Author: Admin

A federal judge has ordered Elon Musk to sit for sworn testimony in two proposed class action lawsuits that accuse him of deceiving voters in battleground states ahead of the 2024 presidential election through a $1 million-per-day cash giveaway.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower, based in Austin, Texas, issued the ruling Thursday. She also recommended that Musk and his political action committee, America PAC, continue to face a fraud allegation in one of the cases — specifically, that they tricked voters into handing over personal identifying information as part of the giveaway promotion. However, she recommended that a breach of contract claim tied to that same case be thrown out.

Attorneys representing Musk did not respond to requests for comment. Lawyers for the plaintiffs either had no immediate response or declined to comment.

The two plaintiffs — Joy Harvick and Jacqueline McAferty, both residents of Arizona — allege that Musk and America PAC misled voters across seven swing states. The women claim they were encouraged to sign a petition supporting the U.S. Constitution under the impression that $1 million winners would be selected at random, like a lottery drawing.

According to the plaintiffs, voters never had a genuine shot at winning. Citing testimony from one of Musk’s own attorneys, the plaintiffs noted that the 18 people who received the money were handpicked — not randomly drawn — because they were seen as potentially effective spokespeople for America PAC.

Musk created America PAC to back Republican Donald Trump’s successful bid for the presidency in 2024. He unveiled the giveaway during an October town hall event held in Pennsylvania. Musk is also recognized as the wealthiest person on the planet, with business ventures that include electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla and the rocket and satellite company SpaceX.

In recommending that McAferty’s fraud claim be allowed to proceed, Judge Hightower noted that it remains an unresolved question whether Musk was acting recklessly when he described the prize selection as “random.”

Hightower highlighted testimony from America PAC Director Christopher Young, who said during a February 2026 deposition that he was caught off guard by Musk’s word choice. “It was not the way that we had — you know, with legal counsel and consultation, discussed the program and how it would run,” Young stated.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, also in Austin, will now review Hightower’s recommendations. Separately, Musk and America PAC are seeking dismissal of Harvick’s lawsuit, a motion that Judge Pitman will rule on independently.

WASHINGTON — A senior National Park Service official says the liner along the floor of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was sliced with a sharp knife or razor blade this month, causing damage to foam sealant that was put in place as part of a $16 million renovation project.

Frank Lands, the park service’s deputy director of operations, disclosed the information in a court document filed late Wednesday. The agency reported the June 9 incident to U.S. Park Police, Lands said. His statement came as part of an ongoing lawsuit brought by a nonprofit group trying to stop the Trump administration’s work on the pool.

Lands did not indicate in his statement whether the damage is being treated as vandalism or name anyone suspected of being involved.

According to the police report cited by Lands, the damage to the pool included “a caulk over the foam sealant that was cut with a sharp knife or razor and destruction of delaminating surface material.” He also said roughly 70 fence post tops had been tossed into the pool.

This marked the first time the administration provided specific details about when and how the Reflecting Pool may have been damaged after the bulk of the renovation work was finished.

President Donald Trump and other administration officials have repeatedly blamed unidentified vandals — without offering evidence — for peeling paint, a “350-foot gash” in the liner, and other issues. Trump said this week that six people have been arrested, though he did not provide further details.

Trump had promised to restore the century-old Reflecting Pool ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday celebrations, ordering it drained and its floor painted in a color he described as “American flag blue.” Since the pool was refilled, however, it has been dealing with an algae bloom and visible peeling of the new coating on the bottom.

The administration is working against a self-imposed deadline to finish the renovation before the Fourth of July. Trump also said the federal government would release images to back up his claims about vandalism.

On Wednesday, Trump said “sick people” had used razors and box cutters to slice parts of the liner.

That same evening, U.S. Park Police posted surveillance video and asked the public for help “identifying the individual depicted here in connection with a Destruction of Government Property investigation.” The grainy, 30-second clip appears to show a person crouching down, reaching into the reflecting pool, and pulling something out of the water. Police said the footage was recorded Friday afternoon.

In his court statement, Lands said the park service intends to begin draining the Reflecting Pool after Independence Day celebrations in order to carry out repairs, including evaluating and fixing any damage to the liner.

The park service wrapped up more than two months of renovation work at the Reflecting Pool in early June. The 2,000-foot-long basin was drained and a plastic-like rubber liner was installed to waterproof and protect the concrete surface before the pool was refilled, Lands said.

The Cultural Landscape Foundation, an education and advocacy nonprofit that filed suit in May to halt the project, has asked a federal judge to block any additional renovation work.

“It is also not too late to correct course,” the group wrote in a Monday filing, urging the administration to “engage with experts and the public, and make an informed decision about what is best based on the consultations mandated by the law, instead of once again rushing ahead with half-baked ideas.”

Congressional Democrats have called for formal investigations into the pool renovations, arguing that no-bid contracts were handed to vendors with prior ties to Trump.

Ohio-based Green Water Solutions received a $1.7 million contract to install a water-purification system in the pool, while Virginia-based Atlantic Industrial Coatings was awarded $14.7 million to repaint and waterproof the pool’s concrete floor.

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, the leading Democrat on the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Interior Department’s budget, said the pool project looks like a squandering of public money.

“After railing about waste, fraud and abuse, Donald Trump spent more than $16 million on a renovation of the Reflecting Pool that’s now peeling and chock full of algae,” Merkley said Thursday, calling it a “massive waste” of tax dollars and saying the public deserves “swift answers — and a refund.”

Merkley is among roughly 10 Democratic senators and House members looking into the pool project.

“Taxpayers deserve a full explanation of how these failures occurred and who will be held accountable for correcting them,” stated another letter signed by New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich and five fellow senators. Heinrich serves as the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has oversight of the Interior Department.

A federal judge has put a stop to President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to establish a federal voter list and restrict who could receive ballots through the mail.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, granted a summary judgment in favor of a coalition of nearly two dozen states that had challenged the order. The ruling covers this year’s midterm election cycle.

Two separate lawsuits — both brought in federal court in Boston — argued that Trump’s order was unconstitutional because the authority to set election rules belongs to the states and Congress, not the president. Judge Talwani agreed, writing in her decision that the order’s provisions “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”

This was the second consecutive day that a federal court ruled against one of Trump’s election-related executive orders. On Wednesday, a separate ruling blocked an order Trump signed last year that would have required proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

The Trump administration had sought to have the lawsuits dismissed, arguing the challenges were premature and that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies create and issue regulations.

However, in a preliminary order ahead of Thursday’s ruling, Judge Talwani pushed back on those arguments. She wrote that given the executive order’s specific deadlines over the coming three months and the approach of the November 3, 2026 midterm election — just five months away — delaying a court review “is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs.” That earlier order rejected the administration’s request to dismiss the cases.

Trump’s executive order — his second targeting elections during his current term — comes amid his ongoing and unsubstantiated claims that noncitizens are voting in large numbers. In reality, states already maintain detailed procedures to keep voter rolls accurate, and noncitizen voting has consistently been found to be extremely rare. It is also a felony offense that can carry deportation as a consequence.

Trump issued the order in March after a voting overhaul bill he backed failed to advance in Congress. The order would have directed the federal government to compile a list of eligible voters and instructed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to individuals on that list. Election administrators warned the plan was vulnerable to abuse and could create widespread confusion, while the postal workers’ union objected to the idea of mail carriers being used to police ballot delivery.

The Postal Service published a proposed rule in the Federal Register stemming from Trump’s order. Among its provisions, the rule would not apply to primary elections or ballots sent to overseas voters.

The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was brought by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia. Attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania — a state with a Republican attorney general — also joined the effort.

The states further argued that the order places a costly burden on election officials and could cause fear of prosecution among voters. Stephen Pezzi, an attorney for the Trump administration, countered that no one would face prosecution for violating the order.

In a related but separate lawsuit filed against the same executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled in May that it was too soon to block the order since it had not yet been put into effect. That case was brought by Democratic and civil rights organizations, who have since filed an appeal.

Since losing the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has repeatedly and without evidence claimed that mail voting is plagued by fraud. He has launched a federal investigation into that election, despite numerous audits and reviews — including those conducted by Republicans — finding no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump has also stated his desire to “take over” election administration in Democratic-leaning areas.

OCHOPEE, Fla. — The makeshift immigration detention center carved out of the Florida swamplands and dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” is shutting down for good, Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Thursday.

The Republican governor said the facility was designed from the start to be a short-term solution, intended to stay open for roughly a year while more permanent detention infrastructure was put in place. Now that federal officials have adequate capacity elsewhere, the center’s job is done.

“It served its purpose for the time,” DeSantis said.

Authorities had already announced a temporary shutdown earlier in June, citing safety concerns tied to hurricane season. Officials determined it was too dangerous to continue housing detainees in the Florida Everglades during storm season, and everyone held at the remote airstrip location was transferred to other facilities.

The center was constructed by DeSantis’ administration in just a matter of days in 2025. President Trump later visited the site, and both he and DeSantis described it as a key part of Republican efforts to deport people living in the country without legal status. The governor said 21,000 individuals were deported through the facility during its operation.

However, immigration advocates consistently argued the tent-based facility was neither safe nor humane. Detainees themselves described troubling conditions, including worms found in food, toilets that did not function properly, floors flooded with sewage, and swarms of mosquitoes and other insects throughout the facility. Many also reported having difficulty reaching legal representation while held there.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Democratic U.S. senator is raising the alarm that the Trump administration may be preparing to swiftly remove more than 500 unaccompanied migrant children from the United States, potentially sidestepping legal safeguards put in place to protect them. If carried out, it would mark a second such attempt, following a federal court’s intervention last year that halted an overnight removal operation during Labor Day weekend.

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon sent a letter Wednesday to U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose department oversees the Office of Refugee Resettlement — the agency responsible for caring for unaccompanied migrant children. In the letter, Wyden stated he had “credible information” that the administration had compiled a list of more than 500 migrant children targeted for a fast-track deportation process, and that officials were moving to act within days. He called on the administration to immediately stop any such plans, warning it was abandoning “core humanitarian and child welfare mandates.”

Wyden serves as the ranking member and senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, which holds jurisdiction over the Office of Refugee Resettlement. He did not disclose how he obtained his information, and his office declined to elaborate. The Office of Refugee Resettlement operates under the Department of Health and Human Services.

An HHS spokesperson flatly denied that any such plans are in the works.

“The new information I obtained leads me to believe that the Department is laying the groundwork for another lawless deportation effort, this time on a greater scale, across more countries of origin,” Wyden wrote in his letter.

He added: “You have been entrusted with the care and safety of the children placed within the ORR network. Proceeding with this plan knowingly endangers their lives and violates your duty to these vulnerable children.”

Wyden also sounded an early warning last August before what turned into a turbulent weekend during which the Trump administration attempted to remove Guatemalan children from government care and return them to their home country.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard pushed back strongly, saying “there are no plans to target these children” and calling Wyden’s claims “irresponsible fearmongering.” She added: “The Trump Administration is working to identify the parents or legal guardians of unaccompanied alien children in our care because ensuring every child is placed with a properly vetted sponsor is our top priority.”

During that Labor Day weekend last year, dozens of migrant children — some living in government-supervised shelters and others with foster families — were taken from their homes and transported by bus to airfields in Texas, headed for Guatemala. A federal judge, awakened in the middle of the night, ultimately stopped the flights. Attorneys representing the children later described how deeply traumatic the late-night removal effort had been for many of them, including children who had fled violence in their home countries to come to the United States.

The administration maintained it was reuniting the Guatemalan children with parents or guardians who had requested their return, at the Central American nation’s request. Lawyers for at least some of the children disputed that claim and argued that regardless, authorities were still required to follow a legal process — one they said was not followed.

Unaccompanied migrant children who arrive in the U.S. alone are typically placed under the care of the federal government, and a series of legal protections exist to safeguard them as they navigate the immigration system.

A key piece of that framework is the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which generally requires that children be placed in the “least restrictive setting possible.” In most cases, that means they can be released to a sponsor — such as a relative living in the U.S. — while their immigration cases are resolved. Children may also apply for specially protected immigration status if they cannot safely return home due to abuse or neglect, and they can seek asylum as well.

The Trump administration has made it increasingly difficult for children to be released to sponsors, saying the stricter approach ensures children are not placed in dangerous situations. Advocates, however, say the effect has been that children are spending months stuck in government shelters.

In his letter, Wyden said the children now at risk of removal come from multiple countries, potentially including Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Afghanistan, and have been in U.S. custody — primarily in foster care — for at least 180 days. He said these children were characterized as having no “viable sponsor” able to step forward and care for them in the United States.

The absence of an identified sponsor can stem from several circumstances: the child’s parents may still be in their home country, may have died, or may be too fearful to come forward after immigration enforcement agencies began arresting some parents who are in the country without legal status during reunification efforts.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday in favor of the Trump administration, giving it the green light to strip away legal protections for migrants who fled violence and natural disasters in Haiti and Syria. The 6-3 decision puts hundreds of thousands of people at risk of deportation.

The ruling overturns orders from lower courts and clears the way for the Department of Homeland Security to quickly terminate the Temporary Protected Status program for those groups. Altogether, TPS currently shields 1.3 million people from 17 different countries.

The Trump administration contended that immigration officials’ decisions about these protections should not be subject to judicial review, arguing the program was always meant to be short-term.

Immigration lawyers pushed back, saying the affected countries are still too dangerous for people to safely return to. They also argued the administration moved to end the protections in an unlawfully rushed manner driven by racial bias. On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump repeated debunked claims that Haitian immigrants were stealing and eating people’s pets.

The Justice Department brought the case to the Supreme Court after lower court judges had delayed the end of protections for roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. The high court had previously sided with the administration in a similar case involving migrants from Venezuela.

Federal officials rejected claims that racial bias influenced the decisions. They pointed to a Supreme Court ruling from Trump’s first term, which dismissed bias arguments based on social media posts and upheld a travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations.

Since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, DHS has ended protections for people from 13 countries — some of which had been in place for over a decade.

Immigration attorneys noted that countries like Haiti and Syria remain extremely dangerous. Court documents cited a grim example: four Haitian women who were deported from the United States in February were later found beheaded and left in a river.

In April, the House passed a bill with rare bipartisan support that would extend protections for Haitians, but the legislation has stalled in the Senate.

The United States first extended TPS to Haitians in 2010 following a devastating earthquake, renewing it several times as gang violence continued to displace more than a million people, according to court records. Syrians first received the protections in 2012 during a civil war that lasted over a decade, ending with the fall of President Bashar Assad’s government in late 2024.

Congress created the Temporary Protected Status program in 1990 as a way to prevent deportations to countries experiencing natural disasters, armed conflict, or other dangerous instability. The program allows people already living in the U.S. to remain and work legally in periods of up to 18 months, but it does not offer a route to citizenship.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court opened the door Thursday for the Trump administration to eliminate a humanitarian protection shielding hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants from deportation, delivering yet another victory for the president’s aggressive immigration agenda.

In a 6-3 decision driven by the court’s conservative bloc, the Supreme Court reversed rulings from federal judges in New York and Washington, D.C., who had previously blocked the administration from ending Temporary Protected Status — commonly known as TPS — for more than 350,000 people from Haiti and approximately 6,100 from Syria. The court’s three liberal justices voted against the majority.

TPS is a federal designation that allows people from nations devastated by war, natural disasters, or other serious crises to live and work legally in the United States when conditions in their home countries make it dangerous to return. The U.S. first extended TPS to Haitians following a major earthquake in 2010 and to Syrians after civil war broke out in their country in 2012. The State Department currently advises Americans against traveling to either Haiti or Syria, pointing to widespread violence, crime, terrorism, and kidnapping.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito authored the ruling, concluding that federal courts do not have the authority to review the administration’s TPS-related decisions. That finding could effectively shut down future legal challenges to TPS revocations for immigrants from any country. Alito wrote that the law governing TPS “plainly bars” such judicial oversight.

Alito also addressed a racial bias argument raised by Haitian TPS holders who sued the administration, writing that they were unlikely to win their claim that the administration’s actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.

Interestingly, Alito noted that the plaintiffs themselves weakened their own racial bias argument by pointing to what he called a “strong, race-neutral explanation for Haiti’s termination: namely, that the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program, at least as it has been implemented in the past.”

Thursday also brought a second immigration win for the Trump administration at the Supreme Court, again in a ruling written by Alito. The court sided with the administration’s authority to turn away asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border when officials determine that crossing points are too overwhelmed to handle additional claims — a policy referred to as “metering.” The administration has indicated it may seek to bring that policy back after it was discontinued by Trump’s Democratic predecessor.

The TPS legal battle represented another chapter in the ongoing examination of presidential power, with the Supreme Court traditionally deferring to the executive branch on matters involving immigration, national security, and foreign policy. Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has moved aggressively to roll back both legal and illegal immigration. The court’s conservative supermajority previously allowed the administration to end TPS for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants.

During his 2024 reelection campaign, Trump pledged to revoke TPS protections for Haitian immigrants, doing so after making widely condemned false claims about Haitian migrants in Ohio. The administration has consistently argued that TPS was always intended to be a short-term measure.

The ruling carries broad consequences, potentially affecting all 1.3 million immigrants from the 17 countries currently holding TPS designations.

Immigration advocacy organizations expressed deep concern following the decision.

“This is a deeply painful day for hundreds of thousands of families who have built their lives here lawfully, paid taxes, cared for our communities, and who now face the prospect of losing everything,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of the organization Global Refuge. “Importantly, the court did not find that Haiti or Syria is safe. It found that the question is beyond the reach of judicial review. Our immediate concern is what happens to these families and children should they be forced back to the dire circumstances that have long prevented their safe return.”

The legal challenges at the center of the case stemmed from actions taken last year by Kristi Noem, who was then serving as Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security, when she revoked TPS designations for both Syria and Haiti, declaring the protections contrary to U.S. national interests. Noem’s TPS decisions remained in effect even after Trump dismissed her from her post in March.

Groups of Syrian and Haitian TPS holders filed separate class-action lawsuits against the administration, arguing that Noem’s actions — combined with the broader pattern of ending humanitarian designations across multiple countries — pointed to a deliberate effort to dismantle the TPS program altogether.

A Washington-based federal district judge had earlier found that the administration’s actions against Haitian TPS holders were likely driven at least in part by “racial animus,” concluding it was probable that Noem had predetermined her termination decision “because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants.” Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling pushed back on that conclusion.

Lower courts had previously ruled against the TPS terminations, finding that administration officials failed to follow required procedures for evaluating conditions in a country before ending its TPS designation. The administration maintained it had followed proper protocols and argued more broadly that courts have no authority to second-guess its TPS determinations — a position the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major gun rights ruling on Thursday, striking down a Hawaii law that prohibited people from carrying handguns onto private property open to the public — such as most businesses — without the property owner’s explicit permission.

The court’s six conservative justices voted together to overturn a lower court decision that had found Hawaii’s Democratic-backed law was likely in compliance with the Second Amendment. The Trump administration had supported the legal challenge to the law before the Supreme Court.

Hawaii’s law required gun owners to obtain “express authorization” from a property owner before bringing a handgun onto that property, even when the property was open to the general public.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, was sharply critical of the Hawaii measure. “This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” he wrote. “We hold that the law is unconstitutional.”

The three liberal justices on the court dissented from the ruling.

Legal experts note that several other states have enacted similar laws, and those measures may now face serious constitutional challenges in light of Thursday’s decision.

The lawsuit was brought by three Hawaii residents who held concealed-carry licenses, along with a Honolulu-based gun rights organization. They filed their challenge just weeks after Democratic Governor Josh Green signed the law in 2023. Hawaii officials had argued the law appropriately balanced Second Amendment rights against property owners’ rights to keep firearms off their premises.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with an expansive interpretation of Second Amendment protections, including landmark rulings in 2008, 2010, and 2022 — all decided against a backdrop of ongoing national debate over gun violence and mass shootings.

The challengers in the Hawaii case leaned heavily on the court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. That ruling struck down New York’s restrictions on carrying concealed handguns in public and set a new legal standard: firearms laws must be consistent with the country’s historical tradition of gun regulation, rather than simply serving a government interest.

A federal judge had initially blocked Hawaii’s law from taking effect. However, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely sided with Hawaii, which led the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Notably, the Supreme Court did not address a separate part of the legal challenge concerning the law’s ban on carrying handguns at beaches, bars, and other designated sensitive locations.

This was not the only significant gun rights case the court decided this term. On June 18, the justices limited the reach of a longstanding federal law that bans firearms possession by certain drug users, rejecting the Trump administration’s broader interpretation that would have threatened the gun rights of millions of marijuana users who also own firearms.

Earlier, the court upheld a federal rule targeting so-called “ghost guns” — firearms that are typically bought online, assembled at home, and lack serial numbers used to trace weapons. That ruling was based on federal statute, not the Second Amendment.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday opened the door for the Trump administration to potentially bring back a controversial immigration policy that restricted the number of migrants who could seek asylum each day at the southern border.

The justices struck down a lower court ruling that had prevented the practice from being reinstated. The policy, known as metering, was originally used during the Obama administration and was expanded throughout President Donald Trump’s first term in office.

Immigrant rights advocates have argued that the practice triggered a humanitarian emergency, with thousands of people forced to wait in dangerous, overcrowded makeshift camps for their chance to apply. The Trump administration, however, contends the policy is an essential tool for managing the growing number of asylum seekers arriving at the border.

While metering is not currently being enforced, the administration has put other restrictions on asylum seekers in place. Officials argue that metering has been used by presidents from both political parties and should remain available as a border management option. Federal lawyers have pointed out that migrants turned away at the border can return at a later time, though wait lines stretched into the thousands when the policy was previously active.

This case is among several immigration-related lawsuits the high court is examining this term, including challenges to ending birthright citizenship and efforts to remove temporary legal protections for migrants who fled violence and instability in their home countries.

Under U.S. federal law, migrants who reach American soil are entitled to apply for asylum and must be evaluated for fear of persecution in their home countries. The Justice Department argued that individuals stopped before formally entering the country have not legally “arrived,” and therefore immigration officials are not required to process their asylum claims.

Attorneys representing asylum seekers counter that the law has historically been interpreted to mean that anyone reaching a port of entry should be screened, and that blocking people from applying goes against the country’s foundational values.

Metering was first introduced during the Obama administration after a large influx of Haitian migrants appeared at the main crossing between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. The policy was later expanded to cover all crossings along the Mexican border during Trump’s initial presidency.

The practice was phased out in 2020 when sweeping pandemic-era restrictions were put in place, and President Joe Biden officially ended it in 2021. That same year, a federal judge based in California ruled that metering violated the legal rights of asylum seekers and the law mandating screening. An appeals court panel upheld that decision, though nearly half of the judges on the full San Francisco-based court voted to reconsider the case — a notable signal that may have drawn the Supreme Court’s attention.

American law permits individuals fleeing danger to apply for asylum once they are on U.S. soil, regardless of how they entered the country. To be granted asylum, applicants must demonstrate a credible fear of persecution in their home country based on factors such as race, religion, nationality, membership in a specific social group, or political beliefs.

Those who are ultimately granted asylum cannot be deported. They are also entitled to work legally in the United States, bring immediate family members to join them, apply for permanent residency, and eventually pursue citizenship.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major Second Amendment ruling Thursday, invalidating a Hawaii law that required gun carriers to obtain permission before entering privately owned businesses like stores and hotels.

The court’s 6-3 decision clears the way for people to bring firearms into privately owned public spaces — including shopping malls and gas stations — unless the property owners have explicitly posted a ban on guns at their locations.

The ruling comes shortly after the high court determined that marijuana users cannot be completely prohibited from owning firearms, continuing a string of Second Amendment decisions in recent years.

President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, which had argued the Hawaii measure violated the Second Amendment, claimed a victory with the ruling. The law had earned the nickname the “vampire rule” — a reference to the folklore belief that vampires must be invited into a home before they can enter, similar to how the law required gun carriers to seek permission before entering a business.

Hawaii had defended its 2023 law by arguing it protected the rights of private property owners to decide whether firearms were welcome on their premises. The state enacted the measure after a surge in residents obtaining legal permits to carry guns publicly, which followed a 2022 Supreme Court decision affirming that the Second Amendment extends to carrying firearms in public.

Roughly four other states have passed similar laws, though courts have blocked comparable restrictions in other parts of the country as well.

Hawaii also has laws restricting guns in public spaces like parks, beaches, and alcohol-serving restaurants, but those regulations were not part of this case. They are currently being challenged in lower courts.

The case was originally brought before the courts by a gun rights organization and three Maui residents. A lower court judge had initially blocked the law, but an appeals court later allowed it to take effect. Trump’s administration supported the appeal that reached the Supreme Court.

This is one of two gun-related cases the Supreme Court is hearing this term. The second involves whether people who regularly use marijuana or other drugs can legally possess firearms.

These cases are part of a broader wave of Second Amendment challenges that flooded the legal system following the court’s landmark 2022 ruling. Since then, the justices have struck down a federal ban on bump stocks — devices that allow guns to fire rapidly — while upholding a law designed to shield domestic violence victims and regulations governing so-called ghost guns, which are nearly untraceable firearms.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump officially launched the United States’ 250th anniversary celebrations Wednesday evening, hosting a large-scale rally on Washington’s National Mall designed to stoke national pride and excitement.

The event featured thunderous flyovers by stealth bombers, performances by military bands, and country singer Lee Greenwood delivering his signature anthem “God Bless the USA.”

Speaking to the crowd, Trump declared, “There has never been anything like the United States of America, and together we are making it bigger and better and stronger and far more exceptional than ever before.”

He told attendees he had restored the nation’s standing on the world stage, saying, “Nobody’s laughing at us anymore.”

True to form, Trump touched on familiar themes from his rally speeches — including his administration’s crackdown at the U.S.-Mexico border and his stance against transgender rights. However, in what appeared to be a nod to the celebratory occasion, he was noticeably less combative toward Democrats than he typically is at such events.

“The American Dream is alive again. It’s something that nobody thought they’d be saying when you went through that last four years of incompetence,” Trump told the crowd.

The president also brought up plans to renovate the Reflecting Pool near the Lincoln Memorial and construct a ballroom at the White House.

Trump wrapped up his remarks in under 30 minutes, but not before letting the crowd know he plans to speak at another Washington rally on July Fourth. “Your favorite president will be speaking so please show up,” he urged.

The crowd was positioned within a designated section of the National Mall, and from the stage Trump could likely see a massive neon-lit Ferris wheel that had been set up in front of the Capitol building.

The rally comes at a politically significant moment, as midterm elections begin to draw closer. Trump is working to reassure Americans that the unpopular Iran war is winding down, with oil prices declining as the Strait of Hormuz has begun to reopen following an interim agreement to end hostilities with Tehran.

Wednesday’s event kicked off several weeks of America-themed festivities called “The Great American State Fair,” taking place along the national park that runs from the U.S. Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial — marking the country’s founding in 1776.

“This is the beginning of the golden age of America,” Trump told those gathered.

Organizers handed out rectangular cardboard American flags, which many attendees used to shield themselves from the sun before Trump took the stage after dark. The atmosphere resembled a summer concert, with vendors offering burgers, sausages, and turkey legs, while the crowd sported an array of American flag-themed clothing — from overalls and skirts to hats — alongside plenty of “Make America Great Again” caps.

Among those in attendance were Karen and Brian Ontrap, who made the journey of more than 500 miles from northwest Ohio with their children. The family had planned the trip back in January to mark the nation’s 250th birthday and, for some members of the group, to see Washington for the very first time. Karen Ontrap said the couple support the president “100%.”