Financial markets welcomed a U.S. court ruling that blocks President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law.

U.S. futures jumped early Thursday and oil prices rose more than $1. The U.S. dollar rose against the yen and euro.

The court found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Trump has cited as his basis for ordering massive increases in import duties, does not authorize the use of tariffs.

The White House immediately appealed and it was unclear if Trump would abide by the ruling in the interim. The long term outcome of legal disputes over tariffs remains uncertain. But investors appeared to take heart after the months of turmoil brought on by Trump's trade war.

The future for the S&P 500 was up 1.5% while that for the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 1.2%.

In early European trading, Germany's DAX gained 0.5% to 24,160.75. The CAC 40 in Paris jumped 0.9% to 7,860.67. Britain's FTSE was nearly unchanged at 8,722.63.

Japan's Nikkei 225 index jumped 1.9% to 38,432.98. American's largest ally in Asia has been appealing to Trump to cancel the tariffs he has ordered on imports from Japan and to also stop 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection technician examines overseas parcels after they were scanned at the agency's overseas mail inspection facility at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on Feb. 23, 2024.

The ruling also pushed the dollar sharply higher against the Japanese yen. It was trading at 145.40 yen early Thursday, up from 144.87 yen late Wednesday.

A three-judge panel ruled on several lawsuits arguing Trump exceeded his authority, casting doubt on trade policies that have jolted global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised uncertainty over the outlook for inflation and the global economy.

Many of Trump's double-digit tariff hikes are paused for up to 90 days to allow time for trade negotiations, but the uncertainty they cast over global commerce has stymied businesses and left consumers wary about what lies ahead.

"Just when traders thought they'd seen every twist in the tariff saga, the gavel dropped like a lightning bolt over the Pacific," Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management said in a commentary.

The ruling was, at the least, "a brief respite before the next thunderclap," he said.

Elsewhere in Asia, Hong Kong's Hang Seng added 1.3% to 23,561.86, while the Shanghai Composite index gained 0.7% to 3,363.45.

Australia's S&P/ASX 200 gained 0.2% to 8,409.80.

In South Korea, which like Japan relies heavily on exports to the U.S., the Kospi surged 1.9% to 2,720.64. Shares also were helped by the Bank of Korea's decision to cut its key interest rate to 2.5% from 2.75%, to ease pressure on the economy.
Taiwan's Taiex edged 0.1% lower, and India's Sensex lost 0.2%.

On Wednesday, U.S. stocks cooled, with the S&P 500 down 0.6% but still within 4.2% of its record after charging higher amid hopes that the worst of the turmoil caused by Trump's trade war may have passed. It had been roughly 20% below the mark last month.

The Dow industrials lost 0.6% and the Nasdaq composite fell 0.5%.

Trading was relatively quiet ahead of a quarterly earnings release for Nvidia, which came after markets closed.

The bellwether for artificial intelligence overcame a wave of tariff-driven turbulence to deliver another quarter of robust growth thanks to feverish demand for its high-powered chips that are making computers seem more human. Nvidia's shares jumped 6.6% in afterhours trading.

Like Nvidia, Macy's stock also swung up and down through much of the day, even though it reported milder drops in revenue and profit for the latest quarter than analysts expected. Its stock ended the day down 0.3%.

The bond market showed relatively little reaction after the Federal Reserve released the minutes from its latest meeting earlier this month, when it left its benchmark lending rate alone for the third straight time. The central bank has been holding off on cuts to interest rates, which would give the economy a boost, amid worries about inflation staying higher than hoped because of Trump's sweeping tariffs.

The State Department has halted the scheduling of new visa interviews for foreign students hoping to study in the U.S. while it prepares to expand the screening of their activity on social media, officials said.

A U.S. official said Tuesday the suspension is intended to be temporary and does not apply to applicants who already had scheduled their visa interviews. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an internal administration document.

A cable signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and obtained by The Associated Press says the State Department plans to issue guidance on expanded social media vetting.

“Effective immediately, in preparation for an expansion of required social media screening and vetting, consulate sections should not add any additional student or exchange visitor visa appointment capacity” until the guidance is issued, the cable says.

Asked about the suspension at a briefing Tuesday, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the U.S. uses every available resource to vet people applying for visas.

“We will continue to use every tool we can to assess who it is that’s coming here, whether they are students or otherwise,” Bruce said. The move, first reported by Politico, is the latest in the Trump administration’s crackdown on international students.

Last week, the Trump administration revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, removing the college from the program that allows schools to sponsor foreign students for visas. That effort was quickly challenged in court and for now is blocked by a federal judge.

This spring the administration also revoked the legal status of thousands of international students already in the country, leading some to leave the U.S. out of fear of deportation. After many students filed successful legal challenges, the administration said it was restoring the students’ legal status. But the government also expanded the grounds for terminating international students’ legal status going forward.

President Donald Trump’s previous administration stepped up scrutiny of all visa applicants, introducing reviews of their social media accounts. The policy remained during President Joe Biden’s administration.

An extended pause in scheduling student visas could lead to delays that may disrupt college, boarding-school or exchange students’ plans to enroll in summer and fall terms. A downturn in enrollment of international students could hurt university budgets. To make up for cuts in federal research funding, some colleges shifted to enrolling more international students, who often pay full tuition.

An appeals court has cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal employees while a lawsuit plays out.

The Friday ruling came after the Trump administration asked for an emergency pause on a judge’s order blocking enforcement at roughly three dozen agencies and departments.

A split three-judge panel in the nation’s capital sided with government lawyers in a lawsuit filed by unions representing federal employees. The majority ruled on technical grounds, finding that the unions don’t have the legal right to sue because the Trump administration has said it won’t end any collective bargaining agreements while the case is being litigated.

Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush, and Justin Walker, appointed by Trump, sided with the government, while Judge Michelle Childs, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, dissented.

The government says Trump needs the executive order so his administration can cut the federal workforce to ensure strong national security. The law requiring collective bargaining creates exemptions for work related to national security, as in agencies like the FBI.

Union leaders argue the order is designed to facilitate mass firings and exact “political vengeance” against federal unions opposed to Trump’s efforts to dramatically downsize the federal government.

His order seeks to expand that exemption to exclude more workers than any other president has before. That’s according to the National Treasury Employees Union, which is suing to block the order.

The administration has filed in a Kentucky court to terminate the collective bargaining agreement for the Internal Revenue Service, where many workers are represented by the National Treasury Employees Union. They say their IRS members aren’t doing national security work.

Other union employees affected by the order include the Health and Human Services Department, the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Communications Commission.

Immigration officials said Tomás Hernández worked in high-level posts for Cuba’s foreign intelligence agency for decades before migrating to the United States to pursue the American dream.

The 71-year-old was detained by federal agents outside his Miami-area home in March and accused of hiding his ties to Cuba’s Communist Party when he obtained permanent residency.

Cuban-Americans in South Florida have long clamored for a firmer hand with Havana and the recent apprehensions of Hernández and several other former Cuban officials for deportation have been extremely popular among the politically powerful exile community.

“It’s a political gift to Cuban-American hardliners,” said Eduardo Gamarra, a Latin American expert at Florida International University. But many Cubans fear they could be next on Trump’s list, he said, and “some in the community see it as a betrayal.”

While President Donald Trump’s mass deportation pledge has frightened migrants from many nations, it has come as something of a shock to the 2.4 million Cuban-Americans, who strongly backed the Republican twice and have long enjoyed a place of privilege in the U.S. immigration system.

Amid record arrivals of migrants from the Caribbean island, Trump in March revoked temporary humanitarian parole for about 300,000 Cubans. Many have been detained ahead of possible deportation.

Among those facing deportation is a pro-Trump Cuban rapper behind a hit song “Patria y Vida” — “Homeland and Life” — that became the unofficial anthem of anti-communist protests on the island in 2021 and drew praise from the likes of then Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, now Secretary of State. Eliéxer Márquez, who raps under the name El Funky, said he received notice this month that he had 30 days to leave the U.S.

Thanks to Cold War laws aimed at removing Fidel Castro, Cuban migrants for many decades enjoyed almost automatic refugee status in the U.S. and could obtain green cards a year after entry, unlike migrants from virtually every other country.

Support for Trump among likely Cuban-American voters in Miami was at an all-time high on the eve of last year’s election, according to a poll by Florida International University, which has been tracking the Cuban-American community since 1991. Trump rarely mentions Cubans in his attacks on migrant targets including Venezuelans and Haitians. That has given many Cubans hope that they will remain immune to immigration enforcement actions.

Democrats, meanwhile, have been trying to turn the immigration crackdown to their advantage. In April, grassroots groups erected two giant billboards on Miami highways calling Rubio and Republican Reps. Mario Díaz-Balart, María Elvira Salazar and Carlos Giménez “traitors” to the Cuban-American community for failing to protect tens of thousands of migrants from Trump’s immigration policies.

In March, Giménez sent Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a letter with the names of 108 people he said were former Cuban state agents or Communist Party officials living unlawfully in the U.S.

“It is imperative that the Department of Homeland Security enforce existing U.S. laws to identify, deport and repatriate these individuals who pose a direct threat to our national security, the integrity of our immigration system and the safety of Cuban exiles and American citizens alike,” Giménez wrote, adding that the U.S. remains a “beacon of hope and freedom for those escaping tyranny.”

Giménez’s target list was compiled by Luis Dominguez, who left Cuba in 1971 and has made it his mission to topple Cuba’s government. In 2009, when the internet was still a novelty in Cuba, Dominguez said he posed as a 27-year-old female sports journalist from Colombia to lure Castro’s son Antonio into an online romance.

With support from the right-wing Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba, he started combing social media and relying on a well-oiled network of anti-socialist sources, inside Cuba and outside the country, to dox officials allegedly behind human rights abuses and violations of democratic norms. To date, his website, Represores Cubanos — Cuban Repressors — has identified more than 1,200 such state agents, some 150 in the United States.

“They’re chasing the American dream, but previously they condemned it while pursuing the Cuban dream,” Dominguez said. “It’s the typical double life of any Communist regime. When they were in power they criticized anything about the U.S. But now that they’re here, they love it.”

Dominguez, 62, said he regularly shares his findings with federal law enforcement but a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn’t comment on the agency’s relationship with the activist.

Enrique Garcia, a former colleague, said he studied with Hernández in the former Soviet Union in the 1970s. Upon their return, Hernández was sent to work in the spy agency’s elite “North America” department, said Garcia.

Garcia, who defected to the U.S. in the 1990s and has devoted himself to helping American spy catchers unmask Cuban agents, said one-time Cuban agents have infiltrated the current migration wave while hiding their past and even current loyalties to the Cuban government.

President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to allow him to resume his downsizing of the federal workforce, while a lawsuit filed by labor unions and cities proceeds.

The Justice Department is challenging an order issued last week by a federal judge in San Francisco that temporarily halted Trump’s efforts to shrink a federal government he calls bloated and expensive.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston’s temporary restraining order questioned whether Trump’s Republican administration was acting lawfully in trying to pare the federal workforce.

Illston, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, directed numerous federal agencies to stop acting on Trump’s workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by the Department of Government Efficiency and the Office of Personnel Management.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the court to quickly put the ruling on hold, telling the justices that Illston overstepped her authority.

Illston’s order expires next week, unless extended.

The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the Trump administration has made to the Supreme Court, including some related to firings. The administration separately has filed an emergency appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which has yet to act.

Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs or have been placed on leave as a result of Trump’s government-shrinking efforts. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go.

In her order, Illston gave several examples to show the impact of the downsizing. One union that represents federal workers who research health hazards faced by mine workers said it was poised to lose 221 of 222 workers in the Pittsburgh office; a Vermont farmer didn’t receive a timely inspection on his property to receive disaster aid after flooding and missed an important planting window; a reduction in Social Security Administration workers has led to longer wait times for recipients.

Among the agencies affected by the temporary restraining order are the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, State, the Treasury and Veterans Affairs. It also applies to the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency.

Plaintiffs include the cities of San Francisco, Chicago and Baltimore; the labor group American Federation of Government Employees; and the nonprofit groups Alliance for Retired Americans, Center for Taxpayer Rights and Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks.

Some of the labor unions and nonprofit groups are also plaintiffs in another lawsuit before a San Francisco judge challenging the mass firings of probationary workers. In that case, Judge William Alsup ordered the government in March to reinstate those workers, but the U.S. Supreme Court later blocked his order.

The Trump administration granted Syria sweeping exemptions from sanctions Friday in a big first step toward fulfilling the president’s pledge to lift a half-century of penalties on a country shattered by 13 years of civil war.

While broad, the administration’s actions could possibly be reversed. Syrians say they need permanent relief to secure the tens of billions of dollars in investment needed to rebuild after a conflict that fragmented the country, displaced or killed millions of people, and left behind thousands of foreign fighters.

A measure by the State Department waived for six months a tough set of sanctions imposed by Congress in 2019. A Treasury Department action suspended enforcement of sanctions against anyone doing business with a range of Syrian individuals and entities, including Syria’s central bank.

Syria is now led by Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former militia commander who helped drive longtime autocratic leader Bashar Assad from power late last year.

President Donald Trump announced last week that the U.S. would roll back the heavy financial penalties in a bid to give the interim government a better chance of survival.

The Trump administration said businesses and investors are getting the protection against sanctions they need to come back to Syria, calling it “the opportunity for a fresh start.”

“The only other option was Syria becoming a failed state and civil war,” said Mouaz Moustafa, a Syrian American advocate who had campaigned for quick, broad relief. “Now there is hope for a future democratic Syria.”

The congressional sanctions, known as the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, had aimed to isolate Syria’s previous rulers by effectively expelling those doing business with them from the global financial system. They specifically block postwar reconstruction, so while they can be waived for 180 days by executive order, investors are likely to be wary of reconstruction projects when sanctions could be reinstated after six months.

The Trump administration said Friday’s actions were “just one part of a broader U.S. government effort to remove the full architecture of sanctions.” Those penalties had been imposed on the Assad family for their support of Iranian-backed militias, their chemical weapons program and abuses of civilians.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement Friday that in return for sanctions relief, Trump expects “prompt action by the Syrian government on important policy priorities.”

Al-Sharaa’s own past has fueled doubts. The group that he led, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, was originally affiliated with al-Qaida, although it later renounced ties and took a more moderate tone. It is still listed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.

But if al-Sharaa’s government fails, the U.S. and others fear renewed conflict in Syria and a power vacuum that could allow a resurgence of the Islamic State and other extremist groups.

“If we engage them, it may work out, it may not work out. If we do not engage them, it was guaranteed to not work out,” Rubio told lawmakers this week. Trump met al-Sharaa last week in Saudi Arabia, a day after announcing his intention to lift the sanctions: “We’re taking them all off. Good luck, Syria. Show us something special.”

Rubio said sanctions relief must start quickly because Syria’s transition government could be weeks from “collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions.”

But asked by lawmakers this week what sanctions relief should look like overall, Rubio gave a one-word explanation: “Incremental.” While some sanctions can be quickly waived through executive actions like those taken Friday, Congress would have to permanently remove the penalties it imposed.

A proposal circulated among administration officials this week broadly emphasized taking all action possible, as fast as possible, according to U.S. officials familiar with the plan who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Last week, a State Department proposal laid out a three-phase road map with temporary, partial relief initially and setting sweeping conditions for Syrians to meet for any future phases of relief or permanent lifting of sanctions, one of the officials said.

The Supreme Court on Thursday effectively ended a publicly funded Catholic charter school in Oklahoma, dividing 4-4.

The outcome keeps in place an Oklahoma court decision that invalidated a vote by a state charter school board to approve the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would have been the nation’s first religious charter school. But it leaves the issue unresolved nationally.

The one-sentence notice from the court provides an unsatisfying end to one of the term’s most closely watched cases. The Catholic Church in Oklahoma had wanted taxpayers to fund the online charter school “faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ.” Opponents warned that allowing it would blur the separation between church and state, sap money from public schools and possibly upend the rules governing charter schools in almost every state.

Only eight of the nine justices took part in the case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn’t explain her absence, but she is good friends and used to teach with Notre Dame law professor Nicole Garnett, who has been an adviser to the school.

The issue could return to the high court in the future, with the prospect that all nine justices could participate. The court, following its custom, did not provide a breakdown of the votes. But during arguments last month, four conservative justices seemed likely to side with the school, while the three liberals seemed just as firmly on the other side.

That left Chief Justice John Roberts appearing to hold the key vote, and suggests he went with the liberals to make the outcome 4-4.  The case came to the court amid efforts, mainly in conservative-led states, to insert religion into public schools. Those include a challenged Louisiana requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms and a mandate from Oklahoma’s state schools superintendent that the Bible be placed in public school classrooms.

St. Isidore, a K-12 online school, had planned to start classes for its first 200 enrollees last fall, with part of its mission to evangelize its students in the Catholic faith.

A key unresolved issue is whether the school is public or private. Charter schools are deemed public in Oklahoma and the other 45 states and the District of Columbia where they operate. North Dakota recently enacted legislation allowing for charter schools.

They are free and open to all, receive state funding, abide by antidiscrimination laws and submit to oversight of curriculum and testing. But they also are run by independent boards that are not part of local public school systems.

“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer. While the Supreme Court’s order is disappointing for educational freedom, the 4-4 decision does not set precedent, allowing the court to revisit this issue in the future,” said Jim Campbell, who argued the case at the high court on behalf of Oklahoma’s charter school board. Campbell is the chief legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that appears often at the court in cases on high-profile social issues.

On the other side, the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which are among groups representing parents and other opponents of the school in a separate lawsuit, applauded the outcome for preserving public education.

“The very idea of a religious public school is a constitutional oxymoron. The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms that a religious school can’t be a public school and a public school can’t be religious,” said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

Oklahoma officials also offered differing views.

Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt and state School Superintendent Ryan Walters said the fight is far from over. “There will be another case just like this one and Justice Barrett will break the tie,” Stitt said.
Attorney General Gentner Drummond, also a Republican, sued to stop the school. He called the 4-4 vote “a resounding victory for religious liberty” that also will ensure that “Oklahoma taxpayers will not be forced to fund radical Islamic schools, while protecting the religious rights of families to choose any school they wish for their children.”

During arguments, Justice Samuel Alito said, “We have statement after statement by the attorney general that reeks of hostility toward Islam.”

A British court said Thursday that the U.K. can transfer sovereignty over the contested and strategically located Chagos Islands to Mauritius, overturning a block that was imposed hours before the agreement was due to be signed.

High Court judge Martin Chamberlain said after a hearing on Thursday that an injunction barring the handover should be removed. He said “the public interest and the interests of the United Kingdom would be substantially prejudiced” if there was a further delay.

The U.K. government welcomed the ruling, saying “this deal is vital to protect the British people and our national security.”

The U.K. has agreed to hand Mauritius the Indian Ocean archipelago, which is home to a strategically important naval and bomber base on the largest of the islands, Diego Garcia. The U.K. would then lease back the base for at least 99 years.

The agreement was due to be signed by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Mauritian leader Navin Ramgoolam at a virtual ceremony on Thursday morning.

But a judge granted an injunction in the early hours of Thursday, blocking the British government from taking any “conclusive or legally binding step” to hand the islands to a foreign government.

The injunction came in response to a claim by two Chagossian women representing the islands’ original residents, who were evicted decades ago to make way for the American base. Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, both British citizens, fear it will become even harder to return once Mauritius takes control of the islands.

After the injunction was lifted, Pompe said it was “a very sad day,“ but vowed to continue fighting.

“We do not want to hand over our rights to Mauritius. We are not Mauritians,” she said outside the High Court.

“The rights we are asking for now, we have been fighting for for 60 years,” she added. “Mauritius is not going to give that to us.”

One of the last remnants of the British Empire, the Chagos Islands have been under British control since 1814. Britain split the islands away from Mauritius, a former British colony, in 1965, three years before Mauritius gained independence.

Britain evicted as many as 2,000 people from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s so the U.S. military could build the Diego Garcia base, which has supported U.S. military operations from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Displaced Chagossians fought unsuccessfully in U.K. courts for years for the right to go home. Under the deal, a resettlement fund would be created to help displaced islanders move back to the islands, apart from Diego Garcia. Details of any such measures remain unclear.

Mauritius has long contested Britain’s claim to the archipelago and in recent years the United Nations and its top court have urged Britain to return the Chagos to Mauritius, around 2,100 kilometers (1,250 miles) southwest of the islands.

In a non-binding 2019 opinion, the International Court of Justice ruled that the U.K. had unlawfully carved up Mauritius when it agreed to end colonial rule in the late 1960s.

The British government says those rulings put the future of the Diego Garcia base, vital to U.K. security, at stake. Negotiations on handing the islands to Mauritius began in 2022 under the previous Conservative government and resumed after Starmer’s Labour Party was elected in July.

A draft agreement was struck in October, but was delayed by a change of government in Mauritius and reported quarrels over how much the U.K. should pay to lease the base.

The U.K. also paused to consult the U.S. after the change of government in Washington. President Donald Trump’s administration gave its approval.

The U.K.’s opposition Conservatives have criticized the deal, accusing the government of surrendering sovereignty over a British territory.

“We should not be paying to surrender British territory to Mauritius,” Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several cases related to the old deportation law are in courts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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