update - U Cal sues Trump admin, claims interference with academic rights

[Uwauwa]

Let's try and count....

1. The sad, hopeless, confused attempt to overturn the 14 Amendment. I believe it's now been injunctioned by 3 different Fed Ct judges.

2. The injunctions that Musk destroy the private payroll records he hacked and stole.

3. The injunction against the dumbo president killing health care research funding.

Let's keep track of this sad shit and laugh at it!!!!

I don’t get why we in Canada are so obsessed with the US politics. I understand we are economically dependent on them and we share the border so we obviously take interest. But why does it take the degree of obsession?

Amendment this, that - who cares?

Let’s sort out our own shit first.

 

[Frankfooter]

I don’t get why we in Canada are so obsessed with the US politics. I understand we are economically dependent on them and we share the border so we obviously take interest. But why does it take the degree of obsession?

Amendment this, that - who cares?

Let’s sort out our own shit first.

You identified the reason.
But its also so totally screwed in the head that its a constant source of discussion.
Every day there is some new scandal.

 

[mandrill]

President Donald Trump’s administration has threatened to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to four different countries within the span of less than two weeks. It started moments after he was released from federal custody in Tennessee only to land in an immigration detention center in Maryland a few days later.




Immigration officials outlined a plan for his removal to Costa Rica if he agreed to plead guilty to human smuggling charges. If he didn’t, he would be sent to Uganda.

Last week, officials suggested he could be sent back to his home country of El Salvador if he successfully reopens a case for asylum in the United States.

Then on Friday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said he will be sent to Eswatini, a tiny African nation at the center of the administration’s attempts to detain immigrants in countries where they have no citizenship, family or other connections.

An email from an ICE official to Abrego Garcia’s legal team said the administration chose Eswatini because he has stated that he fears persecution and torture in Uganda.

“That claim of fear is hard to take seriously, especially given that you have claimed (through your attorneys) that you fear persecution or torture in at least 22 different countries,” the official wrote. “Nonetheless, we hereby notify you that your new country of removal is Eswatini, Africa.”





“Homie is afraid of the entire western hemisphere,” the Department of Homeland Security wrote on X.

In March, the Salvadoran immigrant was mistakenly deported from his home in Maryland to a brutal prison in his home country, igniting a high-profile legal battle for his return at the center of Trump’s anti-immigration agenda.

After repeatedly swatting away multiple court orders for his return, the administration abruptly brought him back to the U.S. to face a criminal indictment in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty.

But while that criminal case is still ongoing, with a trial tentatively scheduled for January 2026, the administration is trying to deport him again.

Abrego Garcia is now pursuing his freedom through several different courts: he is asking a judge in Tennessee to dismiss his criminal indictment, challenging his arrest and removal in another federal court, and by seeking asylum through an immigration court.


In immigration court in Baltimore, Abrego Garcia is seeking to reopen his 2019 case and apply for asylum again. In that case, an immigration court judge had blocked the government from deporting him back to his home country for humanitarian reasons.

But administration officials have argued that reopening the asylum case would essentially void that ruling, making him vulnerable for removal to El Salvador — or anywhere else.

“Should the Immigration Court grant the respondent’s motion to reopen, DHS will pursue the respondent’s removal to El Salvador,” government lawyers wrote.

The earlier ruling that prevented the government from deporting him “will no longer be valid” if his case is allowed to move forward, lawyers said.

Administration officials pivoted just days later, telling Abrego Garcia that ICE plans to deport him to Eswatini, a country that is reportedly offering to detain deported immigrants in exchange for tens of millions of dollars from the U.S. government.

Eswatini is currently imprisoning five deportees and has allegedly offered to detain other US deportees in exchange for tens of millions of dollars (AP)
The administration resumed a policy of deporting immigrant detainees to so-called third countries in July, starting with the African kingdom formerly known as Swaziland.

Five men with criminal convictions are currently imprisoned there, including at least one Jamaican national who completed his prison sentence and has no further criminal charges.


Eswatini’s government at one point requested $500 million in exchange for the operation, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times.

Eswatini diplomats told The Independent in July that they were blindsided by the Trump administration’s plan to send a group of men with criminal convictions to their country; they had only learned about the flights from social media.

In July, the Eswatini government said the men “will be repatriated” and the United Nations International Organization for Migration is working with the country to “facilitate the transit of these inmates to their countries of origin.”

Nearly two months later those men remain imprisoned in Eswatini.

A spokesperson for the International Organization for Migration told The Independent that the agency has met with deportees imprisoned there “to assess needs and provide post-arrival humanitarian support in line with our mandate.”


Homeland Security has defended Eswatini’s role in the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda, telling The Independent that officials are “using every tool available to get criminal illegal aliens out of American communities and out of our country.”

The Independent has requested comment from representatives for Abrego Garcia and the kingdom of Eswatini.


Trump administration taunts Kilmar Abrego Garcia as ICE reveals plans to deport him to tiny African country

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

President Donald Trump's unprecedented firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook just hit a snag, as a judge temporarily blocked her ouster.

Last month, Trump tried to fire Cook, citing allegations of mortgage fraud as the reason for her dismissal. Cook and her attorney immediately contested the legality of the move, insisting Trump didn't have the power to oust a Fed governor except “for cause.”




On Tuesday night, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb dealt Trump a temporary blow in the case, finding that the Federal Reserve Act only allows a president to remove a Fed governor "for cause." Cobb noted this was the first such attempt to do so in the Fed's 111-year history.



The court ruled that Cook made a "strong showing" that her removal was done in "violation" of the "for cause" provision.

"The best reading of the 'for cause' provision is that the bases for removal of a member of the Board of Governors are limited to grounds concerning a Governor's behavior in office and whether they have been faithfully and effectively executing their statutory duties," wrote Cobb. "'For cause' thus does not contemplate removing an individual purely for conduct that occurred before they began in office."

Cobb said the removal likely violated Cook's rights to due process as well, and said she demonstrated "irreparable harm."

"Finally, the public interest and the balance of the equities also favor Cook," the judge concluded.


Trump's bid to oust Fed official hits major snag with new court order

 

[mandrill]

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's attempt to subpoena medical records of transgender patients who received gender-affirming care at Boston Children's Hospital.

In a ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun said the administrative subpoena served by the U.S. Department of Justice was improper and “motivated only by bad faith.”




The Justice Department said the information was needed to investigate possible fraud or unlawful off-label promotion of drugs, but the information requested — including actual patient records — seemed to be unrelated, the judge said. Phone messages left with the Justice Department’s attorney Ross Goldstein and with a Justice Department public affairs officer were not immediately returned.

“The Administration has been explicit about its disapproval of the transgender community and its aim to end GAC,” Joun wrote, referring to gender-affirming care. The judge later continued, “It is abundantly clear that the true purpose of issuing the subpoena is to interfere with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' right to protect GAC within its borders, to harass and intimidate BCH to stop providing such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care.”




Just eight days after taking office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at restricting access to medical care for transgender youth. In June, the Justice Department’s Civil Division announced the division would use “all available resources to prioritize investigations of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other appropriate entities,” in an effort to investigate what it called “radical gender experimentation.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in a statement July 9 that the Justice Department had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that provide care to transgender patients under 18. Bondi said the requests were part of investigations into “healthcare fraud, false statements, and more.” But the requests did not just seek information on policies or billing practices — they also demanded information about individual patients who had been prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy.




Boston Children's Hospital asked the federal court to quash the subpoena on July 8, saying the Justice Department was seeking practically every document related to the provision of gender-affirming care over the past five and a half years, including highly sensitive and personally identifiable information about young patients.

But the Justice Department contended the subpoena was proper and a valid way for the agency to investigate potential violations of off-label prescription drug rules.

Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person's gender identity, including when it's different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It may include counseling, medications that block puberty, hormone therapy to produce physical changes or surgeries to transform chests and genitals, although those are rare for minors.


Most major medical groups say access to the treatment is important for those with gender dysphoria and see gender as existing along a spectrum.

At least 27 states have adopted laws restricting or banning the care for minors, while several others have adopted laws or policies protecting access to transgender health care.

Massachusetts' state constitution protects the right to gender-affirming care, the judge said, making it difficult to understand exactly what the Justice Department was trying to investigate.

Judge blocks Trump administration's subpoena of trans kids' medical records from Boston hospital

 

[mandrill]

A federal judge ruled that Alina Habba’s appointment as acting U.S. attorney in New Jersey was “unlawful,” undercutting the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to install politically aligned prosecutors across the country, Knewz.com can report. Habba previously served as one of Trump’s personal defense lawyers.

What the judge said


A federal judge ruled that Alina Habba held the position of the state’s top prosecutor unlawfully for more than a month. By: Francis Chung – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
“After reviewing several issues of first impression, the Court concludes that Ms. Habba has exercised the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey without lawful authority since July 1, 2025,” U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann — a Republican nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama — wrote in his 77-page order. He took issue with the way the Trump administration installed her in the role. “The Executive branch has perpetuated Alina Habba’s appointment to act as the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey through a novel series of legal and personnel moves,” he explained. “Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” the judge added. He also declared that because Habba is “not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity, she must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases.”

Questionable maneuvering


President Donald Trump had named Alina Habba, one of his former defense lawyers, as New Jersey’s interim U.S. attorney in March. By: Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Brann’s ruling came after defendants charged in the District of New Jersey contested the legality of Habba’s appointment, which was handled in an unusual and circuitous manner. The process began when Trump appointed Habba as interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey in March. But when the Senate failed to confirm her within the required 120-day window, a panel of federal judges stepped in and named the assistant U.S. attorney who’d been serving as Habba’s deputy to the permanent role. Within hours, the Justice Department fired that lawyer and the White House withdrew Habba’s nomination in a procedural maneuver aimed at keeping her in place as the state’s acting top federal prosecutor.

Habba responds


Lawyers for one of the men who challenged Habba’s appointment said the Trump administration “ignored the rules that give legitimacy” to the U.S. attorney’s office. By: ZUMAPRESS.com / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Habba hit back, defending her appointment and criticizing the ruling. In an interview with Fox News, she attacked Senate Democrats, claiming they delayed her confirmation. She also criticized “rogue judges” for “trying to be political.” Habba insisted she was legitimate, declaring, “I am the pick of the president. I am the pick of Pam Bondi, our attorney general, and I will serve this country like I have for the last several years in any capacity.”

Bondi launches appeal


The judge’s ruling “underscores that this administration cannot circumvent the congressionally mandated process for confirming U.S. attorney appointments,” said lawyers for one of the men who challenged Habba’s installation. By: Bonnie Cash – Pool via CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The federal judge’s order is on hold as the Trump administration appeals the ruling, something Bondi vowed to do “immediately,” she wrote on X. Habba, the attorney general added, “is doing incredible work in New Jersey — and we will protect her position from activist judicial attacks.”

Trump lawyer fumes as appointment is ruled 'unlawful'

 

[mandrill]

Fearing the Trump administration is aiming to repeat an aborted effort to remove dozens of Guatemalan children from the United States, lawyers and shelter workers across the country are scrambling to prevent the government from deporting Honduran children in their custody.

Legal aid groups believe federal immigration authorities, with the Honduran government’s support, are preparing to remove children from Honduras who arrived in the United States without a parent or guardian and are now in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.




Homeland Security investigators and representatives from the Honduran consulate met with several Honduran children at an Arizona shelter in recent weeks, and immigration court cases for Honduran children have suddenly disappeared, according to aid groups.

The moves follow a “similar pattern” that the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project witnessed in the cases of Guatemalan children before the government tried to abruptly remove them without a court hearing — sparking a dramatic, fast-paced legal battle detailed in dozens of harrowing court statements from the children themselves.

“It is truly astounding that the government is moving forward with this plan after they tried to do the same thing to children from Guatemala in the dead of night over Labor Day weekend,” Florence Project deputy director Roxana Avila-Cimpeanu said in a statement.




A federal judge has temporarily blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement from deporting targeted Guatemalan children, and the Florence Project has joined the lawsuit to preemptively block the government from similarly removing a dozen Honduran children.

“The only difference between the children from Guatemala protected by those temporary restraining orders and the children from Honduras who are being targeted is their country of origin, and existing laws protecting unaccompanied minors applies to all migrant children in the government’s care,” Avila-Cimpeanu said.

“The blatant disrespect for the basic rule of law that the government is displaying towards these children shocks the conscience,” she added.

The Independent has requested comment from Homeland Security and the Honduran consulate.

At least one child from Honduras who attended an immigration court hearing in August was asked by the judge whether they want to voluntarily return to their home country, “explaining that the child’s name was on a list that the judge had been provided,” according to attorneys.



Aimee Korolev, deputy director of the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project, said more than a dozen cases involving Honduran children have since been abruptly wiped from immigration court dockets.

At least 19 cases suddenly had “no future hearing,” according to Korolev.

“I am worried that the removal of the hearings from the court docket is a signal that these children could face imminent removal,” she wrote in court documents.

On September 1, the Honduran government announced that it began to initiate “coordinated efforts for institutional cooperation in order to ensure a safe return of the minors deported from the United States.”

Officials there are working to “address situations like the one experienced in Guatemala, with the deportation of unaccompanied minors from the United States on flights,” according to Guadalupe Sandoval, Director of the General Directorate for the Protection of Hondurans.



A state of emergency has been in place in Honduras since December 2022, leading to reports of torture and police abuse of power, according to human rights groups (AFP via Getty Images)
Laura Smith is executive director of the Children’s Legal Center, which represents unaccompanied minors in five ORR facilities in Illinois and Indiana, including two facilities contracted with the National Youth Advocacy Center.

On September 4, Smith received an email from a National Youth Advocacy Center ORR facility in Illinois informing her that an ORR program officer alerted the facility that “ICE may soon be taking into custody minors from the country of Honduras with the intent to repatriate them to their home country.”


She received a similar message the following day from another facility.

That same day, a legal services provider in Texas said she received an anonymous phone call from a staff member at a shelter that houses unaccompanied children.

Estrella de El Paso attorney Natasha Halina Rosario said the anonymous staff member indicated that the government was planning “to repatriate all children under the ORR custody without making any announcement.”

The staffer said that the government was “attacking” all unaccompanied migrant children, not only those from Guatemala, according to Rosario.

Another legal service provider for unaccompanied children in Texas had also been notified by a different program that Honduran children in ORR custody “may face imminent removal” from the country.



Officials in Honduras are planning for the ‘safe return’ of Honduran children who arrived in the United States without a parent or guardian and are now in federal custody, drawing fears from legal aid groups that the Trump administration is trying to abruptly deport them (AFP via Getty Images)
The Trump administration had not obtained legal permission to remove dozens of Guatemalan children this month, according to their lawyers. Their families in Guatemala were not seeking their return, and testimony from children said they were not trying to get back.

But at least 76 children were already on planes and sitting on a tarmac as they waited for a judge’s response to a lawsuit to keep them in the country.


The children remain in federal custody while yet another high-profile legal challenge to the president’s anti-immigration agenda continues.

In court documents supporting a request to block their removal, more than a dozen Guatemalan teenagers described their overwhelming fear of returning to their home country.

They describe childhoods in neglect, threats of extortion and gang violence against them or their families, and returning to homes or government shelters where they were abused or trafficked.

“The administration’s position that it was merely cooperating with the Guatemalan government to return children to their parents is belied by the facts,” attorneys for Guatemalan children wrote in court filings.

“Even if the administration’s contentions regarding its coordination with the Guatemalan government are true, any such coordination does not excuse the government’s illegal action and does nothing to change its obligation to provide unaccompanied minors with the process unambiguously due to them under the law,” they added.

Trump was barely stopped from deporting a plane full of Guatemalan kids. That could just be the beginning

 

[mandrill]

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida appeals court on Wednesday declared unconstitutional a state law banning the open carrying of firearms, calling the law incompatible with the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The First District Court of Appeal issued its ruling in a case stemming from the July 4, 2022, arrest of a man who stood at a major intersection in downtown Pensacola carrying a visible, holstered pistol and a copy of the U.S. Constitution.




The decision by a three-judge panel reverses the conviction of Stanley McDaniels in Escambia County in the Florida panhandle. It also vacates his sentence, finding that the state has failed to show that the law is consistent with the country's “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

“No historical tradition supports Florida’s Open Carry Ban. To the contrary, history confirms that the right to bear arms in public necessarily includes the right to do so openly,” Judge Stephanie Ray wrote in an opinion, joined by Judges Lori Rowe and M. Kemmerly Thomas.

“That is not to say that open carry is absolute or immune from reasonable regulation,” the opinion continued. “But what the State may not do is extinguish the right altogether for ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens.”

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis applauded the decision in a post on X. He has called for lawmakers to pass an open carry bill.




“This decision aligns state policy with my long-held position and with the vast majority of states throughout the union,” DeSantis wrote. “Ultimately, the court correctly ruled that the text of the Second Amendment — 'to keep and bear arms' — says what it means and means what it says.”

Legalizing open carry has long been a major focus of gun rights activists in the state, who oppose the slate of restrictions that Florida's Republican-dominated Legislature implemented in the wake of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier said in a post on X that he “fully supports the Court’s decision” to strike down the state law, which his office has a responsibility to defend.

"This is a big win for the Second Amendment rights of Floridians," Uthmeier said, adding that “our God-given right to self-defense is indispensable.”




Uthmeier, who DeSantis appointed to the post in February, has previously said his office won't defend state gun laws he believes are unconstitutional.

___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Kate Payne, The Associated Press

Appeals court finds Florida's open carry ban unconstitutional

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump doesn't have the authority to unilaterally remove and replace the director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2-1 to temporarily block Trump's Republican administration from firing Shira Perlmutter as the register of copyrights, who advises Congress on copyright issues.



Perlmutter claims Trump fired her in May because he disapproved of advice she gave to Congress in a report related to artificial intelligence. Perlmutter had received an email from the White House notifying her that “your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately,” her office said.

Circuit Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs concluded that Perlmutter's purported firing was likely illegal.

“The Executive’s alleged blatant interference with the work of a Legislative Branch official, as she performs statutorily authorized duties to advise Congress, strikes us as a violation of the separation of powers that is significantly different in kind and in degree from the cases that have come before,” Pan wrote in the majority opinion.

The White House had no immediate comment on the court’s decision.





Perlmutter’s position is considered part of the legislative branch of government. Her office is housed within the Library of Congress. Its director is chosen by the librarian of Congress, who is also a legislative branch employee but is nominated by the president and is subject to Senate confirmation.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump nominee, ruled in May that Perlmutter failed to meet her legal burden to show how removing her from the position would cause her irreparable harm.

Pan and Childs, who were nominated by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, concluded that Kelly abused his discretion and failed to weigh other factors favoring Perlmutter's request for a preliminary injunction.

“The President’s purported removal of the Legislative Branch’s chief advisor on copyright matters, based on the advice that she provided to Congress, is akin to the President trying to fire a federal judge’s law clerk,” Pan wrote.




Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, wrote a dissenting opinion in which he said the register of copyrights “exercises executive power in a host of ways.”

“Recently, repeatedly, and unequivocally, the Supreme Court has stayed lower-court injunctions that barred the President from removing officers exercising executive power,” Walker wrote.

Pan said it appears Perlmutter is still serving as register despite her purported removal.

“And because she continues to serve as Register at the present time, ruling in her favor would not disrupt the work of the U.S. Copyright Office," Pan wrote. “To the contrary, it is her removal that would be disruptive.”

Perlmutter’s attorneys say she is a renowned copyright expert who also has served as register of copyrights since then-Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden appointed her to the job in October 2020.

Trump appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to replace Hayden at the Library of Congress. The White House fired Hayden amid criticism from conservatives that she was advancing a “woke” agenda.

The appeals court's ruling says Blanche’s appointment to serve as acting librarian of Congress was likely unlawful, as well, because the position is subject to Senate confirmation.

Michael Kunzelman, The Associated Press

Appeals court rules Trump doesn't have the authority to fire Copyright Office director

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked Trump administration restrictions on services for immigrants in the country illegally, including the federal preschool program Head Start, health clinics and adult education.

The order from the judge in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island applies to 20 states and the District of Columbia, whose attorneys general, all Democrats, sued the administration. It puts the administration's reinterpretation of a Clinton-era federal policy on hold while the case is decided.




Under the proposed changes, some community-level programs would be reclassified as federal public benefits, making them inaccessible to people without legal status. Individual public benefits, such as food stamps and college financial aid, have been largely unavailable to people in the country without legal status.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by Trump in 2019, said in her order that the policy rollout was “rushed” in a way that would worsen the impact for people cut off from community services and those tasked with verifying eligibility.

“The Government argues that it has somehow interpreted this statute incorrectly for the nearly thirty years that it has been the law,” McElroy wrote. “In its view, everyone ... has misunderstood it from the start — at least until last month, when the right way to read it became clear to the Government. The Court is skeptical of that.”




Messages seeking comment were left with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Education Department, the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice, which each were named as defendants.

The states’ lawsuit argued the government failed to follow the rulemaking process and did not provide the required notice on conditions placed on federal funds.

The rule changes had been paused initially within the states that sued after they reached a temporary agreement with the Trump administration.

“With this victory, we are protecting children’s education, safeguarding critical health care, and preserving the safety net that keeps families afloat,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said.

Proponents of Head Start immediately voiced concern that the new policy would harm immigrant communities by taking away health services and educational opportunities. The administrative burdens of implementing the new rule would cause many under-resourced Head Start programs to close, according to the plaintiffs’ complaint.




The federal government said it interprets Head Start as a federal public benefit, similar to welfare programs that exclude immigrants in the country illegally. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, whose agency oversees Head Start, said the directive would stop diverting “hardworking Americans’ tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration.”

In addition to preserving Head Start access, the lawsuit also sought to block the restrictions on other federal programs, including substance abuse services, mental health resources in schools, career and technical education, and job training opportunities.

___

Makiya Seminera, The Associated Press

Judge blocks a Trump policy cutting off some social services for immigrants in the US illegally

 

[mandrill]

A federal judge in Texas has blocked a new state law that would have required every public school classroom to display the Ten Commandments. Knewz.com has learned that the temporary injunction, issued by District Judge Fred Biery, argues the measure likely violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on government endorsement of religion. The ruling is the latest clash over efforts in Republican-led states to incorporate Christian teachings into public schools.

Texas judge cites faith, history… and even pop culture


Judge Biery drew on a wide range of references, from Supreme Court precedents and religious leaders such as Billy Graham and Pat Robertson. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
In a “colorful” 55-page opinion, Judge Biery drew on a wide range of references, from Supreme Court precedents and religious leaders such as Billy Graham and Pat Robertson, to cultural touchstones like Greta Garbo, Kurt Vonnegut and Sonny and Cher. “Ultimately, in matters of conscience, faith, beliefs and the soul, most people are Garbo-esque,” Biery wrote, referencing the actress’ famous line “I want to be alone” from the 1932 film Grand Hotel. “They just want to be left alone, neither proselytized nor ostracized, including what occurs to their children in government-run schools.” Biery also injected humor into the ruling. Discussing how students might respond to classroom displays of the Ten Commandments, he imagined a teenager asking a teacher, “Mrs. Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?” He called it “truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with s** education issues … and a classic example of the law of unintended consequences in legislative edicts.”

Texas families argue that the law pressures children


Texas families argued that mandated displays of the Ten Commandments would pressure children into religious observance. BY: Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of Texas families with diverse religious and nonreligious backgrounds, including clergy. They argued that mandated displays of the Ten Commandments would pressure children into religious observance, elevating one faith tradition over others. Judge Biery agreed, writing that the law would push students toward “meditation on, veneration and adoption” of a state-favored doctrine while suppressing their own beliefs. “These matters of individual conscience and the soul should be free of government interference and coercion,” he added. Rabbi Mara Nathan, the lead plaintiff, echoed the ruling’s concerns, saying, “Children’s religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools.”

Texas Attorney General says the state will appeal


Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the state will appeal. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the state will appeal. “The Ten Commandments are a cornerstone of our moral and legal heritage, and their presence in classrooms serves as a reminder of the values that guide responsible citizenship,” Paxton said in a statement. “Texas will always defend our right to uphold the foundational principles that have built this nation, and I will absolutely be appealing this flawed decision.”

Other states advance similar legislation


It has been reported that similar measures are advancing elsewhere. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Similar measures are advancing elsewhere. Lawmakers in Arkansas have introduced nearly identical bills, and Oklahoma’s top education officials have ordered schools to display the Bible and Ten Commandments “with immediate and strict compliance.” Last year, a federal judge blocked Louisiana’s law requiring the Commandments in schools, signaling a broader legal battle ahead. For now, Judge Biery’s ruling blocks Texas’ Ten Commandments law from taking effect. He closed his decision with a call for civility, writing, “For those who disagree with the Court’s decision and who would do so with threats, vulgarities and violence, Grace and Peace unto you. May humankind of all faiths, beliefs and non-beliefs be reconciled one to another. Amen.”

Judge shuts down Ten Commandments law

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has asked an appeals court to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors by Monday, before the central bank’s next vote on interest rates.

The request represents an extraordinary effort by the White House to shape the board before the Fed's interest rate-setting committee meets next Tuesday and Wednesday. At the same time, Senate Republicans are pushing to confirm Stephen Miran, President Donald Trump's nominee to an open spot on the Fed's board, which could happen as soon as Monday.





Trump sought to fire Cook Aug. 25, but a federal judge ruled late Tuesday that the removal was illegal and reinstated her to the Fed’s board. Trump has accused Cook of mortgage fraud because she appeared to claim two properties as “primary residences” in July 2021, before she joined the board. Such claims can lead to a lower mortgage rate and smaller down payment than if one of them was declared as a rental property or second home. Cook has denied the charges.



President Donald Trump stands for a moment of silence during a ceremony to commemorate the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Thursday, Sept. 11, 2025, at the Pentagon in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)© The Associated Press
On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the administration had not satisfied a legal requirement that Fed governors can only be fired “for cause,” which she said was limited to misconduct while in office. Cook did not join the Fed’s board until 2022.

In their emergency appeal, Trump’s lawyers argued that even if the conduct occurred before her time as governor, her alleged action “indisputably calls into question Cook’s trustworthiness and whether she can be a responsible steward of the interest rates and economy.”




The administration asked an appeals court to issue an emergency decision reversing the lower court by Monday. If their appeal is succesful, Cook would be removed from the Fed's board until her case is ultimately resolved in the courts, and she would miss next week's meeting.

If the appeals court rules in Cook's favor, the administration could seek an emergency ruling from the Supreme Court.

Either way, the Fed is expected to cut its benchmark interest rate next week by a quarter-point to about 4.1%. When the Fed reduces its key rate, it often, over time, lowers borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and business loans. Some of those rates have already fallen in anticipation of cuts from the Fed.

Should Miran, a top economic adviser to Trump, win approval in time to join the Fed next week, he could push for a steeper half-point reduction to the Fed's rate.





Yet there are 12 officials who vote on whether and by how much to cut, including the seven members of the Fed's board as well as five of the Fed's 12 regional bank presidents, who vote on a rotating basis.

Trump's two other appointees to the Fed — Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman — might also support a half-point cut, but several of the Fed's bank presidents have expressed concern about stubbornly elevated inflation and would almost certainly oppose such a large reduction.

If the Fed approves a quarter-point cut, it is possible there could be dissenting votes both from officials who preferred no cut and from those who support a half-point.

Christopher Rugaber, The Associated Press

Trump administration requests emergency ruling to remove Cook from Fed board

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Harvard University says it has started receiving notices that many federal grants halted by the Trump administration will be reinstated after a federal judge ruled that the cuts were illegal.

It’s an early signal that federal research funding could begin flowing to Harvard after months of deadlock with the White House, but it’s yet to be seen if money will arrive. The government has said it will appeal the judge’s decision.




Reinstatement notices have started arriving from several federal agencies, but so far no payments have been received, Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton said late Wednesday. “Harvard is monitoring funding receipts closely,” Newton said.

A federal judge in Boston last week ordered the government to reverse more than $2.6 billion in cuts, saying they were unconstitutional and “used antisemitism as a smokescreen” for an ideological attack.

The Trump administration started cutting federal research grants from Harvard in April after the Ivy League school rebuffed a list of wide-ranging demands from the government in a federal investigation into campus antisemitism. Harvard challenged the cuts in court, calling them illegal government retaliation.

Harvard has been President Donald Trump's top target in his campaign to reshape higher education, which has resulted in settlements with Columbia and Brown universities to end federal investigations and restore federal money cut by the Trump administration.




Trump has said he wants Harvard to pay no less than $500 million as part any deal to restore funding. He reiterated the demand at an August Cabinet meeting. “They’ve been very bad,” Trump told Education Secretary Linda McMahon. “Don’t negotiate.”

Even as Harvard's lawsuit played out, both sides had been negotiating the framework of an agreement that could end the prolonged conflict. So far, such a deal has been elusive.

The government has opened numerous investigations against Harvard and attempted an array of sanctions, including moves to block the school from enrolling international students. A federal judge blocked the move in June after Harvard sued.

Trump administration takes first steps to restore Harvard's funding, but money isn't flowing yet

 

[mandrill]

A federal judge has upheld restrictions enacted under the Donald Trump administration that cut Medicaid funding for family planning providers, ruling that Maine Family Planning will remain barred from reimbursements while its lawsuit continues. Knewz.com has learned that the decision is being seen as a significant legal victory for the administration’s push to limit federal dollars to organizations connected to abortion services.

‘A devastating setback’


The network of 18 clinics serves about 8,000 patients each year. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
U.S. District Judge Lance Walker, a Trump appointee, sided with the administration by declining to restore Medicaid reimbursements for Maine Family Planning during the course of its challenge. The network of 18 clinics serves about 8,000 patients each year, many of them low-income residents in one of the Northeast’s most rural states. Nearly half of its patients depend on Medicaid. “This ruling is a devastating setback for Mainers who depend on us for basic primary care,” George Hill, the group’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “The loss of Medicaid funds — which nearly half our patients rely on — threatens our ability to provide life-saving services to communities across the state.”

Restrictions remain in effect for Maine Family Planning


Walker said the restrictions remain in effect for Maine Family Planning until its case is resolved. BY: Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
Walker’s decision came just weeks after another federal judge ruled Planned Parenthood clinics must continue receiving Medicaid reimbursements during their own legal battle. Despite the inconsistency, Walker said the restrictions remain in effect for Maine Family Planning until its case is resolved. Defending the cuts, Justice Department attorney Emily Hall told the court, “The rational basis is not simply to reduce the number of abortions, it’s to ensure the federal government is not paying out money to organizations that provide abortions.” Maine Family Planning and its allies counter that most of its work has nothing to do with abortion. “The impact is nothing short of catastrophic,” said Meetra Mehdizadeh, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The case centers around Trump’s signature legislation


The case centers on Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill. (MEGA)© Knewz (CA)
The case centers on the One Big, Beautiful Bill, a legislative package advanced by President Donald Trump. The law bars Medicaid dollars from going to providers primarily engaged in family planning services that received more than $800,000 in federal funds in 2023. Although widely described as targeting Planned Parenthood, the measure also swept in Maine Family Planning. Attorneys for the group argued the law was crafted to ensure smaller providers would be cut off as well. “It’s unfair to cut off funding for the clinics solely because Congress wanted to defund Planned Parenthood,” an attorney for the network told the court.

Clinics to operate without Medicaid dollars


Walker’s ruling means the clinics will have to continue operating without Medicaid dollars. BY: Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
Walker’s ruling means the clinics will have to continue operating without Medicaid dollars while the case moves through the courts. Advocates warn the funding gap could force the suspension of primary care services by the end of October. Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement, “This ruling takes a sledgehammer to an already overstretched health care network, and Mainers statewide will feel the effects of defunding Maine Family Planning, regardless of their insurance status.”

Judge hands Trump admin big win on Medicaid cuts

 

[mandrill]

Millions of dollars’ worth of contraceptives due to be distributed to people in low-income countries have been destroyed under the instructions of the Trump administration, an aid agency said Thursday.

Birth control pills, intrauterine devices and hormonal implants worth nearly $10 million were purchased by the U.S. Agency for International Development before it was mostly dismantled earlier this year. They were intended to go to low-income countries, but have now been destroyed as the Trump team continues to shrink the agency and the federal budget.



Deemed not to be “lifesaving” by the State Department, which said the U.S. would no longer purchase birth control products for low-income nations, the contraceptives were stored in a warehouse in Belgium for months.

According to a report in The New York Times, international organizations including the Gates Foundation and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation offered to buy or accept a donation of the contraceptives, which would have cost nothing to the government and may have allowed it to recoup taxpayer funds.

But the Trump administration has instead destroyed the products, at a cost of $167,000.

A USAID spokeswoman told The Times the contraceptives had been destroyed because the Trump administration “will no longer supply abortifacient birth control under the guise of foreign aid.”

“President Trump is committed to protecting the lives of unborn children all around the world,” the statement said.




The statements also falsely suggested that the contraceptives were products which induced abortions. While USAID is legally prohibited from buying abortion drugs, none of the products in the Belgium warehouse fell in that category, according to The Times.

Beth Schlachter, the director of U.S. external relations for MSI Reproductive Choices, an organization that had repeatedly offered to take over the distribution of the supplies rather than see them destroyed, said: “The deliberate destruction of nearly $10 million worth of contraceptives, under the blatantly false pretense that they are abortifacients, is an outrageous act of cruelty.”

“This decision will cost lives, derail progress in global health and strip millions of people of the basic tools they need to plan their families and protect their health,” she added.



The almost $10 million of contraceptives held in a warehouse in Belgium were mostly destined for five countries, including Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia (AFP/Getty)
The decision was reportedly ordered by Jeremy Lewin, a senior official in the State Department, who directed employees to arrange the destruction of the contraceptives as “the cheapest option that best reflects the administration’s significant concerns with funding these activities.”




The Belgian government attempted to prevent the destruction, including letters from foreign minister Maxime Prévot to her counterpart Marco Rubio, a source in the Belgian foreign ministry said.

Despite several employees at USAID informing the Trump administration that groups were willing to take over some or all of the products, including covering the costs of storing, shipping and distributing them. But Washington refused. A veteran staff member at the agency wrote a draft memo recommending that Lewin sell the contraceptives to the United Nations Population Fund because it would recoup at least $7 million and cost nothing to the taxpayer.

But officials at USAID who were politically appointed instead presented a different memo to the administration, which called for the materials to be destroyed “due to the absence of eligible buyers.”

Lewis ordered the destruction of the contraceptives just 14 minutes after receiving the memo, The Times reported.


Trump administration destroys $10 million of contraceptives bought by USAID for low-income countries

 

[mandrill]

A federal judge dismissed Donald Trump’s unprecedented lawsuit against Maryland’s entire federal bench, a case triggered by an order halting the immediate deportation of migrants.

The judge’s decision


By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen granted the judges’ request to throw out the lawsuit, writing that allowing it to proceed “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.” Said Cullen “In their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign. That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the judiciary’s constitutional role.”

Trump’s lawsuit


By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal immediately after the ruling. “The Maryland court’s order upholds a direct assault on the President’s ability to enforce the immigration laws,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a recent statement. “This will not be the final say on the matter, and the Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.” Cullen, nominated by Trump in 2020, serves typically in Virginia’s Western District but was assigned to the case because all 15 of Maryland’s federal judges were named as defendants. The rare step underscored the administration’s combative stance toward jurists who block or slow its immigration policies. During an August hearing, Cullen questioned why the Justice Department chose to sue every Maryland judge instead of pursuing an appeal of the disputed order. The order in question, issued by Chief Judge George L. Russell III, prohibited the administration from deporting immigrants who filed habeas corpus petitions in Maryland until 4 p.m. on the second business day after filing. Russell said the pause was designed to preserve court jurisdiction, ensure migrants had access to counsel, and allow the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense.”

The Justice Department


By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The Justice Department argued the temporary pause conflicted with Supreme Court precedent and obstructed the president’s authority to enforce immigration law. The lawsuit marked an extraordinary escalation of tensions between the administration and the judiciary. Defense attorneys argued the case was an attempt to weaken judicial oversight of immigration. “The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” said attorney Paul Clement. “There really is no precursor for this suit.” Clement, a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, noted that the government could have instead appealed individual habeas rulings. Justice Department lawyer Elizabeth Themins Hedges countered that the administration was confronting “a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.” She said, “The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed.”

Trump’s legal battles


By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Russell defended his order, explaining that late-night filings had led to “hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.” The administration responded of the judges, “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.” In March, Judge Paula Xinis ruled the administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, where he alleged torture in a notorious prison. Trump often lashed out at such rulings, once calling for the impeachment of a Washington judge who reversed deportation flights. In July, the Justice Department even filed a misconduct complaint against that judge.

Trump-appointed judge delivers legal blow to admin

 

[mandrill]

Some West Africans who were deported from the U.S. to Ghana were held in “straitjackets” for 16 hours on a flight during which all passengers were shackled and given only bread and water, according to a lawsuit filed Friday.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington on behalf of five migrants, says passengers were awoken in the middle of the night on Sept. 5 and not told where they were going until hours into the flight on a U.S. military cargo plane.




The migrants have been detained for five days in Ghana in “squalid conditions and surrounded by armed military guards in an open-air detention facility,” called Dema Camp, the complaint says. Conditions are “abysmal and deplorable,” with tents for shelter and little running water.

The migrants are not from Ghana and have been told they will be sent to other countries that have been determined to be too dangerous by U.S. immigration judges — making it the latest legal challenge to the Trump administration's practice of sending people to countries other than their own, including El Salvador, Panama, Costa Rica and several African nations.

The complaint, filed by lawyers for Asian Americans Advancing Justice, asks a judge to immediately halt deportations to their countries of origin.

“Defendants have enlisted the government of Ghana to do their dirty work,” it says. “Despite the minimal, pass-through involvement of the Ghanaian government, Defendants’ objective is clear: deport individuals who have been granted fear-based relief from being sent to their countries of origin to those countries anyway, in contravention to the rulings of U.S. immigration judges and U.S. immigration law.”




The Homeland Security Department and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit was filed a day after Ghana's president confirmed the arrival of the 14 deportees. Ghana joined Eswatini, Rwanda and South Sudan as African countries that have received migrants from third countries who were deported from the U.S., an approach whose legality has been questioned by lawyers and human rights organizations.

President Donald Trump has been aggressively cracking down on immigrants he describes as criminals and “aliens” from countries whose nationals have overstayed their visas in the U.S.

Lawyers and activists have said the Trump administration appears to be making such requests to the nations most affected by his policies on trade, migration and aid.

None of the 14 deportees were originally from Ghana and the five West-Africans who filed the lawsuit did not have ties with the country or designate it as a potential country of removal, according to the complaint.




Plaintiffs are identified only by initials in the complaint. Four are “in immediate danger of being sent on, within hours, to their countries.” One has already been removed to The Gambia and is in hiding, despite having “repeatedly stated his fear” of returning to his country.

Three plaintiffs are from Nigeria and two from The Gambia. The lawsuit says 14 West Africans were taken from their cells at an ICE detention center in Alexandria, Louisiana.

___

Gisela Salomon, The Associated Press

Lawsuit says US held West African migrants in straitjackets for 16 hours on flight to Ghana

 

[mandrill]

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — There still are no protocols for attorneys to get in touch with clients at the immigration detention center known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” and detainees are often transferred just before scheduled lawyer visits, according to new court papers alleging continued unconstitutional obstacles for meeting with legal representatives.




Thursday's court papers were filed in response to a transfer from Miami to Fort Myers of the federal lawsuit claiming detainees have been denied private meetings with immigration attorneys while being held at the facility built by the state of Florida in the Everglades wilderness.

It also comes a week after a federal appellate court panel, in a separate environmental lawsuit, allowed operations to continue at the detention center by putting on hold a lower court's preliminary injunction ordering the facility to wind down by the end of October. A third federal lawsuit challenging practices at the facility claims immigration is a federal issue and Florida agencies and the private contractors hired by the state have no authority to operate the facility.

“Detained individuals have a First Amendment right to communicate with their attorneys in confidence,” lawyers said Thursday in the legal rights case.





U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to omit information about detainees at the facility from its online locator system “so attorneys cannot confirm whether detained clients are held at the facility.” During videoconferences with their lawyers, detainees are placed in cages that aren't soundproof with staff in earshot, and documents for clients are subject to review by staff, the attorneys said.

Unlike other detention facilities which don't require prior appointments, at the Everglades facility, if lawyers want to meet in-person with their clients, they must schedule a meeting three days in advance. That gives the facility the opportunity to transfer out detainees, denying them legal access, they lawyers said.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration in late June raced to build the facility on an isolated airstrip surrounded by wetlands to aid President Donald Trump’s efforts to deport people living in the U.S. illegally. Trump toured the facility in July and suggested it could be a model for future lockups around the nation as his administration pushes to expand the infrastructure needed to increase deportations.




The center has been plagued by reports of unsanitary conditions and detainees being cut off from the legal system. Other states have since announced plans to open their own immigration detention centers.

As part of the legal rights lawsuit, the attorneys for the detainees want to make a visit to the facility in mid-October, but the federal and state government defendants said it wasn't necessary. The detainees' attorneys also asked for permission to keep their clients anonymous in public court filings and to use pseudonyms instead.

“At a time of increasingly violent anti-immigrant rhetoric in Florida and across the country, immigrants detained at Alligator Alcatraz are subjected to extreme vitriol, including from officials at the highest levels of government,” they wrote.

'Alligator Alcatraz' detainees continue to face obstacles to meet with lawyers, court papers allege