Arizona
Judge temporarily blocks U.S. efforts to remove some immigrant Guatemalan and Honduran children
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — An Arizona judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s effort to remove Guatemalan and Honduran children living in shelters or foster care after coming to the U.S. alone, according to a decision Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Marquez in Tucson extended a decision made over the Labor Day weekend.
Lawyers for the children said their clients have said they fear going home, and that the government is not following laws designed to protect migrant children.
A legal aid group filed a lawsuit in Arizona on behalf of 57 Guatemalan children and another 12 from Honduras between the ages 3 and 17.
Nearly all the children were in the custody of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Refugee Resettlement and living at shelters in the Phoenix and Tucson areas. Similar lawsuits filed in Illinois and Washington, D.C., seek to stop the government from removing the children.
The Arizona lawsuit demands that the government allow the children their right to present their cases to an immigration judge, to have access to legal counsel and to be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in their best interest.
The Trump administration has argued it is acting in the best interest of the children by trying to reunite them with their families at the behest of the Guatemalan government. After Guatemalan officials toured U.S. detention facilities, the government said that it was “very concerned” and that it would take children who wanted to return voluntarily.
Children began crossing the border alone in large numbers in 2014, peaking at 152,060 in the 2022 fiscal year. July’s arrest tally translates to an annual clip of 5,712 arrests, reflecting how illegal crossings have dropped to their lowest levels in six decades.
Guatemalans accounted for 32% of residents at government-run holding facilities last year, followed by Hondurans, Mexicans and Salvadorans. A 2008 law requires children to appear before an immigration judge with an opportunity to pursue asylum, unless they are from Canada and Mexico. The vast majority are released from shelters to parents, legal guardians or immediate family while their cases wind through court.
The Arizona lawsuit was amended to include 12 children from Honduras who have expressed to an Arizona legal aid group that they do not want to return to Honduras, as well as four additional children from Guatemala who have come into government custody in Arizona since the lawsuit was initially filed on Aug. 30.
Washington
Man who hurled sandwich at federal agent pleads not guilty to assault charge
WASHINGTON (AP) — A former Justice Department attorney accused of hurling a sandwich at a federal agent in the nation’s capital — a confrontation captured in a viral video — pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to a misdemeanor assault charge.
Prosecutors charged Sean Charles Dunn with a misdemeanor last week after a grand jury refused to indict him on a felony charge, a sign of a backlash against President Donald Trump’s law-enforcement surge in Washington.
A jury trial for Dunn is scheduled to start on Nov. 3. Dunn didn’t speak to reporters as he left the courtroom. His attorney, Sabrina Shroff, declined to comment on the case.
A bystander’s video captured Dunn throwing a “sub-style” sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent on the night of Aug. 10, a court filing said.
As the video spread on the internet, the White House touted Dunn’s arrest on social media. But the image of Dunn throwing a sandwich also has become a protest symbol.
Over 2,000 people have been arrested on surge-related charges since the operation started on Aug. 7. More than 50 of them, including Dunn, have been charged in the district court. Prosecutors already have asked the court to dismiss eight of those cases, including charges against two people who were accused of threatening to kill Trump.
It is extraordinarily rare for a federal grand jury to balk at returning an indictment, but it has happened at least eight times in six cases since Trump’s surge over a month ago.
Dunn, 37, of Washington, was an international affairs specialist in the Justice Department’s criminal division, but Attorney General Pam Bondi said he was fired after his arrest on a felony assault charge.
Around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10, Dunn approached a group of CBP agents, pointed a finger in an agent’s face and swore at him, calling him a “fascist,” a police affidavit says. An observer’s video captured Dunn throwing a sandwich at the agent’s chest, the affidavit says.
“Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police.
Dunn tried to run away but was apprehended, police said.
Dunn’s case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, whom Trump nominated during his first term in the White House.
Maine
Principals fight DOJ request for student names in transgender athlete case
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A Maine principals’ group is fighting a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice that seeks the names of all students playing interscholastic sports in the state as the DOJ attempts to ban transgender athletes from participating.
President Donald Trump’s administration sued Maine in April for not complying with an executive order barring transgender athletes from sports. The Justice Department followed up with a subpoena of the Maine Principals’ Association, a nonprofit that oversees school sports in Maine, seeking a host of information.
The full scope of the subpoena isn’t public because a judge sealed it. However, in a Sept. 4 legal filing, the principals’ association said the subpoena included “requests for the production of all athletic rosters for the state,” and would require providing “personally identifiable information of students, many of whom are unrelated to the underlying controversy.”
The principals’ association asked the judge to reject the subpoena, and that request is pending in federal court. James Belleau, an attorney for the association, said Thursday that the group is willing to provide documents in response to the subpoena, but not those that are overly broad or disclose personally identifiable information.
“The MPA will protect confidential student names and records and school personnel,” Belleau said.
DOJ officials did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Office of the Maine Attorney General also declined to comment on the case.
The federal government said in court papers this month that it believes its request for student information is “highly relevant” and “proportional to the needs of this important case concerning boys playing in sports designated for girls.”
The federal government’s filing stated that its requests include records for athletic competitions where students are competing in athletic events designated for the opposite sex. It also states that the request for athletic rosters is “necessary background evidence” for the case.
Maine and the federal government have sparred over the subject of transgender participation in sports since a February meeting at the White House that included a confrontation between the state’s Democratic Gov. Janet Mills and Trump. During the meeting of governors, Trump threatened to pull funding from Maine if the state did not comply with his order banning transgender athletes.
Mills told the president: “We’ll see you in court.” The U.S. Department of Education later said in March that an investigation concluded Maine violated the Title IX antidiscrimination law by allowing transgender girls to compete on girls’ sports teams and use girls’ facilities.
Maine officials said in April that the state still won’t comply with the ban, and the federal government referred its investigation to the Justice Department.
New Jersey
Appeals court upholds ban on carrying firearms in sensitive places
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a New Jersey law that barred carrying firearms in so-called sensitive places like schools and public gatherings.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 139-page opinion, recounted a longstanding history in the United States of prohibiting firearms in certain circumstances and reversed a lower court’s opinion that struck part of New Jersey’s law.
“As we look through our history, a pattern emerges: our Nation has permitted restriction of firearms in discrete locations set aside for particular civic functions and where the presence of firearms was historically regulated as jeopardizing the peace or posing a physical danger to others,” the panel of judges sitting in Philadelphia wrote.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, a Democrat, praised the opinion in a statement.
“This decisive victory allows us to continue our critical work protecting the millions of people who call New Jersey home,” he said.
Pete Patterson, an attorney for one of the two groups of the New Jersey residents and gun rights supporters who brought the case, said they were disappointed in court’s decision and were evaluating what to do next.
Patterson also said they were pleased to prevail in part. The judges let stand the lower court’s ruling that stopped an insurance mandate in the law.
A message seeking comment was also left with the other gun rights groups that brought the challenge to New Jersey’s law.
The ruling comes as other federal appeals courts around the country ruled similarly in other states, including, Hawaii, New York and Virginia.
The opinion is also the latest domino to fall since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling greatly expanding gun rights in the country, and leading New Jersey and other Democratic-leaning states to redraft their laws to align with the court’s opinion.
In 2022, Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy signed the measure into law, but it was challenged by individuals and 2nd Amendment rights groups.
In 2023, a federal judge struck down part of the law, specifically the prohibitions on carrying guns near public gatherings, zoos, bars and entertainment venues. That court also blocked part of the law that required people carrying guns to have $300,000 insurance policies against potential injury and death.
The appeals court reversed the lower court on the prohibitions in sensitive places — the ban on schools and universities was never halted. But it upheld the lower court’s finding on the insurance requirement, saying it “fell well short” of a regulatory tradition.
Judge temporarily blocks U.S. efforts to remove some immigrant Guatemalan and Honduran children
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — An Arizona judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s effort to remove Guatemalan and Honduran children living in shelters or foster care after coming to the U.S. alone, according to a decision Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Marquez in Tucson extended a decision made over the Labor Day weekend.
Lawyers for the children said their clients have said they fear going home, and that the government is not following laws designed to protect migrant children.
A legal aid group filed a lawsuit in Arizona on behalf of 57 Guatemalan children and another 12 from Honduras between the ages 3 and 17.
Nearly all the children were in the custody of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Refugee Resettlement and living at shelters in the Phoenix and Tucson areas. Similar lawsuits filed in Illinois and Washington, D.C., seek to stop the government from removing the children.
The Arizona lawsuit demands that the government allow the children their right to present their cases to an immigration judge, to have access to legal counsel and to be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in their best interest.
The Trump administration has argued it is acting in the best interest of the children by trying to reunite them with their families at the behest of the Guatemalan government. After Guatemalan officials toured U.S. detention facilities, the government said that it was “very concerned” and that it would take children who wanted to return voluntarily.
Children began crossing the border alone in large numbers in 2014, peaking at 152,060 in the 2022 fiscal year. July’s arrest tally translates to an annual clip of 5,712 arrests, reflecting how illegal crossings have dropped to their lowest levels in six decades.
Guatemalans accounted for 32% of residents at government-run holding facilities last year, followed by Hondurans, Mexicans and Salvadorans. A 2008 law requires children to appear before an immigration judge with an opportunity to pursue asylum, unless they are from Canada and Mexico. The vast majority are released from shelters to parents, legal guardians or immediate family while their cases wind through court.
The Arizona lawsuit was amended to include 12 children from Honduras who have expressed to an Arizona legal aid group that they do not want to return to Honduras, as well as four additional children from Guatemala who have come into government custody in Arizona since the lawsuit was initially filed on Aug. 30.
Washington
Man who hurled sandwich at federal agent pleads not guilty to assault charge
WASHINGTON (AP) — A former Justice Department attorney accused of hurling a sandwich at a federal agent in the nation’s capital — a confrontation captured in a viral video — pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to a misdemeanor assault charge.
Prosecutors charged Sean Charles Dunn with a misdemeanor last week after a grand jury refused to indict him on a felony charge, a sign of a backlash against President Donald Trump’s law-enforcement surge in Washington.
A jury trial for Dunn is scheduled to start on Nov. 3. Dunn didn’t speak to reporters as he left the courtroom. His attorney, Sabrina Shroff, declined to comment on the case.
A bystander’s video captured Dunn throwing a “sub-style” sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent on the night of Aug. 10, a court filing said.
As the video spread on the internet, the White House touted Dunn’s arrest on social media. But the image of Dunn throwing a sandwich also has become a protest symbol.
Over 2,000 people have been arrested on surge-related charges since the operation started on Aug. 7. More than 50 of them, including Dunn, have been charged in the district court. Prosecutors already have asked the court to dismiss eight of those cases, including charges against two people who were accused of threatening to kill Trump.
It is extraordinarily rare for a federal grand jury to balk at returning an indictment, but it has happened at least eight times in six cases since Trump’s surge over a month ago.
Dunn, 37, of Washington, was an international affairs specialist in the Justice Department’s criminal division, but Attorney General Pam Bondi said he was fired after his arrest on a felony assault charge.
Around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10, Dunn approached a group of CBP agents, pointed a finger in an agent’s face and swore at him, calling him a “fascist,” a police affidavit says. An observer’s video captured Dunn throwing a sandwich at the agent’s chest, the affidavit says.
“Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police.
Dunn tried to run away but was apprehended, police said.
Dunn’s case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, whom Trump nominated during his first term in the White House.
Maine
Principals fight DOJ request for student names in transgender athlete case
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A Maine principals’ group is fighting a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice that seeks the names of all students playing interscholastic sports in the state as the DOJ attempts to ban transgender athletes from participating.
President Donald Trump’s administration sued Maine in April for not complying with an executive order barring transgender athletes from sports. The Justice Department followed up with a subpoena of the Maine Principals’ Association, a nonprofit that oversees school sports in Maine, seeking a host of information.
The full scope of the subpoena isn’t public because a judge sealed it. However, in a Sept. 4 legal filing, the principals’ association said the subpoena included “requests for the production of all athletic rosters for the state,” and would require providing “personally identifiable information of students, many of whom are unrelated to the underlying controversy.”
The principals’ association asked the judge to reject the subpoena, and that request is pending in federal court. James Belleau, an attorney for the association, said Thursday that the group is willing to provide documents in response to the subpoena, but not those that are overly broad or disclose personally identifiable information.
“The MPA will protect confidential student names and records and school personnel,” Belleau said.
DOJ officials did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Office of the Maine Attorney General also declined to comment on the case.
The federal government said in court papers this month that it believes its request for student information is “highly relevant” and “proportional to the needs of this important case concerning boys playing in sports designated for girls.”
The federal government’s filing stated that its requests include records for athletic competitions where students are competing in athletic events designated for the opposite sex. It also states that the request for athletic rosters is “necessary background evidence” for the case.
Maine and the federal government have sparred over the subject of transgender participation in sports since a February meeting at the White House that included a confrontation between the state’s Democratic Gov. Janet Mills and Trump. During the meeting of governors, Trump threatened to pull funding from Maine if the state did not comply with his order banning transgender athletes.
Mills told the president: “We’ll see you in court.” The U.S. Department of Education later said in March that an investigation concluded Maine violated the Title IX antidiscrimination law by allowing transgender girls to compete on girls’ sports teams and use girls’ facilities.
Maine officials said in April that the state still won’t comply with the ban, and the federal government referred its investigation to the Justice Department.
New Jersey
Appeals court upholds ban on carrying firearms in sensitive places
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a New Jersey law that barred carrying firearms in so-called sensitive places like schools and public gatherings.
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 139-page opinion, recounted a longstanding history in the United States of prohibiting firearms in certain circumstances and reversed a lower court’s opinion that struck part of New Jersey’s law.
“As we look through our history, a pattern emerges: our Nation has permitted restriction of firearms in discrete locations set aside for particular civic functions and where the presence of firearms was historically regulated as jeopardizing the peace or posing a physical danger to others,” the panel of judges sitting in Philadelphia wrote.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, a Democrat, praised the opinion in a statement.
“This decisive victory allows us to continue our critical work protecting the millions of people who call New Jersey home,” he said.
Pete Patterson, an attorney for one of the two groups of the New Jersey residents and gun rights supporters who brought the case, said they were disappointed in court’s decision and were evaluating what to do next.
Patterson also said they were pleased to prevail in part. The judges let stand the lower court’s ruling that stopped an insurance mandate in the law.
A message seeking comment was also left with the other gun rights groups that brought the challenge to New Jersey’s law.
The ruling comes as other federal appeals courts around the country ruled similarly in other states, including, Hawaii, New York and Virginia.
The opinion is also the latest domino to fall since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling greatly expanding gun rights in the country, and leading New Jersey and other Democratic-leaning states to redraft their laws to align with the court’s opinion.
In 2022, Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy signed the measure into law, but it was challenged by individuals and 2nd Amendment rights groups.
In 2023, a federal judge struck down part of the law, specifically the prohibitions on carrying guns near public gatherings, zoos, bars and entertainment venues. That court also blocked part of the law that required people carrying guns to have $300,000 insurance policies against potential injury and death.
The appeals court reversed the lower court on the prohibitions in sensitive places — the ban on schools and universities was never halted. But it upheld the lower court’s finding on the insurance requirement, saying it “fell well short” of a regulatory tradition.
