Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers said Friday that every American should be concerned about “chilling” suggestions from President Donald Trump’s top border adviser that he could be arrested over guidance the Democrat issued to state employees about what to do if confronted by federal immigration agents.

“I’m not afraid,” Evers said in the extraordinary video posted on YouTube. “I’ve never once been discouraged from doing the right thing and I will not start today.”

At issue is guidance Evers’ administration issued last month in response to state workers who asked what they should do if agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement show up at their offices.

Evers’ guidance advised them to contact an attorney immediately and ask the officers to return if an attorney is unavailable. The memo also advises state workers not to turn over paper files or give ICE officers access to computers without first consulting the state agency’s attorney and not to answer questions from the agents.

The recommendations are similar to guidance that Connecticut’s Democratic governor issued in January. The guidelines also mirror what the National Immigration Law Center and other advocacy groups have said should be done when immigration officials show up at a workplace.

Republican critics argued that the guidance was an order from Evers not to cooperate with ICE agents, an accusation the governor vehemently denied in Friday’s video. The goal of the guidance was to give state employees “clear, consistent instructions” to ensure they have a lawyer present to help them comply with all applicable laws, Evers said.

He accused Republicans of lying about the guidance and spreading misinformation to fuel a “fake controversy of their own creation.”

“I haven’t broken the law,” Evers said. “I haven’t committed a crime and I’ve never encouraged or directed anyone to break any laws or commit any crimes.”

Tom Homan, Trump’s top border adviser, was asked about the Evers memo by reporters outside the White House on Thursday. Homan said, “Wait to see what’s coming,” when asked about the memo.

“You cannot support what we’re doing, and you can support sanctuary cities if that’s what you want to do, but if you cross that line to impediment or knowingly harboring and concealing an illegal alien, that’s a felony and we’re treating it as such,” Homan said.

Some Republicans embraced the possibility of Evers being arrested. Republican Wisconsin state Rep. Calvin Callahan posted a fake image on social media showing Trump in a police uniform behind a grim-faced Evers in handcuffs outside of the state Capitol.

The comments from Homan and Evers’ response come a week after Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested at the courthouse on two felony charges. She is accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities by escorting him and his attorney out of her courtroom through the jury door last week after learning that federal officers were seeking his arrest.

Warren Buffett shocked an arena full of his shareholders Saturday by announcing that he wants to retire at the end of the year.

Buffett said he will recommend to Berkshire Hathaway’s board that Greg Abel should become CEO at the end of the year.

“I think the time has arrived where Greg should become the Chief Executive office of the company at year end,” Buffett said.

Abel has been Buffett’s designated successor for years, and he already manages all of Berkshire’s noninsurance businesses. But it was always assumed he wouldn’t take over until after Buffett’s death. Previously, the 94-year-old Buffett has always said he has no plans to retire.

Buffett announced the news at the end of a five-hour question and answer period and didn’t take any questions about it. He said the only board members who knew this was coming were his two children, Howard and Susie Buffett. Abel, who was sitting next to Buffett on stage, had no warning.

Many investors have said they believe Abel will do a good job running Berkshire, but it remains to be seen how good he will be at investing Berkshire’s cash. Buffett also endorsed him Saturday by pledging to keep his fortune invested in the company.

“I have no intention — zero — of selling one share of Berkshire Hathaway. I will give it away eventually,” Buffett said. “The decision to keep every share is an economic decision because I think the prospects of Berkshire will be better under Greg’s management than mine.”

Thousands of investors in the Omaha arena gave Buffett a prolonged standing ovation after his announcement in recognition of his 60 years leading the company.

CFRA research analyst Cathy Seifert said it had to be hard for Buffett to reach this decision to step down.

“This was probably a very tough decision for him, but better to leave on your own terms,” Seifert said. “I think there will be an effort at maintaining a ‘business as usual’ environment at Berkshire. That is still to be determined.”

Earlier, Buffett warned Saturday about the dire global consequences of President Donald Trump’s tariffs while telling the thousands of investors gathered at his annual meeting that “trade should not be a weapon” but “there’s no question that trade can be an act of war.”

Buffett said Trump’s trade policies have raised the risk of global instability by angering the rest of the world.

“It’s a big mistake in my view when you have 7.5 billion people who don’t like you very well, and you have 300 million who are crowing about how they have done,” Buffett said as he addressed the topic on everyone’s mind at the start of the Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting.

While Buffett said it is best for trade to be balanced between countries, he doesn’t think Trump is going about it the right way with his widespread tariffs. He said the world will be safer if more countries are prosperous.

“We should be looking to trade with the rest of the world. We should do what we do best and they should do what they do best,” he said.

America has been going through revolutionary changes ever since its birth and the promise of equality for all, which wasn’t fulfilled until years later, Buffett said. But nothing that is going on today has changed his long-term optimism about the country.

“If I were being born today, I would just keep negotiating in the womb until they said, ‘You could be in the United States,’” Buffett said.

President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aiming to slash public subsidies to PBS and NPR as he alleged “bias” in the broadcasters’ reporting.

The order instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other federal agencies “to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS” and further requires that that they work to root out indirect sources of public financing for the news organizations. The White House, in a social media posting announcing the signing, said the outlets “receive millions from taxpayers to spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news.’”

It’s the latest move by Trump and his administration to utilize federal powers to control or hamstring institutions whose actions or viewpoints he disagrees with. Since taking office, Trump has ousted leaders, placed staff on administrative leave and cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to artists, libraries, museums, theaters and others, through takeovers of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Trump has also pushed to withhold federal research and education funds from universities and punish law firms unless they agreed to eliminate diversity programs and other measures Trump has found objectionable.

The broadcasters get roughly half a billion dollars in public money through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and have been preparing for the possibility of stiff cuts since Trump’s election, as Republicans have long complained about them.

Paula Kerger, PBS’ CEO and president, said in a statement last month that the Trump administration’s effort to rescind funding for public media would “disrupt the essential service PBS and local member stations provide to the American people.”

“There’s nothing more American than PBS, and our work is only possible because of the bipartisan support we have always received from Congress,” she said. “This public-private partnership allows us to help prepare millions of children for success in school and in life and also supports enriching and inspiring programs of the highest quality.”

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting sued Trump earlier this week over his move to fire three members of its five-person board, contending that the president was exceeding his authority and that the move would deprive the board of a quorum needed to conduct business.

Just two weeks ago, the White House said it would be asking Congress to rescind funding for the CPB as part of a $9.1 billion package of cuts. That package, however, which budget director Russell Vought said would likely be the first of several, has not yet been sent to Capitol Hill.

The move against PBS and NPR comes as his administration has been working to dismantle the U.S. Agency for Global Media, including Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which were designed to model independent news gathering globally in societies that restrict the press. Those efforts have faced pushback from federal courts, who have ruled in some cases that the Trump administration may have overstepped its authority in holding back funds appropriated to the outlets by Congress.

South Korea’s acting leader, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, said Thursday he is resigning to take on “heavier responsibility” amid expectation he will run in next month’s presidential election.

Han has emerged as a potential conservative standard bearer as the main conservative People Power Party remains in disarray over the recent ouster of President Yoon Suk Yeol. Observers expect Han to officially launch his presidential campaign on Friday.

“I have two paths ahead of me. One is completing the heavy responsibility that I handle now. The other is putting down that responsibility and taking a heavier responsibility,” Han said in a nationally televised announcement. “I’ve finally determined to put down my post to do what I can and what I have to help overcome the crises facing us.”

Han, who Yoon had appointed prime minister, the country’s No. 2 post, is expected to align with the People Power Party to launch a unified conservative campaign against liberal front-runner Lee Jae-myung, observers say.

Han, 75, is a career bureaucrat with about 40 years of public service and a Harvard doctorate in economics. He has held many top posts under both conservative and liberal governments, including trade minister, finance minister and ambassador to the U.S. He’s served as prime minster twice, first under liberal President Roh Moo-hyun from 2007 to 2008 and later under Yoon.

Han’s supporters say his extensive government experience, especially on economic affairs, would make him the right leader who can deal with President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff policies and other economic problems. But his critics say Han — who has never had an elected post — has no strong political support base and is too old to become president.

Lee’s main liberal opposition Democratic Party lambasted Han’s move. “Only the people’s severe punishment awaits Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who is blind with greed and abandons state affairs,” party spokesperson Cho Seung-rae said.

Han is to formally end his term at midnight after he signs a related document, according to South Korean media. With Han’s resignation, Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok becomes acting president until a new leader is elected on June 3.

Lee, who won the nomination of the Democratic Party on Sunday, has been favored to win. But his campaign suffered a blow Thursday after the Supreme Court ordered a lower court to review its earlier cancellation of his conviction over election law violation charges.

While it’s unclear the Seoul High Court will come up with a new ruling on Lee before the June 3 election, the development provided his conservative rivals with fodder for a political offensive. Under South Korean law, anyone who receives a fine exceeding 1 million won ($683) for election law violations is barred from running for elections for five years.

The Democratic Party condemned the Supreme Court for allegedly trying to interfere in the election.

After the liberal opposition-controlled parliament impeached Yoon on Dec. 14 over his martial law declaration that plunged the country into turmoil, Han began serving as acting leader. But Han quickly clashed with Lee’s Democratic Party over his refusal to fill three vacant seats on the nine-member Constitutional Court, which was deliberating whether to formally dismiss or reinstate Yoon. A court decision to dismiss Yoon needed support from at least six justices.

In late December, the Democratic Party and other small opposition parties voted to impeach Han, accusing him of obstructing the restoration of the court’s full membership and abetting Yoon’s martial law decree. In March, however, the Constitutional Court overturned Han’s impeachment, reinstating him as acting president. The court in early April ruled to dismiss Yoon.

Yoon separately faces a criminal trial for rebellion in connection with his martial law decree. On Thursday, prosecutors added charges of abuse of power, according to a Seoul prosecutors’ office.

American businesses are cancelling orders from China, postponing expansion plans and hunkering down to see what trade policy surprises President Donald Trump plans to spring on them next.

The president’s massive and unpredictable taxes on imports seem likely to mean emptier shelves and higher prices for American shoppers, perhaps within weeks.

And the higher costs and paralyzing uncertainty could exact an economic toll: U.S. consumers are in the biggest funk since COVID-19 hit five years ago, and economists say recession risks are climbing.

An early sign of the damage emerged on Wednesday when the Commerce Department released its first look at first-quarter economic growth.

The U.S. economy shrank 0.3% from January through March, the first drop in three years. Gross domestic product — the nation’s output of goods and services — was down from 2.4% in the last three months of 2024. Imports shaved 5 percentage points off first-quarter growth. Consumer spending also slowed sharply.

Asked how much of deterioration in the world’s biggest economy could be traced to Trump’s erratic policies, Boston College economist Brian Bethune said: “All of it.’’

As he promised on the campaign trail, Trump has upended decades of American trade policy. He’s been imposing — then sometimes suspending — big import taxes, or tariffs, on a wide range of targets. He’s currently plastered a 10% levy on products from almost every country in the world. He’s hit China — America’s third-biggest trading partner and second-biggest source of imported goods – with a staggering 145% tariff.

China has responded with retaliatory tariffs of its own – 125% on American products. The take-no-prisoners trade war between the world’s two biggest economies has shaken global financial markets and threatened to bring U.S.-China trade to a standstill.

Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, warned last Thursday within two weeks arrivals to the port “will drop by 35% as essentially all shipments out of China for major retailers and manufacturers has ceased.’’ Seroka added that cargo from Southeast Asia also “is much softer than normal with tariffs now in place.’’

After Trump announced expansive tariffs in early April, ocean container bookings from China to the United States dropped 60% -- and stayed there, said Ryan Petersen, founder and CEO of Flexport, a San Francisco company that helps companies ship cargo around the world. With orders down, ocean carriers have reduced their capacity by cancelling 25% of their sailings, Flexport said.

Many companies tried to beat the clock by bringing in foreign goods before Trump’s tariffs took effect. In fact, that is a big reason that first-quarter economic growth is expected to come in so low: A surge in imports swelled the trade deficit, which weighs on growth.

By stockpiling goods ahead of the trade war, many companies “will be positioned to ride out this storm for a while,’’ said Judah Levine, research director at the global freight-booking platform Freightos. “But at a certain point, inventories will run down.’’

In the next few weeks, Levine said, “you could start seeing shortages ... it’s likely to be concentrated in categories where the U.S. is heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing and there aren’t a lot of alternatives and certainly quick alternatives.’’ Among them: furniture, baby products and plastic goods, including toys.

Jay Foreman, CEO of toymaker Basic Fun, said he paused shipments of Tonka trucks, Care Bears and other toys from China after Trump’s tariff plan was announced in early April. Now, he’s hoping to get by for a few months on inventory he’s stockpiled.

“Consumers will find Basic Fun toys in stores for a month or two but very quickly we will be out of stock and stock product will disappear from store shelves, ” he said.

Kevin Brusky, who owns APE Games, a small tabletop game publisher in St. Louis, has about 7,000 copies of three different games sitting in a warehouse in China. The tariff bill of about $25,000 would wipe out his profit on the games, so he is launching a Kickstarter campaign next week to help defray the cost of the duties.

Another federal judge in Washington has expressed skepticism about the legality of a Trump administration executive order targeting a prominent law firm, saying he was concerned that the clear purpose of the edict was punishment.

U.S. District Judge John Bates had already temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s executive order against the firm of Jenner & Block but heard arguments Monday on a request by the firm to block it permanently. Lawyers for two other firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — made similar arguments last week to judges who appeared receptive to their positions.

Like the other judges, Bates did not immediately rule but repeatedly pushed back against a Justice Department lawyer’s claims that the orders against Jenner and other law firms were not meant to punish them. The actions have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.

“It’s trying to punish Jenner by stopping the flow of money to Jenner,” Bates said. He later asked: “Isn’t it logical that clients are going to be reluctant to engage Jenner & Block if they know there’s a real chance that Jenner and Block isn’t going to be able to go into a federal building or talk to federal agencies?”

Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson said it was premature to make that assessment because guidelines governing how the executive order is to be implemented had not yet come out.

Michael Attanasio, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Jenner & Block, said it was “surreal” to listen to the Justice Department’s “verbal gymnastics” in rationalizing the order.

“This order is designed to do one thing: it’s designed to punish a law firm because of the cases it take and because of its affiliation with a critic of the president,” Attanasio said. That’s a reference to the fact that the executive order against the firm takes note that Jenner & Block previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that investigated Trump during his first term over potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign.

“All we need to do is read this thing,” Attanasio said. “It reeks of unconstitutionality. It should be set aside in its entirety.”

Each of the law firms subject to an executive order that has challenged it in court has succeeded in getting it temporarily blocked. Other firms, by contrast, have opted to preemptively reach agreements with the White House to avoid getting targeted.

On Monday, Virginia Rep. Gerald Connolly, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and another member of the panel, California Rep. Dave Min, sent letters to law firms that have settled with the administration seeking details about the terms of the deals.

Lee Jae-myung, a liberal who wants greater economic parity in South Korea and warmer ties with North Korea, became the main opposition party’s presidential candidate Sunday, solidifying his position as front-runner to succeed recently ousted conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol.

The former Democratic Party chief had led the opposition-controlled parliament’s impeachment of Yoon over the imposition of martial law in December. The country’s Constitutional Court formally dismissed Yoon earlier this month, prompting an early presidential election on June 3 to find a new president.

In a nationally televised announcement, the Democratic Party announced that Lee won its presidential nomination with nearly 90% of the votes cast during the primary that ended Sunday, defeating two competitors.

“Now, the people and our party colleagues gave me an opportunity to win back the presidency and build a new, real Republic of Korea. Thank you! I’ll humbly uphold that ardent, serious task,” Lee said in a victory speech.

Lee, 60, who served as the governor of South Korea’s most populous Gyeonggi province and a mayor of Seongnam city, is the clear favorite to win the election. In a Gallup Korea poll released on Friday, 38% of respondents chose Lee as their preferred choice, while all other aspirants obtained single-digit ratings. The main conservative People Power Party will nominate its candidate next weekend. Its four presidential hopefuls competing to win the party ticket won a combined 23% of support ratings in the Gallup survey.

It will be Lee’s third bid to run for president. He lost the 2022 election to Yoon in the narrowest margin in the country’s presidential elections. In 2017, Lee ranked third in a Democratic Party primary.

Lee has long established an image as an anti-establishment figure who can eliminate deep-rooted inequality and corruption in South Korea. But his critics view him as a populist who relies on stoking divisions and demonizing opponents and worry his rule would likely further polarize the country.

Lee currently faces five trials for corruption and other criminal charges. If he becomes president, those trials will likely stop as he will enjoy special presidential immunity from most criminal charges.

Lee’s rise comes as conservatives are struggling to win back public confidence in the wake of Yoon’s martial law decree that plunged the country into turmoil. The People Power Party is grappling with internal feuding between senior members defending Yoon’s action and reformist members who voted for his impeachment.

Immigration and civil rights advocates have renewed concerns that immigrants detained at Guantanamo Bay are being held in extreme isolation, cut off from meaningful access to legal counsel or candid communication with relatives, according to a new court filing Saturday.

In a lawsuit brought on behalf or two Nicaraguan immigrants held at the U.S. Navy base on Cuba, attorneys say there is a climate of “extreme fear and intimidation” that interferes with constitutional rights to due process and legal counsel.

The revised lawsuit asks a federal judge in Washington to intervene on behalf of all future immigrants at Guantanamo, which authorities have used as a way station for immigrants whom President Donald Trump calls “the worst,” with final removal orders, as his administration seeks to ramp up mass deportations.

“Officers at Guantánamo have created a climate of extreme fear and intimidation where immigrant detainees are afraid to communicate freely with their counsel,” the lawsuit says, adding that conditions are more restrictive than at mainland detention facilities, prisons and in some instances law-of-war military custody at Guantanamo Bay.

U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the base, declined to comment on the lawsuit and referred requests to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to an email Saturday.

In March a federal judge ruled against advocates’ attempts to help migrants at Guantanamo and prevent further transfers there, days after the administration moved all migrants out of the facility.

Two Nicaraguans who arrived since then have submitted court declarations charting their journey through detention centers in Louisiana to Cuba and describing their anguished concerns that phone conversations are being monitored and might lead to punishment or reprisals.

Attorneys have no in-person contact with clients at the base and say they are chained and placed in restraints during legal calls that are broadcast on speakerphone with officers seated outside an open doorway. That undermines the right to confidential communication and attorney-client privilege, the lawsuit says.

The complaint also says some detainees have been interrogated by the FBI about possible gang affiliation while surrounded by military officers. One person was stripped in search of a missing toothbrush, and another was locked in a concrete cell with no windows or lights for four days, it adds.

“I have been allowed to speak to my family about 20 times. Each call is about 5 minutes,” Johon Suazo-Muller said in a written declaration to the court that was translated into English.

He said he immigrated to the U.S. from Nicaragua in October 2023 in search of asylum from political conflict and a better life.

Two major law firms asked separate judges Wednesday to permanently block President Donald Trump’s executive orders that were meant to punish them and harm their business operations.

The firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — say the orders are unconstitutional assaults on the legal profession threaten their relationships with clients and retaliate against them based on their past legal representations or their association with particular attorneys whom Trump perceives as his adversaries.

Courts last month temporarily halted enforcement of key provisions of both orders, but the firms asked in court Wednesday for the edicts to be struck down in their entirety and for judges to issue rulings in their favor. Another firm, Jenner & Block, is scheduled to make similar arguments next week and a fourth, Susman Godfrey, is set to make its case next month.

“The entire executive order is retaliatory,” Dane Butswinkas, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Perkins Coie, told a judge.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell did not immediately rule on the firm’s request, but she repeatedly expressed deep unease over the executive order, signaling that she was inclined to side with Perkins Coie.

She grilled a Justice Department lawyer over the government’s plans to suspend the security clearances of lawyers at the firm and asked him to respond to the suggestion that the blacklisting of disfavored law firms was similar to the “Red Scare” panic over communism decades ago. And she pressed him to explain why the Trump administration was forcing firms to disavow the use of diversity, equity and inclusion considerations in their hiring practices.

The spate of executive orders taking aim at some of the country’s most elite and prominent law firms are part of a wide-ranging retribution campaign by Trump designed to reshape civil society and extract concessions from powerful institutions. The actions have forced targeted entities, whether law firms or universities, to decide whether to push back and risk further incurring the administration’s ire or to agree to concessions in hopes of averting sanctions. Some firms have challenged the orders in court, but others have proactively reached settlements.

The executive actions have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Minnesota asking to revive the state’s ban on gun-carry permits for young adults.

The justices also left in place a ban on guns at the University of Michigan, declining to hear an appeal from a man who argued he has a right to be armed on campus. No justice noted a dissent in either case.

Taken together, the actions reflect the high court’s apparent lack of appetite for cases that further explore the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.”

The court has repeatedly turned away gun cases since its 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights and a clarifying 2024 decision that upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence.

The decision not to hear the Minnesota case was somewhat surprising because both sides sought the Supreme Court’s review and courts around the country have come to different conclusions about whether states can limit the gun rights of people aged 18 to 20 without violating the Constitution.

The federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled that the Minnesota ban conflicted with the Second Amendment, which the court noted sets no age limit and generally protects ordinary, law-abiding young adults.

In January, the federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a federal law requiring young adults to be 21 to buy handguns.

In February, a federal judge declined to block Hawaii’s ban on gun possession for people under 21.

A federal judge in California on Thursday barred the Trump administration from denying or conditioning the use of federal funds to “sanctuary” jurisdictions, saying that portions of President Donald Trump’s executive orders were unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the injunction sought by San Francisco and more than a dozen other municipalities that limit cooperation with federal immigration efforts.

Orrick wrote that defendants are prohibited “from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds” and the administration must provide written notice of his order to all federal departments and agencies by Monday.

One executive order issued by Trump directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to withhold federal money to sanctuary jurisdictions. The second order directs every federal agency to ensure that payments to state and local governments do not “abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”

At a hearing Wednesday, Justice Department lawyers argued that it was much too early for the judge to grant an injunction when the government had not taken any action to withhold specific amounts or to lay out conditions on specific grants.

But Orrick, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, said this was essentially what government lawyers argued during Trump’s first term when the Republican issued a similar order.

“Their well-founded fear of enforcement is even stronger than it was in 2017,” Orrick wrote, citing the executive orders as well as directives from Bondi, other federal agencies and Justice Department lawsuits filed against Chicago and New York.

San Francisco successfully challenged the 2017 Trump order and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the president exceeded his authority when he signed an executive order threatening to cut funding for “sanctuary cities.”

There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally describe limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces immigration laws nationwide but seeks state and local help in alerting federal authorities of immigrants wanted for deportation and holding that person until federal officers take custody.

Leaders of sanctuary jurisdictions say their communities are safer because immigrants feel they can communicate with local police without fear of deportation. It is also a way for municipalities to focus their dollars on crime locally, they say.

Besides San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which includes a third plaintiff, the city of San José, there are 13 other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which include Seattle and King County, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; New Haven, Connecticut; and Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Nadine Menendez, the wife of former U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, was convicted Monday of teaming up with her husband to accept bribes of cash, gold bars and a luxury car from three New Jersey men looking for help with their business dealings or legal troubles.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts in the same federal courthouse in Manhattan where a different jury convicted Bob Menendez of many of the same charges last year. The Democrat is supposed to begin serving an 11-year prison term in June.

Nadine Menendez, who stood but did not appear to react as the verdict was delivered by the jury foreperson, was scheduled to be sentenced on June 12, six days after her husband is expected to report to prison.

Outside the courthouse, she wore a pink mask as she stood next to her lawyer, Barry Coburn, said he was “devastated by the verdict.”

“We fought hard and it hurts,” he said. “This is a very rough day for us.”

The evidence shown to jurors over a three-week trial followed the timeline of the whirlwind romance between the couple that began in early 2018 and continued after criminal charges were brought against them in September 2023. Repeatedly during the trial, prosecutors said they were “partners in crime.”

During a 2022 raid on the couple’s Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, home, FBI agents found nearly $150,000 worth of gold bars and $480,000 in cash stuffed in boots, shoeboxes and jackets. In the garage was a Mercedes-Benz convertible, also an alleged bribe.

Both Nadine and Bob Menendez said they are innocent and never took bribes.

Initially, they were to be tried together, along with the three businessmen, but Nadine Menendez’s trial was postponed a year ago after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent surgery.

Bob Menendez, 71, resigned from the Senate last August following his conviction. Before the charges were brought he had been chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Prosecutors accused Nadine Menendez of starting to facilitating bribes to the senator around the time that they began dating, before they married in the fall of 2020.

At the time, she was in danger of losing her home in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, after missing nearly $20,000 in mortgage payments, trial testimony showed. A longtime friend, Wael Hana, provided cash to save the home — and prosecutors said that in return, the senator began helping Hana preserve a business monopoly he had arranged with the Egyptian government to certify that imported meat met religious requirements.

Nadine Menendez also needed a new car after her old one was destroyed when she struck and killed a man crossing a street. (She did not face charges in the crash). Prosecutors said a businessman, Jose Uribe, gave her a Mercedes-Benz, and in return Bob Menendez used his clout to pressure the New Jersey attorney general’s office to stop investigating some of Uribe’s associates.

Prosecutor said more cash and gold bribes were paid to the couple by Fred Daibes, a prominent real estate developer who prosecutors said wanted the senator to protect him from a criminal case he was facing in New Jersey. Prosecutors said Bob Menendez also helped Daibes secure a $95 million investment from a Qatari investment fund.