover up their deception,” acting Assistant Attorney General David P Burns of the DOJ’s criminal division said in a statement at the time.

O’Connor said in 2023 that “Boeing’s crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in US history”.

Under the non-prosecution deal, Boeing agreed to pay an additional $444.5m into a crash victims’ fund to be divided evenly per victim of the two fatal 737 MAX crashes, on top of a new $243.6m fine and more than $455m to strengthen the company’s compliance, safety, and quality programmes.

On Wall Street, Boeing’s stock was up by 0.2 percent as of 11am in New York (16:00 GMT).

Nov. 5 (UPI) — A federal district judge on Wednesday ordered authorities to improve conditions inside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building near Chicago.

U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman, calling the conditions “unnecessarily cruel,” acted on a class action lawsuit Wednesday after hearing several hours of testimony from five people detained at the Broadview immigration detention site west of Chicago.

“People shouldn’t be sleeping next to overflowing toilets,” Gettleman, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, said. “They should not be sleeping on top of each other.”

The four-page order also mandates detainees to be able to contact their attorneys. The order on the class action lawsuit will run from Nov. 19, when he will have another hearing though the Trump administration was told to give him a status by Friday on complying with the order.

“The court finds that plaintiffs and members of the punitive class have suffered, and are likely to suffer, irreparable harm absent the temporary relief granted herein, that they are likely to prevail on the merits of the claims, that the balance of the equities tips in their favor,” he said.

They also must be provided with a shower at least every other day; clean toilet facilities; three full meals per day; a bottle of water with each meal; adequate supplies of soap, toilet paper, and other hygiene products; and menstrual products and prescribed medications.

Holding cells also must be cleaned at least twice a day.

Regarding legal defense, detainees must have free and private phone calls with their attorneys and a list of pro bono attorneys in English and Spanish.

And they must be listed in ICE’s online detainee locator system as soon as they arrive at the Broadview facility.

The judge heard several hours of testimony about conditions at the building, which is intended to hold detainees for a few hours.

They described the inadequate food, sleeping conditions, medical care and bathrooms near where they slept. They said they slept on the floor or on plastic chairs.

The lawsuit claimed the facility “cut off detainees from the outside world,” which the government has denied.

The judge didn’t act on the plaintiff’s request to limit how many people would be kept in holding cells and limit them to not more than 12 hours if the changes aren’t enacted.

The U.S. government said the restrictions would “halt the government’s ability to enforce immigration law in Illinois.”

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered prosecutors in the criminal case of former FBI Director James Comey to produce a trove of materials from the investigation, saying he was concerned that the Justice Department’s position had been to “indict first and investigate later.”

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick instructed prosecutors to produce by the end of the day on Thursday grand jury materials and other evidence that investigators seized during the investigation. The order followed arguments in which Comey’s attorneys said they were at a disadvantage because they had not been able to review materials that were gathered years ago.

Comey, who attended the hearing but did not speak, is charged with lying to Congress in 2020 in a case filed days after President Trump appeared to urge his attorney general to prosecute the former FBI director and other perceived political enemies. He has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers have argued that it’s a vindictive prosecution brought at the direction of the Republican president and must be dismissed.

At issue at Wednesday’s hearing were communications seized by investigators who in 2019 and 2020 executed search warrants of devices belonging to Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and close friend of Comey who had also served as a special government employee at the FBI.

Richman factors into the case because prosecutors say that Comey had encouraged him to engage with reporters about matters related to the FBI and that Comey therefore lied to Congress when he denied having authorized anyone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source. But Comey’s lawyers say he was explicitly responding to a question about whether he had authorized former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to serve as an anonymous source.

Comey’s lawyers told the judge they had not reviewed the materials taken from Richman and thus could not know what information was privileged.

“We’re going to fix that, and we’re going to fix that today,” the judge said.

Comey’s indictment came days after Trump in a social media post called on Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to take action against Comey and other longtime foes of the president. The indictment was brought by Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide and Trump lawyer who was installed as U.S. attorney after the longtime prosecutor who had been overseeing the investigation resigned under administration pressure to indict Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The Justice Department in court papers earlier this week defended the president’s social media post, contending it reflects “legitimate prosecutorial motive” and is no basis to dismiss the indictment.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 5 (UPI) — A federal judge was expected to rule Wednesday after he called the conditions at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in a Chicago suburb “disgusting” after hearing more than 6 hours of testimony.

U.S District Judge Robert W. Gettleman on Tuesday reviewed the conditions at the facility in Broadview, Ill., that ICE is using as part of Operation Midway Blitz. He’s ruling on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois last week over detainee access to lawyers and allegedly inhumane conditions there.

Gettleman told the court that what he heard qualifies for court intervention. He said he will issue a final ruling on Wednesday, and that it will not be “impossible to comply with.”

“I think everybody can admit that we don’t want to treat people the way that I heard people are being treated today,” Gettleman said after hearing testimony from five detainees being held at the facility, calling their descriptions of the facility “disgusting” and “unconstitutional.”

“It’s a disturbing record,” Gettleman said. “People sleeping shoulder to shoulder, next to overflowing toilets and human waste — that’s unacceptable.”

The Justice Department argued in a response to the ACLU’s lawsuit that people at the facility are “adequately provided with food, clothing, shelter and medical care before they are transferred to another detention facility.”

During the hearing on Tuesday, Justice Department attorney Jana Brady suggested that the five detainees may not properly recall their experience at the facility, and questioned whether they understood what was going on there in the first place.

Brady also noted, however, that authorities were working to improve conditions at the facility, which was operating beyond its normal capacity. She said there was “a learning curve” as operations continue.

In its lawsuit, the ACLU alleged that agents at the Broadview facility have treated detainees “abhorrently, depriving them of sleep, privacy, menstrual products and the ability to shower,” as well as denied entry and communication with attorneys, members of Congress, and religious and faith leaders.

The MacArthur Justice Center and Roger Baldwin Foundation, of the ACLU, called Broadview a “black hole, and federal officials are acting with impunity inside its walls.”

During the hearing on Tuesday, Gettleman heard from detainees who said they had to step over bodies at night while people slept on the floor; would wake people up when going to the bathroom because they were sleeping next to the toilet; received just a thin foil blanket or a sweater despite freezing temperatures overnight; and observed poor sanitation, clogged toilets, and blood, human fluids and insects in the sinks and the floor.

One detainee told the judge that female detainees at one point used garbage bags to unclog a toilet and that, when they asked for a broom to clean, guards refused.

The facility is a two-story building in an industrial area of the Village of Broadview, about 12 miles west of downtown Chicago, which has long been used by immigration authorities, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

In June, the Department of Homeland Security changed its policy to allow detainees to be held there for as long as 72 hours, up from the 12 hours that previously had been the limit.

After hearing from witnesses that detainees have been held there for as long as 12 days, and that the building does not have beds, blankets or pillows, Gettleman said the building has “become a prison” and may be “unconstitutional.”

The Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday afternoon said in a post on X that Broadview is not a detention center, but rather a processing center, and that it is processing “the worst of the worst, including pedophiles, gang members and rapists.”

“All detainees are provided with three meals a day, water and have access to communicate with their family members and lawyers,” the department said in the post. “No one is denied access to proper medical care.”

“Any claims there are subprime conditions at the Broadview ICE facility are FALSE,” it added.

Noting that the facility is a key part of the department’s immigration enforcement effort in Chicago, Brady said that a temporary restraining order requiring the department to improve the facility, “as it is currently written, would effectively halt the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws in Illinois.”

CHICAGO — A judge heard testimony Tuesday about overflowing toilets, crowded cells, no beds and water that “tasted like sewer” at a Chicago-area building that serves as a key detention spot for people rounded up in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Three people who were held at the building in Broadview, just outside Chicago, offered rare public accounts about the conditions there as U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman considers ordering changes at a site that has become a flashpoint for protests and confrontations with federal agents.

“I don’t want anyone else to live what I lived through,” said Felipe Agustin Zamacona, 47, an Amazon driver and Mexican immigrant who has lived in the U.S. for decades.

Zamacona said there were 150 people in a holding cell. Desperate to lie down to sleep, he said he once took the spot of another man who got up to use the toilet.

And the water? Zamacona said he tried to drink from a sink but it “tasted like sewer.”

A lawsuit filed last week accuses the government of denying proper access to food, water and medical care, and coercing people to sign documents they don’t understand. Without that knowledge, and without private communication with lawyers, they have unknowingly relinquished their rights and faced deportation, the lawsuit alleges.

“This is not an issue of not getting a toilet or a Fiji water bottle,” attorney Alexa Van Brunt of the MacArthur Justice Center told the judge. “These are a set of dire conditions that when taken together paint a harrowing picture.”

Before testimony began, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said the allegations were “disgusting.”

“To have to sleep on a floor next to an overflowing toilet — that’s obviously unconstitutional,” he said.

Attorney Jana Brady of the Justice Department acknowledged there are no beds at the Broadview building, just outside Chicago, because it was not intended to be a long-term detention site.

Authorities have “improved the operations” over the past few months, she said, adding there has been a “learning curve.”

“The conditions are not sufficiently serious,” Brady told the judge.

The building has been managed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for decades. But amid the Chicago-area crackdown, it has been used to process people for detention or deportation.

Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol commander who has led the Chicago immigration operation, said criticism was unfounded.

“I think they’re doing a great job out there,” he told the Associated Press during an interview this week.

Testifying with the help of a translator, Pablo Moreno Gonzalez, 56, said he was arrested last week while waiting to start work. Like Zamacona, he said he was placed in a cell with 150 other people, with no beds, blankets, toothbrush or toothpaste.

“It was just really bad. … It was just too much,” Moreno Gonzalez, crying, told the judge.

A third person, Claudia Carolina Pereira Guevara, testified from Honduras, separated from two children who remain in the U.S. She said she was held at Broadview for five days in October and recalled using a garbage bag to clear a clogged toilet.

“They gave us nothing that had to do with cleaning. Absolutely nothing,” Guevara said.

For months advocates have raised concerns about conditions at Broadview, which has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress, political candidates and activist groups. Lawyers and relatives of people held there have called it a de facto detention center, saying up to 200 people have been held at a time without access to legal counsel.

The Broadview center has also drawn demonstrations, leading to the arrests of numerous protesters. The demonstrations are at the center of a separate lawsuit from a coalition of news outlets and protesters who claim federal agents violated their First Amendment rights by repeatedly using tear gas and other weapons on them.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Sophia Tareen in Chicago and Ed White in Detroit contributed to this report.

President Trump’s administration said Monday that it will partially fund SNAP after a pair of judges’ rulings required it to keep the food aid program running.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture had planned to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program starting Nov. 1 because it said it could no longer keep funding it due to the shutdown. The program serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation’s social safety net. It costs about $8 billion per month nationally.

It’s not clear how much beneficiaries will receive, nor how quickly beneficiaries will see value show up on the debit cards they use to buy groceries. The process of loading the SNAP cards, which involves steps by state and federal government agencies and vendors, can take up to two weeks in some states. The average monthly benefit is usually about $190 per person.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the nation’s largest food program, said last month that benefits for November wouldn’t be paid out due to the federal government shutdown. That set off a scramble by food banks, state governments and the nearly 42 million Americans who receive the aid to find ways to ensure access to groceries.

Most states have boosted aid to food banks, and some are setting up systems to reload benefit cards with state taxpayer dollars.

It also spurred lawsuits.

Federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled separately but similarly Friday, telling the government that it was required to use one fund with about $5 billion to pay for the program, at least in part. The benefits and administration cost over $8 billion per month.

The judges gave the government the option to use additional money to fully fund the program and a deadline of Monday to decide.

Judge John J. McConnell Jr., in Providence, Rhode Island, said if the government chose full funding, it would need to make payments Monday. With a partial version, which would require recalculating benefits, the payment deadline is Wednesday.

Trump said on social media Friday that he does “NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT.” He said he was telling government lawyers to prepare SNAP payments as soon as possible.

Benefits will be delayed in November because many beneficiaries have their cards recharged early in the month and the process of loading cards can take weeks in many states.

Democratic state attorneys general or governors from 25 states, as well as the District of Columbia, challenged the plan to pause the program, contending that the administration has a legal obligation to keep it running in their jurisdictions. Cities and nonprofits also filed a lawsuit.

The USDA has a $5 billion contingency fund for the program, but the Trump administration reversed an earlier plan to use that money to keep SNAP running. Democratic officials argue that the administration could also use a separate fund of about $23 billion.

U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, said SNAP must be funded using at least contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday.

In an additional order Saturday, McConnell said if the government makes full payments, it must do so by the end of the day Monday. If it chooses partial ones — which involve recalculating how much recipients get — those would need to be issued by Wednesday.

That does not mean people would necessarily see the payments that quickly, because the process of loading cards can take up to two weeks in some circumstances.

McConnell also ruled that all previous work requirement waivers must continue to be honored. During the shutdown, the USDA has terminated existing waivers that exempted work requirements for older adults, veterans and others.

In Boston, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled the suspension was unlawful and said USDA has to pay for SNAP. Talwani ordered the federal government to advise by Monday whether they will use emergency reserve funds to provide reduced SNAP benefits for November or fully fund the program using both contingency funds and additional available funds.

Advocates and beneficiaries say halting the food aid would force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills. The majority of states have announced more or expedited funding for food banks or novel ways to load at least some benefits onto the SNAP debit cards.

Rhode Island officials said Monday that under their program, SNAP beneficiaries who also receive benefits from another federal program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, received payments Saturday equal to one-fourth of what they typically get from SNAP. Officials in Delaware are telling recipients that benefits there won’t be available until at least Nov. 7.

To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a household’s net income after certain expenses can’t exceed the federal poverty line. For a family of four, that’s about $32,000 per year. Last year, SNAP assisted nearly 42 million people, about two-thirds of whom were families with children.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.