Washington
DOJ activates untested court for ‘alien terrorist’ deportations
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has filed a first-ever petition to a secretive and dormant court created 30 years ago to consider government requests to deport so-called “alien terrorists” from the United States.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established in 1996 but had never received a petition until this past Wednesday, when the Justice Department filed an application seeking the removal of an individual whose name is withheld from the single-page document posted on the court’s website.
The chief judge of the five-member court, Joan Ericksen, said in a written response to the petition that a hearing was held on Thursday during which the court had “questions about the nexus that the government alleges between the actions of the respondent and the specific sections and subsections it invokes with respect to those actions.
“The answers persuaded the Court that the Government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration,” wrote Ericksen, a federal judge in Minnesota.
She directed the Justice Department to provide more information by Wednesday.
The court’s authorities emerged from the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which permits the attorney general to file under seal applications for the deportation of a suspected “alien terrorist.” If an application is granted, the court must hold a public hearing at which the government has the burden to prove that the individual satisfies that definition. Applications must be approved by the attorney general or deputy attorney general.
Federal law says that an individual could qualify as an “alien terrorist” by, among other factors, having “engaged in a terrorist activity,” endorsing or espousing terrorist activities and by belonging to a political or social group that encourages terrorist activity.
The court has been dormant since its creation, having received — until last week — no applications and conducting no hearings, according to a summary posted on the Federal Judicial Center website. It is comprised of five judges selected by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The Trump administration has moved aggressively over the last year to carry out deportations, including invoking a 1798 wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to remove Venezuelan migrants who officials accuse of being part of a terrorist gang. During a hearing in that case last year, the Washington judge presiding over it, James Boasberg, indicated that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court would be the natural forum to consider a request for deportation on national security grounds.
“In fact, Congress has an answer for us, doesn’t it? Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court,” he said. “So if there’s a national security concern with having these hearings...you can always go to the ATRC, which would be a first, but that’s what it’s there for, right?”
The petition was first reported by Court Watch, an independent news site.
Massachusetts
Judge bars Trump administration from using obscure clause to make funding cuts
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Friday ruled the Trump administration can’t use an obscure clause relating to agency priorities to make billions of dollars in funding cuts.
Twenty-three states had a filed a lawsuit last year accusing the administration of using the clause to make cuts to everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. They were concerned that it would be used to cancel current and future grants.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a summary judgment preventing the administration from relying on the clause to make cuts and denied a motion by the government to dismiss the case.
“Defendants’ interpretation of the Termination Clause is not clearly supported by the text of the provision, runs counter to the regulatory scheme, receives no support in the rulemaking history, and would violate the Spending Clause’s requirement that conditions be imposed unambiguously,” Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, wrote.
The lawsuit argued that the Office of Management and Budget promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify what it described as a “nationwide slash-and-burn campaign.”
The clause, which was first introduced in 2020 and revised in 2024, says federal agents can terminate a grant if the award “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.” The states argued that the language, put in place during the Biden administration, was for the first time being used to terminate grants.
“Instead of working with us to keep the public safe and lower costs for hardworking New Jerseyans, the Trump Administration has recklessly and illegally gutted federal funding for public safety, disaster preparedness, scientific research, clean water, and more,” New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said in a statement.
“Today’s decision is an important win for all New Jerseyans and confirms that the Trump Administration defied the law when it embarked on its campaign to gut critical federal funding to the states,” she continued. “The President and his allies cannot hold critical programs hostage to their personal whims and political ideologies, destabilizing the country by yanking essential federal funding that was already awarded to the states.”
Calling the case an “extraordinarily unusual lawsuit,” lawyers for federal government argued it should be dismissed because some of those grants have already been terminated and plaintiffs’ argument about the impact to future grants was far too speculative. They also accused the states of “raising blanket, undifferentiated objections” to the termination of thousands of grants without seeking relief that would “restore a single grant.”
“That mismatch between the allegedly unlawful agency ‘decision’ on one hand, and the amorphous relief requested in this suit, on the other, creates a set of jurisdiction and justiciability defects that doom this lawsuit at the threshold,” lawyers wrote in the motion to dismiss.
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a request for comment.
South Dakota
Judge blocks abortion advertising ban against nonprofit
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota cannot enforce its abortion advertising ban against a reproductive health nonprofit, a federal judge ruled Friday.
U.S. District Judge Camela C. Theeler issued a preliminary injunction blocking South Dakota from enforcing the recently adopted state law against New York-based Mayday Health and plaintiff Nancy Turbak Berry. The judge said the nonprofit was likely to win the case.
Signed in March, the law prohibits the distribution and advertisement for unlawful abortion services, like abortion pills, in South Dakota. Friday’s ruling does not strike down the law.
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in May against Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden and Attorney General Marty Jackley, arguing the abortion advertising ban violates freedom of speech. In the Friday ruling, the judge wrote that the state did not attempt to prove the law met strict scrutiny — that the law both served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored.
“Information should not be banned,” said Jim Leach, the attorney representing Mayday Health. “And the state wants to ban information about abortion. This ruling says the state cannot ban information about abortion, no matter what you think about abortion or anything else.”
Abortion has been illegal in South Dakota since the reversal of Roe v. Wade, except in cases where the life of the pregnant person is at risk. Administering, prescribing or procuring an abortion in the state is a felony offense.
Mayday Health, which was formed in 2022, advertises about the legality and availability of abortion pills, but it does not sell or distribute any medication. It advertised abortion pills in South Dakota in December 2025 through placards at gas stations that read, “Pregnant? Don’t want to be? Learn More at Mayday.Health.”
Jackley then filed a complaint against Mayday Health for the advertisements, and the two reached an agreement in March for the nonprofit to remove the placards.
Rhoden said in a statement Friday that he was disappointed with the ruling but noted that it is only a preliminary decision.
“I remain confident that our law is not only constitutional — it’s vitally important,” he said.
California
Paul Pelosi charged with hit-and-run over collision with parked car
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Paul Pelosi, husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was charged Friday with a misdemeanor hit-and-run over a collision with a parked car.
Pelosi, 86, was driving his brown convertible July 3 in Yountville, California, a town in the heart of wine country, when he struck a legally parked car on the side of the road, the Napa County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement at the time. He briefly stopped and then allegedly drove away. The parked car was unoccupied and no injuries were reported.
Pelosi did not have any alcohol in his system, according to the statement.
State law requires drivers involved in accidents resulting in property damage to stop and provide their vehicle and license information; Pelosi was charged with a misdemeanor violation of that law. In addition, Pelosi was charged with an infraction of making an unlawful turn, Napa County prosecutors said Friday.
No attorney for Paul Pelosi was listed in court records. Nancy Pelosi’s press office did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment.
Paul Pelosi’s court appearance is scheduled for Aug. 14.
Pelosi pleaded guilty in 2022 to misdemeanor charges of driving under the influence in Napa County and was sentenced to five days in jail and three years of probation. He served two days in jail and received good conduct credit for two other days, leaving just one day to serve in a work program at the courthouse.
As part of his probation, Pelosi was required to pay thousands in fines and victim restitution, attend a three-month drinking driver class and install an ignition interlock device, which forces drivers to provide a breath sample to prove sobriety before the engine will start.
That same year he was attacked and severely beaten with a hammer at the couple’s San Francisco home.
DOJ activates untested court for ‘alien terrorist’ deportations
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has filed a first-ever petition to a secretive and dormant court created 30 years ago to consider government requests to deport so-called “alien terrorists” from the United States.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established in 1996 but had never received a petition until this past Wednesday, when the Justice Department filed an application seeking the removal of an individual whose name is withheld from the single-page document posted on the court’s website.
The chief judge of the five-member court, Joan Ericksen, said in a written response to the petition that a hearing was held on Thursday during which the court had “questions about the nexus that the government alleges between the actions of the respondent and the specific sections and subsections it invokes with respect to those actions.
“The answers persuaded the Court that the Government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration,” wrote Ericksen, a federal judge in Minnesota.
She directed the Justice Department to provide more information by Wednesday.
The court’s authorities emerged from the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which permits the attorney general to file under seal applications for the deportation of a suspected “alien terrorist.” If an application is granted, the court must hold a public hearing at which the government has the burden to prove that the individual satisfies that definition. Applications must be approved by the attorney general or deputy attorney general.
Federal law says that an individual could qualify as an “alien terrorist” by, among other factors, having “engaged in a terrorist activity,” endorsing or espousing terrorist activities and by belonging to a political or social group that encourages terrorist activity.
The court has been dormant since its creation, having received — until last week — no applications and conducting no hearings, according to a summary posted on the Federal Judicial Center website. It is comprised of five judges selected by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The Trump administration has moved aggressively over the last year to carry out deportations, including invoking a 1798 wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to remove Venezuelan migrants who officials accuse of being part of a terrorist gang. During a hearing in that case last year, the Washington judge presiding over it, James Boasberg, indicated that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court would be the natural forum to consider a request for deportation on national security grounds.
“In fact, Congress has an answer for us, doesn’t it? Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court,” he said. “So if there’s a national security concern with having these hearings...you can always go to the ATRC, which would be a first, but that’s what it’s there for, right?”
The petition was first reported by Court Watch, an independent news site.
Massachusetts
Judge bars Trump administration from using obscure clause to make funding cuts
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Friday ruled the Trump administration can’t use an obscure clause relating to agency priorities to make billions of dollars in funding cuts.
Twenty-three states had a filed a lawsuit last year accusing the administration of using the clause to make cuts to everything from crime prevention to food security to scientific research. They were concerned that it would be used to cancel current and future grants.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a summary judgment preventing the administration from relying on the clause to make cuts and denied a motion by the government to dismiss the case.
“Defendants’ interpretation of the Termination Clause is not clearly supported by the text of the provision, runs counter to the regulatory scheme, receives no support in the rulemaking history, and would violate the Spending Clause’s requirement that conditions be imposed unambiguously,” Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, wrote.
The lawsuit argued that the Office of Management and Budget promulgated the use of the clause in question to justify what it described as a “nationwide slash-and-burn campaign.”
The clause, which was first introduced in 2020 and revised in 2024, says federal agents can terminate a grant if the award “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.” The states argued that the language, put in place during the Biden administration, was for the first time being used to terminate grants.
“Instead of working with us to keep the public safe and lower costs for hardworking New Jerseyans, the Trump Administration has recklessly and illegally gutted federal funding for public safety, disaster preparedness, scientific research, clean water, and more,” New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said in a statement.
“Today’s decision is an important win for all New Jerseyans and confirms that the Trump Administration defied the law when it embarked on its campaign to gut critical federal funding to the states,” she continued. “The President and his allies cannot hold critical programs hostage to their personal whims and political ideologies, destabilizing the country by yanking essential federal funding that was already awarded to the states.”
Calling the case an “extraordinarily unusual lawsuit,” lawyers for federal government argued it should be dismissed because some of those grants have already been terminated and plaintiffs’ argument about the impact to future grants was far too speculative. They also accused the states of “raising blanket, undifferentiated objections” to the termination of thousands of grants without seeking relief that would “restore a single grant.”
“That mismatch between the allegedly unlawful agency ‘decision’ on one hand, and the amorphous relief requested in this suit, on the other, creates a set of jurisdiction and justiciability defects that doom this lawsuit at the threshold,” lawyers wrote in the motion to dismiss.
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a request for comment.
South Dakota
Judge blocks abortion advertising ban against nonprofit
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota cannot enforce its abortion advertising ban against a reproductive health nonprofit, a federal judge ruled Friday.
U.S. District Judge Camela C. Theeler issued a preliminary injunction blocking South Dakota from enforcing the recently adopted state law against New York-based Mayday Health and plaintiff Nancy Turbak Berry. The judge said the nonprofit was likely to win the case.
Signed in March, the law prohibits the distribution and advertisement for unlawful abortion services, like abortion pills, in South Dakota. Friday’s ruling does not strike down the law.
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in May against Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden and Attorney General Marty Jackley, arguing the abortion advertising ban violates freedom of speech. In the Friday ruling, the judge wrote that the state did not attempt to prove the law met strict scrutiny — that the law both served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored.
“Information should not be banned,” said Jim Leach, the attorney representing Mayday Health. “And the state wants to ban information about abortion. This ruling says the state cannot ban information about abortion, no matter what you think about abortion or anything else.”
Abortion has been illegal in South Dakota since the reversal of Roe v. Wade, except in cases where the life of the pregnant person is at risk. Administering, prescribing or procuring an abortion in the state is a felony offense.
Mayday Health, which was formed in 2022, advertises about the legality and availability of abortion pills, but it does not sell or distribute any medication. It advertised abortion pills in South Dakota in December 2025 through placards at gas stations that read, “Pregnant? Don’t want to be? Learn More at Mayday.Health.”
Jackley then filed a complaint against Mayday Health for the advertisements, and the two reached an agreement in March for the nonprofit to remove the placards.
Rhoden said in a statement Friday that he was disappointed with the ruling but noted that it is only a preliminary decision.
“I remain confident that our law is not only constitutional — it’s vitally important,” he said.
California
Paul Pelosi charged with hit-and-run over collision with parked car
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Paul Pelosi, husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was charged Friday with a misdemeanor hit-and-run over a collision with a parked car.
Pelosi, 86, was driving his brown convertible July 3 in Yountville, California, a town in the heart of wine country, when he struck a legally parked car on the side of the road, the Napa County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement at the time. He briefly stopped and then allegedly drove away. The parked car was unoccupied and no injuries were reported.
Pelosi did not have any alcohol in his system, according to the statement.
State law requires drivers involved in accidents resulting in property damage to stop and provide their vehicle and license information; Pelosi was charged with a misdemeanor violation of that law. In addition, Pelosi was charged with an infraction of making an unlawful turn, Napa County prosecutors said Friday.
No attorney for Paul Pelosi was listed in court records. Nancy Pelosi’s press office did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment.
Paul Pelosi’s court appearance is scheduled for Aug. 14.
Pelosi pleaded guilty in 2022 to misdemeanor charges of driving under the influence in Napa County and was sentenced to five days in jail and three years of probation. He served two days in jail and received good conduct credit for two other days, leaving just one day to serve in a work program at the courthouse.
As part of his probation, Pelosi was required to pay thousands in fines and victim restitution, attend a three-month drinking driver class and install an ignition interlock device, which forces drivers to provide a breath sample to prove sobriety before the engine will start.
That same year he was attacked and severely beaten with a hammer at the couple’s San Francisco home.
