American businesses are cancelling orders from China, postponing expansion plans and hunkering down to see what trade policy surprises President Donald Trump plans to spring on them next.

The president’s massive and unpredictable taxes on imports seem likely to mean emptier shelves and higher prices for American shoppers, perhaps within weeks.

And the higher costs and paralyzing uncertainty could exact an economic toll: U.S. consumers are in the biggest funk since COVID-19 hit five years ago, and economists say recession risks are climbing.

An early sign of the damage emerged on Wednesday when the Commerce Department released its first look at first-quarter economic growth.

The U.S. economy shrank 0.3% from January through March, the first drop in three years. Gross domestic product — the nation’s output of goods and services — was down from 2.4% in the last three months of 2024. Imports shaved 5 percentage points off first-quarter growth. Consumer spending also slowed sharply.

Asked how much of deterioration in the world’s biggest economy could be traced to Trump’s erratic policies, Boston College economist Brian Bethune said: “All of it.’’

As he promised on the campaign trail, Trump has upended decades of American trade policy. He’s been imposing — then sometimes suspending — big import taxes, or tariffs, on a wide range of targets. He’s currently plastered a 10% levy on products from almost every country in the world. He’s hit China — America’s third-biggest trading partner and second-biggest source of imported goods – with a staggering 145% tariff.

China has responded with retaliatory tariffs of its own – 125% on American products. The take-no-prisoners trade war between the world’s two biggest economies has shaken global financial markets and threatened to bring U.S.-China trade to a standstill.

Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, warned last Thursday within two weeks arrivals to the port “will drop by 35% as essentially all shipments out of China for major retailers and manufacturers has ceased.’’ Seroka added that cargo from Southeast Asia also “is much softer than normal with tariffs now in place.’’

After Trump announced expansive tariffs in early April, ocean container bookings from China to the United States dropped 60% -- and stayed there, said Ryan Petersen, founder and CEO of Flexport, a San Francisco company that helps companies ship cargo around the world. With orders down, ocean carriers have reduced their capacity by cancelling 25% of their sailings, Flexport said.

Many companies tried to beat the clock by bringing in foreign goods before Trump’s tariffs took effect. In fact, that is a big reason that first-quarter economic growth is expected to come in so low: A surge in imports swelled the trade deficit, which weighs on growth.

By stockpiling goods ahead of the trade war, many companies “will be positioned to ride out this storm for a while,’’ said Judah Levine, research director at the global freight-booking platform Freightos. “But at a certain point, inventories will run down.’’

In the next few weeks, Levine said, “you could start seeing shortages ... it’s likely to be concentrated in categories where the U.S. is heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing and there aren’t a lot of alternatives and certainly quick alternatives.’’ Among them: furniture, baby products and plastic goods, including toys.

Jay Foreman, CEO of toymaker Basic Fun, said he paused shipments of Tonka trucks, Care Bears and other toys from China after Trump’s tariff plan was announced in early April. Now, he’s hoping to get by for a few months on inventory he’s stockpiled.

“Consumers will find Basic Fun toys in stores for a month or two but very quickly we will be out of stock and stock product will disappear from store shelves, ” he said.

Kevin Brusky, who owns APE Games, a small tabletop game publisher in St. Louis, has about 7,000 copies of three different games sitting in a warehouse in China. The tariff bill of about $25,000 would wipe out his profit on the games, so he is launching a Kickstarter campaign next week to help defray the cost of the duties.

Another federal judge in Washington has expressed skepticism about the legality of a Trump administration executive order targeting a prominent law firm, saying he was concerned that the clear purpose of the edict was punishment.

U.S. District Judge John Bates had already temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s executive order against the firm of Jenner & Block but heard arguments Monday on a request by the firm to block it permanently. Lawyers for two other firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — made similar arguments last week to judges who appeared receptive to their positions.

Like the other judges, Bates did not immediately rule but repeatedly pushed back against a Justice Department lawyer’s claims that the orders against Jenner and other law firms were not meant to punish them. The actions have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.

“It’s trying to punish Jenner by stopping the flow of money to Jenner,” Bates said. He later asked: “Isn’t it logical that clients are going to be reluctant to engage Jenner & Block if they know there’s a real chance that Jenner and Block isn’t going to be able to go into a federal building or talk to federal agencies?”

Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson said it was premature to make that assessment because guidelines governing how the executive order is to be implemented had not yet come out.

Michael Attanasio, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Jenner & Block, said it was “surreal” to listen to the Justice Department’s “verbal gymnastics” in rationalizing the order.

“This order is designed to do one thing: it’s designed to punish a law firm because of the cases it take and because of its affiliation with a critic of the president,” Attanasio said. That’s a reference to the fact that the executive order against the firm takes note that Jenner & Block previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that investigated Trump during his first term over potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign.

“All we need to do is read this thing,” Attanasio said. “It reeks of unconstitutionality. It should be set aside in its entirety.”

Each of the law firms subject to an executive order that has challenged it in court has succeeded in getting it temporarily blocked. Other firms, by contrast, have opted to preemptively reach agreements with the White House to avoid getting targeted.

On Monday, Virginia Rep. Gerald Connolly, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and another member of the panel, California Rep. Dave Min, sent letters to law firms that have settled with the administration seeking details about the terms of the deals.

Lee Jae-myung, a liberal who wants greater economic parity in South Korea and warmer ties with North Korea, became the main opposition party’s presidential candidate Sunday, solidifying his position as front-runner to succeed recently ousted conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol.

The former Democratic Party chief had led the opposition-controlled parliament’s impeachment of Yoon over the imposition of martial law in December. The country’s Constitutional Court formally dismissed Yoon earlier this month, prompting an early presidential election on June 3 to find a new president.

In a nationally televised announcement, the Democratic Party announced that Lee won its presidential nomination with nearly 90% of the votes cast during the primary that ended Sunday, defeating two competitors.

“Now, the people and our party colleagues gave me an opportunity to win back the presidency and build a new, real Republic of Korea. Thank you! I’ll humbly uphold that ardent, serious task,” Lee said in a victory speech.

Lee, 60, who served as the governor of South Korea’s most populous Gyeonggi province and a mayor of Seongnam city, is the clear favorite to win the election. In a Gallup Korea poll released on Friday, 38% of respondents chose Lee as their preferred choice, while all other aspirants obtained single-digit ratings. The main conservative People Power Party will nominate its candidate next weekend. Its four presidential hopefuls competing to win the party ticket won a combined 23% of support ratings in the Gallup survey.

It will be Lee’s third bid to run for president. He lost the 2022 election to Yoon in the narrowest margin in the country’s presidential elections. In 2017, Lee ranked third in a Democratic Party primary.

Lee has long established an image as an anti-establishment figure who can eliminate deep-rooted inequality and corruption in South Korea. But his critics view him as a populist who relies on stoking divisions and demonizing opponents and worry his rule would likely further polarize the country.

Lee currently faces five trials for corruption and other criminal charges. If he becomes president, those trials will likely stop as he will enjoy special presidential immunity from most criminal charges.

Lee’s rise comes as conservatives are struggling to win back public confidence in the wake of Yoon’s martial law decree that plunged the country into turmoil. The People Power Party is grappling with internal feuding between senior members defending Yoon’s action and reformist members who voted for his impeachment.

Immigration and civil rights advocates have renewed concerns that immigrants detained at Guantanamo Bay are being held in extreme isolation, cut off from meaningful access to legal counsel or candid communication with relatives, according to a new court filing Saturday.

In a lawsuit brought on behalf or two Nicaraguan immigrants held at the U.S. Navy base on Cuba, attorneys say there is a climate of “extreme fear and intimidation” that interferes with constitutional rights to due process and legal counsel.

The revised lawsuit asks a federal judge in Washington to intervene on behalf of all future immigrants at Guantanamo, which authorities have used as a way station for immigrants whom President Donald Trump calls “the worst,” with final removal orders, as his administration seeks to ramp up mass deportations.

“Officers at Guantánamo have created a climate of extreme fear and intimidation where immigrant detainees are afraid to communicate freely with their counsel,” the lawsuit says, adding that conditions are more restrictive than at mainland detention facilities, prisons and in some instances law-of-war military custody at Guantanamo Bay.

U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the base, declined to comment on the lawsuit and referred requests to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to an email Saturday.

In March a federal judge ruled against advocates’ attempts to help migrants at Guantanamo and prevent further transfers there, days after the administration moved all migrants out of the facility.

Two Nicaraguans who arrived since then have submitted court declarations charting their journey through detention centers in Louisiana to Cuba and describing their anguished concerns that phone conversations are being monitored and might lead to punishment or reprisals.

Attorneys have no in-person contact with clients at the base and say they are chained and placed in restraints during legal calls that are broadcast on speakerphone with officers seated outside an open doorway. That undermines the right to confidential communication and attorney-client privilege, the lawsuit says.

The complaint also says some detainees have been interrogated by the FBI about possible gang affiliation while surrounded by military officers. One person was stripped in search of a missing toothbrush, and another was locked in a concrete cell with no windows or lights for four days, it adds.

“I have been allowed to speak to my family about 20 times. Each call is about 5 minutes,” Johon Suazo-Muller said in a written declaration to the court that was translated into English.

He said he immigrated to the U.S. from Nicaragua in October 2023 in search of asylum from political conflict and a better life.

Two major law firms asked separate judges Wednesday to permanently block President Donald Trump’s executive orders that were meant to punish them and harm their business operations.

The firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — say the orders are unconstitutional assaults on the legal profession threaten their relationships with clients and retaliate against them based on their past legal representations or their association with particular attorneys whom Trump perceives as his adversaries.

Courts last month temporarily halted enforcement of key provisions of both orders, but the firms asked in court Wednesday for the edicts to be struck down in their entirety and for judges to issue rulings in their favor. Another firm, Jenner & Block, is scheduled to make similar arguments next week and a fourth, Susman Godfrey, is set to make its case next month.

“The entire executive order is retaliatory,” Dane Butswinkas, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Perkins Coie, told a judge.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell did not immediately rule on the firm’s request, but she repeatedly expressed deep unease over the executive order, signaling that she was inclined to side with Perkins Coie.

She grilled a Justice Department lawyer over the government’s plans to suspend the security clearances of lawyers at the firm and asked him to respond to the suggestion that the blacklisting of disfavored law firms was similar to the “Red Scare” panic over communism decades ago. And she pressed him to explain why the Trump administration was forcing firms to disavow the use of diversity, equity and inclusion considerations in their hiring practices.

The spate of executive orders taking aim at some of the country’s most elite and prominent law firms are part of a wide-ranging retribution campaign by Trump designed to reshape civil society and extract concessions from powerful institutions. The actions have forced targeted entities, whether law firms or universities, to decide whether to push back and risk further incurring the administration’s ire or to agree to concessions in hopes of averting sanctions. Some firms have challenged the orders in court, but others have proactively reached settlements.

The executive actions have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Minnesota asking to revive the state’s ban on gun-carry permits for young adults.

The justices also left in place a ban on guns at the University of Michigan, declining to hear an appeal from a man who argued he has a right to be armed on campus. No justice noted a dissent in either case.

Taken together, the actions reflect the high court’s apparent lack of appetite for cases that further explore the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.”

The court has repeatedly turned away gun cases since its 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights and a clarifying 2024 decision that upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence.

The decision not to hear the Minnesota case was somewhat surprising because both sides sought the Supreme Court’s review and courts around the country have come to different conclusions about whether states can limit the gun rights of people aged 18 to 20 without violating the Constitution.

The federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled that the Minnesota ban conflicted with the Second Amendment, which the court noted sets no age limit and generally protects ordinary, law-abiding young adults.

In January, the federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a federal law requiring young adults to be 21 to buy handguns.

In February, a federal judge declined to block Hawaii’s ban on gun possession for people under 21.

A federal judge in California on Thursday barred the Trump administration from denying or conditioning the use of federal funds to “sanctuary” jurisdictions, saying that portions of President Donald Trump’s executive orders were unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the injunction sought by San Francisco and more than a dozen other municipalities that limit cooperation with federal immigration efforts.

Orrick wrote that defendants are prohibited “from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds” and the administration must provide written notice of his order to all federal departments and agencies by Monday.

One executive order issued by Trump directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to withhold federal money to sanctuary jurisdictions. The second order directs every federal agency to ensure that payments to state and local governments do not “abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”

At a hearing Wednesday, Justice Department lawyers argued that it was much too early for the judge to grant an injunction when the government had not taken any action to withhold specific amounts or to lay out conditions on specific grants.

But Orrick, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, said this was essentially what government lawyers argued during Trump’s first term when the Republican issued a similar order.

“Their well-founded fear of enforcement is even stronger than it was in 2017,” Orrick wrote, citing the executive orders as well as directives from Bondi, other federal agencies and Justice Department lawsuits filed against Chicago and New York.

San Francisco successfully challenged the 2017 Trump order and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the president exceeded his authority when he signed an executive order threatening to cut funding for “sanctuary cities.”

There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally describe limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces immigration laws nationwide but seeks state and local help in alerting federal authorities of immigrants wanted for deportation and holding that person until federal officers take custody.

Leaders of sanctuary jurisdictions say their communities are safer because immigrants feel they can communicate with local police without fear of deportation. It is also a way for municipalities to focus their dollars on crime locally, they say.

Besides San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which includes a third plaintiff, the city of San José, there are 13 other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which include Seattle and King County, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; New Haven, Connecticut; and Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Nadine Menendez, the wife of former U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, was convicted Monday of teaming up with her husband to accept bribes of cash, gold bars and a luxury car from three New Jersey men looking for help with their business dealings or legal troubles.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts in the same federal courthouse in Manhattan where a different jury convicted Bob Menendez of many of the same charges last year. The Democrat is supposed to begin serving an 11-year prison term in June.

Nadine Menendez, who stood but did not appear to react as the verdict was delivered by the jury foreperson, was scheduled to be sentenced on June 12, six days after her husband is expected to report to prison.

Outside the courthouse, she wore a pink mask as she stood next to her lawyer, Barry Coburn, said he was “devastated by the verdict.”

“We fought hard and it hurts,” he said. “This is a very rough day for us.”

The evidence shown to jurors over a three-week trial followed the timeline of the whirlwind romance between the couple that began in early 2018 and continued after criminal charges were brought against them in September 2023. Repeatedly during the trial, prosecutors said they were “partners in crime.”

During a 2022 raid on the couple’s Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, home, FBI agents found nearly $150,000 worth of gold bars and $480,000 in cash stuffed in boots, shoeboxes and jackets. In the garage was a Mercedes-Benz convertible, also an alleged bribe.

Both Nadine and Bob Menendez said they are innocent and never took bribes.

Initially, they were to be tried together, along with the three businessmen, but Nadine Menendez’s trial was postponed a year ago after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent surgery.

Bob Menendez, 71, resigned from the Senate last August following his conviction. Before the charges were brought he had been chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Prosecutors accused Nadine Menendez of starting to facilitating bribes to the senator around the time that they began dating, before they married in the fall of 2020.

At the time, she was in danger of losing her home in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, after missing nearly $20,000 in mortgage payments, trial testimony showed. A longtime friend, Wael Hana, provided cash to save the home — and prosecutors said that in return, the senator began helping Hana preserve a business monopoly he had arranged with the Egyptian government to certify that imported meat met religious requirements.

Nadine Menendez also needed a new car after her old one was destroyed when she struck and killed a man crossing a street. (She did not face charges in the crash). Prosecutors said a businessman, Jose Uribe, gave her a Mercedes-Benz, and in return Bob Menendez used his clout to pressure the New Jersey attorney general’s office to stop investigating some of Uribe’s associates.

Prosecutor said more cash and gold bribes were paid to the couple by Fred Daibes, a prominent real estate developer who prosecutors said wanted the senator to protect him from a criminal case he was facing in New Jersey. Prosecutors said Bob Menendez also helped Daibes secure a $95 million investment from a Qatari investment fund.

The U.S. and global economies will likely slow significantly in the wake of President Donald Trump’s tariffs and the uncertainty they have created, the International Monetary Fund said Tuesday.

The IMF said that the global economy will grow just 2.8% this year, down from its forecast in January of 3.3%, according to its latest World Economic Outlook. And in 2026, global growth will be 3%, the fund predicts, also below its previous 3.3% estimate.

And the Fund sees the world’s two largest economies, China and the United States, weakening: U.S. economic growth will come in at just 1.8% this year, down sharply from its previous forecast of 2.7% and a full percentage point below its 2024 expansion. The IMF doesn’t expect a U.S. recession, though it has raised its odds of one this year from 25% to about 40%.

China is now projected to expand 4% this year and next, down roughly half a point from its previous forecasts. “We are entering a new era,” Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, chief economist at the IMF, said. “This global economic system that has operated for the last eighty years is being reset.”

The forecasts underscore the widespread impact of both the tariffs and the uncertainty they have created. Every country in the world is affected, the IMF said, by hikes in US import taxes that have now lifted average U.S. duties to about 25%, the highest in a century.

The forecasts are largely in line with many private-sector economists’ expectations, though some do fear a recession is increasingly likely. Economists at JPMorgan say the chances of a U.S. recession are now 60%. The Federal Reserve has also forecast that growth will weaken this year, to 1.7%.

The IMF is a 191-nation lending organization that works to promote economic growth and financial stability and to reduce global poverty.

Gourinchas said that the heightened uncertainty around the import taxes led the IMF to take the unusual step of preparing several different scenarios for future growth. Its forecasts were finalized April 4, after the Trump administration announced sweeping tariffs on nearly 60 countries along with nearly-universal 10% duties.

Those duties were paused April 9 for 90 days. Gourinchas said the pause didn’t substantially change the IMF’s forecasts because the U.S. and China have imposed such steep tariffs on each other since then.

The Trump administration has slapped duties on cars, steel, and aluminum, as well as 25% import taxes on most goods from Canada and Mexico. The White House has also imposed 10% tariffs on nearly all imports, and a huge 145% duty on goods from China, though smartphone and computers have been exempted. China has retaliated with 125% duties on US goods.

The Supreme Court seemed likely to uphold a key preventive-care provision of the Affordable Care Act in a case heard Monday.

Conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, along with the court’s three liberals, appeared skeptical of arguments that Obamacare’s process for deciding which services must be fully covered by private insurance is unconstitutional.

The case could have big ramifications for the law’s preventive care coverage requirements for an estimated 150 million Americans. Medications and services that could be affected include statins to prevent heart disease, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for high-risk women.

The plaintiffs argued that requirements to cover those medications and services are unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts that recommended them should have been Senate- approved. The challengers have also raised religious and procedural objections to some requirements.

The Trump administration defended the mandate before the court, though President Donald Trump has been a critic of the law. The Justice Department said board members don’t need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary.

A majority of the justices seemed inclined to side with the government. Kavanaugh said he didn’t see indications in the law that the board was designed to have the kind of independent power that would require Senate approval, and Barrett questioned the plaintiff’s apparently “maximalist” interpretation of the board’s role.

“We don’t just go around creating independent agencies. More often, we destroy independent agencies,” said Justice Elena Kagan said about the court’s prior opinions.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas seemed likely to side with the plaintiffs. And some suggested they could send the case back to the conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That would likely leave unanswered questions about which medications and services remain covered.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

The case came before the Supreme Court after the appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. It sided with Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can’t be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings.

They were represented by well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot.

Not all preventive care was threatened by the ruling. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that some screenings, including mammography and cervical cancer screening, would still be covered without out-of-pocket costs.

The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg once considered separating Instagram from its parent company due to worries about antitrust litigation, according to an email shown Tuesday on the second day of an antitrust trial alleging Meta illegally monopolized the social media market.

In the 2018 email, Zuckerberg wrote that he was beginning to wonder if “spinning Instagram out” would be the only way to accomplish important goals, as big-tech companies grow. He also noted “there is a non-trivial chance” Meta could be forced to spin out Instagram and perhaps WhatsApp in five to 10 years anyway.

He wrote that while most companies resist breakups, “the corporate history is that most companies actually perform better after they’ve been split up.”

Asked Tuesday by attorney Daniel Matheson, who is leading the antitrust case for the Federal Trade Commission, which incidence in corporate history he had in mind, Zuckerberg responded: “I’m not sure what I had in mind then.”

Zuckerberg, who was the first witness, testified for more than seven hours over two days in the trial that could force Meta to break off Instagram and WhatsApp, startups the tech giant bought more than a decade ago that have since grown into social media powerhouses.

While questioning Zuckerberg on Tuesday morning, Matheson noted that he had referred to Instagram as being a “rapidly growing, threatening, network.” The attorney also pointed out Zuckerberg’s referring to trying to neutralize a competitor by buying the company.

But Zuckerberg said while Matheson was able to show documents in court that indicated his concern about Instagram’s growth, he also had many conversations about how excited his company was to acquire Instagram to make a better product.

Zuckerberg also said Facebook was in the process of building a camera app for sharing on mobile phones, and he thought Instagram was better at that, “so I wanted to buy them.”

Zuckerberg also pushed back against Matheson’s contention that the reason for buying the company was to neutralize a threat.

“I think that that mischaracterizes what the email was,” Zuckerberg said.

In his questioning of Zuckerberg, Matheson repeatedly brought up emails — many of them more than a decade old — written by Zuckerberg and his associates before and after the acquisition of Instagram.

While acknowledging the documents, Zuckerberg has often sought to downplay the contents, saying he wrote them in the early stages of considering the acquisition and that what he wrote at the time didn’t capture the full scope of his interest in the company.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill is pushing forward with her efforts to force Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson to drop a longtime policy that generally prohibits deputies from directly engaging in federal immigration enforcement within the city’s jail.

In legal filings, Murrill claims that the policy — which the state characterizes as a so-called “sanctuary city” policy — is in direct conflict with a newly passed state law that requires state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration agencies.

“The consent decree now sits fundamentally at odds with state law as applicable to immigration detainers,” Murrill said in court documents filed Friday.

A federal court will now determine whether to allow the state of Louisiana to join a 2011 federal suit that resulted in the policy and whether to throw out the policy altogether. A hearing has been set for April 30.

The state’s campaign against “sanctuary” policies comes as President Donald Trump is pushing local law enforcement agencies to join the federal government in his promised immigration crackdown. Since his inauguration, Trump has ordered the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to push for more partnerships between local law enforcement units and federal immigration agencies. A few have already signed up. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a longtime immigration hardliner and Trump ally, has worked with Republican lawmakers in the state to enact laws that encourage those collaborations.

As attorney general, Landry criticized a policy adopted by the New Orleans Police Department, under a long-running federal consent decree that blocks officers from enforcing immigration laws.

Neither Murrill’s office nor representatives for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement responded to requests for comment.

In court filings, Murrill said Hutson “does not oppose the (state’s) intervention” in the case.” But a spokesperson for Hutson said that’s not exactly true. “It’s more accurate that we take no position regarding the state intervention,” a Sheriff’s Office spokesperson said in an emailed statement on Wednesday.

While she has not taken a position for or against increased collaboration with ICE, in an interview with Fox 8 in December, Hutson noted that the jail’s resources were far too stretched to take on immigration enforcement.

The sheriff’s policy stems from a 2013 federal court settlement in a civil rights case involving two New Orleans construction workers picked up on minor charges in 2009 and 2010. Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo sued after they were allegedly illegally held in the city’s jail past the completion of their sentences. The two were held at the request of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agency issues such “detainer” requests to local law enforcement agencies, asking them to hold onto arrestees who are suspected of immigration violations. Local agencies are only supposed to honor the hold requests for 48 hours, after which they should let detainees free. But in 2009 and 2010, then-Sheriff Marlin Gusman detained Cacho and Ocampo for months, according to legal filings in their case against the office.

Ocampo and Cacho settled the case with the Sheriff’s Office in 2013, and Gusman agreed to adopt a new policy on immigration investigations. The resulting policy blocks the agency from investigating immigration violations and from detaining immigrants for ICE without a court order, except in certain cases where they are facing charges for a small number of serious violent crimes.