orders

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has stopped publicly revealing where it is holding thousands of detainees who are subject to final deportation orders, an unannounced move that has made it far more difficult for lawyers and relatives to find them, according to current and former officials familiar with the practice.

ICE removed those detainees from its online detainee locator system on Sept. 15, according to three current and former ICE officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the change. Several lawyers contacted by The Associated Press confirmed their clients vanished from the system this week, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association warned its members about the situation Friday.

The move represents a stark departure from previous practice and highlights the hardline nature of President Trump’s immigration crackdown, leaving thousands of detainees exceedingly hard to trace and potentially unable to exercise all of their legal options.

The practice, which applies to detainees who have received final orders of removal from an immigration court, could speed deportations by making last-minute legal challenges harder to pursue, immigration lawyers said. Nearly 16,000 people who were arrested and booked into ICE detention in July were subject to final removal orders, more than a third of the overall bookings, according to ICE data obtained by the Deportation Data Project based at U.C. Berkeley and UCLA.

The practice does not apply to detainees held at a detention facility in Adelanto, California or at temporary holding facilities in Minneapolis, New York City or suburban Chicago, the sources said. Judges have ordered ICE to list detainees in those facilities in the online locator promptly upon their arrival, as part of litigation over their detention practices.

Lawyers and relatives distressed by lack of information on detainees

The effort to hide their locations adds to the ways in which the Trump administration has made life harder for detainees and their families as it has increased pressure on them to waive appeals and agree to deportation.

ICE did not publicize the move and in a statement issued to the AP, the agency did not confirm or deny it. The statement said detainees with final removal orders were being prioritized for deportation, even as ICE faces a “historic number of injunctions” from courts stopping individual removals.

As a result of the change, lawyers and relatives lost track of their clients and loved ones without explanation, which is especially concerning because detainees are frequently moved to new facilities before deportation, said Greg Chen, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

“Families are freaking out because they think the person has been deported and they don’t know where the person might be,” he said. “On the attorney side, this has serious implications for the ability to contact their client. It certainly has implications about how it will interfere with the attorney-client relationship.”

The Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent agency, has argued that people who are subject to final removal orders have received due process. That usually means an immigration judge has ordered their removal after a hearing, including cases when immigrants fail to show up, and the decision was affirmed on appeal or not appealed.

Detainees with final removal orders still have options to appeal

Still, those detainees have options to challenge their detention and removal, including seeking to reopen the case or by bringing what’s known as a habeas petition asking a judge to release them on constitutional grounds. Federal judges have granted thousands of rulings ordering that detainees be released or granted bond hearings.

ICE detention facilities held more than 65,000 people as of early July, the most recent available data. Around 30% of them likely have final removal orders, said Michelle Mendez, legal director at the National Immigration Project.

More people have been issued final removal orders after failing to show up for hearings in recent months because the administration’s immigration courts have taken steps to make it harder to participate and to reopen such cases, she said.

“To me, it’s just another iteration of disappearing people,” she said. “Why would we do that in the United States of America? It’s something we’d hear about in another country and be concerned about individual rights and due process.”

Some with final removal orders also have legal protections against deportation to their countries of origin based on the likelihood they would be tortured or persecuted. Many of them are facing removal to third-party countries where they have no ties and their disappearance in ICE’s system will make legal challenges harder, lawyers said.

Lawyers say clients have vanished from ICE locator system

ICE initiated the online detainee locator system in 2010 to allow relatives, lawyers and the public to search for people in custody. Previously they had to call ICE regional offices or individual facilities to try to track them down.

Many advocates and lawmakers have complained that the system updates too slowly and contains too much inaccurate or missing information, allowing ICE to shield the locations of detainees for days or weeks. Minors, people who have been held by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for less than 48 hours, and detainees who are being transported are not in the system, among others.

But the exclusion of detainees with final removal orders has no apparent parallel, several immigration lawyers said. Atenas Burrola Estrada, a deputy program director with the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said that “every single one of our clients who has a final order has disappeared from the locator,” including 17 in all as of Monday.

Among those disappeared from the locator system are eight Somali men being detained at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to one of their attorneys, My Khanh Ngo, of the American Civil Liberties Union. She said the change could make it “nearly impossible” for people to challenge their removals in some cases.

“If you can’t find your client, don’t know what’s happening to your client, you can’t get that information to the court to stop their removal,” she said.

Foley writes for the Associated Press.

The ruling comes amid legal battle over Trump’s changes to the Kennedy Center, including his effort to rename it.

A United States federal judge has ordered the Kennedy Center to provide 30 days’ notice before making major physical changes to the building, including demolition, after President Donald Trump said the Washington performing arts venue could be “ripped down”.

US District Judge Christopher Cooper issued the order on Thursday, saying it would “avoid any confusion” following the centre’s sudden closure this week.

The Kennedy Center closed on Wednesday and will remain closed for at least seven days to assess what its executive director Matt Floca called “acute risks to public safety” from structural deterioration. Officials have cited a partial ceiling collapse earlier this month and problems with the building’s roof terrace canopy.

The temporary closure came a day after the center’s board voted to close the facility for an extended renovation. The Trump-aligned board has argued that the building, which opened in 1971, is in serious disrepair.

Trump said on Wednesday that his administration’s efforts to restore the centre deserved recognition and warned that without them, “it’s going to close. It’ll end up being ripped down”.

The judge’s order followed a request from Democratic Representative Joyce Beatty, an ex officio Kennedy Center board member who has challenged Trump’s efforts to overhaul the institution. Judge Cooper rejected Beatty’s request for an emergency hearing but ordered that any major physical changes, including demolition, would require 30 days’ notice.

On Wednesday, an AFP news agency photograph showed Trump on board Air Force One examining a placard that appeared to depict the Kennedy Center being demolished. The image showed the words “Kennedy Center DEMOLIS…” above a picture of heavy machinery clearing rubble.

The AFP image was viewed millions of times on social media and made headlines in many US news outlets. The photograph was included in Beatty’s court filing on Thursday.

The legal dispute follows Judge Cooper’s earlier rulings that blocked efforts to add Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center without congressional approval.

The symbolic move comes as Argentina escalates its claim over the British-administered territory.

An Argentinian judge has ordered the suspension of a British-Israeli oil project near the Falkland Islands in a purely symbolic move as Argentina escalates its claim over the British-administered territory.

Wednesday’s interim ruling issued by a court in Argentina’s southernmost province, Tierra del Fuego, follows a lawsuit filed by 1982 war veterans and environmental lawyers earlier this month.

The plaintiffs sought to block Britain’s Rockhopper Exploration and Israel’s Navitas Petroleum from the Sea Lion oilfield, located about 220km (137 miles) from the islands.

The judge ordered the companies to “refrain from initiating, pursuing, carrying out or having carried out any material actions” that would involve drilling, installing infrastructure or extracting hydrocarbons, according to a ruling seen by the AFP news agency.

Additionally, the suspension applies “until such time as the environmental impact assessment procedure has been conducted before the national authority competent in environmental matters”.

The judge gave the parties 10 days to provide information, including details about the status of the project, its contractors and its financiers.

President Javier Milei’s administration has also taken legal action against the project, arguing it violates a United Nations resolution calling for both sides to desist from unilateral actions in the islands until their dispute is resolved.

The court order comes just a day after Argentina announced it would file further legal complaints against companies exploring for oil near the islands, intensifying its campaign against businesses operating in the British overseas territory.

Britain and Argentina fought a brief but bitter 10-week war in 1982 over the South Atlantic islands, known to Argentines as the Malvinas.

The 1982 war ended with an Argentinian surrender after 74 days of conflict that killed 649 Argentines and 255 British troops, as well as three Falkland Islanders.

Buenos Aires has doubled down on its claim over the Falkland Islands after US President Donald Trump said Washington was open to reviewing its historically neutral stance on the territory.

London maintains the islands are British and rejects the jurisdiction of Argentinian courts in the Falklands.

The islanders themselves voted overwhelmingly in 2013 to remain British.

But Argentina rejects that outcome, arguing that the principle of self-determination does not apply to a population it considers implanted by Britain after 1833.

It remains illegal in California for a school district to force teachers and other staff to alert parents about their child’s gender identity, but parents must be told when they ask about it, a judge ruled Tuesday in a widely watched case dealing with parental rights.

San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Michael Sachs, weighing both state law and a Supreme Court order, rejected an attempt by the Chino Valley Unified School District to reinstate its mandatory parent-notification policy.

“There is no requirement that the school district, on its own, after learning of transgender issues, contact parents and let the parents know of them,” Sachs said in court. At the same time, “in the event a parent makes an affirmative inquiry of a minor child regarding their status, whether transgender or not, that will trigger an obligation by the school district to respond.”

Under the Chino Valley policy, approved in July 2023, a school would have to notify parents of any request by a student “to use pronouns that do not align with the student’s biological sex or gender listed on the student’s birth certificate or other official records.” The same notification rules applied to the use of bathrooms or participation in sports.

State Attorney General Rob Bonta immediately challenged that policy in court and it was put on hold. In October 2024, Sachs had ruled that most of the policy was discriminatory — and therefore illegal — because it singled out a group of students for treatment that was different than the treatment of other students.

As an example, he cited the possibility that a student would come out confidentially to a school counselor — and then that counselor would immediately be required to alert the parents, even against the student’s wishes.

A policy that could result in mandated actions by a school employee continues to conflict with the intent of a 2025 California law that barred a school system from forcing teachers to tell parents about a student’s gender, Sachs concluded.

“That’s inappropriate and it’s still inappropriate,” Sachs said Tuesday.

New rules, new rulings

What has changed in the legal landscape, he added, is what happens when a parent requests information about their child’s gender status or sexual orientation or any number of other issues affecting that child.

Trial court rulings — affirmed by a Supreme Court majority in March — said that parents have the right to demand information about their child’s gender identity at school. School staff cannot lie to parents — including matters that a student wishes to conceal from their parents.

Attorney Emily Rae, representing Chino Valley, said Sachs was correct to acknowledge that parents had the right to information about their child, but that his ruling did not go nearly far enough — and that parent notification should be mandatory statewide.

Chino Valley also has a separate pending court challenge to the 2025 California law, contending it is at odds with the direction of the Supreme Court, which should take precedence.

Dept. Attorney General Delbert Tran, representing the state, declined to be interviewed Tuesday, but in his exchanges with Sachs, it was clear that he saw the ruling as about as much of a win as would be possible, given the Supreme Court’s recent directives.

He also said that supporters of parent-notification policies misstate or misunderstand the parent-teacher relationship that exists in practice and under state law. Parents, he said, have the legal right to observe classes and meet with teachers, and the expectation is that teachers will communicate freely and often with parents about a child’s needs and progress.

Chino Valley champions its view of parent rights

Chino Valley, a school district of 26,000 students in San Bernardino County, has adopted and defended a series of policies favored by parent activists, religious conservatives and President Trump under the leadership of school board President Sonja Shaw, a Republican currently running for the office of state superintendent of public instruction.

Under her leadership, the school system has taken a stand for a flag-ban policy in schools and classrooms, widely viewed as targeting gay pride flags; for removing school library books with passages deemed to be sexually obscene, and for working to ban trans athletes from girls sports and girls locker rooms.

Shaw attended Tuesday’s hearing and criticized Sachs’ reasoning.

“When he talks about a parent has a right to know now only if they ask, how do you know you’re being lied to or secrets being kept?,” Shaw said after the hearing. “That absolutely makes no sense.”

Shaw said the judge should have done “what’s right: Upheld parents’ constitutional right to the upbringing of their own child.”

In anticipation of Sachs’ ruling against the original policy, the Chino Valley school board revised the policy, expanding it to all students. Under the current policy, if any student “requests a change to their official or unofficial records, parents/guardians shall be notified to ensure that parents/guardians are informed and involved in all aspects of their child’s education.”

In other words, if a straight male student named William suddenly decided he wanted to be referred to as Robert on the class roll sheet — an official record — his parents would be notified.

In 2024, Sachs accepted this version of notification because students were not singled out for different treatment on the basis of their gender.

That form of the policy remains in effect.

Since that time, Shaw said, the district has been “transparent” with parents regarding important issues in the lives of their children. And Tuesday’s ruling would not change that.

Moving forward, she added, the district could assertively ask parents if they want to be informed about their child’s gender issues and that permission — if given — would continue to apply as the student proceeds through grade school.

BAGHDAD: Iraq ordered the closure of ​the Shalamcheh border crossing between Iraq and Iran as a precautionary measure ‌after ‌the ​latest ‌drone ⁠attacks ​on Saudi Arabia, two ⁠security sources told Reuters on Saturday.

The sources said ⁠a wide-scale ‌operation ‌was ​underway ‌to pursue perpetrators ‌of the attack on Saudi Arabia.

Riyadh said ‌on Friday its vital East-West pipeline ⁠was attacked ⁠by drones that were launched from Iraq.

WASHINGTON: An Afghan woman accused of supporting a plot to carry out a mass shooting in the United States has been sent back to Afghanistan in the first case heard by a special US terror court, the Department of Justice said Friday.

Nazira Hajji Zada, 47, a Texas resident, was removed from the United States on August 25 on the orders of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) in Washington, the department said in a statement.

The ATRC was established by Congress 30 years ago but had never previously been used.

The Department of Justice said that Zada, who came to the United States in 2018, “conceded that she is an alien terrorist and waived appeal of the removal order.”

“This landmark case, resulting in the prompt removal of this alien terrorist to her country of origin, is a win for national security and the rule of law,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement.

“This first-ever case before the ATRC shows how the Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect our country.”

Zada’s son, Abdullah Hajji Zada pleaded guilty — alongside a co-conspirator, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi — to plotting an attack on US election day in 2024 on behalf of the Islamic State.

Abdullah Hajji Zada, who was 17 at the time of his arrest, was sentenced to 15 years in prison in 2025. Tawhedi is awaiting sentencing.

According to court documents, the pair purchased two AK-47 rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI employee to carry out a “mass-casualty attack.”

MOSCOW: Russian authorities said Tuesday they have detained a suspect in last week’s shooting that wounded a senior military officer, the latest in a series of attacks on personnel and figures linked to the war in Ukraine.

The Federal Security Service said a 21-year-old Moldovan national was detained for being allegedly “involved in an assassination attempt on a senior military officer of the Russian Defense Ministry” at the behest of Ukrainian intelligence services. He faced charges of attempted murder and illegal arms trafficking, it said.

The officer was shot at least six times on Sept. 3 in the Probuzhdenie settlement on the outskirts of Engels, a city in the Saratov region, said Svetlana Petrenko, a spokeswoman for Russia’s Investigative Committee, which is also involved in the case.

The region is home to a large air force base that hosts Russia’s strategic bombers and has carried out attacks on Ukraine.

The victim, who has not been identified by Russian authorities, survived the shooting and remains hospitalized.

The FSB alleged that the suspect was recruited by Ukrainian intelligence services in 2025 and arrived in Russia in June. He was detained in the southern Astrakhan region as he was trying to leave the country and return to Moldova, the agency said.

Petrenko said he was allegedly offered $70,000 for carrying out the attack.

There was no immediate comment from either Ukrainian or Moldovan officials. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky alluded to the attack on the day it happened, saying: “Wherever Russian criminals hide, they will be found, and today there is further confirmation of this fact – confirmation in the Saratov region.”

Last week’s attack follows a series of bombings in Russia targeting people involved in the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Moscow has blamed Kyiv for some of the blasts.

In late August, a serviceman was killed and his wife was injured by a car bomb on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. Three weeks before that, the director of a factory supplying drones to the Russian military was badly injured and his driver was killed when their car exploded just outside Yekaterinburg, 1,400 kilometers (about 870 miles) east of Moscow.

In those cases, the authorities did not immediately say who they believed carried out the attacks.

Earlier this year, President Vladimir Putin directed the FSB and other agencies to tighten security around military and government officials.

Kyiv has claimed responsibility for some attacks inside Russia. Ukraine’s SBU security service said in 2024 that it had organized the killing of Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, who headed the Russian military’s nuclear, biological and chemical protection forces.

Kirillov was killed by a bomb hidden in a scooter outside his apartment building in Moscow, a day after Ukraine’s security service leveled criminal charges against him.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed two executive orders aimed at strengthening the country’s ranching industry.

Trump has been facing criticism from beef producers since he waived tariffs on up to 300,000 metric tons of imported beef in an effort to ease rising costs as the nation heads into the midterm elections.

Trump’s first executive order directs the Interior Department to study removing gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act list, allowing ranchers to kill them on their properties. Gray wolves are a major threat to herds in the West.

The second executive order would allow ranchers to process their beef and sell directly to consumers, instead of going through USDA inspections.

“People have been asking for this change for decades, and we’re getting it done,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “This is the largest-ever government effort to change all federal rules and regulations necessary to support our ranchers and our farmers.”

Beef prices have risen this year due to drought and high feeding costs. The United States currently maintains the smallest herd since the 1950s.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said it was “disappointed” by Trump allowing more foreign beef to flow into an industry already under severe stress.

“While America’s cattle producers share the goal of keeping groceries affordable for consumers, flooding the market with government-subsidized, below-market beef is not the way to rebuild the American cattle herd,” the association previously said in a statement.

“Cattle markets have already turned sharply lower this morning, to the detriment of farmers and ranchers.”

Sept. 4 (UPI) — In a setback for Republicans, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against the use of a GOP-favored congressional map in this year’s midterms, directing that a referendum on redistricting be put on November’s ballot.

The ruling came down Thursday, two months before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, and after Missouri already using the use of the now blocked maps.

GOP-led Missouri was seeking to use a state legislature-approved redrawn map that was expected to increase the number of Republican-held districts from its 6-2 majority to 7-1, but the state’s high court on Thursday ruled that the opposition had the the right to have the issue put to a referendum.

The state’s General Assembly passed the redistricting bill in September 2025. In December, organizers who submitted a referendum petition collected more than 300,000 signatures in support of the effort.

But then last month, an hour before the statutory deadline, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins issued a “Certificate of Insufficiency of Petition,” stating that the state’s Constitution “does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly,” prompting Missouri voters to sue.

The state’s high court ruling on Thursday overturned a circuit court’s judgment, ordering Hoskins to issue a certificate of sufficiency as to the referendum petition to place it on the November general election ballot and enjoining him from implementing the General Assembly-approved map.

“The referendum petition was legal, sufficient and timely, and the secretary incorrectly concluded otherwise. HB 1 did not go into effect and will not go into effect unless and until approved by the voters,” Judge Ginger Gooch wrote in the ruling. “The congressional redistricting the General Assembly established in 2022 remains in full force and effect for the November 2026 general election.”

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, a Republican, said the state will appeal to the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

“Never before in American history has a court overturned a congressional map after a primary and before a general election. This unprecedented decision clearly violates federal law and has thrust our state into a full-fledged constitutional crisis,” she said in a statement.

“We are confident that the federal courts will not allow every Missouri voter to be disenfranchised — which is what today’s decision does.”

President Donald Trump also lambasted the decision on his Truth Social media platform.

“Not only was the ruling horrible, ridiculous and unConstitutional, but there won’t be enough time to change the map back with the Election coming up in a very short period of time,” he said in a statement.

“The Election Process, as usual, is being disturbed in America! Missouri must be able to use the map that was in effect just a couple of months ago, in the Primary. This is a Dark Day for ‘Justice’ in Missouri!”

The midterms have been a focus of Trump, who has warned Republicans that if they lose control of the House, Democrats will impeach him.

To improve their chances of holding on to the House, Trump has encouraged GOP-led states to conduct unorthodox mid-decade redistricting efforts, with Texas last summer being the first to redraw its maps to create additional GOP-favored districts. This kicked off a gerrymandering arms race, with Democratic-led states saying they would do likewise to counter the Republican efforts.

To date, 10 states — all but one being Republican-led — have changed their congressional maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, though several others have tried or are in the process of redistricting.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Missouri Supreme Court has unanimously blocked new congressional districts backed by President Trump from being used in the November election and ordered a statewide vote on whether to uphold or reject the new map.

The decision Thursday marks a rare setback for Republicans in a national redistricting battle. Republicans had hoped Missouri’s new gerrymandered congressional boundaries could help them win an additional seat and hold on to their slim House majority in the midterms.

Missouri Atty. Gen. Catherine Hanaway, a Republican, said she would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that the decision “has thrust our state into a full‑fledged constitutional crisis.”

Missouri’s new districts were used in the August primaries. But the state Supreme Court said they cannot be used in the November general election — or ever again, unless voters first uphold the new districts passed by the Republican-led Legislature.

The court ruled that the new districts were effectively placed on hold last December, when opponents submitted more than 300,000 petition signatures seeking to put the map to a vote of the people. Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins waited until primary election day in August to reject the petition. He asserted that the referendum process cannot be used for congressional redistricting. A lower court agreed, but the Supreme Court overturned Hoskins’ decision.

“The referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely, and the secretary incorrectly concluded otherwise,” the court said in its ruling. The legislation containing the new districts “did not go into effect and will not go into effect unless and until approved by the voters.” As a result, the congressional map adopted after the 2020 census “remains in full force and effect for the November 2026 general election.”

Hanaway, whose office represented Hoskins, called the ruling an unprecedented violation of federal law. So did Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who proposed the new congressional map to lawmakers to favor the GOP.

“Never before in American history has a court overturned a congressional map after a primary and before a general election,” Hanaway said in a statement.

Court ruling hinged on referendum rights

The Missouri Constitution does not specifically say a referendum petition can be used for a congressional redistricting law passed by the Legislature. But the Supreme Court ruled that a constitutional provision allowing a referendum on “any act” of the Legislature encompasses congressional redistricting.

It rejected assertions from Hanaway’s office that federal law prohibits referendum petitions on congressional redistricting.

“This is what democracy looks like,” said Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians Missouri, which sponsored the referendum petition. “The people of Missouri demanded a voice, and the court just confirmed what we’ve been saying all along. People, not politicians, will have the final say.”

Hoskins, acknowledging the loss, vowed to continue “the war to preserve our constitutional republic.”

The ruling, which capped a year of political maneuvering and legal wrangling, was one of two to go against Republican officials Thursday. The Supreme Court also ruled that Hoskins had wrongly rejected a petition for a ballot proposal making it difficult for politicians to change measures enacted by voters through ballot initiatives. The court also ordered that measure to be placed on the November ballot.

Missouri redistricting targeted longtime Kansas City lawmaker

Missouri currently has six Republicans and two Democrats in the U.S. House.

After Trump urged Republicans to redraw congressional districts to their advantage, Kehoe called lawmakers into a special session last year to reconfigure the 5th Congressional District, held by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver.

Cleaver, who was unopposed in the August primary, has carried the Kansas City-based district with at least 60% of the vote in each of the last two elections.

Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin won an August primary in the gerrymandered 5th District, which had been stretched eastward to include rural Republican areas. About 59% of the district’s voters were new under the revised map, according to an Associated Press estimate.

Cleaver had not posted campaign signs in many of the new rural areas, explaining that he was waiting for the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision. But he had vowed to continue his reelection campaign regardless of the outcome.

“Despite the cynical and deeply shameful attempt to silence many of our neighbors, the people fought back and won,” Cleaver said in a social media post Thursday.

Brattin, a Marine veteran and founding member of the conservative Missouri Freedom Caucus in the state Legislature, said the decision disenfranchises thousands of primary voters who now will be shifted to different districts with candidates they didn’t get to choose.

The court “handed Democrats a decision they desperately needed in their effort to help national Democrats retake the U.S. House of Representatives,” Brattin said in a statement.

Redistricting battle spread to over a quarter of states

Congressional districts typically are redrawn at the start of each decade, based on new census data. But Trump’s quest for a midterm election advantage triggered an unusual mid-decade redistricting battle that spread to more than a dozen states, including California — and triggered a dozen lawsuits in Missouri alone.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruling was one of only a few nationally to go against Republicans’ redistricting efforts.

Prior to its latest ruling, Missouri’s top court already had rejected claims that the special session was illegal, mid-decade redistricting isn’t allowed and the new districts aren’t compact enough.

After the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday, a few hundred people chanted, “Let us vote!” while rallying outside the courthouse. Grant Christensen, of Jefferson City, said he had signed the referendum petition to put the map to a vote.

“Gerrymandering is the same as voter suppression,” Christensen said. “Cutting up districts in order to steer them to vote one way or the other is not fair.”

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 25 (UPI) — Colombian President Abelardo De la Espriella ordered police and immigration authorities to begin to identify and deport migrants without legal status, starting in Barranquilla, the president’s office said.

De la Espriella issued the order during a security council meeting in the Caribbean city, where he announced measures to combat homicide, extortion, drug trafficking and other crimes, according to an official statement.

“The order to Migration is clear: coordinated operations with the police must begin in Barranquilla to find illegal immigrants,” De la Espriella said.

The president said authorities would first target foreign nationals committing crimes and then those who have not regularized their immigration status in Colombia.

“This is a presidential order that must begin to be carried out this week,” he said. “I will not accept illegal immigrants, regardless of where they come from, who are committing crimes in Colombia. They will leave, and we will deport them.”

De la Espriella said the measure was a political and administrative decision by his government. However, the announcement did not include a decree, an enforcement protocol or a deportation target.

The government also has not explained whether the order changes existing legal standards or seeks to intensify enforcement already carried out by Colombia’s immigration authority.

Deportations and expulsions were already part of Colombia’s immigration policy. Between August 2022 and June, Migration Colombia documented 3,389 deportations and 2,576 expulsions — a total of 5,965 people.

The leading reasons for deportation during that period were remaining in the country without legal status, with 1,380 cases, and entering or leaving the country illegally, with 1,315, according to Migration Colombia.

Other cases involved fraudulent documents, false statements, unauthorized activities, court orders and threats to national security or public order. The immigration authority said deportations and expulsions require individual administrative proceedings.

The decision fulfills a campaign promise. In June, when he was still a candidate, De la Espriella said foreign nationals who entered Colombia legally would receive guarantees, while those who violated immigration rules would be returned to their home countries, El Colombiano reported.

Colombia is home to more than 2.8 million Venezuelans, the country’s largest foreign population. Migration Colombia had registered 2,831,561 Venezuelan nationals intending to settle in Colombia as of Aug. 31, 2025, according to an official report.

The Association of Venezuelans in Barranquilla called on authorities to respect due process and the right to a defense during the new operations.

“Anyone who commits a crime must answer to the justice system, regardless of whether they are Colombian, Venezuelan or any other nationality,” the organization said. However, it warned that “irregular immigration status is not synonymous with criminality,” according to Caracol Radio.