All - Legal News

Justice Dept. moves to cancel police reform settlements reached with Minneapolis

Political and Legal - POSTED: 2025/05/21 14:44

The Justice Department moved Wednesday to cancel a settlement with Minneapolis that called for an overhaul of its police department following the murder of George Floyd, as well as a similar agreement with Louisville, Kentucky, saying it doesn’t want to pursue the cases.

Following a scathing report by the Justice Department in 2023, Minneapolis in January approved a consent decree with the federal government in the final days of the Biden administration to overhaul its training and use-of-force policies under court supervision.

The agreement required approval from a federal court in Minnesota. But the Trump administration was granted a delay soon after taking office while it considered its options, and on Wednesday told the court it does not intend to proceed. It planned to file a similar motion in federal court in Kentucky.

“After an extensive review by current Department of Justice and Civil Rights Division leadership, the United States no longer believes that the proposed consent decree would be in the public interest,” said the Minnesota motion, signed by Andrew Darlington, acting chief of the special litigation section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The United States will no longer prosecute this matter.”

The Justice Department announced its decision just before the five-year anniversary of the murder of George Floyd. Then-officer Derek Chauvin used his knee on May 25, 2020, to pin the Black man to the pavement for 9 1/2 minutes in a case that sparked protests around the world and a national reckoning with racism and police brutality.

However, no immediate changes are expected to affect the Minneapolis Police Department, which is operating under a similar consent decree with the Minnesota Human Rights Department.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara reiterated at a news conference Tuesday that his department would abide by the terms of the federal agreement as it was signed, regardless of what the Trump administration decided.

The city in 2023 reached a settlement agreement with the state Human Rights Department to remake policing, under court supervision, after the agency issued a blistering report in 2022 that found that police had long engaged in a pattern of racial discrimination.

Arizona prosecutors ordered to send fake elector case back to grand jury

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/05/20 21:51

Arizona prosecutors pressing the case against Republicans who are accused of trying to overturn the 2020 election results in President Donald Trump’s favor were dealt a setback when a judge ordered the case be sent back to a grand jury.

Arizona’s fake elector case remains alive after Friday’s ruling by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers, but it’s being sent back to the grand jurors to determine whether there’s probable cause that the defendants committed the crimes.

The decision, first reported by the Washington Post, centered on the Electoral Count Act, a law that governs the certification of a presidential contest and was part of the defendants’ claims they were acting lawfully.

While the law was discussed when the case was presented to the grand jury and the panel asked a witness about the law’s requirements, prosecutors didn’t show the statute’s language to the grand jury, Myers wrote. The judge said a prosecutor has a duty to tell grand jurors all the applicable law and concluded the defendants were denied “a substantial procedural right as guaranteed by Arizona law.”

Richie Taylor, a spokesperson for Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat whose office is pressing the case in court, said in a statement that prosecutors will appeal the decision. “We vehemently disagree with the court,” Taylor said.

Mel McDonald, a former county judge in metro Phoenix and former U.S. Attorney for Arizona, said courts send cases back to grand juries when prosecutors present misleading or incomplete evidence or didn’t properly instruct panel members on the law.

“They get granted at times. It’s not often,” said McDonald, who isn’t involved in the case.

In all, 18 Republicans were charged with forgery, fraud and conspiracy. The defendants consist of 11 Republicans who submitted a document falsely claiming Trump won Arizona, two former Trump aides and five lawyers connected to the former president, including Rudy Giuliani.

Two defendants have already resolved their cases, while the others have pleaded not guilty to the charges. Trump wasn’t charged in Arizona, but the indictment refers to him as an unindicted coconspirator.

Most of the defendants in the case also are trying to get a court to dismiss their charges under an Arizona law that bars using baseless legal actions in a bid to silence critics.

They argued Mayes tried to use the charges to silence them for their constitutionally protected speech about the 2020 election and actions taken in response to the race’s outcome. Prosecutors said the defendants didn’t have evidence to back up their retaliation claim and that they crossed the line from protected speech to fraud.

Eleven people who had been nominated to be Arizona’s Republican electors met in Phoenix on Dec. 14, 2020, to sign a certificate saying they were “duly elected and qualified” electors and claimed Trump had carried the state in the 2020 election.

President Joe Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes. A one-minute video of the signing ceremony was posted on social media by the Arizona Republican Party at the time. The document later was sent to Congress and the National Archives, where it was ignored.

Prosecutors in Michigan, Nevada, Georgia and Wisconsin have also filed criminal charges related to the fake electors scheme.

Senate confirms Kushner, father of Trump’s son-in-law, as ambassador to France

People in the News - POSTED: 2025/05/20 13:12

The Senate has confirmed real estate developer Charles Kushner, the father of President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, to serve as ambassador to France.

Charles Kushner was pardoned by Trump in December 2020 after pleading guilty years earlier to tax evasion and making illegal campaign donations. Prosecutors alleged that he hatched a scheme for revenge and intimidation after discovering his brother-in-law was cooperating with federal authorities in an investigation, hiring a prostitute and arranging to have the encounter recorded with a hidden camera and sent to his own sister, the man’s wife.

Kushner, who was confirmed 51-45, is the founder of Kushner Companies, a real estate firm. His son Jared is a former White House senior adviser to Trump who is married to Trump’s eldest daughter, Ivanka. When he announced his intention to nominate Charles Kushner in November, Trump called him “a tremendous business leader, philanthropist, & dealmaker.”

Charles Kushner will head to France as the relationship between the two traditional allies, and between the U.S. and the rest of Europe, has been strained over Trump’s trade policies and the U.S. role in the Ukraine war. At his confirmation hearing earlier this month, Kushner said he would work closely with France to “bring greater balance to our important economic relationship” and also encourage France to “invest more in its defense capabilities, as well as lead the EU to align with the U.S. vision of increased European commitments to security.”

As Trump has rattled traditionally solid relationships with European allies, Kushner said he appreciates the history between the two countries and is “dedicated to building an even stronger relationship.” He told senators that he is a child of Holocaust survivors who came to the United States after World War II, and his grandmothers and other members of his family were executed by Nazis.

New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Kushner that his nomination comes at a “critical time” because “our European allies are anxious.”

Shaheen also asked Kushner about his criminal past. He replied that he made a “very, very, very serious mistake, and I paid a very heavy price for that mistake.”

Kushner was sentenced in 2005 to two years in prison after pleading guilty to 18 counts, including tax evasion and witness tampering. It was the highest sentence he could receive under a plea deal, but less than what Chris Christie, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey at the time and later governor and Republican presidential candidate, had sought. Christie called it “one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes” he ever prosecuted as U.S. attorney.

Kushner also agreed to pay $508,900 to the FEC for violating contribution regulations by failing to obtain an OK from partners to whom more than $500,000 in contributions were credited.

Announcing Kushner’s pardon in 2020, Trump’s first White House cited Kushner’s more recent charitable work as the reason he deserved clemency.

“This record of reform and charity overshadows Mr. Kushner’s conviction and 2 year sentence for preparing false tax returns, witness retaliation, and making false statements” to the Federal Election Commission, the White House said then.

Kushner was confirmed with the support of one Democrat — New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. In his prepared testimony for his confirmation hearing, Kushner thanked Booker for his “special and close friendship.”

Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to resume quick deportations of Venezuelans

Supreme Court - POSTED: 2025/05/19 14:41

The Supreme Court on Friday barred the Trump administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law enacted when the nation was just a few years old.

Over two dissenting votes, the justices acted on an emergency appeal from lawyers for Venezuelan men who have been accused of being gang members, a designation that the administration says makes them eligible for rapid removal from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The court indefinitely extended the prohibition on deportations from a north Texas detention facility under the alien enemies law. The case will now go back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to intervene in April.

President Donald Trump quickly voiced his displeasure. “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” he posted on his Truth Social platform.

The high court action is the latest in a string of judicial setbacks for the Trump administration’s effort to speed deportations of people in the country illegally. The president and his supporters have complained about having to provide due process for people they contend didn’t follow U.S. immigration laws.

The court had already called a temporary halt to the deportations, in a middle-of-the-night order issued last month. Officials seemed “poised to carry out removals imminently,” the court noted Friday.

Several cases related to the old deportation law are in courts

The case is among several making their way through the courts over Trump’s proclamation in March calling the Tren de Aragua gang a foreign terrorist organization and invoking the 1798 law to deport people.

The high court case centers on the opportunity people must have to contest their removal from the United States — without determining whether Trump’s invocation of the law was appropriate.

“We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution,” the justices said in an unsigned opinion.

At least three federal judges have said Trump was improperly using the AEA to speed deportations of people the administration says are Venezuelan gang members. On Tuesday, a judge in Pennsylvania signed off on the use of the law.

The court-by-court approach to deportations under the AEA flows from another Supreme Court order that took a case away from a judge in Washington, D.C., and ruled detainees seeking to challenge their deportations must do so where they are held.

In April, the justices said that people must be given “reasonable time” to file a challenge. On Friday, the court said 24 hours is not enough time but has not otherwise spelled out how long it meant. The administration has said 12 hours would be sufficient. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines ordered immigration officials to give people 21 days in her opinion, in which she otherwise said deportations could legally take place under the AEA.

The Supreme Court on Friday also made clear that it was not blocking other ways the government may deport people. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Alito complaining that his colleagues had departed from their usual practices and seemingly decided issues without an appeals court weighing in. “But if it has done so, today’s order is doubly extraordinary,” Alito wrote.

In a separate opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he agreed with the majority but would have preferred the nation’s highest court to jump in now definitively, rather than return the case to an appeals court. “The circumstances,” Kavanaugh wrote, “call for a prompt and final resolution.”

Poland votes for a new president Sunday as worries grow about the future

International - POSTED: 2025/05/18 16:47

A war next door in Ukraine.Migration pressure at borders. Russian sabotage across the region. Doubts about the U.S. commitment to Europe’s security.

In Poland’s presidential election Sunday, security looms large. So do questions about the country’s strength as a democracy and its place in the European Union. One of the new president’s most important tasks will be maintaining strong ties with the United States, widely seen as essential to the survival of a country in an increasingly volatile neighborhood.

Voters in this Central European nation of 38 million people will cast ballots to replace conservative incumbent Andrzej Duda, whose second and final five-year term ends in August.

With 13 candidates, a decisive first-round victory is unlikely. Some have appeared unserious or extreme, with a couple expressing openly pro-Putin or antisemitic views. A televised debate this week dragged on for nearly four hours. There are calls to raise the threshold to qualify for the race.

A runoff on June 1 is widely expected, with polls pointing to a likely showdown between Rafał Trzaskowski, the liberal mayor of Warsaw, and Karol Nawrocki, a conservative historian backed by the Law and Justice party, which governed Poland from 2015 to 2023. Poland’s geography gives the election added importance. Bordering Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave, Belarus and war-torn Ukraine — as well as several Western allies — Poland occupies a critical position along NATO’s eastern flank and serves as a key logistics hub for military aid to Ukraine.

There are growing fears that if Russia prevails in its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it could target other countries that freed themselves from Moscow’s control some 35 years ago. Against that backdrop, the election will shape Warsaw’s foreign policy at a moment of mounting strain on trans-Atlantic unity and European defense.

Both leading candidates support continued U.S. military engagement in Europe. Trzaskowski puts greater emphasis on deepening ties with the European Union, while Nawrocki is more skeptical of Brussels and promotes a nationalist agenda.

When Law and Justice held power, it repeatedly clashed with EU institutions over judicial independence, media freedom and migration. While Poland is a parliamentary democracy, the presidency wields significant influence. The president serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, holds veto power, shapes foreign policy and plays a symbolic role in national discourse.

Under Duda, the office largely advanced the conservative agenda of Law and Justice. Since Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s centrist coalition came to power in late 2023, Duda has blocked key reforms aimed at restoring judicial independence and repairing relations with the EU.

Trump Tells Walmart: Don’t Raise Prices, Absorb Tariff Costs Instead

Business - POSTED: 2025/05/17 19:27

President Donald Trump on Saturday ripped into Walmart, saying on social media that the retail giant should eat the additional costs created by his tariffs.

As Trump has jacked up import taxes, he has tried to assure a skeptical public that foreign producers would pay for those taxes and that retailers and automakers would absorb the additional expenses. Most economic analyses are deeply skeptical of those claims and have warned that the trade penalties would worsen inflation. Walmart warned on Thursday that everything from bananas to children’s car seats could increase in price.

Trump, in his Truth Social post, lashed out at the retailer, which employs 1.6 million people in the United States. He said the company, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, should sacrifice its profits for the sake of his economic agenda that he says will eventually lead to more domestic jobs in manufacturing.

“Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain,” Trump posted. “Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year, far more than expected. Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, “EAT THE TARIFFS,” and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!”

The posting by the Republican president reflected the increasingly awkward series of choices that many major American companies face as a result of his tariffs, from deteriorating sales to the possibility of incurring Trump’s wrath. Trump has similarly warned domestic automakers to not raise their prices, even though outside analyses say his tariffs would raise production costs.

So far, those tariffs have darkened the mood of an otherwise resilient U.S. economy. The preliminary reading of the University of Michigan survey of consumer sentiment on Friday slipped to its second lowest measure on record, with roughly 75% of respondents “spontaneously” mentioning tariffs as they largely expected inflation to accelerate.

In April, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon was among the retail executives who met with Trump at the White House to discuss tariffs. But the Trump administration went forward despite warnings and has attacked other companies such as Amazon and Apple that are struggling with the disruptions to their supply chains.

Walmart chief financial officer John David Rainey said he thinks $350 car seats made in China will soon cost an additional $100, a 29% price increase.

“We’re wired to keep prices low, but there’s a limit to what we can bear, or any retailer for that matter,” he told The Associated Press on Thursday after the company reported strong first-quarter sales.

The administration recently ratcheted down its 145% tariffs on China to 30% for a 90-day period. Trump has placed tariffs as high as 25% on Mexico and Canada due to illegal immigration and drug trafficking, harming the relationship with America’s two largest trading partners.

There is a universal baseline tariff of 10% on most countries as Trump promises to reach trade deals in the coming weeks after having shocked the financial markets in early April by charging higher import taxes based on trade deficits with other countries. Trump insists he intends to preserve the tariffs as a revenue source and that a framework agreement with the United Kingdom would largely keep the 10% tariff rate in place.

Trump has also placed import taxes on autos, steel and aluminum and plans to do so on pharmaceutical drugs, among other products.

The tariffs and Trump’s own reversals on how much he should charge have generated uncertainty across the U.S. economy, such that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has held the central bank’s benchmark rates steady until there is more clarity. Powell has warned that tariffs can both hurt growth and raise prices.

On Saturday, Trump repeated his calls for Powell to cut the benchmark rates. That could cause inflation to accelerate, but the president has maintained that inflationary pressures have largely disappeared from the economy.

Trump suspends asylum system, leaving immigrants to face an uncertain future

Immigration - POSTED: 2025/05/16 13:26

They arrive at the U.S. border from around the world: Eritrea, Guatemala, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ghana, Uzbekistan and so many other countries.

They come for asylum, insisting they face persecution for their religion, or sexuality or for supporting the wrong politicians.

For generations, they had been given the chance to make their case to U.S. authorities.

Not anymore.

“They didn’t give us an ICE officer to talk to. They didn’t give us an interview. No one asked me what happened,” said a Russian election worker who sought asylum in the U.S. after he said he was caught with video recordings he made of vote rigging. On Feb. 26, he was deported to Costa Rica with his wife and young son.

On Jan. 20, just after being sworn in for a second term, President Donald Trump suspended the asylum system as part of his wide-ranging crackdown on illegal immigration, issuing a series of executive orders designed to stop what he called the “invasion” of the United States.

What asylum-seekers now find, according to lawyers, activists and immigrants, is a murky, ever-changing situation with few obvious rules, where people can be deported to countries they know nothing about after fleeting conversations with immigration officials while others languish in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.

Attorneys who work frequently with asylum-seekers at the border say their phones have gone quiet since Trump took office. They suspect many who cross are immediately expelled without a chance at asylum or are detained to wait for screening under the U.N.’s convention against torture, which is harder to qualify for than asylum.

“I don’t think it’s completely clear to anyone what happens when people show up and ask for asylum,” said Bella Mosselmans, director of the Global Strategic Litigation Council.

A thicket of lawsuits, appeals and countersuits have filled the courts as the Trump administration faces off against activists who argue the sweeping restrictions illegally put people fleeing persecution in harm’s way.

In a key legal battle, a federal judge is expected to rule on whether courts can review the administration’s use of invasion claims to justify suspending asylum. There is no date set for that ruling.

The government says its declaration of an invasion is not subject to judicial oversight, at one point calling it “an unreviewable political question.”

But rights groups fighting the asylum proclamation, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, called it “as unlawful as it is unprecedented” in the complaint filed in a Washington, D.C., federal court.

Illegal border crossings, which soared in the first years of President Joe Biden’s administration, reaching nearly 10,000 arrests per day in late 2024, dropped significantly during his last year in office and plunged further after Trump returned to the White House.

Yet more than 200 people are still arrested daily for illegally crossing the southern U.S. border. Some of those people are seeking asylum, though it’s unclear if anyone knows how many.

Paulina Reyes-Perrariz, managing attorney for the San Diego office of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said her office sometimes received 10 to 15 calls a day about asylum after Biden implemented asylum restrictions in 2024.

What to know about the Supreme Court arguments in the birthright citizenship case

Supreme Court - POSTED: 2025/05/15 13:39

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Thursday in its first case stemming from the blitz of actions that have marked the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.

Before the court are the Trump administration’s emergency appeals of lower court orders putting nationwide holds on the Republican president’s push to deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally.

Birthright citizenship is among several issues, many related to immigration, that the administration has asked the court to address on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow the president’s agenda.

The justices are also considering the administration’s pleas to end humanitarian parole for more than 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and to strip other temporary legal protections from another 350,000 Venezuelans. The administration remains locked in legal battles over its efforts to swiftly deport people accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.

In Thursday’s arguments, the justices will be weighing whether judges have the authority to issue what are called nationwide, or universal, injunctions. The Trump administration, like the Biden administration before it, has complained that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.

Yet in discussing the limits of a judge’s power, the court almost certainly will have to take up the change to citizenship that Trump wants to make, which would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years.

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The Citizenship Clause, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, was included to ensure that formerly enslaved people would be citizens. It effectively overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court held that Black people, no matter their status, were not citizens.

Since at least 1898 and the Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, the provision has been widely interpreted to make citizens of everyone born on U.S. soil except for the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; and, until a federal law changed things in 1924, sovereign Native American tribes.

Trump’s executive order would deny citizenship to children if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Those categories include people who are in the country illegally or temporarily because, the administration contends, they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Almost immediately, states, immigrants and rights groups sued to block the executive order, accusing the Republican administration of trying to unsettle the understanding of birthright citizenship. Every court to consider the issue has sided with the challengers.

The administration is asking for the court orders to be reined in, not overturned entirely, and spends little time defending the executive order. The Justice Department argues that there has been an “explosion” in the number of nationwide injunctions issued since Trump retook the White House. The far-reaching court orders violate the law as well as long-standing views on a judge’s authority, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration.

Courts typically deal only with the parties before them. Even class actions reach only the people who are part of a class certified by a judge, though those can affect millions of people, Sauer wrote.

Nationwide injunctions, by contrast, have no limits and can even include parties who oppose what the court orders are designed to protect, he wrote. As an example, Sauer pointed to Republican-led states that favor the administration’s position but are subject to the nationwide injunctions.

But the justices may well ask about Trump’s executive order and perhaps even tip their hand.

Lawyers for the states and immigrants argue that this is an odd issue for the court to use to limit judges’ authority because courts have uniformly found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution. Limiting the number of people who are protected by the rulings would create a confusing patchwork of rules in which new restrictions on citizenship could temporarily take effect in 27 states. That means a child born in a state that is challenging Trump’s order would be a citizen, but a child born at the same time elsewhere would not, the lawyers said.

Trump Seeks Supreme Court Approval to End Protections for Venezuelans

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/05/14 13:47

The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to strip temporary legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans, potentially exposing them to being deported.

The Justice Department asked the high court to put on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept in place Temporary Protected Status for the Venezuelans that would have otherwise expired last month.

The status allows people already in the United States to live and work legally because their native countries are deemed unsafe for return due to natural disaster or civil strife.

A federal appeals court had earlier rejected the administration’s request.

President Donald Trump’s administration has moved aggressively to withdraw various protections that have allowed immigrants to remain in the country, including ending TPS for a total of 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians. TPS is granted in 18-month increments.

The emergency appeal to the high court came the same day a federal judge in Texas ruled illegal the administration’s efforts to deport Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law. The cases are not related.

The protections had been set to expire April 7, but U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ordered a pause on those plans. He found that the expiration threatened to severely disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and could cost billions in lost economic activity.

Chen, who was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama, found the government hadn’t shown any harm caused by keeping the program alive.

But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration that Chen’s order impermissibly interferes with the administration’s power over immigration and foreign affairs.

In addition, Sauer told the justices, people affected by ending the protected status might have other legal options to try to remain in the country because the “decision to terminate TPS is not equivalent to a final removal order.”

Congress created TPS in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife.

Budget airline begins deportation flights for ICE with start of Arizona operations

Immigration - POSTED: 2025/05/13 13:44

A budget airline that serves mostly small U.S. cities began federal deportation flights Monday out of Arizona, a move that’s inspired an online boycott petition and sharp criticism from the union representing the carrier’s flight attendants.

Avelo Airlines announced in April it had signed an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to make charter deportation flights from Mesa Gateway Airport outside Phoenix. It said it will use three Boeing 737-800 planes for the flights.

The Houston-based airline is among a host of companies seeking to cash in on President Donald Trump’s campaign for mass deportations.

Congressional deliberations began last month on a tax bill with a goal of funding, in part, the removal of 1 million immigrants annually and housing 100,000 people in U.S. detention centers. The GOP plan calls for hiring 10,000 more U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and investigators.

Avelo was launched in 2021 as COVID-19 still raged and billions of taxpayer dollars were propping up big airlines. It saves money mainly by flying older Boeing 737 jets that can be bought at relatively low prices. And it operates out of less-crowded and less-costly secondary airports, flying routes that are ignored by the big airlines. It said it had its first profitable quarter in late 2023.

Andrew Levy, Avelo’s founder and chief executive, said in announcing the agreement last month that the airline’s work for ICE would help the company expand and protect jobs.

“We realize this is a sensitive and complicated topic,” said Levy, an airline industry veteran with previous stints as a senior executive at United and Allegiant airlines.

Avelo did not grant an interview request from The Associated Press.

Financial and other details of the Avelo agreement — including destinations of the deportation flights — haven’t publicly surfaced. The AP asked Avelo and ICE for a copy of the agreement, but neither provided the document. The airline said it wasn’t authorized to release the contract.

Several consumer brands have shunned being associated with deportations, a highly volatile issue that could drive away customers. During Trump’s first term, authorities housed migrant children in hotels, prompting some hotel chains to say that they wouldn’t participate.

Avelo was launched in 2021 as COVID-19 still raged and billions of taxpayer dollars were propping up big airlines. It saves money mainly by flying older Boeing 737 jets that can be bought at relatively low prices. And it operates out of less-crowded and less-costly secondary airports, flying routes that are ignored by the big airlines. It said it had its first profitable quarter in late 2023.

Andrew Levy, Avelo’s founder and chief executive, said in announcing the agreement last month that the airline’s work for ICE would help the company expand and protect jobs.

Newsom urges California cities and counties to ban homeless encampments

Legal Podcast - POSTED: 2025/05/12 17:26

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday urged California cities to clear homeless encampments, escalating once again his efforts to address an intractable issue of his time in office: the makeshift tent camps that line underpasses, parks and local streets up and down the state.

Newsom’s administration drafted a local law that counties, cities and towns can directly adopt or modify to achieve the Democratic governor’s goals. He’s also releasing $3.3 billion in voter-approved funds to expand housing and treatment options for homeless residents.

“The time for inaction is over. There are no more excuses,” Newsom said in a statement.

Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco, made tackling homelessness a priority of his administration when he took office in 2019 and since then, Democratic leaders in the state have moved toward cracking down on encampments. The state accounts for nearly a third of the homeless population in the United States. More than 187,000 Californians are in need of housing.

With tents lining streets and disrupting businesses in cities and towns across the state, homelessness has become one of the most pressing public health and safety issues in California and one sure to dog Newsom if he runs for national office.

His declaration comes a year after the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for officials to ban homeless people from camping outside. It was a ruling welcomed by many Democratic leaders, including Newsom, despite pushback from homeless people and their advocates that the decision by the conservative court was cruel.

The key provisions of the model ordinance announced Monday include prohibitions on “persistent camping” in one location, a ban on encampments that block sidewalks and a requirement that local officials provide notice and make every reasonable effort to identify and offer shelter prior to clearing an encampment. Providing a ready-made local law could bring uniformity to how cities and counties deal with encampments though Newsom is urging local officials to modify his proposal as needed.

Major cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco have already started clearing out encampments, saying they are not fair to children, seniors and disabled people who need access to parks and sidewalks.

San Francisco’s new mayor, Daniel Lurie, pledged to clean up city sidewalks while in San José, Mayor Matt Mahan has proposed arrests if a person refuses shelter three times.

In 2024, voters approved a measure that imposes strict requirements on counties to spend on housing and drug treatment programs to tackle the homelessness crisis. It was a signature proposal for Newsom, who campaigned for the measure’s passage.

Under the measure, counties are required to spend about two-thirds of the money from a voter-approved tax enacted in 2004 on millionaires for mental health services on housing and programs for homeless people with serious mental illnesses or substance abuse problems.

The governor has also pushed for laws that make it easier to force people with behavioral health issues into treatment. And he has repeatedly threatened to withhold state money from cities and counties that do not step up to address homelessness.

But despite the roughly billions of dollars spent on more than 30 homeless and housing programs during the 2018-2023 fiscal years, California does not have reliable data needed to fully understand why the problem didn’t improve in many cities, according to a 2024 state audit.

The audit found California spent $24 billion to tackle homelessness over the previous five years but did not consistently track whether the huge outlay of public money actually improved the situation.

How the military is dealing with Hegseth’s order to remove transgender troops

Military Law - POSTED: 2025/05/11 08:22

The military services scrambled Friday to nail down details and put together new guidance to start removing transgender troops from the force.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a memo released late Thursday, reinstated orders issued earlier this year that said “expressing a false gender identity divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.”

His new order gives active duty troops until June 6 to identify themselves as transgender and voluntarily begin to leave the service. National Guard and Reserve troops have until July 7.

Army Maj. Alivia Stehlik, who served in the infantry and is now a physical therapist, will be eligible to retire in three years but doesn’t want to be forced out for being a transgender service member.

“I still have a job to do,” she said. “My command expects me to show up and be an officer and do my job because I’m the only person at my unit who can do what I do.”

The military services were rushing to put out new guidance to help commanders work through the process, including what to do in more complex situations, such as if any of the troops are deployed, at sea or may require special orders or funding to meet the deadlines.

In 2015, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter broached the idea of lifting the ban on transgender troops and allowing them to serve openly, which raised concerns among military leaders. He set up a study, and in June 2016 announced the ban was over.

Reinstating that ban has long been a goal for President Donald Trump.

Six months into his first term, Trump announced he was not going to allow transgender people to serve in the military “in any capacity.” That set off a roughly two-year struggle to hammer out the complex details of how that would work, even as legal challenges poured in.

The Pentagon eventually laid out a policy that allowed those currently serving to stay and continue with plans for hormone treatments and gender transition if they had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. But it barred new enlistments of anyone with gender dysphoria who was taking hormones or had transitioned to another gender.

Gender dysphoria occurs when a person’s biological sex does not match up with their gender identity.

That ban was overturned by then-President Joe Biden. When Trump took office again this year, he directed Hegseth to revise the Pentagon’s policy on transgender troops.

In late February, Pentagon leaders ordered the services to set up procedures to identify troops diagnosed with or being treated for gender dysphoria by March 26. And it gave them 30 days to begin removing those troops from service.

A flurry of lawsuits stalled the ban. But on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration could enforce the ban, while other legal challenges proceed.

Legal News | Breaking News | Terms & Conditions | Privacy

ⓒ Breaking Legal News. All Rights Reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by BLN as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. Affordable law firm web design company