A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to halt indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in seven California counties, including Los Angeles.

Immigrant advocacy groups filed the lawsuit last week accusing President Donald Trump’s administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during its ongoing immigration crackdown. The plaintiffs include three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens, one of whom was held despite showing agents his identification.

The filing in U.S. District Court asked a judge to block the administration from using what they call unconstitutional tactics in immigration raids. Immigrant advocates accuse immigration officials of detaining someone based on their race, carrying out warrantless arrests, and denying detainees access to legal counsel at a holding facility in downtown LA.

Judge Maame E. Frimpong also issued a separate order barring the federal government from restricting attorney access at a Los Angeles immigration detention facility.

Frimpong issued the emergency orders, which are a temporary measure while the lawsuit proceeds, the day after a hearing during which advocacy groups argued that the government was violating the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the Constitution.

She wrote in the order there was a “mountain of evidence” presented in the case that the federal government was committing the violations they were being accused of.

The White House responded quickly to the ruling late Friday.

“No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy — that authority rests with Congress and the President,” spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. “Enforcement operations require careful planning and execution; skills far beyond the purview (or) jurisdiction of any judge. We expect this gross overstep of judicial authority to be corrected on appeal.”

Immigrants and Latino communities across Southern California have been on edge for weeks since the Trump administration stepped up arrests at car washes, Home Depot parking lots, immigration courts and a range of businesses. Tens of thousands of people have participated in rallies in the region over the raids and the subsequent deployment of the National Guard and Marines.

The order also applies to Ventura County, where busloads of workers were detained Thursday while the court hearing was underway after federal agents descended on a cannabis farm, leading to clashes with protesters and multiple injuries.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the recent wave of immigration enforcement has been driven by an “arbitrary arrest quota” and based on “broad stereotypes based on race or ethnicity.”

When detaining the three day laborers who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, all immigration agents knew about them is that they were Latino and were dressed in construction work clothes, the filing in the lawsuit said. It goes on to describe raids at swap meets and Home Depots where witnesses say federal agents grabbed anyone who “looked Hispanic.”

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in an email that “any claims that individuals have been ‘targeted’ by law enforcement because of their skin color are disgusting and categorically FALSE.”

McLaughlin said “enforcement operations are highly targeted, and officers do their due diligence” before making arrests.

After the ruling, she said “a district judge is undermining the will of the American people.”

ACLU attorney Mohammad Tajsar said Brian Gavidia, one of the U.S. citizens who was detained, was “physically assaulted ... for no other reason than he was Latino and working at a tow yard in a predominantly Latin American neighborhood.”

Tajsar asked why immigration agents detained everyone at a car wash except two white workers, according to a declaration by a car wash worker, if race wasn’t involved.

Representing the government, attorney Sean Skedzielewski said there was no evidence that federal immigration agents considered race in their arrests, and that they only considered appearance as part of the “totality of the circumstances”, including prior surveillance and interactions with people in the field.

In some cases, they also operated off “targeted, individualized packages,” he said.

“The Department of Homeland Security has policy and training to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment,” Skedzielewski said.

Lawyers from Immigrant Defenders Law Center and other groups say they also have been denied access to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in downtown LA known as “B-18” on several occasions since June, according to court documents.

Lawyer Mark Rosenbaum said in one incident on June 7 attorneys “attempted to shout out basic rights” at a bus of people detained by immigration agents in downtown LA when the government drivers honked their horns to drown them out and chemical munitions akin to tear gas were deployed.

Skedzielewski said access was only restricted to “protect the employees and the detainees” during violent protests and it has since been restored.

Rosenbaum said lawyers were denied access even on days without any demonstrations nearby, and that the people detained are also not given sufficient access to phones or informed that lawyers were available to them.

He said the facility lacks adequate food and beds, which he called “coercive” to getting people to sign papers to agree to leave the country before consulting an attorney.

Friday’s order will prevent the government from solely using apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone’s occupation as the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop someone. It will also require officials to open B-18 to visitation by attorneys seven days a week and provide detainees access to confidential phone calls with attorneys.

Attorneys general for 18 Democratic states also filed briefs in support of the orders.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents were already barred from making warrantless arrests in a large swath of eastern California after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in April.

President Donald Trump said in a letter that he will raise taxes on many imported goods from Canada to 35%, deepening a rift between two North American countries that have suffered a debilitating blow to their decades-old alliance.

The Thursday letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is an aggressive increase to the top 25% tariff rates that Trump first imposed in March after months of threats. Trump’s tariffs were allegedly in an effort to get Canada to crack down on fentanyl smuggling despite the relatively modest trafficking in the drug from that country. Trump has also expressed frustration with a trade deficit with Canada that largely reflects oil purchases by America.

“I must mention that the flow of Fentanyl is hardly the only challenge we have with Canada, which has many Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers,” Trump wrote in the letter.

The higher rates would go into effect Aug. 1, creating a tense series of weeks ahead for the global economy as recent gains in the S&P 500 stock index suggest many investors think Trump will ultimately back down on the increases. But stock market futures were down early Friday in a sign that Trump’s wave of tariff letters may be starting to generate concern among investors.

In a social media post, Carney said Canada would continue to work toward a new trade framework with the U.S. and has made “vital progress to stop the scourge of fentanyl.”

“Through the current trade negotiations with the United States, the Canadian government has steadfastly defended our workers and business,” Carney said.

While multiple countries have received tariff letters this week, Canada — America’s second largest trading partner after Mexico — has become something of a foil to Trump. It has imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods and pushed back on the president’s taunts of making Canada the 51st state. Mexico has also faced 25% tariffs because of fentanyl, yet it has not faced the same public pressure from the Republican U.S. president.

Carney was elected prime minister in April on the argument that Canadians should keep their “elbows up.” He has responded by distancing Canada from its intertwined relationship with the U.S., seeking to strengthen its links with the European Union and the United Kingdom.

Hours before Trump’s letter, Carney posted on X a picture of himself with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, saying, “In the face of global trade challenges, the world is turning to reliable economic partners like Canada.” Implied in his statement was that the U.S. has become unreliable because of Trump’s haphazard tariff regime, which has gone through aggressive threats and reversals.

When Carney went to the White House in May, the public portion of their meeting was cordial. But Trump said there was nothing the Canadian leader could tell him to remove the tariffs, saying, “Just the way it is.”

Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, said Trump’s latest move will make it more difficult for Canada and the U.S. to reach a trade deal, Beland said.

“It doesn’t mean a new trade deal between Canada and the United States is impossible, but it shows how hard it is for the Canadian government to negotiate with a U.S. president who regularly utters threats and doesn’t appear to be a reliable and truthful interlocutor,” he said.

Trump has sent a series of tariff letters to 23 countries. Those form letters became increasingly personal with Canada as well as a Wednesday note that put a 50% tariff on Brazil for the ongoing trial of its former President Jair Bolsonaro for trying to stay in office after his 2022 election loss. Trump was similarly indicted for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump administration officials have said that Trump was seeking to isolate its geopolitical rival China with the tariffs, but the latest tariffs have undermined that message. Brazil’s largest trading partner is China, not the U.S., and Chinese government officials have framed his import taxes as a form of bullying.

“Sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs are important principles of the U.N. Charter and basic norms governing international relations,” said Mao Ning, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman. “Tariffs should not be used as a tool for coercion, bullying and interference in the internal affairs of other countries.”

The letters reflect the inability of Trump to finalize the dozens of trade frameworks that he claimed would be easy to negotiate. Shortly after unveiling his April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs, a financial market selloff caused Trump to announce a 90-day negotiating period during which a 10% baseline tariff would be charged on most imported goods.

But Trump has indicated that the 10% tariff rates are largely disappearing as he resets the rates with his letters. “We’re just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay, whether it’s 20% or 15%,” Trump said in a phone interview with NBC News.

Trump has announced trade frameworks with the U.K. and Vietnam, as well as a separate deal with China to enable continued trade talks. Trump jacked up import taxes on Chinese goods to as much as 145%, but after talks he has said China faces total tariffs of 55%.

In June, Trump said he was suspending trade talks with Canada over its plans to continue its digital services tax, which would hit U.S. technology companies. A few days later, talks resumed when Carney rescinded the tax.

Under the current tariff structure, the 2020 United States Mexico Canada Agreement has protected eligible goods from Trump’s tariffs. But a review of the pact is scheduled for 2026.

The Trump administration has resumed sending some weapons to Ukraine, a week after the Pentagon had directed that some deliveries be paused, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

The weapons heading into Ukraine include 155 mm munitions and precision-guided rockets known as GMLRS, two officials told The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to provide details that had not been announced publicly. It’s unclear exactly when the weapons started moving.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the pause on some shipments last week to allow the Pentagon to assess its weapons stockpiles, in a move that caught the White House by surprise.

A White House official speaking Wednesday on the condition of anonymity said there was never a “pause” in shipments, but a review to ensure U.S. military support aligns with its defense strategy. The official said the Pentagon never announced a pause.

In a press briefing with reporters last week, though, Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said he could not “go into detail about what weapons were paused and when and what we’re providing and when. Ultimately, the president and the secretary will make those decisions about what happens with those weapon systems.”

The pause affected Patriot missiles, the precision-guided GMLRS, Hellfire missiles, Howitzer rounds and more, taking not only Ukrainian officials and other allies by surprise but also U.S. lawmakers and other parts of the Trump administration, including the State Department.

It was not clear if a pause on Patriot missiles would hold. The $4 million munition is in high demand and was key to defending a major U.S. air base in Qatar last month as Iran launched a ballistic missile attack in response to the U.S. targeting its nuclear facilities.

President Donald Trump announced Monday that the U.S. would continue to deliver defensive weapons to Ukraine. He has sidestepped questions about who ordered the pause in exchanges with reporters this week.

“I would know if a decision is made. I will know,” Trump said Wednesday. “I will be the first to know. In fact, most likely I’d give the order, but I haven’t done that yet.”

Asked a day earlier who ordered the pause, he said: “I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me?”

Trump has privately expressed frustration with Pentagon officials for announcing the pause — a move that he felt wasn’t properly coordinated with the White House, according to three people familiar with the matter.

The Pentagon has denied that Hegseth acted without consulting the president, saying: “Secretary Hegseth provided a framework for the President to evaluate military aid shipments and assess existing stockpiles. This effort was coordinated across government.”

It comes as Russia has fired escalating air attacks on Ukraine, with a barrage that the largest number of drones fired in a single night in the three-year-old war, Ukrainian officials said Wednesday.

Trump has become increasingly frustrated with Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying he wasn’t happy with him. “Putin is not, he’s not treating human beings right,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting Tuesday, explaining the pause’s reversal. “It’s killing too many people. So we’re sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine, and I’ve approved that.”

The 155 mm artillery rounds have become some of the most used munitions of the war. Each round is about 2 feet (60 centimeters) long, weighs about 100 pounds (45 kilograms) and is 155 mm, or 6.1 inches, in diameter. They are used in Howitzer systems, which are towed large guns identified by the range of the angle of fire that their barrels can be set to.

Howitzer fires can strike targets up to 15 to 20 miles (24 to 32 kilometers) away, depending on what type of round and firing system is used, which makes them highly valued by ground forces to take out enemy targets from a protected distance.

The U.S. has provided more than 3 million 155 mm rounds to Ukraine since Russia invaded its neighbor in February 2022. It has sent more than $67 billion in overall weapons and military assistance to Ukraine in that period.

Just weeks ago, President Donald Trump said he wanted to begin “phasing out” the Federal Emergency Management Agency after this hurricane season to “wean off of FEMA” and “bring it down to the state level.”

But after months of promises to overhaul or eliminate the federal agency charged with responding to disasters, Trump and his administration are touting a fast and robust federal response to the devastating Texas floods. In doing so, they are aligning more closely with a traditional model of disaster response — and less with the dramatic reform the president has proposed.

The president approved Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s request for a major disaster declaration just one day after it was submitted, activating FEMA resources and unlocking assistance for survivors and local governments. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told Trump in a presidential Cabinet meeting Tuesday morning that FEMA was deploying funding and resources quickly. “We’re cutting through the paperwork of the old FEMA, streamlining it, much like your vision of how FEMA should operate,” Noem said.

Noem said the rapid delivery of funds to Texas resembled the “state block grants” model Trump has promoted. It’s an idea that would replace FEMA’s current system of reimbursing states for response and recovery expenses at a cost-share of at least 75%.

But ex-FEMA officials say it’s unclear how the response differs from FEMA’s typical role in disasters, which is to support states through coordination and funding. Instead, they say, the vigorous federal response underscores how difficult it would be for states to take on FEMA’s responsibilities if it were dismantled.

“This is a defining event that can help them realize that a Federal Emergency Management Agency is essential,” said Michael Coen, FEMA chief of staff in the Obama and Biden administrations. “Imagine if an event like this happened a year from now, after FEMA is eliminated. What would the president or secretary (Noem) offer to the governor of Texas if there is no FEMA?”

The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA did not immediately respond to questions about Noem’s remarks, including whether FEMA was doing something different in how it moved money to Texas, or why it resembled a block-grant system.

FEMA will have multiple roles in Texas

While Noem and Trump have emphasized that Texas is leading the response and recovery to the floods, that has always been FEMA’s role, said Justin Knighten, the agency’s director of external affairs during the Biden administration.

“The state is in the lead. FEMA is invited into the state to support,” Knighten said. He said that while Texas’ division of emergency management is one of the most experienced in the country, even the most capable states face catastrophes that overwhelm them: “When there’s capacity challenges and resource need, that’s where FEMA steps in.”

One of FEMA’s primary roles will be to coordinate resources from other federal agencies. If the state needs the Army Corps of Engineers to help with debris removal, Health and Human Services for mortuary support and crisis counseling, or EPA for water quality testing, FEMA arranges that at the state’s request and then reimburses those agencies. “FEMA becomes a one-point entry for all federal support,” Coen said.

The agency also coordinates first-responder support — like search-and-rescue teams deployed from across the country — and reimburses those costs. It administers the National Flood Insurance Program, which gives homeowners and renters access to flood coverage not typically included in general policies.

Those with insufficient insurance or none at all will rely heavily on FEMA’s Individual Assistance program, which supports survivors with needs like temporary housing and home repairs. On Wednesday, the agency is opening disaster recovery centers where households can get help applying for assistance, according to Texas Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd. The Public Assistance program will reimburse state and local governments for most or all of the costs of infrastructure repairs.

States would have trouble replacing FEMA

While Trump and Noem often say they want states to take on more responsibility in disaster response, experts say the tragedy in Texas underscores how even the most capable states need support.

“It’s true that Texas is very capable, but I think it’s something that people forget that FEMA pays for a lot of state and local emergency capacity,” said Maddie Sloan, director of the disaster recovery and fair housing project at the policy nonprofit Texas Appleseed. The Texas Division of Emergency Management’s budget of over $2 billion is mostly funded through federal grants.

“If a state like Texas asks for federal assistance within two days, the smaller states that are less capable don’t stand a chance,” said Jeremy Edwards, FEMA’s deputy director of public affairs during the Biden administration.

States would have to set up their own recovery programs and to coordinate with each federal agency if they were given block grants in lieu of FEMA involvement. “Without FEMA, a governor or a state has to be calling around and have a Rolodex of the whole federal government to call and try and figure out what support they can get,” Coen said.

There are plenty of reforms that could improve how FEMA reimburses states and helps survivors, experts said, but eliminating it risks big gaps in recovery. “We have spent a lot of time encouraging FEMA to be better, but if FEMA goes away, there is no help for individual families,” Sloan said.
Uncertain future for federal disaster response

Trump has deflected questions about what the Texas response means for FEMA’s future. A 12-member review council established by the president and charged with proposing FEMA reforms will meet for the second time Wednesday. Abbott and Kidd are both on the council.

At the first meeting, Abbott called FEMA “slow and clunky” and said reforms should “streamline the effort.” He has praised Trump’s quick disaster declaration in Texas.

While no large reforms to the agency have been enacted yet, smaller policy changes could impact Texas’ recovery.

A Georgia appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling that said county election officials in the state must vote to certify results according to deadlines set in law.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney had ruled in October that “no election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance.” The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Republican Fulton County election board member Julie Adams, who abstained from certifying primary election results last year.

A three-judge panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals last week upheld McBurney’s ruling, saying “Adams’ contention that the trial court erred by declaring she had a mandatory duty to certify election results is without merit.”

Certification, an administrative task that involves certifying the number of votes, became a political flashpoint when President Donald Trump tried to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 general election. Republicans in several swing states refused to certify results during primary elections last year, and some sued to try to keep from being forced to sign off on election results.

In the run-up to last year’s presidential election, Democrats and some voting rights groups worried that Trump-allied election officials could refuse to certify election results if he were to lose to then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump ended up beating Harris.

Georgia law says county election superintendents, which are generally multimember boards, shall certify election results by 5 p.m. on the Monday after an election, or the Tuesday after if Monday is a holiday.

McBurney had written in his order that Georgia law allows county election officials to examine whether fraud has occurred and what should be done about it. They should share any concerns with the appropriate authorities for criminal prosecution or use them to file an election challenge in court, but cannot use their concerns to justify not certifying results, the judge wrote.

The Court of Appeals opinion echoed McBurney’s ruling.

The appeals court also noted that state law limits county election officials’ review of documents to instances when the total number of votes exceeds the total number of voters or ballots and also limits the review to documents related to the relevant precinct. To the extent that McBurney’s ruling allows a more expansive review, the judges sent it back to him for reconsideration.

Sean “Diddy” Combs got a standing ovation from fellow inmates when the music mogul returned to jail after winning acquittals on potential life-in-prison charges, providing what his lawyer says might have been the best thing he could do for incarcerated Black men in America.

“They all said: ‘We never get to see anyone who beats the government,’” attorney Marc Agnifilo told The Associated Press in a weekend interview days after a jury acquitted Combs of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges.

Combs, 55, remains jailed at a federal lockup in Brooklyn after his conviction Wednesday on prostitution-related charges, which could put him in prison for several more years. Any sentence will include credit for time already served. So far that’s almost 10 months.

After federal agents raided Combs’ homes in Los Angeles and the Miami area in March 2024, Agnifilo said he told the “I’ll Be Missing You” singer to expect to be arrested on sex trafficking charges.

“I said: ‘Maybe it’s your fate in life to be the guy who wins,’” he recalled during a telephone interview briefly interrupted by a jailhouse call from Combs. “They need to see that someone can win. I think he took that to heart.”

Blunt trial strategy works

The verdict in Manhattan federal court came after a veteran team of eight defense lawyers led by Agnifilo executed a trial strategy that resonated with jurors. Combs passed lawyers notes during effective cross-examinations of nearly three dozen witnesses over two months, including Combs’ ex-employees.

The lawyers told jurors Combs was a jealous domestic abuser with a drug problem who participated in the swinger lifestyle through threesomes involving Combs, his girlfriends and another man.

“You may think to yourself, wow, he is a really bad boyfriend,” Combs’ lawyer Teny Geragos told jurors in her May opening statement. But that, she said, “is simply not sex trafficking.”

Agnifilo said the blunt talk was a “no brainer.”

“The violence was so clear and up front and we knew the government was going to try to confuse the jury into thinking it was part of a sex trafficking effort. So we had to tell the jury what it was so they wouldn’t think it was something it wasn’t,” he said.

Combs and his lawyers seemed deflated Tuesday when jurors said they were deadlocked on the racketeering count but had reached a verdict on sex trafficking and lesser prostitution-related charges. A judge ordered them back to deliberate Wednesday.

“I wake up at three in the morning and I text Teny and say: ”We have to get a bail application together,” he recalled. “It’s going to be a good verdict for us but I think he went down on the prostitution counts so let’s try to get him out.”

He said he “kind of whipped everybody into feeling better” after concluding jurors would have convicted him of racketeering if they had convicted him of sex trafficking because trafficking was an alleged component of racketeering.

Agnifilo met with Combs before court and Combs entered the courtroom rejuvenated. Smiling, the onetime Catholic schoolboy prayed with family. In less than an hour, the jury matched Agnifilo’s prediction.

The seemingly chastened Combs mouthed “thank you” to jurors and smiled as family and supporters applauded. After he was escorted from the room, spectators cheered the defense team, a few chanting: “Dream Team! Dream Team!” Several lawyers, including Geragos, cried.

“This was a major victory for the defense and a major loss for the prosecution,” said Mitchell Epner, a lawyer who worked with Agnifilo as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey over two decades ago. He credited “a dream team of defense lawyers” against prosecutors who almost always win.

Agnifilo showcased what would become his trial strategy — belittling the charges and mocking the investigation that led to them — last September in arguing unsuccessfully for bail. The case against Combs was what happens when the “federal government comes into our bedrooms,” he said.

During an eight-week trial, Combs’ lawyers picked apart the prosecution case with mostly gentle but firm cross-examinations. Combs never testified and his lawyers called no witnesses.

Sarah Krissoff, a federal prosecutor in Manhattan from 2008 to 2021, said Combs’ defense team “had a narrative from the beginning and they did all of it without putting on any witnesses. That’s masterful.”

Ironically, Agnifilo expanded the use of racketeering laws as a federal prosecutor on an organized crime task force in New Jersey two decades ago, using them often to indict street gangs in violence-torn cities.

For Combs, Agnifilo sees a long road ahead once he is freed and resumes work on personal demons, likely reentering a program for domestic batterers that he had just started before his arrest.

“He’s doing OK,” said Agnifilo, who speaks with him four or five times daily.

He said Combs genuinely desires improvement and “realizes he has flaws like everyone else that he never worked on.”

“He burns hot in all matters. I think what he has come to see is that he has these flaws and there’s no amount of fame and no amount of fortune” that can erase them,” he said. “You can’t cover them up.”

For Agnifilo, a final surprise awaited him after Combs’ bail was rejected when a man collapsed into violent seizures at the elevators outside the courtroom.

Despite a federal judge briefly halting deportations of eight immigrants to war-torn South Sudan, he and a second judge eventually cleared the way for the Trump administration to relocate the immigrants the day after the Supreme Court greenlighted their removal.

The unusually-busy Fourth of July court schedule began with District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C., putting a temporary hold on the deportations while he evaluated a last-ditch appeal by the immigrants’ lawyers. In an afternoon hearing, he decided he was powerless to halt their removals and that the person best positioned to rule on the request was Brian Murphy, the federal judge in Boston whose rulings led to the initial halt of the administration’s effort to begin deportations to the eastern African country.

But on Friday evening, Murphy issued a brief ruling concluding that the Supreme Court had tied his hands. “This Court interprets these Supreme Court orders as binding on this new petition, as Petitioners are now raising substantially similar claims, and therefore Petitioners motion is denied,” Murphy wrote.

The administration had earlier said it intended Friday to move the immigrants from the U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where they and their guards have lingered for weeks as their case has ricocheted through the courts, to South Sudan.

The administration has been trying to deport the immigrants for weeks. None are from South Sudan, which is enmeshed in civil war and where the U.S. government has advised against travel. The government flew them to Djibouti but couldn’t move them further because Murphy had ruled no immigrant could be sent to a new country without a chance to have a court hearing.

The Supreme Court vacated that decision last month, then issued a new order Thursday night clarifying that it meant the immigrants could be moved to South Sudan. Lawyers for the immigrants, who hail from Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and other countries, filed the ultimately unsuccessful emergency request to halt their removal later that night.

The temporary stay was first reported by legal journalist Chris Geidner.

A mother and her two young children from Honduras who had filed what was believed to be the first lawsuit involving children challenging the Trump administration’s policy on immigrant arrests at courthouses have been released from detention, civil rights groups and attorneys for the family said Thursday.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of the mother identified as “Ms. Z,” her 6-year-old son and her 9-year-old daughter, said they were arrested outside the courtroom after an immigration court hearing in Los Angeles. They had been held for weeks in the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas. Their identities have not been released because of concerns for their safety.

The lawsuit said that the family entered the U.S. legally using a Biden-era appointment app and that their arrest violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure and their Fifth Amendment right to due process.

The family’s lawyers said the boy had also recently undergone chemotherapy treatment for leukemia and his mother feared his health was declining while in detention.

The family was released late Wednesday while their lawsuit was still pending, and they went to a shelter in South Texas before they plan to return to their lives in the Los Angeles area, said Columbia Law School professor Elora Mukherjee, one of the lawyers representing the family.

“They will go back to their lives, to church, and school, and the family will continue to pursue their asylum case. And hopefully the little boy will get the medical attention he needs,” Mukherjee said. “They never should have been arrested and detained in the first place. We are grateful they have been released.”

Department of Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to an email request for comment. Last week, the agency posted on social media that the boy “has been seen regularly by medical personnel since arriving at the Dilley facility.”

Starting in May, the country has seen large-scale arrests in which asylum-seekers appearing at routine hearings have been arrested outside courtrooms as part of the White House’s mass deportation effort. In many cases, a judge will grant a government lawyer’s request to dismiss deportation proceedings and then U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will arrest the person and place them on “expedited removal,” a fast track to deportation.

Lawyers for the “Z” family said their lawsuit was the first one filed on behalf of children to challenge the ICE courthouse arrest policy.

There have been other similar lawsuits, including in New York, where a federal judge ruled last month that federal immigration authorities can’t make civil arrests at the state’s courthouses or arrest anyone going there for a proceeding.

“The Z family’s release demonstrates the power we have when we fight back against harmful, un-American policies,” said Kate Gibson Kumar, staff attorney for the Beyond Borders Program of the Texas Civil Rights Project.

The family’s lawyers have said that during their hearing before a judge, the mother said they wished to continue their cases for asylum. Homeland Security moved to dismiss their cases, and the judge immediately granted that motion.

When they stepped out of the courtroom, they found men in civilian clothing believed to be ICE agents who arrested the family, Mukherjee said. They spent about 11 hours at an immigrant processing center in Los Angeles and were each only given an apple, a small packet of cookies, a juice box and water.

At one point, an officer near the boy lifted his shirt, revealing his gun. The boy urinated on himself and was left in wet clothing until the next morning, Mukherjee said.

Republicans muscled President Donald Trump’s tax and spending cut bill through the House on Thursday, the final step necessary to get the bill to his desk by the GOP’s self-imposed deadline of July 4th.

At nearly 900 pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations.

Democrats united against the legislation, but were powerless to stop it as long as Republicans stayed united. The Senate passed the bill, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The House passed an earlier iteration of the bill in May with just one vote to spare. It passed the final version 218-214.

Here’s the latest on what’s in the bill and when some of its provisions go into effect.

GOP bill includes reductions for businesses and new tax breaks

Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump’s first term expire. The legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill, solidifying the tax cuts approved in Trump’s first term.

It temporarily would add new tax deductions on tip, overtime and auto loans. There’s also a $6,000 deduction for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year, a nod to his pledge to end taxes on Social Security benefits.

It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200. Millions of families at lower income levels would not get the full credit.

A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. It’s a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years.

There are scores of business-related tax cuts, including allowing businesses to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research. Proponents say this will boost economic growth.

The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 increase from the legislation, and the bill would cost the poorest people $1,600 a year, mainly due to reductions in Medicaid and food aid, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House’s version.

GOP bill funds the border wall, deportations and a missile shield

The bill would provide some $350 billion for Trump’s border and national security agenda, including for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to fulfill his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history.

Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year.

To help pay for it, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections.

For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security.

Medicaid, SNAP face deep cuts to fund bill’s tax breaks and spending

To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back on Medicaid and food assistance for people below the poverty line.

Republicans argue they are trying to rightsize the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse.

The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program’s work requirements.

There’s also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services.

More than 71 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama’s Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits.

Republicans are looking to have states pick up some of the cost for SNAP benefits. Currently, the federal government funds all benefit costs. Under the bill, states beginning in 2028 will be required to contribute a set percentage of those costs if their payment error rate exceeds 6%. Payment errors include both underpayments and overpayments.

But the Senate bill temporarily delays the start date of that cost-sharing for states with the highest SNAP error rates. Alaska has the highest error rate in the nation at nearly 25%, according to Department of Agriculture data. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, had fought for the exception. She was a decisive vote in getting the bill through the Senate.

Final price tag: GOP bill could add $3.3 trillion to deficit

Altogether, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill would increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034.

Or not, depending on how one does the math.

Senate Republicans are proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already “current policy.” Republican senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach.

Under the alternative Senate GOP view, the bill would reduce deficits by almost half a trillion dollars over the coming decade, the CBO said.

Democrats say this is “magic math” that obscures the true costs of the tax breaks. Some nonpartisan groups worried about the country’s fiscal trajectory are siding with Democrats in that regard. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Senate Republicans were employing an “accounting gimmick that would make Enron executives blush.”

The jury in the Sean “Diddy” Combs sex trafficking trial convicted him of prostitution-related crime but cleared him of sex trafficking and racketeering charges.

Here’s what we know about the potential sentence:
Will Combs spend years in prison?

The three-time Grammy award winner was convicted of flying people around the country, including his girlfriends and paid male sex workers, to engage in sexual encounters, a violation of a 115-year-old federal law called the Mann Act, named for James Mann, an Illinois congressman.

The law originally prohibited the interstate transport of a woman or girl for “prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.” It was later updated to be gender-neutral and for any sexual activity “for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.”

In a court filing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey estimated that Combs’ sentencing guidelines, which take into account many technical factors, will likely qualify him for a prison term of more than four years. He’ll get credit for his time in custody since his arrest in September.

Combs’ defense team believes the guidelines will be much lower, around two years. The maximum possible sentence is 10 years in prison, though U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian will have much discretion. He proposed an Oct. 3 sentencing date.

The government said Combs coerced women into abusive sex parties involving hired male sex workers, ensured their compliance with drugs like cocaine and threats to their careers, and silenced victims through blackmail and violence that included kidnapping, arson and beatings.

The jury, however, acquitted Combs of the most serious charges — racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking — which could have carried a sentence of up to life in prison.

What is racketeering conspiracy?

Combs defeated the racketeering charge. Authorities had accused him of running a criminal enterprise that relied on bodyguards, household staff, personal assistants and others in his orbit to facilitate and cover up crimes.

It’s commonly used to tackle organized crime, with prosecutors using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act, or RICO, to take on the Mafia in the 1970s.

To prove the charge, prosecutors had to show that an enterprise existed and was involved in a pattern of racketeering activity. In this case, the alleged activity included kidnapping, arson, bribery and sex trafficking.

Combs’ lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, portrayed the Bad Boys Records founder as the victim of overzealous prosecutors who exaggerated elements of his lifestyle and recreational drug use to bring charges that resulted in what he called a “fake trial.” He said the women were willing participants.
How long did the jury work?

Deliberations began Monday in late morning.

The panel of eight men and four women sent a note that it had reached a verdict at 9:52 a.m. Wednesday, a day after telling the judge that it was stuck on one of the five charges, racketeering. The judge said Tuesday it was too soon to give up and ordered the jury to return Wednesday to try to reach a unanimous verdict.

Combs pumped his right fist after hearing that he was acquitted of the most serious charges.

What’s next?

The judge denied Combs’ request to be released on bond while he awaits his sentence, noting that evidence at trial pointed to Combs exhibiting a “yearslong pattern of violence.”

Subramanian set a July 8 hearing to discuss the sentencing process.

The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC), who were fired by President Donald Trump and then reinstated by a federal judge.

Trump has the power to fire independent agency board members, the Justice Department argued in its filing to the high court, pointing to a May ruling by the Supreme Court that endorsed a robust view of presidential power.

The administration asked the court for an immediate order to allow the firings to go forward, over the objections of lawyers for the commissioners.

The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump fired the three Democrats on the five-member commission in May. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. Maddox sought to distinguish the commission’s role from those of other agencies where the Supreme Court has allowed firings to go forward.

A month earlier, the high court’s conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board finding that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members “without cause.” The three liberal justices dissented.

The administration has argued that all the agencies are under Trump’s control as the head of the executive branch.

Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted that it can be difficult to characterize the product safety commission’s functions as purely executive.

The fight over the president’s power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause.

The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president’s party. They serve staggered terms.

That structure ensures that each president has “the opportunity to influence, but not control,” the commission, attorneys for the fired commissioners wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission’s independence.

Senate Republicans hauled President Donald Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill to passage Tuesday by the narrowest of margins, pushing past opposition from Democrats and their own GOP ranks after a turbulent overnight session.

The outcome capped an unusually tense weekend of work at the Capitol, the president’s signature legislative priority teetering on the edge of approval or collapse. In the end that tally was 50-50, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.

Three Republican senators — Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky — joined all Democrats in voting against it.

“In the end we got the job done,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said afterward.

The difficulty for Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to wrestle the bill to this point is not expected to let up. The package now goes back to the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana had warned senators not to overhaul what his chamber had already approved. But the Senate did make changes, particularly to Medicaid, risking more problems ahead. House GOP leaders scheduled a Wednesday vote and vowed to put it on Trump’s desk by his July Fourth deadline, which is Friday.

It’s a pivotal moment for the president and his party, as they have been consumed by the now 887-page “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which was its formal title before Democrats filed an amendment to strip out the name. Republicans are investing their political capital in delivering on their sweep of power in Washington.

Trump acknowledged it’s “very complicated stuff” as he departed the White House for Florida.

“I don’t want to go too crazy with cuts,” he said. “I don’t like cuts.”

What started as a routine but laborious day of amendment voting, in a process called vote-a-rama, spiraled into an all-night slog as Republican leaders bought time to shore up support.

The droning roll calls in the chamber belied the frenzied action to steady the bill. Grim-faced scenes played out on and off the Senate floor, amid exhaustion.

Thune worked around the clock, desperately reaching for last-minute agreements between those in his party worried the bill’s reductions to Medicaid will leave millions more people without care and his most conservative flank, which wanted even steeper cuts to hold down deficits ballooning with the tax cuts.

The GOP leaders had no room to spare. Thune could lose no more than three Republican senators, and two — Tillis, who warned that millions of people will lose access to Medicaid health care, and Paul, who opposes raising the debt limit by $5 trillion — had already indicated opposition.

Attention quickly turned to two other key senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Collins, who also raised concerns about health care cuts, as well as a loose coalition of four conservative GOP senators pushing for even steeper reductions.

Murkowski in particular became the subject of GOP leaders’ attention, as they sat beside her for talks. Then all eyes were on Paul after he returned from a visit to Thune’s office.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans “are in shambles because they know the bill is so unpopular.”

An analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law. The CBO said the package would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion over the decade.

Pressure built from all sides. Billionaire Elon Musk said anyone who voted for the package should “hang their head in shame” and warned he would campaign against them. But Trump had also lashed out against the GOP holdouts, including Tillis, who abruptly announced his own decision over the weekend not to seek reelection.

Few Republicans appeared fully satisfied as the final package emerged, in either the House or the Senate.

Collins fought to include $50 billion for a new rural hospital fund, among the GOP senators worried that the bill’s Medicaid provider cuts would be devastating and force them to close.

While her amendment for the fund was rejected, the provision was inserted into the final bill. Still she voted no.

The Maine senator said she’s happy the bolstered funding was added, but “my difficulties with the bill go far beyond that.”

And Murkowski called the decision-making process “agonizing.”

She secured provisions to temporarily spare Alaska and other states from some food stamp cuts, but her efforts to bolster Medicaid reimbursements fell short. She voted yes.

All told, the Senate bill includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, according to the latest CBO analysis, making permanent Trump’s 2017 rates, which would expire at the end of the year if Congress fails to act, while adding the new ones he campaigned on, including no taxes on tips.

The Senate package would roll back billions of dollars in green energy tax credits, which Democrats warn will wipe out wind and solar investments nationwide. It would impose $1.2 trillion in cuts, largely to Medicaid and food stamps, by imposing work requirements on able-bodied people, including some parents and older Americans, making sign-up eligibility more stringent and changing federal reimbursements to states.

Additionally, the bill would provide a $350 billion infusion for border and national security, including for deportations, some of it paid for with new fees charged to immigrants.