requirement

Oct. 31 (UPI) — A federal judge in Washington permanently blocked President Donald Trump‘s executive order requiring proof of citizenship for those who cast mail-in ballots.

The president lacks the authority to change federal election procedures because the Constitution places that authority with Congress and the respective states, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled on Friday.

“The president directed the Election Assistance Commission to ‘take appropriate action’ to alter the national mail voter registration form to require documentary proof of United States citizenship,” Kollar-Kotelly said in her 81-page ruling.

Because Trump does not have the authority to order the EAC to alter federal election procedures, Kollar-Kotelly permanently enjoined the EAC and others from enforcing the president’s directive.

The ruling arises from challenges to Executive Order 14,248 — Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, which Trump signed on March 25.

In it, the president orders the EAC to require documentary proof of citizenship on the national mail voter registration form to ensure foreign nationals are not submitting votes via mail-in ballots.

State or local officials in turn would record the type of document used to show proof of citizenship.

The executive order also requires mail-in ballots to be received on or before election day for them to count.

The Democratic National Committee, League of United Latin American Citizens and League of Women Voters Education Fund filed the federal lawsuit against the president and the Republican National Committee to stop enforcement of the executive order.

“While the fight is far from over, we’re glad the court agreed that a president cannot ‘short circuit’ Congress and unilaterally use an illegal executive order to obliterate the rights of millions of voters,” said Marcia Johnson, who is chief counsel for the League of Women Voters, in a prepared statement.

Although Kollar-Kotelly blocked the enforcement of Trump’s executive order, other parts of the lawsuit are yet to be decided.

A judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from requiring recipients of federal teen pregnancy prevention grants to comply with the president’s orders aimed at curtailing “radical indoctrination” and “gender ideology.”

The ruling is a victory for three Planned Parenthood affiliates — in California, Iowa and New York — that sued to try to block enforcement of a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy document issued in July that they contend contradicts the requirements of the grants as established by Congress.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who was appointed to the bench by former President Obama, blasted the administration’s policy change in her written ruling, saying it was “motivated solely by political concerns, devoid of any considered process or analysis, and ignorant of the statutory emphasis on evidence-based programming.”

The policy requiring changes to the pregnancy prevention program was part of the fallout from a series of executive orders Trump signed starting in his first day back in the White House aimed at rolling back recognition of LGBTQ+ people and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

In the policy, the administration objected to teaching that promotes same-sex marriage and that “normalizes, or promotes sexual activity for minors.”

The Planned Parenthood affiliates argued that the new directives were at odds with the requirements of the program — and that they were so vague it wasn’t clear what needed to be done to follow them.

Howell agreed.

The decision applies not only to the handful of Planned Parenthood groups among the dozens of recipients of the funding, but also to nonprofit groups, city and county health departments, Native American tribes and universities that received grants.

The Health and Human Services Department, which oversees the program, declined to comment on Tuesday’s ruling. It previously said the guidance for the program “ensures that taxpayer dollars no longer support content that undermines parental rights, promotes radical gender ideology, or exposes children to sexually explicit material under the banner of public health.”

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press.

MARRIED At First Sight fans were left baffled as intruder groom Reiss revealed his very strange requirement for his wife.

The painter and decorator revealed to the experts tonight what’s on his checklist when it comes to his future bride.

4

4

4

But viewers were left confused when Reiss admitted he’s looking for a woman with a specific walk.

In his VT, Reiss said: “When people first meet me, they think I’m flash because of the looks. I consider myself to be a pretty boy.”

He continued: “If I was to go for a certain woman, I initially look at her teeth, her smile.

“I get a bit silly and I start looking into their walk, making sure they have a nice walk as well.

“A good walk for a woman is when they go one by one and not side by side.”

He then demonstrated using his fingers the type of walk he wants his wife to have.

But E4 viewers were left bemused by the requirement.

One wrote: “What did Reiss mean about a woman’s walk? The only way to do it is one foot in front of the other. It’s just a shuffle otherwise.”

A second posted: “WTF does Reiss mean about ‘I don’t like side by side walk’. He seems like a weirdo but was hoping he would be ‘nicer Steven’.”

A third said: “Hope Reiss demonstrates the crab walk he despises. I want to make sure I walk correctly.”

This person commented: “What the f*** is Reiss on about? How many women walk like crabs!?”

Someone else said: “Where the f*** did they get him from? At least I now know how to walk,” while this viewer posted: “Leisha better crab walk down that isle.”

“A good walk for a woman is legs going straight of each other one at the time and not side to side. Either the women where he comes from are constantly p***** or have s**t themselves,” another shared.

This person said: “She best walk down the aisle in an assertive…one foot in front of the other yet straight manner.”

While this viewer wrote: “Reiss seems to think he’s gods gift to women as long as they don’t walk like a crab…ok then.”

Another added: “How does he think women walk?”

Reiss, who owns his own painting and decorating company, said he loves to get his hands dirty and isn’t shy when it comes to grafting.

Reiss said: “I’m very close to my family, my nanny Linda is like an angel, she’s my rock. I love playing chess with her.

“My nan and granddad have had a romantic relationship for years, I’m hoping that’s what mine will be like.”

The Essex lad said he’s a romantic at heart and has learnt from the best – so is now ready to settle down.

Reiss, who previously dated Towie star Dani Imbert, also spoke about his most recent split.

He said: “I miss being in a relationship. You can’t really beat it.

“I don’t know if I’ve found the full package.

“I do choose the wrong girls. My last relationship unfortunately came to an end because the bickering became too much.

“I’ve been heartbroken in past relationships. When a girl leaves you, I feel abandoned and I just feel lost.

“Marrying a strange will work because I’ll do anything to find the perfect one.”

Yesterday, E4 viewers saw the pair meet for the first time at the altar.

Reiss could be seen turning around to greet Leisha, who was already laughing away.

The overexcited bride appeared to be too much for Reiss within the first few seconds.

In one scene, she can be seen bending her knees before screaming at the ground in excitment.

Reiss was seen looking on uncomfortably.

Speaking to the camera, Reiss voiced his concern as he said: “She’s 100 miles an hour.

“Let’s hope it doesn’t turn to 1000 miles an hour.”

Still clearly overexcited for her wedding day, Leisha said to the camera: “Buckle up because he’s in for a good ride.”

Ahead of the experiment, Reiss spoke out about his hopes for the show and the kind of bride he was hoping to marry.

His ideal bride is “someone blonde, petite with an element of glamour”

4

Eight football transfer students from Long Beach Millikan have been declared ineligible in the latest crackdown by the Southern Section, according to the section’s transfer portal.

Last week, Bishop Montgomery had 19 players declared ineligible. Several of those players have moved to Arizona to try to get eligible. The Millikan players received a two-year suspension for violating CIF bylaw 202, which involves providing false information.

Millikan previously announced it had forfeited two games for use of ineligible players. The team is 0-4.

In 2022, Millikan had to forfeit four games for an ineligible player and coach Romeo Pellum was briefly suspended by the school.

The Southern Section has been paying closer attention to transfer students for the last two years since requirements for paperwork went from two items to six, allowing for greater scrutiny.

WASHINGTON — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid.

Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money.

In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid.

After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year.

The appeal court’s majority partially vacated Ali’s order.

Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress’ spending powers.

“The parties also dispute the scope of the district court’s remedy but we need not resolve it … because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,” Henderson wrote.

Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held “in no uncertain terms” that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons.

“Yet that is what the majority enables today,” Pan wrote. “The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.”

The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals.

Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The State Department is proposing requiring applicants for business and tourist visas to post a bond of up to $15,000 to enter the United States, a move that may make the process unaffordable for many.

In a notice to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, the department said it would start a 12-month pilot program under which people from countries deemed to have high overstay rates and deficient internal document security controls could be required to post bonds of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 when they apply for a visa.

The proposal comes as the Trump administration is tightening requirements for visa applicants. Last week, the State Department announced that many visa renewal applicants would have to submit to an additional in-person interview, something that was not required in the past. In addition, the department is proposing that applicants for the Visa Diversity Lottery program have valid passports from their country of citizenship.

A preview of the bond notice, which was posted on the Federal Register website on Monday, said the pilot program would take effect within 15 days of its formal publication and is necessary to ensure that the U.S. government is not financially liable if a visitor does not comply with the terms of his or her visa.

“Aliens applying for visas as temporary visitors for business or pleasure and who are nationals of countries identified by the department as having high visa overstay rates, where screening and vetting information is deemed deficient, or offering citizenship by investment, if the alien obtained citizenship with no residency requirement, may be subject to the pilot program,” the notice said.

The countries affected will be listed once the program takes effect, it said.

The bond would not apply to citizens of countries enrolled in the Visa Waiver Program and could be waived for others depending on an applicant’s individual circumstances.

Visa bonds have been proposed in the past but have not been implemented. The State Department has traditionally discouraged the requirement because of the cumbersome process of posting and discharging a bond and because of a possible misperceptions by the public.

However, the department said that previous view “is not supported by any recent examples or evidence, as visa bonds have not generally been required in any recent period.”

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

July 8 (UPI) — The Transportation Safety Administration will soon let passengers keep their shoes while they go through security checkpoints at select airports.

ABC News reports that a memo went out to TSA officers nationwide last week that stated the new policy would start Sunday, and CBS News correspondents at New York City’s LaGuardia Airport and Los Angeles International Airport reported Monday that they and other passengers were permitted to keep their shoes on during the screening process. NBC News reports a press release received Monday states the TSA is “exploring new and innovative ways to enhance the passenger experience and our strong security posture.”

NBC also reported Tuesday that a senior government official said that while this is only happening now at selected airports, the rule could be relaxed across the country in the future.

Other airports where the shoe rule is ending include Baltimore/Washington International Airport, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Fort Lauderdale International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, Piedmont Triad International Airport in North Carolina and Portland International Airport.

However, the memo notes those who set off an alarm while being screened will then be required to take their shoes off for additional screening.

Shoe removal while being screened began in 2006 due to intelligence that indicated a threat that began after Richard Reid unsuccessfully tried to ignite homemade shoe explosives on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December of 2001.

ATLANTA — A federal judge on Friday blocked President Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional.

The Republican president’s March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline.

The attorneys general said the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” The White House defended the order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement.

Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday’s order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.

Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, “there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.”

Casper cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.

The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump’s election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.

The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it’s rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted.

The order also would require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day and puts states’ federal funding at risk if election officials don’t comply. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024.

Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump’s power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday’s ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections.

During a hearing earlier this month on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump’s order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year’s midterm elections and how much it would cost the states.

Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation.

O’Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count.

Cassidy writes for the Associated Press.