New York
Judge rules state can’t ban federal agents from wearing face coverings
NEW YORK (AP) — New York can’t ban federal agents from wearing face coverings or require that they wear visible identification, a federal judge ruled Monday.
The ruling comes after a federal judge earlier this year blocked a similar law in California that was enacted after the Trump administration aggressively worked to increase immigration arrests.
For the Northern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino wrote that while New York “appears to be well-intentioned in its pursuit of transparent policing,” that’s not what the court is deciding.
“The issue now before the Court is about constitutionality—not transparency or preferable policy decisions,” she wrote.
The federal government has shown a likelihood that the measures go against the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement, D’Agostino wrote.
The measures were included in a slate of law enforcement policies as part of the state budget bill that was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in May.
Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement following the judge’s decision that they “stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time.”
New York’s face coverings and identification measures took effect in June, according to the ruling.
California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings under a bill that was signed in September following a summer of high-profile raids by immigration officers in Los Angeles.
When the law was blocked, the decision was expected to have implications nationwide for other states that have pursued their own measures to place restrictions on immigration agents.
In May, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit against Connecticut over a new state law that prohibits federal agents from wearing masks.
Minnesota
Man who killed top lawmaker and her husband makes first state court appearance
The man serving two life terms plus 40 years after pleading guilty to federal charges related to killing a top Democratic lawmaker and her husband made his initial appearance Monday in state court where he faces similar charges.
The state case against Vance Boelter had been on hold pending resolution of the federal case.
Monday’s procedural state court hearing came less than two weeks after Boelter’s sentencing in federal court. He pleaded guilty to the federal charges related to the killing of former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, as well as critically wounding state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette.
Boelter, 59, agreed to plead guilty to the federal charges in June, almost a year after the Minneapolis-area attacks, so federal prosecutors would not seek the death penalty.
Boelter told the judge at Monday’s hearing that over a span of eight years he had met with Minnesota elected officials in Washington, D.C., including U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the Minnesota Star Tribune reported.
“We have found no record of my ever meeting or speaking with this murderer who will be spending the rest of his life in prison,” Klobuchar said in an emailed statement. “This is the second time he has falsely brought me into his tormented web and no one should be giving him more attention.”
“Does this court have the authority to bring her in to testify?” Boelter asked Hennepin County Judge Juan Hoyos. “Or is she above the law?”
Boelter also told the judge that his rights had been violated during the 14 months he has been in federal custody, the Star Tribune reported. The judge told Boelter that any arguments he wants to make about his case could be made at future hearings by his attorney.
If convicted of the state charges, Boelter could face mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole. Minnesota abolished capital punishment in 1911 and has never had a federal death penalty case.
In state court, Boelter faces two counts of murder for killing the Hortmans, four counts of attempted murder, impersonating a police officer and animal cruelty. The Hortman family’s golden retriever was gravely injured in the shootings and had to be euthanized.
Hoffman and his family also filed a personal injury lawsuit against Boelter in April.
Boelter’s next state court appearance is set for Sept. 2.
Washington
Supreme Court won’t halt $656M judgment against the PLO and Palestinian Authority
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor refused Monday to halt a $656 million judgment against Palestinian authorities in a long-running lawsuit filed by Americans killed or wounded in attacks in Israel.
The order signed by Sotomayor comes after the high court ruled last year in favor of the victims and their families.
The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority said in court documents that paying the hefty judgment now could destabilize government services in the West Bank. They asked the justices to pause payment as they appeal the reinstatement of the verdict.
The lawsuit was filed by victims of attacks in Jerusalem in the early 2000s that killed 33 people and wounded hundreds more. Families brought their lawsuit under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a law aimed at opening U.S. courts to victims of international terror attacks.
A federal court in New York tossed the original verdict on appeal and continued to rule in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority as Congress revised the law to allow suits to go forward. The Supreme Court revived two cases in 2025.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to reinstate the verdict in March. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said at the time that the families were pleased and relieved by the decision, saying it would allow “justice to be done” after a long legal process.
Maryland
Man charged with second-degree murder for man’s death in Baltimore harbor
BALTIMORE (AP) — A Maryland man was charged with second-degree murder after police say he fought with another man and then pushed him into Baltimore’s Inner Harbor.
James Fitzsimmons, 36, of Parkville, is accused of killing James Britt, 37, of Baltimore, on Sunday afternoon.
According to court documents, police have obtained surveillance video showing the men fighting in an alley before Britt retreated and crossed the street toward the water. Fitzsimmons then caught up to him and pushed him into the harbor, police said.
Fitzsimmons told investigators that Britt jumped in the water, and that when Britt’s girlfriend said he couldn’t swim, he replied, “Oh well,” and walked away.
Rescue divers responding to a reported drowning found Britt, who was declared dead at a hospital.
Fitzsimmons, who is also charged with manslaughter and assault, is due in court Aug. 27. No attorney is listed for him in court records, and no phone number for him could be found.
Washington
Divided appeals court says Trump administration was wrong to cut climate funds
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday said the Trump administration improperly terminated billions of dollars in funds to boost clean energy projects, handing a win to a coalition of nonprofits picked to run the Biden-era effort.
Climate United Fund and other nonprofits won’t have access to their funds immediately as the decision will be put on hold for several days giving the Environmental Protection Agency time to ask the Supreme Court to step in.
The closely divided ruling by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a loss for the Trump administration in one of its earliest efforts to dismantle President Joe Biden’s campaign to reduce climate-warming greenhouse gases. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, commonly referred to as a “green bank,” is a $20 billion congressionally authorized program that provided money to nonprofits that would then make loans and invest in small energy projects, energy-efficient buildings and transportation.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin accused Climate United Fund and other nonprofits picked to run the green bank of mismanagement and potential fraud. He froze billions that had been placed in a Citibank account for the program and then terminated their grants. The groups disputed any wrongdoing and sued, arguing the Trump administration broke the law and violated the Constitution by not spending money authorized by Congress.
“Despite efforts to harm the awardees with false allegations and misinformation, there remains no legal basis for terminating our grant award and clawing back funds that were already disbursed in our bank accounts,” Climate United Fund said in a statement.
In September, a divided three-judge panel of the same appeals court overturned a lower court and said the Trump administration had broad power to cancel grants without having to face charges of illegality in federal court. The full appeals court agreed to revisit that decision, a rare occurrence reserved for the most important cases.
The green bank was created by the Inflation Reduction Act. President Trump’s tax and spending bill last year, however, repealed part of the law that established the bank and rescinded money that hadn’t already been obligated to its recipients. That added a layer of complication.
Six of 10 judges agreed with a lower court judge that the EPA likely violated the law when it terminated the grants and tried to claw back funds based on a policy disagreement. This would likely contradict the law’s direction to spend money on the program, they said.
Zeldin early last year told Fox News that he suspected the green bank “was a clear-cut case of waste and abuse” that “in my opinion, is criminal.”
The EPA did not immediately provide comment.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan last year said that when the federal government was asked for evidence of fraud, the agency didn’t provide it and shifted its position to more general concerns about the level of EPA oversight over the program. Chutkan ruled the government can’t violate the law and terminate the contracts and that the groups should have access to some of their frozen money. That order was put on hold during appeal.
A lawyer for the nonprofits argued that the agency had already allocated the money by putting it in the Citibank account for the program’s use.
The agency argued the nonprofits are making constitutional and statutory arguments that don’t apply in a simple contract fight, and that the matter should be heard by a different court that can only award a lump sum — not force the government to keep the grants in place. Federal officials argue there is no law or provision in the Constitution that compels the EPA to make these grants to these groups.
Judge rules state can’t ban federal agents from wearing face coverings
NEW YORK (AP) — New York can’t ban federal agents from wearing face coverings or require that they wear visible identification, a federal judge ruled Monday.
The ruling comes after a federal judge earlier this year blocked a similar law in California that was enacted after the Trump administration aggressively worked to increase immigration arrests.
For the Northern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino wrote that while New York “appears to be well-intentioned in its pursuit of transparent policing,” that’s not what the court is deciding.
“The issue now before the Court is about constitutionality—not transparency or preferable policy decisions,” she wrote.
The federal government has shown a likelihood that the measures go against the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement, D’Agostino wrote.
The measures were included in a slate of law enforcement policies as part of the state budget bill that was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in May.
Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement following the judge’s decision that they “stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time.”
New York’s face coverings and identification measures took effect in June, according to the ruling.
California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings under a bill that was signed in September following a summer of high-profile raids by immigration officers in Los Angeles.
When the law was blocked, the decision was expected to have implications nationwide for other states that have pursued their own measures to place restrictions on immigration agents.
In May, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit against Connecticut over a new state law that prohibits federal agents from wearing masks.
Minnesota
Man who killed top lawmaker and her husband makes first state court appearance
The man serving two life terms plus 40 years after pleading guilty to federal charges related to killing a top Democratic lawmaker and her husband made his initial appearance Monday in state court where he faces similar charges.
The state case against Vance Boelter had been on hold pending resolution of the federal case.
Monday’s procedural state court hearing came less than two weeks after Boelter’s sentencing in federal court. He pleaded guilty to the federal charges related to the killing of former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, as well as critically wounding state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette.
Boelter, 59, agreed to plead guilty to the federal charges in June, almost a year after the Minneapolis-area attacks, so federal prosecutors would not seek the death penalty.
Boelter told the judge at Monday’s hearing that over a span of eight years he had met with Minnesota elected officials in Washington, D.C., including U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the Minnesota Star Tribune reported.
“We have found no record of my ever meeting or speaking with this murderer who will be spending the rest of his life in prison,” Klobuchar said in an emailed statement. “This is the second time he has falsely brought me into his tormented web and no one should be giving him more attention.”
“Does this court have the authority to bring her in to testify?” Boelter asked Hennepin County Judge Juan Hoyos. “Or is she above the law?”
Boelter also told the judge that his rights had been violated during the 14 months he has been in federal custody, the Star Tribune reported. The judge told Boelter that any arguments he wants to make about his case could be made at future hearings by his attorney.
If convicted of the state charges, Boelter could face mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole. Minnesota abolished capital punishment in 1911 and has never had a federal death penalty case.
In state court, Boelter faces two counts of murder for killing the Hortmans, four counts of attempted murder, impersonating a police officer and animal cruelty. The Hortman family’s golden retriever was gravely injured in the shootings and had to be euthanized.
Hoffman and his family also filed a personal injury lawsuit against Boelter in April.
Boelter’s next state court appearance is set for Sept. 2.
Washington
Supreme Court won’t halt $656M judgment against the PLO and Palestinian Authority
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor refused Monday to halt a $656 million judgment against Palestinian authorities in a long-running lawsuit filed by Americans killed or wounded in attacks in Israel.
The order signed by Sotomayor comes after the high court ruled last year in favor of the victims and their families.
The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority said in court documents that paying the hefty judgment now could destabilize government services in the West Bank. They asked the justices to pause payment as they appeal the reinstatement of the verdict.
The lawsuit was filed by victims of attacks in Jerusalem in the early 2000s that killed 33 people and wounded hundreds more. Families brought their lawsuit under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a law aimed at opening U.S. courts to victims of international terror attacks.
A federal court in New York tossed the original verdict on appeal and continued to rule in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority as Congress revised the law to allow suits to go forward. The Supreme Court revived two cases in 2025.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to reinstate the verdict in March. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said at the time that the families were pleased and relieved by the decision, saying it would allow “justice to be done” after a long legal process.
Maryland
Man charged with second-degree murder for man’s death in Baltimore harbor
BALTIMORE (AP) — A Maryland man was charged with second-degree murder after police say he fought with another man and then pushed him into Baltimore’s Inner Harbor.
James Fitzsimmons, 36, of Parkville, is accused of killing James Britt, 37, of Baltimore, on Sunday afternoon.
According to court documents, police have obtained surveillance video showing the men fighting in an alley before Britt retreated and crossed the street toward the water. Fitzsimmons then caught up to him and pushed him into the harbor, police said.
Fitzsimmons told investigators that Britt jumped in the water, and that when Britt’s girlfriend said he couldn’t swim, he replied, “Oh well,” and walked away.
Rescue divers responding to a reported drowning found Britt, who was declared dead at a hospital.
Fitzsimmons, who is also charged with manslaughter and assault, is due in court Aug. 27. No attorney is listed for him in court records, and no phone number for him could be found.
Washington
Divided appeals court says Trump administration was wrong to cut climate funds
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday said the Trump administration improperly terminated billions of dollars in funds to boost clean energy projects, handing a win to a coalition of nonprofits picked to run the Biden-era effort.
Climate United Fund and other nonprofits won’t have access to their funds immediately as the decision will be put on hold for several days giving the Environmental Protection Agency time to ask the Supreme Court to step in.
The closely divided ruling by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a loss for the Trump administration in one of its earliest efforts to dismantle President Joe Biden’s campaign to reduce climate-warming greenhouse gases. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, commonly referred to as a “green bank,” is a $20 billion congressionally authorized program that provided money to nonprofits that would then make loans and invest in small energy projects, energy-efficient buildings and transportation.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin accused Climate United Fund and other nonprofits picked to run the green bank of mismanagement and potential fraud. He froze billions that had been placed in a Citibank account for the program and then terminated their grants. The groups disputed any wrongdoing and sued, arguing the Trump administration broke the law and violated the Constitution by not spending money authorized by Congress.
“Despite efforts to harm the awardees with false allegations and misinformation, there remains no legal basis for terminating our grant award and clawing back funds that were already disbursed in our bank accounts,” Climate United Fund said in a statement.
In September, a divided three-judge panel of the same appeals court overturned a lower court and said the Trump administration had broad power to cancel grants without having to face charges of illegality in federal court. The full appeals court agreed to revisit that decision, a rare occurrence reserved for the most important cases.
The green bank was created by the Inflation Reduction Act. President Trump’s tax and spending bill last year, however, repealed part of the law that established the bank and rescinded money that hadn’t already been obligated to its recipients. That added a layer of complication.
Six of 10 judges agreed with a lower court judge that the EPA likely violated the law when it terminated the grants and tried to claw back funds based on a policy disagreement. This would likely contradict the law’s direction to spend money on the program, they said.
Zeldin early last year told Fox News that he suspected the green bank “was a clear-cut case of waste and abuse” that “in my opinion, is criminal.”
The EPA did not immediately provide comment.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan last year said that when the federal government was asked for evidence of fraud, the agency didn’t provide it and shifted its position to more general concerns about the level of EPA oversight over the program. Chutkan ruled the government can’t violate the law and terminate the contracts and that the groups should have access to some of their frozen money. That order was put on hold during appeal.
A lawyer for the nonprofits argued that the agency had already allocated the money by putting it in the Citibank account for the program’s use.
The agency argued the nonprofits are making constitutional and statutory arguments that don’t apply in a simple contract fight, and that the matter should be heard by a different court that can only award a lump sum — not force the government to keep the grants in place. Federal officials argue there is no law or provision in the Constitution that compels the EPA to make these grants to these groups.
