The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to strip temporary legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans, potentially exposing them to being deported.
The Justice Department asked the high court to put on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept in place Temporary Protected Status for the Venezuelans that would have otherwise expired last month.
The status allows people already in the United States to live and work legally because their native countries are deemed unsafe for return due to natural disaster or civil strife.
A federal appeals court had earlier rejected the administration’s request.
President Donald Trump’s administration has moved aggressively to withdraw various protections that have allowed immigrants to remain in the country, including ending TPS for a total of 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians. TPS is granted in 18-month increments.
The emergency appeal to the high court came the same day a federal judge in Texas ruled illegal the administration’s efforts to deport Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law. The cases are not related.
The protections had been set to expire April 7, but U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ordered a pause on those plans. He found that the expiration threatened to severely disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and could cost billions in lost economic activity.
Chen, who was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama, found the government hadn’t shown any harm caused by keeping the program alive.
But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration that Chen’s order impermissibly interferes with the administration’s power over immigration and foreign affairs.
In addition, Sauer told the justices, people affected by ending the protected status might have other legal options to try to remain in the country because the “decision to terminate TPS is not equivalent to a final removal order.”
Congress created TPS in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife.
Citizen activists supporting a public vote on important issues could have to brush up on their reading, writing and arithmetic if they want to get their initiatives on next year’s ballot in some states.
A new Arkansas law will bar initiative ballot titles written above an eighth-grade reading level. And canvassers will have to verify that petition signers have either read the ballot title or had it read aloud to them.
In South Dakota, sponsors will need to make sure their petition titles appears in 14-point type on the front page and 16-point font on the back, where people typically sign.
And in Florida, volunteers will have to register with the state if they gather more than 25 petition signatures from outside their family or risk facing felony charges punishable by up to five years in prison.
Across about dozen states, roughly 40 bills restricting or revamping the citizen initiative process have passed at least one legislative chamber this year, according to a review by The Associated Press. Many already have been signed into law. Some advocates for the initiative process are alarmed by the trend.
“Globally, as there’s movements to expand direct democracy. In the United States it’s contracting,” said Dane Waters, chair of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California, who has advised ballot campaigns in over 20 nations.
Most of the new restrictions come from Republican lawmakers in states where petitions have been used to place abortion rights, marijuana legalization and other progressive initiatives on the ballot. GOP lawmakers contend their measures are shielding state constitutions from outside interests.
“This is not a bill to restrict. It is a bill to protect — to make sure that our constitutional system is one of integrity, and that it’s free of fraud,” said state Sen. Jennifer Bradley of Florida, where the new initiative requirements already have been challenged in court.
Since Oregon voters first used the process in 1904, a total of 2,744 citizen initiatives have appeared on statewide ballots, with 42% wining approval, according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute.
But the process has long caused tension between voters and their elected representatives.
Lawmakers often perceive the initiative process as “an assault on their power and authority, and they want to limit it,” Waters said. “They view it, in my opinion, as a nuisance – a gnat that keeps bothering them.”
Because initiative petitions require thousands of signatures to qualify for the ballot, groups sponsoring them often pay people to solicit signatures outside shopping centers and public places. Some states now prohibit payments based on the number of signatures gathered.
States also are trying to restrict who can circulate petitions. A new Arkansas law requires paid petition canvassers to live in the state. And a new Montana law will make petition circulators wear badges displaying their name and home state.
The new Florida law expanding registration requirements for petition circulators also requires them to undergo state training and bars canvassers who are noncitizens, nonresidents or felons without their voting rights restored.
In addition to providing their name, address and birth date, people signing initiative petitions in Florida also will have to provide either their Florida driver’s license, state identification card or the last four digits of their Social Security number.
That information is not required in other states, said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, a progressive group that has backed dozens of ballot initiatives in states. Hall said people concerned about privacy might hesitate to sign petitions.
“I work in ballot measures, and I deeply support many of the things that folks have tried to put on the ballot in Florida, ” Hall said, “and I don’t know if I could bring myself to do that – that’s a very prohibitive requirement.”
Many states already prescribe a particular format for initiative petitions. South Dakota’s new mandate for specific font sizes was prompted by allegations that some people got duped into signing a petition for abortion rights last year, said sponsoring state Sen. Amber Hulse, a Republican.
Printing the ballot title in large type “might make it harder for some issues to get on the ballot if people know what they’re signing. But that’s actually a good thing,” Hulse said.
More power for elected officials
Before they can collect signatures, petition sponsors must get approval from state officials. New measures in several states give those officials greater authority.
New Arkansas laws allow the attorney general to reject initiatives written above an eighth-grade reading level or which conflict with the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Utah’s lieutenant governor, who already can reject unconstitutional petitions, now also will be able to turn away petitions that are unlikely to provide adequate funding for their proposed laws.
A new Missouri law gives greater power to the secretary of state, instead of judges, to rewrite ballot summaries struck down as being insufficient or unfair.
The Supreme Court seemed likely to uphold a key preventive-care provision of the Affordable Care Act in a case heard Monday.
Conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, along with the court’s three liberals, appeared skeptical of arguments that Obamacare’s process for deciding which services must be fully covered by private insurance is unconstitutional.
The case could have big ramifications for the law’s preventive care coverage requirements for an estimated 150 million Americans. Medications and services that could be affected include statins to prevent heart disease, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for high-risk women.
The plaintiffs argued that requirements to cover those medications and services are unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts that recommended them should have been Senate- approved. The challengers have also raised religious and procedural objections to some requirements.
The Trump administration defended the mandate before the court, though President Donald Trump has been a critic of the law. The Justice Department said board members don’t need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary.
A majority of the justices seemed inclined to side with the government. Kavanaugh said he didn’t see indications in the law that the board was designed to have the kind of independent power that would require Senate approval, and Barrett questioned the plaintiff’s apparently “maximalist” interpretation of the board’s role.
“We don’t just go around creating independent agencies. More often, we destroy independent agencies,” said Justice Elena Kagan said about the court’s prior opinions.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas seemed likely to side with the plaintiffs. And some suggested they could send the case back to the conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That would likely leave unanswered questions about which medications and services remain covered.
A ruling is expected by the end of June.
The case came before the Supreme Court after the appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. It sided with Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can’t be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings.
They were represented by well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot.
Not all preventive care was threatened by the ruling. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that some screenings, including mammography and cervical cancer screening, would still be covered without out-of-pocket costs.
The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Amid rural Louisiana’s crawfish farms, towering pine trees and cafes serving po’boys, nearly 7,000 people are waiting at immigration detention centers to learn whether they will be expelled from the United States.
If President Donald Trump’s administration has its way, the capacity to hold tens of thousands more migrants will soon be added around the country as the U.S. seeks an explosive expansion of what is already the world’s largest immigration detention system.
Trump’s effort to conduct mass deportations as promised in the 2024 campaign represents a potential bonanza for private prison companies and a challenge to the government agencies responsible for the orderly expulsion of immigrants. Some critics say the administration’s plans also include a deliberate attempt to isolate detainees by locking them up and holding court proceedings far from their attorneys and support systems.
The acting director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, Todd Lyons, said at a border security conference in Phoenix last week that the agency needs “to get better at treating this like a business” and suggested the nation’s deportation system could function “like Amazon, trying to get your product delivered in 24 hours.”
“So trying to figure out how to do that with human beings and trying to get them pretty much all over the globe is really something for us,” Lyons said.
This month, ICE invited companies to bid on contracts to operate detention centers at sites around the country for up to $45 billion as the agency begins to scale up from its current budget for about 41,000 beds to 100,000 beds.
The money isn’t yet there, but contracts are already being awarded. The House narrowly approved a broad spending bill that includes $175 billion for immigration enforcement, about 22 times ICE’s annual budget. The agency’s 100-plus detention centers nationwide currently hold about 46,000 people, causing overcrowding in locations including Miami.
ICE last week awarded a contract worth up to $3.85 billion to Deployed Resources LLC to operate a detention camp at the Fort Bliss Army base in Texas. The little-known company is shifting its business from Border Patrol tent encampments for people arriving in the United States — most of which are now closed — to ICE facilities for people being deported.
The Geo Group Inc. got a contract for 1,000 beds in Newark, New Jersey, valued at $1 billion over 15 years and another for 1,800 beds in Baldwin, Michigan. CoreCivic Inc., won a contract to house 2,400 people in families with young children in Dilley, Texas, for five years.
The stock market has rewarded both of these private corrections companies. Geo’s stock price has soared 94% since Trump was elected. Shares of CoreCivic have surged 62%.
The U.K. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a woman is someone born biologically female, excluding transgender people from the legal definition in a long-running dispute between a feminist group and the Scottish government.
Several women’s groups that supported the appeal celebrated outside court and hailed it as a major victory in their effort to protect spaces designated for women.
“Everyone knows what sex is and you can’t change it,” said Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, which brought the case. “It’s common sense, basic common sense and the fact that we have been down a rabbit hole where people have tried to deny science and to deny reality and hopefully this will now see us back to reality.”
Five judges ruled unanimously that the U.K. Equality Act means trans women can be excluded from some groups and single-sex spaces, such as changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counseling services provided only to women.
The ruling means that a transgender person with a certificate that recognizes them as female should not be considered a woman for equality purposes.
The ruling brings some clarity in the U.K. to a contentious issue that has polarized politics in some other countries, particularly the U.S. Republican-controlled states over the last four years have been banning gender-affirming care for minors, barring transgender women and girls from sports competitions that align with their gender and restricting which public bathrooms transgender people can use.
Since returning to office in January, President Donald Trump has signed orders to define the sexes as only male and female and has tried to kick transgender service members out of the military, block federal spending on gender-affirming car e for those under 19 and block their sports participation nationally. His efforts are being challenged in court.
Justice Patrick Hodge said the British ruling “does not remove protection from trans people,” who are still protected from discrimination under U.K. law.
The case stems from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament saying 50% of the membership of the boards of Scottish public bodies should be women. Transgender women with gender recognition certificates were to be included in meeting the quota.
“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ ... and, thus, the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” Hodge said. “It would create heterogeneous groupings.”
The campaign group Scottish Trans said it was “shocked and disappointed” by the ruling, saying it would undermine legal protections for transgender people enshrined in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
Maggie Chapman, a Green Party lawmaker in the Scottish Parliament, said the ruling was “deeply concerning” for human rights and “a huge blow to some of the most marginalized people in our society.”
“Trans people have been cynically targeted and demonized by politicians and large parts of the media for far too long,” she said. “This has contributed to attacks on longstanding rights and attempts to erase their existence altogether.”
Groups that had challenged the Scottish government uncorked a bottle of champagne outside the court and sang, “women’s rights are human rights.”
“The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex — male and female — refers to reality, not to paperwork,” said Maya Forstater of the group Sex Matters. In 2022, an employment tribunal ruled that she had been the victim of discrimination when she lost out on a job after posting gender-critical views online.
An appeals court in California has refused to halt a judge’s order requiring the Trump administration to rehire thousands of federal workers who were let go in mass firings.
A split 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel turned back an emergency motion late Wednesday to pause the order from U.S. District Judge William Alsup in a case brought by labor unions and nonprofits as Republican President Donald Trump moves to dramatically downsize the federal workforce. Alsup is one of two judges who found legal problems with the way the firings of probationary workers were carried out.
Two of the three judges on the panel ruled against the request for an emergency stay. The dissenting judge said the government had a strong argument against reinstating the workers.
The government has appealed Alsup’s order to the Supreme Court, arguing that judges cannot “micromanage” federal worker policies or force the rehiring of more than 16,000 workers. A response is due by April 3.
Alsup ordered six departments to immediately offer job reinstatement to employees terminated on in mid-February: the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior and Treasury.
The judge, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the firings were an attempt by the administration to sidestep laws and regulations governing a reduction in workforce by going after probationary workers, who have fewer protections.
Alsup said he was appalled that employees were told they were being fired for poor performance despite receiving glowing evaluations just months earlier.
Probationary workers have been targeted for layoffs across the federal government because they are usually new to the job and lack full civil service protection.
Lawsuits over the firings are among the many faced by the administration. More than three dozen rulings have at least temporarily slowed Trump’s second-term agenda.
Within hours of Alsup’s ruling, a judge in Baltimore found separate legal problems with the handling of the firings. In a lawsuit brought by nearly two dozen states affected by the layoffs, U.S. District Judge James Bredar said the administration did not follow laws set out for large-scale layoffs. That case involved a wider range of agencies, and the plaintiffs estimate about 24,000 probationary workers are affected.
The administration contends that states have no right to try to influence the federal government’s relationship with its own workers. Justice Department lawyers argued that the firings were for performance issues and are not the large-scale layoffs subject to specific regulations.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt cast it as an attempt to encroach on the president’s power to hire and fire employees.
There are an estimated 200,000 probationary workers across federal agencies. They include entry-level employees but also workers who recently received a promotion.
Leavitt is one of three Trump administration officials who face a lawsuit from The Associated Press on First and Fifth Amendment grounds. The AP says the three are punishing the news agency for editorial decisions they oppose. The White House says the AP is not following an executive order to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Columbia University is “on the right track” toward recovering federal funding after the elite New York City university agreed to implement a host of policy changes demanded by the Trump administration.
Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, McMahon described “great conversations” with Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong.
“She said she knew that this was her responsibility to make sure that children on her campus were safe,” McMahon said. “She wanted to make sure there was no discrimination of any kind. She wanted to address any systemic issues that were identified relative to the antisemitism on campus.”
Armstrong announced Friday that the university would put its Middle East studies department under new supervision and overhaul its rules for protests and student discipline. It also agreed to adopt a new definition of antisemitism and expand “intellectual diversity” by staffing up its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, according to an outline posted on its website.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration pulled $400 million in research grants and other funding over how the university handled protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. In order to consider restoring those funds and billions more in future grants, federal officials demanded nine separate changes to the university’s academic and security policies.
Armstrong’s decision acceding to the administration’s demands drew condemnation from some faculty and free speech groups, who accused the university of caving to President Donald Trump’s largely unprecedented intrusion on academic freedom.
Asked whether the university had done enough to secure its funding, McMahon said: “We are on the right track now to make sure the final negotiations to unfreeze that money will be in place.”
The Trump administration’s crackdown on Columbia University, where a massive pro-Palestinian protest movement began with a tent encampment last spring, has thrust the campus into crisis and sparked fears of similar actions at colleges across the country.
Federal immigration officials on March 8 arrested Mahmoud Khalil, an activist who served as a spokesperson and negotiator for pro-Palestinian demonstrators last year. Khalil, a legal permanent resident, is challenging his detention and potential deportation in court.
New York state’s top court put an end Thursday to New York City’s effort to empower noncitizens to vote in municipal elections.
In a 6-1 ruling, the high court said “the New York constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens.”
New York City never actually implemented its 2022 law. Supporters estimated it would have applied to about 800,000 noncitizens with legal permanent U.S. residency or authorization to work in the nation. The measure would have let them cast a ballot for mayor, city council and other local offices, but not for president, Congress or state officials.
State Republican officials quickly sued over the law, and state courts at every level rejected it. Republicans hailed Thursday’s ruling from the state’s highest court, called the Court of Appeals.
“Efforts by radical Democrats on the New York City Council to permit noncitizen voting have been rightly rejected,” NYGOP Chair Ed Cox said in a statement. The Republicans’ attorney, Michael Hawrylchak, said they were pleased that the court recognized the state constitution’s “fundamental limits” on voter eligibility.
The heavily Democratic City Council passed the law, and its leaders took the case to the high court. Speaker Adrienne Adams said she was disappointed in the outcome but respected the court. “The council sought to strengthen our city’s democratic process and increase civic engagement by enfranchising the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who pay taxes and contribute to our communities but are unable to make their voices heard in local elections,” she said in a statement.
Democratic Mayor Eric Adams had neither vetoed nor signed the measure but allowed it to become law without his signature. An Adams spokesperson, Kayla Mamelak Altus, said the administration respects the court’s decision.
A handful of Maryland and Vermont towns let noncitizens cast ballots in local elections, and noncitizen residents of Washington, D.C., can vote in city races. San Francisco allows noncitizen parents to participate in school board elections.
Farther south in California, residents of Santa Ana rejected a noncitizen voting measure last year. Some other states specifically prohibit localities from enfranchising noncitizens.
In New York, the state constitution says “every citizen shall be entitled to vote” if at least 18 years old and a state resident. The document adds that county and municipal election voters must live in the relevant county, city or village.
New York City argued that “every citizen” doesn’t mean “citizens only,” and that the city had a self-governance right to choose to expand the franchise for its own elections. The law’s supporters said it gave an electoral voice to many people who have made a home in the city and pay taxes to it but face tough paths to citizenship.
The GOP accused Democrats of violating the state constitution in order to make partisan gains.
Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s priority bill to limit lawsuits and large jury verdicts has gotten increasing pushback after an initial boost in support as the legislative session enters its final weeks.
Crowds of business owners and doctors swarmed the Capitol to back Kemp when he announced the proposal, also called tort reform. Now, people who have sued businesses are rallying as Democrats argue the bill is a handout to businesses and insurance companies.
And a number of House Republicans remain skeptical, even though House Speaker Jon Burns said he is confident it will pass.
“There are two Republicans that are trial lawyers, but I’ve heard a more broad group of people express concerns with the bill as currently written,” said Rep. Trey Kelley, a Cedartown Republican.
Millions of dollars have gone into lobbying for and against Kemp’s package. Here are some reasons why people are concerned. Kemp’s bill would require anyone who sues a business or property owner over misconduct or injuries on their property to prove the owner knew about a specific security risk and physical condition on the property, but didn’t provide adequate security.
Women who were sex trafficked and raped at hotels have begged lawmakers to oppose the bill as written.
“Surely, the hotel would notice, with 40 cars coming in and out at any given moment ... the girls walking around in their underwear, never alone, never speaking unless spoken to,” Michal Roseberry, human trafficking survivor, said at a news conference Thursday.
There is an exception for human trafficking victims in the proposed bill, but the kinds of claims they can bring are limited. Opponents plan to offer a broader amendment.
“Even with that exception, as the bill is right now, nobody would ever file a sex trafficking case in Georgia,” said Jonathan Tonge, a University of Georgia law professor who litigates human trafficking cases.
Kemp’s bill would require anyone who sues a business or property owner over misconduct or injuries on their property to prove the owner knew about a specific security risk and physical condition on the property, but didn’t provide adequate security.
Women who were sex trafficked and raped at hotels have begged lawmakers to oppose the bill as written.
“Surely, the hotel would notice, with 40 cars coming in and out at any given moment ... the girls walking around in their underwear, never alone, never speaking unless spoken to,” Michal Roseberry, human trafficking survivor, said at a news conference Thursday.
There is an exception for human trafficking victims in the proposed bill, but the kinds of claims they can bring are limited. Opponents plan to offer a broader amendment.
“Even with that exception, as the bill is right now, nobody would ever file a sex trafficking case in Georgia,” said Jonathan Tonge, a University of Georgia law professor who litigates human trafficking cases.
Trial lawyers are worried that other changes would drag out trials and delay preparation. Lawyers and doctors dispute whether fair compensation is the face value of a medical bill or only the portion an individual directly paid.
Opponents also question whether the problems the bill claims to address exist, and if it would actually solve them.
For example, doctors have said unfair lawsuits make it hard to recruit talent to rural areas and lead them to administer unnecessary medical tests. They also say they’re getting slammed by rising medical malpractice premiums. In an analysis for the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, Northwestern University Professor Bernard Black said it’s difficult to recruit doctors outside of urban areas nationwide.
A lawsuit filed by 17 states challenging federal rules entitling workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions may proceed, a federal appeals court ruled.
The Eighth Circuit Court’s decision on Thursday reverses Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr.'s dismissal of the case in June after he found that the states lacked standing to sue. Eighth Circuit Chief Judge Steven M. Colloton, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2003, wrote in Thursday’s opinion that the states do have standing since they are subject to the federal rules.
Led by Republican state attorneys general in Tennessee and Arkansas, the 17 states sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April challenging its rules on how to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a 2022 bipartisan law requiring employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant or postpartum employees.
In addition to more routine pregnancy workplace accommodations like time off for prenatal appointments, more bathroom breaks, or permission to carry snacks, the rules say that workers can ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure.
“The Biden-era EEOC’s attempt to turn a good law into an ideological weapon to force broad elective abortion accommodations is illegal,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in an emailed statement. “The EEOC’s unlawful regulations undermine the constitutional authority of the people’s elected representatives and we are vindicated by the Court’s decision to let our suit proceed.”
The lawsuit — joined by state attorneys in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia — is one of several legal challenges to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act rules. One case in Texas seeks to overturn the law in its entirety.
The Eighth Circuit Court’s decision to revive the case comes after a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling opened the door to state abortion bans, and as bills to track and charge women who get abortions with murder have gotten attention in Missouri, North Dakota and Oklahoma state legislatures this month.
The EEOC, which enforces U.S. anti-discrimination laws, during former President Joe Biden’s administration published regulations that provide guidance for employers and workers on how to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. In them, the agency said that workers can ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure, along with pregnancy-related medical conditions like miscarriage, stillbirth and lactation. Citing numerous court rulings, the EEOC in its regulations said it was conforming to decades of legal precedent establishing that pregnancy-related discrimination laws include abortion.
But many Republican lawmakers, including Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who co-sponsored the bill, were furious when the EEOC stated that the law covered abortions. Both Republican EEOC commissioners voted against the rules at the time. A spokesperson for the EEOC said the agency will “refrain from discussing litigation” but referred The Associated Press to Acting Chair Andrea Lucas’ position on the Commission’s PWFA regulations, which she voted against.
“I support elements of the final rule. However, I am unable to approve it because it purports to broaden the scope of the statute in ways that, in my view, cannot reasonably be reconciled with the text,” she wrote in a statement at the time explaining her decision to vote against the rules.
The EEOC has undergone significant change since President Donald Trump took office last month. After naming Lucas, a Republican, as acting chair, Trump fired two Democratic commissioners of the five-member bipartisan EEOC before their terms expired in an unprecedented move. Had the commissioners been allowed to carry out their terms, the EEOC would have had a Democratic majority well into Trump’s term. The administration also dismissed Karla Gilbride as the EEOC’s general counsel, replacing her with Andrew Rogers as acting counsel.
Without a quorum, the EEOC cannot rescind its own rules, although Lucas in the statement said she intends for the EEOC to reconsider portions of the rules she believes are unsupported by law once a quorum is re-established.
The Department of Justice represents the EEOC in court, and under Trump, it remains to be seen whether it will continue to fight the states’ lawsuit.
Billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk violated the law with his weekend demand that federal employees explain their accomplishments or risk being fired, attorneys for the workers said Monday in a lawsuit.
The updated lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in California and was provided to The Associated Press, is trying to block mass layoffs pursued by Musk and President Donald Trump, including any connected to the email distributed by the Office of Personnel Management on Saturday. The office, which functions as a human resources agency for the federal government, said employees needed to detail five things they did last week by end of day on Monday.
“No OPM rule, regulation, policy, or program has ever, in United States history, purported to require all federal workers to submit reports to OPM,” said the amended complaint, which was filed on behalf of unions, businesses veterans, and conservation organizations represented by the group State Democracy Defenders Fund. It called the threat of mass firings “one of the most massive employment frauds in the history of this country.”
Musk, who’s leading the Republican president’s efforts to overhaul and downsize the federal government, continued to threaten federal workers Monday even as confusion spread through the administration and some top officials told employees not to comply.
“Those who do not take this email seriously will soon be furthering their career elsewhere,” Musk posted on X, his social media platform.
He also escalated Trump’s demand for employees to stop working remotely, saying those who fail to return to the office will be placed on administrative leave.
The latest round of turmoil began over the weekend, when Trump posted on his social media website: “ELON IS DOING A GREAT JOB, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIM GET MORE AGGRESSIVE.”
Musk followed by saying “all federal employees will shortly receive an email requesting to understand what they got done last week.” He claimed “failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.” The directive echoed how the entrepreneur has managed his own companies.
The Office of Personnel Management sent out its own request afterward.
“Please reply to this email with approx. 5 bullets of what you accomplished last week and cc your manager,” the message said. However, it said nothing about the potential for employees being fired for noncompliance. The deadline was listed as 11:59 p.m. EST Monday.
There was swift resistance from several key U.S. agencies led by the president’s loyalists — including the FBI, the State Department, Homeland Security and the Pentagon — which instructed their employees over the weekend not to respond. Lawmakers in both major political parties said Musk’s mandate may be illegal, while unions threatened to sue.
One message Sunday morning from the Department of Health and Human Services, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., instructed its 80,000 employees to comply. That was shortly after the acting general counsel, Sean Keveney, had instructed some not to. And by Sunday evening, agency leadership issued new instructions that employees should “pause activities” related to the request until noon Monday.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said she would “look into” why the corruption charges against New York City’s mayor have not yet been dropped, two days after a senior Justice Department official ordered federal prosecutors to ditch the case.
Speaking with reporters Wednesday evening, Bondi said she was unaware that the case against Mayor Eric Adams hadn’t yet been dismissed. She said she also hadn’t spoken personally with the prosecutor in New York who is, for now, overseeing the case, acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon.
But Bondi said other senior officials had spoken with Sassoon about the directive to dismiss the charges.
“So that case should be dropped,” Bondi said. “I did not know that it had not been dropped yet, but I will certainly look into that.”
In a two-page memo sent Monday, acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove directed Sassoon to dismiss the charges against Adams “as soon as is practicable.” He claimed the case was politically motivated and was interfering with the mayor’s ability to assist in the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration and crime.
In the days since then, both Adams and his attorney have expressed confidence that the charges — which focused on bribes and illegal campaign donations — were permanently quashed. But the Justice Department memo left the door open to the case being brought back next fall following a review.
As of early Wednesday evening, prosecutors had not filed the legal papers needed to start the process of dismissing the charges.
Bove’s memo had indicated that before that could happen, Adams would be required to sign an acknowledgement that prosecutors could refile the charges against him at any point. Adams’ lawyer said Wednesday morning that the mayor had not signed any documents yet in connection with the possible dismissal.
Sassoon has not commented publicly since the Justice Department directive became public. Prosecutors in New York had, until this week, indicated that they believed they had a strong case, and that the investigation had uncovered additional evidence of misconduct by Adams.
Sassoon’s power to resist the Justice Department directive, if she were to choose to do so, is limited. The U.S. attorney general has the power to replace U.S. attorneys at will, meaning anyone who opposes directives from Washington could potentially be removed.
At a press conference Wednesday morning, Adams’ lawyer, Alex Spiro, claimed victory. He said he didn’t believe prosecutors would ever bring the case back.
“There is no looming threat. This case is over. It will not be brought back,” he said. “Despite a lot of fanfare and sensational claims, ultimately there was no evidence that he broke any laws ever.”
Bove’s memo said the directive to halt the case was made without “assessing the strength of the evidence.” It also said the prosecutors should review the matter in November following the mayoral election.
Those unusual terms have drawn skepticism from some Democrats, and fierce rebuke from the mayor’s Democratic primary challengers, who contend that Adams has agreed to carry out Trump’s hardline immigration agenda in exchange for his freedom.
Spiro denied that Adams had made any such promise. But he acknowledged that immigration and other policy issues were discussed at a meeting between the mayor’s legal team and Justice Department officials before the issuing of the directive to halt the case.
“The functioning of the government, and the mayor’s ability to enforce national security issues, terrorism threats, immigration issues and everything else, of course it came up,” Spiro said.
Adams pleaded not guilty in September to charges that he accepted illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals and took about $100,000 of free or deeply discounted international flights and hotel stays from people looking to buy his influence.
Prosecutors also allege he personally directed campaign staffers to solicit donations from foreign nationals, which are banned under federal law. Those contributions were disguised in order to allow Adams to qualify for a city program providing a generous, publicly funded match for small-dollar donations.
Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/05/14 13:47
