ruling

The federal government can’t block benefits from the nation’s largest food aid program from being used to buy candy, soda and other sugary drinks, a judge ruled.

Monday’s ruling scuttles restrictions now in place or planned for the federally funded and state-run Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 23 states. President Trump’s administration has not said whether it will appeal to a higher court.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who sits in Washington and was nominated to the bench by former President Obama, said in her opinion that the ruling was because the federal government did not follow its own definition of “food.” She said it wasn’t a comment on whether the restrictions are a good idea.

“The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals,” she wrote. “But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”

The restrictions are part of the Make America Healthy Again campaign

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have encouraged states to limit what the food aid can be used to buy as part of the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign.

They reason that soda and candy fuel obesity, diabetes and chronic disease epidemics — and taking them off the menu would encourage healthier food choices.

The Agriculture Department has given 23 states so far permission to implement restrictions. Some have been implemented already, while others are queued to take effect in the coming months and years.

At least one state that was set to limit soda and candy purchases changed course earlier this year. Colorado’s human services board voted against implementing the ban after a March hearing in which SNAP beneficiaries and advocates said people would face stigmas if they mistakenly tried to use the benefits on prohibited items. They also said the rules were confusing because they would have allowed buying drinks with at least 50% fruit or vegetable juice, but not those with less.

While the goals are similar, the exact rules vary by state. Some wanted to ban both sugary drinks and candy, while others only sought to ban sugary beverages.

A legal challenge to the candy and soda ban — which includes items such as sports drinks in some states — was filed by SNAP beneficiaries in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Judge says government ignored a definition of food

Jackson said the main legal misstep in restricting what SNAP benefits could buy came because it ran contrary to Congress’s definition of “food.”

Under the law, SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — can be used for “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.”

The government can waive requirements, but limiting use of the benefits to improve nutrition isn’t listed as a reason to do so. Yet when states asked the Agriculture Department to let them restrict purchases, their requests included using alternate definitions of “food.”

This may not be the final word

The Agriculture Department has not said whether it intends to appeal the ruling.

The case is among scores of challenges to Trump administration policies that hinge on whether the administration has the authority to change policies without congressional approval.

While it’s a big program helping nearly 39 million Americans — about 1 in 9 — buy groceries, SNAP is normally relatively low-profile. That’s been different since Trump returned to office last year.

Under his big tax and policy law signed last year, more recipients are subject to work requirements and states are being required to pay a larger share of administrative costs — and could be on the hook for benefit costs if their error rates are too high.

During a government shutdown last year, courts blocked the administration from cutting off benefits. Meanwhile, Rollins has said that there’s rampant fraud in the program.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ruled that a recently revamped version of a federal tool central to the Trump administration’s election integrity strategy is unlawful and can no longer be used.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan sided with advocacy groups that argued the recent upgrades to the program, called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, aggregated Americans’ sensitive personal data in a way that could result in voters being wrongly purged from voter rolls.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan said in an order explaining the decision. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

She said Congress had expressly prohibited the government from centralizing Americans’ personal identifying information and that the federal agencies that created the SAVE program “knew that the database violates those statutory protections.”

The decision is a major legal setback for President Trump in his efforts to use federal agencies to encourage a nationwide crackdown on noncitizens illegally on state voter rolls. The modified SAVE system, which critics had referred to as an unlawful centralized federal database of voter information, had been a key pillar of the second election executive order the Republican president signed earlier this year. The ruling leaves its future uncertain.

“It’s amazing how hard the Left will fight to stop us from solving problems they insist do not exist,” James Percival, general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, said of the ruling in a social media post.

The department referred to his post as its comment on the ruling. The Department of Justice did not immediately return a request for comment.

The SAVE program was created under an immigration law mandating that Homeland Security help federal, state and local agencies prevent government benefits from going to noncitizens. At least 25 states used it to check their voter rolls since April 2025, after the Trump administration significantly expanded its search abilities. Since then, at least 67 million registrations have been scanned through the program, but critics worry it could end up purging valid voters from the rolls.

The plaintiffs, including the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and five unnamed U.S. citizens, had alleged the revamped SAVE program violated Americans’ privacy and voting rights. The groups also alleged the Trump administration violated federal privacy laws by ignoring transparency requirements about the changes to the system.

“The agencies were scrambling to comply with an Executive Order aimed at reshaping federal elections, which directed them to create a system for mass voter verification,” the judge wrote. “So they haphazardly combined and repurposed the private information of millions of Americans, including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable.”

Plaintiffs attorney Nikhel Sus told the court during the October hearing that naturalized citizens face a greater risk of unlawfully being purged from voter rolls.

“They are uniquely vulnerable to errors in the database,” said Sus, an attorney for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Sus said Monday he sees Sooknanan’s ruling as an “across the board victory” and noted the plaintiffs were pleased the judge’s ruling reinforced their argument that the federal government doesn’t have implied authority to freely share sensitive data across agencies.

Swenson and Hussein write for the Associated Press. Swenson reported from New York.

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge has blocked an attempt by the Trump administration to subpoena Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other state officials, calling it an effort to “harass and retaliate against them.”

In a ruling unsealed Monday, U.S. District Judge Patrick Schlitz found the “dominant purpose” of the subpoenas was to “coerce Minnesota officials into assisting the federal government with enforcing civil immigration law and to harass and retaliate against them for failing to do so.”

The subpoenas were served in January as part of an investigation into whether Walz and other officials obstructed or impeded law enforcement during a sweeping immigration operation in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

The subpoenas, which seek records, were sent to the offices of Walz, Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her and officials in Ramsey and Hennepin counties.

The judge ruled that there appeared to be “extremely weak to nonexistent” connections between the information sought in the subpoenas and any possible criminal violation. The subpoenas seek materials “that largely if not entirely relate to constitutionally protected conduct,” the judge wrote, noting that Minnesota has the legal right not to devote its resources to enforcing federal immigration law.

The Justice Department “is not conducting a criminal investigation,” the judge wrote, “but is instead using the grand jury process for other (unlawful) purposes.”

The evidence that the subpoenas were issued for unlawful reasons is overwhelming, the judge said, arguing that the Justice Department “has struggled — without success — to identify a single plausible investigatory justification” for them.

Walz, in a statement, called the ruling “a victory for the rule of law and our democracy.”

“The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations into the President’s political opponents,” said Walz, the 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president. “This case was just one example of that, but we are seeing daily reminders of this administration’s lawlessness — in Minnesota and around the country. We all must continue to seek justice and uphold the rule of law.”

Ellison said “it should disturb every American that Donald Trump is weaponizing the criminal justice system against people he disagrees with.”

The subpoenas are “a politically motivated retaliation against our city for lawfully standing up to ICE and fighting for our residents,” Her said in a statement, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Frey said the investigation was “never about justice, law, and order, but the absence of it.”

“Subpoenaing political opponents because they spoke on behalf of their constituents violates the core tenets of our democracy and human decency,” he said.

Frey also observed that criticizing government action is not a crime.

“One of the defining strengths of our democracy is the ability to challenge those in power without fear of retribution. Elected officials have both the right and the responsibility to speak honestly about how government decisions affect the people they serve,” he said.

Bauer and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

PHILADELPHIA — The Trump administration can replace a slavery exhibit at George Washington’s home in Philadelphia, a federal appeals court panel said Thursday, striking down a lower court’s injunction that required the National Park Service to reinstall the interpretive panels.

The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge wrongly interpreted Philadelphia’s contract claims involving Independence National Historical Park, saying the city merely having standing to sue did not mean its arguments had merit. The panel also praised the plans for the replacement installation, writing that they were “full of historical context,” despite objections from historians and city officials that the content appears whitewashed.

The ruling comes a week after a Massachusetts federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore sites changed under an executive order calling for the nation’s museums, parks and landmarks to not display elements that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.” The federal government has asked for a stay on that ruling while it appeals.

It was unclear how the Massachusetts ruling would affect the restoration or replacement of the panels at the President’s House Site. About half the large panels at the outdoor exhibit had been restored before a February pause in the work.

Messages to spokespeople for the Department of Interior and the National Park Service were not returned.

In a statement on Instagram late Thursday, Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker vowed to pursue legal avenues to reverse the decision.

“We cannot and WILL not rest until the full story of American history – including the existence of Slavery at the President’s House here in Philadelphia – is told, for our Nation and the World to see,” she wrote.

Dawn Chavous, a volunteer for Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, one of the advocacy groups that helped develop the site in the 2000s, said they are disappointed with the decision but are speaking to their attorneys and considering options.

“For decades, ATAC has worked to ensure that the stories of the enslaved African descendants who lived and labored at the President’s House are not erased, overlooked, or misrepresented,” the group said in an emailed statement. “That commitment remains unwavering. We believe that historical truth matters, and we will continue to advocate for the protection, preservation, and accurate interpretation of this important chapter of American history.”

The city of Philadelphia sued in January after the National Park Service, in response to President Trump’s executive order, removed the explanatory panels from the President’s House Site, where George and Martha Washington lived with nine of their slaves in the 1790s, when Philadelphia was briefly the nation’s capital.

The city had worked in tandem with the federal government, historians and private partners to create the exhibit in the early 2000s — as part of a longstanding cooperation agreement over the downtown historical park — and contributed $1.5 million toward its creation.

The city argued that the federal government must consult with the city before making changes to the President’s House Site. Justice Department lawyers argued the administration alone can decide what stories are told at National Park Service properties.

In its ruling Thursday, the appeals panel said the maintenance portion of the contract between the city and the federal government could not be interpreted to mean the site would remain as it was when it was completed.

“The duty to ‘maintain’ is better understood as a general management obligation that accompanies ownership, not a promise that the exhibits will forever remain in place regardless of the owner’s wishes,” the opinion said.

Casey and Lauer write for the Associated Press. Casey contributed to this report from Boston.

WASHINGTON  — A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Thursday for gun rights and against drug laws.

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices struck down part of the longstanding federal gun control law that makes it a crime for an “unlawful user” of illegal drugs to possess a gun.

The Trump administration had urged the court to uphold the conviction of a Texas man who was investigated for alleged terrorist ties and admitted to being a regular user of marijuana.

Rejecting that claim, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, speaking for the court, said the law was far too broad and overly harsh.

“The law automatically bans an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he ceases being one,” he wrote. “It doesn’t matter what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others.”

And it can lead to a 15-year prison term, he added.

He noted, however, the court was not ruling on “addicts” or people who were under the influence of drugs when they were arrested.

The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the ruling.

“Today’s unanimous 9-0 decision makes it clear that the government cannot make it crime for people to own a gun, which the Supreme Court has held is a fundamental constitutional right, simply because they use marijuana,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.”

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives and other persons deemed to be dangerous. Included was anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a Texas case this restriction on guns violated the 2nd Amendment. It said “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration urged the justices to uphold the law.

“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society—especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” said Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

He asked the court to rule in the case of a Pakistani native who was investigated by the FBI for his suspected ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

In 2020, Ali Danial Hemani and his parents “traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before,” the administration told the court last year.

The FBI obtained a warrant to search Hemani’s family home.

Agents found a Glock 9mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine.

Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.

A federal grand jury in Texas charged him with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana.

Brendan Sorsby won’t be playing football for Texas Tech this fall after all.

It’s not because the transfer quarterback has been permanently banned by the NCAA for wagering on college sports — an injunction issued by a Texas judge last week appeared to clear the way for Sorsby to play for the Red Raiders in 2026.

That ruling, however, was being challenged through separate court filings by the NCAA and the Big 12 Conference. Facing that uncertainty over his final season, and with the deadline to enter the NFL supplemental draft quickly approaching, Sorsby opted to leave the Red Raiders without playing a down.

Sorsby’s decision was announced Monday night in an open letter by Cody Campbell, chairman of the Texas Tech board of regents.

“This decision was made with Brendan and his family and is purely an output of practical analysis of the situation,” Campbell wrote. “Brendan and Texas Tech stand on very solid and legitimate legal ground, but he faces a June 22nd deadline to be eligible to enter the NFL’s supplemental draft, and there is no practical way to resolve all the various pending legal disputes and ensure his eligibility prior to this date. This is the only viable and fair path for Brendan and his future, as well as for his teammates, and our university.”

Sorsby posted a statement Monday night on Instagram.

“I am grateful for the support from my family, my Tech coaching staff, teammates, the community, and so many others who have encouraged me to address and learn more about this important issue,” Sorsby wrote. “As my journey continues, I remain fully committed to and focused on being the best I can be, both on and off the field.”

Sorsby transferred to Texas Tech this offseason, after two years each at Indiana and Cincinnati, for a reported multimillion-dollar deal. In late April, he and Texas Tech jointly announced that he had entered a residential treatment program for gambling addiction. Sorsby completed the 35-day program in May.

Court records show that Sorsby has admitted to wagering at least $90,000 during his time as an NCAA student athlete, including 40 bets on Indiana football games he was not participating in while a freshman backup with the Hoosiers in 2022.

“Texas Tech will continue to provide the support and recovery resources Brendan requires on this journey,” Campbell wrote. “Furthermore, Texas Tech will not seek return of any amounts already paid to Brendan through his NIL agreements.”

In May, Sorsby filed a lawsuit in Lubbock County District Court asking to have his eligibility restored because the NCAA “failed to comply with its contractual commitments” to him as a student athlete and therefore “is precluded from enforcing its gambling bylaws against Mr. Sorsby to deny or withhold his reinstatement.”

Last week, judge Ken Curry granted a temporary injunction that would have allowed Sorsby to play for the Red Raiders in 2026. He would have had to miss the first two games of the season as one of the conditions of the ruling.

Without the injunction, Curry wrote in his ruling, Sorsby would “suffer a probable, imminent and irreparable injury” by missing out on the “elite coaching, training resources, camaraderie, and regimen that only being a member of a Division I college football team can provide.”

The final hearing had been scheduled to begin Feb. 8, nearly two weeks after college football’s national championship game.

Following the ruling, several teams and conferences discussed a ban on playing Texas Tech in any sport. After appealing the decision last week, the NCAA filed an emergency motion on Monday to stay the injunction and asked for the case to be resolved before the start of the Red Raiders season.

Also on Monday, the Big 12 filed for a judgment from a U.S. District Court in Dallas protecting the conference’s ability under its bylaws to sanction Texas Tech, a member school, if Sorsby played this season.

“An athlete with an extensive, documented history of wagering on intercollegiate athletic contests — especially his own team’s games — presents a reputational and integrity risk to the conference and its championship competition that the conference has both the right and the responsibility to address,” attorneys for the Big 12 wrote in the filing.

Soon after Campbell announced Sorsby’s decision, Texas Tech president Lawrence Schovanec and athletic director Kirby Hocutt issued a joint statement on the matter.

“When Brendan’s lawsuit resulted in the granting of a temporary injunction, we found ourselves in a difficult situation,” they wrote. “With his health and wellness as our top priority, we supported him in spite of very different perspectives and opinions. Our position was challenged by many but our support for him never changed.

“We will continue to extend all available resources that Brendan had as a student and athlete to ensure his transition is as successful as possible.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A federal immigration judge has granted asylum to a woman orphaned in Iran in the 1970s and adopted by an American war veteran, whom immigration officials threatened this year with deportation to the country with which the U.S. is now at war.

Judge Andrew Fishkin’s ruling probably ends a months-long ordeal for the California woman, one of thousands adopted from abroad who were never granted citizenship because of bureaucratic loopholes between adoption and immigration law.

The woman has lived in the United States since she was adopted by American parents as a toddler and has no criminal record. The Associated Press is not naming her because she worries her legal situation remains tenuous as the administration has time to appeal. A federal judge has allowed her to use a pseudonym, “Ms. S,” in her challenge to the government’s determination of her immigration status.

The woman received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security in February that ordered her to appear for removal proceedings, saying she is subject to deportation because she overstayed her visa in March 1974 at 4 years old.

The woman, 56, described what came next as a terrifying and humiliating few months.

She grew up in a Christian, military family on a farm in Wisconsin and was taught to be patriotic. But the documents she received from the government described her as an “alien;” some said she did not understand English, which is the only language she speaks.

Immigration officials told her she was being arrested, but was released and tracked with an ankle monitor. She bought new pants to try to hide it and taught herself not to cross her legs in work meetings, terrified it would threaten the corporate job in healthcare she’s held for almost two decades.

They fingerprinted her and took her DNA. She said she was obviously weeping in the mug shot they snapped of her.

She prepared herself to be detained: She put her bills on autopay and gave her friends a key to her home.

Her lawyer, Emily Howe, said the government had the power to agree she is an American citizen.

“Instead they treated her like a terrorist, like she was the worst of the worst criminals,” Howe said. “It felt very Big Brother, very Orwellian.”

The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the record on an individual case.

The Associated Press profiled the woman in 2024 as part of a story about how many international adoptees were left without citizenship because their American adoptive parents failed to naturalize them.

The woman’s parents were living in Iran, where her father was working for a U.S. government contractor, in the 1970s. He was retired from the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel. He’d been held for years a prisoner of war in Germany during World War II.

The couple found the toddler at an orphanage and returned to the U.S. with her in 1973 and soon completed the adoption. At that time, parents had to separately naturalize adopted children. The woman’s parents have since died.

She didn’t learn she hadn’t been naturalized until she applied for a passport at 38 years old. She still doesn’t know how the oversight happened. She searched her father’s papers and found a letter from a lawyer, dated 1975, that said he was working with immigration officials, “it appears this matter is concluded,” and billed her father for his services.

She filed a federal lawsuit this month trying to prohibit the government from removing her and forcing it to grant her citizenship.

She has long believed she should be considered a U.S. citizen: She has a Social Security card, and a driver’s license and has been legally allowed to work and pay taxes for decades. It’s only the immigration agency that denies she is a citizen. She suspects her paperwork was lost, probably when militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Fishkin seemed to agree: He wrote in his ruling that documents from that embassy are not available to her or to the U.S. government. He declared her a refugee, entitled to work in the U.S. His ruling puts the woman on a pathway to being recognized as a citizen.

She’d felt hopeful, she said, when she learned her court date before Fishkin was scheduled for her late father’s birthday. She always felt like she needed to protect not only herself but also her father’s legacy. He was a conscientious military official, she said, who would not have knowingly allowed such a glaring oversight that left his daughter in legal limbo.

Galofaro writes for the Associated Press.

The bitter legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni over allegations of misconduct and retaliation tied to the making of “It Ends With Us” moved closer to a conclusion Friday after a federal judge ordered Baldoni and his production company to pay Lively’s attorneys fees related to his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against her, while rejecting her bid for additional damages.

In a 47-page order, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman found that Lively was entitled to recover legal fees under a California law intended to protect people who report sexual misconduct from retaliatory defamation claims, ruling that Baldoni’s side had failed to show she acted with malice when making her allegations.

But Liman denied Lively’s request for treble and punitive damages, concluding that the procedural mechanism her lawyers used permitted recovery of attorneys fees and costs but not broader financial penalties.

Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, called Friday’s ruling a victory for their client and emphasized that the judge found “there was no evidence she acted with malice.”

“The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys’ fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms,” the attorneys said in a statement. “The parties’ settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively’s rights to obtain those damages.”

While the judge rejected Lively’s request for additional damages in this particular motion, her legal team said she could still seek them through other legal avenues permitted under the statute.

Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, sharply disputed Lively’s characterization of the ruling, arguing that the court’s prior decisions had substantially undercut many of her original claims.

“There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign,” Freedman said in a statement. “The court recognized it, the record reflects it, and we have maintained it from the very beginning.”

The amount Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios ultimately may have to pay has not yet been determined. Lively’s lawyers must still submit billing records and fee calculations for court approval.

The ruling follows last month’s settlement between Lively and Baldoni, which came just before what had been expected to be a closely watched federal trial in Manhattan. Under that settlement, neither side received financial compensation. But the agreement preserved Lively’s ability to seek attorneys fees and damages under California Civil Code Section 47.1, a relatively new statute designed to shield sexual harassment and assault accusers from retaliatory defamation claims.

Lively sued Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath and others in December 2024, alleging Baldoni and his associates orchestrated a coordinated effort to damage her reputation after she raised concerns about misconduct during production of the film, which Baldoni directed and co-starred in. Baldoni denied wrongdoing.

Baldoni and Wayfarer later filed a $400 million defamation suit against Lively, her publicist Leslie Sloane and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, that was dismissed last year. Friday’s ruling dealt specifically with whether Lively could recover attorneys’ fees and damages tied to that dismissed suit under California Civil Code Section 47.1.

The latest ruling comes after Liman earlier this year dismissed 10 of the 13 claims in Lively’s lawsuit, including sexual harassment and defamation claims, while allowing retaliation-related claims to proceed.

In Friday’s ruling, Liman wrote that Baldoni’s team had produced no evidence demonstrating Lively acted maliciously when making her allegations.

“Allegations are insufficient on their own to demonstrate that statements were in fact made with malice,” the judge wrote. “That determination requires some evidence.”

Friday’s ruling offered each side new grounds to claim vindication in a legal battle that has played out as much in public statements as in court filings. Lively’s team pointed to the judge’s finding that she acted without malice, while Baldoni’s attorneys emphasized that many of her original claims had been dismissed.

Still, the settlement agreement bars either side from appealing Liman’s ruling, potentially drawing one of Hollywood’s ugliest recent legal fights to a close.

Judge Emily Marks had previously allowed the execution to proceed, arguing that no execution is entirely without pain.

A federal judge in the United States has permanently blocked Alabama from executing an inmate with nitrogen gas, after declaring that the method violates the ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Emily C Marks permanently enjoined the state from executing Jeffery Lee by nitrogen gas. Lee was scheduled to be executed Thursday at an Alabama prison.

Her decision came a day after an appeals court reversed her earlier ruling that the method is constitutional.

The case centres on how to interpret the US Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which bars the government from inflicting “cruel and unusual punishments”.

A spokesman for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the state is reviewing the decision and considering next steps, including an appeal. The case will likely end up before the US Supreme Court, which has previously let nitrogen executions proceed.

A spokeswoman for Lee’s legal team said they did not have an immediate comment.

In her 26-page ruling, Marks said litigation is a constant in death penalty cases.

“Were Alabama to adopt firing squad as a method of execution, that method would likely be challenged as well. Indeed, there is likely no method — no matter how humane — that would be immune to constitutional challenge,” Marks wrote.

“But the Constitution does not guarantee a painless death, and human life cannot be purposefully extinguished without some risk of pain. The Court, the condemned, and the State must all confront that sobering reality.”

Marks noted that the state has two other authorised execution methods: lethal injection and the electric chair. She said Lee is “not entitled to an injunction barring the State from executing him using one of those methods”.

Marks also ruled that the state could switch to Lee’s preferred method, a firing squad. Inmates challenging execution methods are required to suggest an alternative method.

“The State can readily obtain rifles, ammunition, and other materials necessary to carry out a firing squad execution,” Marks wrote.

“Additionally, the State would be able to modify space at Holman to carry out executions by firing squad. The State is also able to source and train volunteers willing to carry out such an execution.”

Lee is currently housed at Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore.

BOSTON — A federal judge on Monday struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, contradicting an earlier federal court ruling upholding the fee hike.

The administration announced the much-higher fee as a way of preventing foreign workers from taking American jobs.

But U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston sided with 20 states and struck down the visa policy, concluding that the executive branch exceeded its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

“The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress,” Sorokin wrote.

H-1B visas are meant for high-skill jobs that are difficult to find American workers to fill. Deep-pocketed technology companies are the biggest users, with nearly three-quarters of approvals going to workers from India. The states argued that using the H-1B program to fill vacancies for much-needed doctors and teachers was already difficult before the higher fee.

Most H-1B visa applications cost several thousand dollars before the announced increase set off a wave of panic among confused employers, students and workers in the United States and abroad and led to several lawsuits, including in Boston.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also sued, in federal court in Washington, D.C., and has appealed a denial of a summary judgment against the fee hike. That left the higher fee in effect, at least until September, when it is scheduled to expire. Monday’s ruling is also a summary judgment, to the opposite effect. Still another lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco, by religious groups and labor organizations, setting up the possibility of divided rulings in three appellate court circuits.

The states argued that the policy impedes their ability to hire primary and secondary school educators and to staff public colleges and universities, will stymie academic research and will lead to a decline in medical workers.

“The Proclamation makes various overtures to domestic economic policy goals to justify the unprecedented $100,000 fee,” plaintiffs wrote in their complaint. “But the Proclamation gives no indication that the President gave any consideration to how the fee would affect Plaintiff States and their ability to provide their residents access to education, healthcare, and other basic human needs.”

A Department of Homeland Security statement said the agency disagrees with “this blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump’s historic efforts for immigration reform.”

“Under President Trump and Secretary [Markwayne] Mullin, our immigration system is being reformed to serve American citizens, American workers, and American families and to preserve our national identity — not to rapidly import foreigners who take American jobs, commit crimes, burden our welfare system, and erode our cultural and social fabric.”

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby has been granted a temporary injunction that allows him to practice and play with the Red Raiders in 2026 despite having been permanently banned by the NCAA for wagering on college sports.

Texas judge Ken Curry ruled Monday that the NCAA cannot block Sorsby’s final year of eligibililty. The Cincinnati transfer will have to miss the first two games of the season as one of the conditions of the ruling.

In his ruling, Curry stated that Sorsby would “suffer a probable, imminent and irreparable injury” without the injunction by missing out on the “elite coaching, training resources, camaraderie, and regimen that only being a member of a Division I college football team can provide.”

“I’m very grateful for the endless support I have received throughout this entire process. I am also grateful for the chance to rejoin my teammates,” Sorsby wrote in a statement posted Monday on Instagram. “This opportunity comes with the responsibility to remain focused on my personal growth, the ability to learn from this experience, and to be able to use my situation to help others going forward.”

The NCAA can appeal the injunction but did not immediately indicate its next steps in the matter. It is unclear how long such a process would take. Texas Tech’s season starts Sept. 5, with Sorsby first eligible to play when the Red Raiders host Houston on Sept. 18.

“The NCAA strongly disagrees with the court’s ruling in Sorsby’s case and is deeply concerned about the damaging, far-reaching and broadly destabilizing ramifications of this outcome — which undermines and corrupts the integrity of sports,” the association said in a statement.

“The NCAA is committed to supporting student-athlete mental health but must continue to aggressively defend against actions that defraud college athletics and threaten competitive integrity, such as betting on one’s own sport.”

Last month, Sorsby’s attorneys filed a lawsuit in Lubbock County District Court requesting that he be declared eligible for all team activities because the NCAA “failed to comply with its contractual commitments” to him as a student athlete and therefore “is precluded from enforcing its gambling bylaws against Mr. Sorsby to deny or withhold his reinstatement.”

Sorsby spent two years at Indiana and two at Cincinnati before transferring to Texas Tech this offseason for a reported multimillion-dollar deal. In late April, he and Texas Tech jointly announced that he had entered a residential treatment program for gambling addiction and would be away from the team for an indefinite period of time.

According to court records, Sorsby has admitted to betting at least $90,000 during his time as an NCAA student athlete, including 40 bets on Indiana football games he was not participating in as a freshman backup with the Hoosiers in 2022.

NCAA guidelines state that student athletes who bet on their own games or on other sports at their school could “potentially face permanent loss of collegiate eligibility.” Texas Tech was informed of an NCAA investigation into Sorsby’s gambling activity in March, according to court records, and declared him ineligible according to the association’s bylaws.

The NCAA has since denied two petitions from Texas Tech to have Sorsby’s eligibility reinstated.

“As we have said before, we do not believe that the circumstances of Brendan’s case warranted permanent ineligibility,” Texas Tech athletic director Kirby Hocutt said Monday in a statement. “As he returns to our football program, we remain committed to supporting Brendan’s recovery and ensuring his compliance with the court’s order. A comprehensive support structure, including clinical care, monitoring, and compliance checks, will remain fully in place for the duration of Brendan’s time as a student at Texas Tech.”

Georgia athletic director Josh Brooks, a member of the NCAA Football Oversight Committee, told Yahoo Sports that there should “be serious conversations about not playing Texas Tech in any sports” as a result of Monday’s decision.

“This is not about Texas Tech. It’s about protecting our own locker room,” Brooks said. “We cannot in good conscience put our student-athletes on a field where the competitive integrity of the contest is compromised and overridden by the courts.

“All [Football Bowl Subdivision] schools should only take the field against programs operating under a uniform, trustworthy standard of fairness. We’ve officially reached the point of no return.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

BOSTON — A federal judge on Friday struck down a Trump administration policy enacted after the shooting of two National Guard members that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to stay and enter the U.S.

In a ruling harshly criticizing the administration, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. said the policy “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo,” and he accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.

“In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making,” he wrote. “In legal terms that means USCIS’s actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The policies enacted after the National Guard shooting last year meant that immigrants from 39 African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries have been “categorically barred” from receiving final decisions on, among other things, their asylum, work permit, green card and citizenship applications.

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs in the case. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum-seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”

The policies apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which approves applications for immigrants to work and become citizens. The agency, which is within the Homeland Security Department, often grants asylum, but only for those already in the United States when they apply. Immigration judges grant asylum to those who are stopped at the border; the ruling does not affect them, and neither do the policies that sparked the lawsuit.

It is part of an ongoing effort by the administration to tighten U.S. entry standards for travel and immigration, in what critics say unfairly prevents travel for people from a broad range of countries. The administration suggested it would expand the restrictions after the arrest of an Afghan national suspect in the shooting of two National Guard troops over Thanksgiving weekend.

In its motion to dismiss, which the court denied, the government argued that Congress gave the executive branch broad authority over immigration policy, including “the entry of aliens into the United States as well as discretion within the statutory scheme to confer as well as withdraw various discretionary benefits.”

“This case rests on a remarkable premise: that a federal court should prevent an agency from issuing the very policy guidance that provides government personnel with the guardrails necessary to ensure consistent, non-arbitrary, and individualized decisionmaking consistent with federal law,” the government wrote in its brief.

Immigration groups celebrated the ruling.

“This ruling sets a powerful precedent that the administration cannot ignore the law as laid down by Congress and cannot arbitrarily bar immigration benefits on the basis of national origin by fiat,” said Jamal Abdi, president at the National Iranian American Council. “Fortunately, this is still a nation of laws, and those who uphold America’s values have recourse to challenge and push back on such discriminatory, arbitrary policies.”

Shawn VanDiver, a Navy veteran who heads a coalition that supports Afghan resettlement efforts called #AfghanEvac, said the ruling was a “significant victory for the rule of law and for thousands of Afghan allies and other immigrants who followed every requirement asked of them.”

“Just this week in Dallas and Fort Worth, we met people who feared losing jobs because delayed work permit renewals threatened their livelihoods, families who postponed education, travel, and homeownership because they did not know when their cases would be resolved, and future Americans who had expected to become citizens only to see their applications stall without explanation,” VanDiver said.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.