Sarah Simmons, a midwife and co-owner of Maple Street Birth Center in rural Okanogan County, Wash., holds a newborn. Freestanding birth centers can address maternal health inequities, but many are facing mounting financial and regulatory pressures. (Photo courtesy of Sarah Simmons)

Dr. Heather Skanes opened Alabama’s first freestanding birth center in 2022 in her hometown of Birmingham. Skanes, an OB-GYN, wanted to improve access to maternal health care in a state that’s long had one of the nation’s highest rates of maternal and infant mortality.

Those rates are especially high among Black women and infants. Skanes’ Oasis Family Birthing Center opened in a majority-Black neighborhood, offering midwifery services as well as medical care.

But about six months after the center’s first delivery — a girl who was Alabama’s first baby born in a freestanding birth center — the state health department ordered Skanes to shut it down. A department representative informed her that by holding deliveries at the birth center, she was operating an “unlicensed hospital,” she said.

Hospital labor and delivery units are shuttering across the nation — including more than two dozen in 2025 alone. Freestanding birth centers like Skanes’ could help fill the gaps, but they too are struggling to stay open.

They face some of the same financial pressures that bedevil hospitals’ labor and delivery units, including payments from insurers that don’t cover the full cost of providing maternity care.

Birth center owners also must contend with arcane state rules and antipathy from politically powerful hospitals that view them as competition, especially in rural areas with few births.

Nationwide, the number of freestanding birth centers doubled between 2012 and 2022, but more recently the pressures have taken a toll: About two dozen centers have closed since 2023, bringing the total number down to about 395, according to the most recent data from the American Association of Birth Centers.

In November, Pennsylvania Lifecycle Wellness and Birth Center announced it would shut down birth center services, citing pressure from regulatory challenges and sharp surges in malpractice premiums. It had served Philadelphia for 47 years. And New Mexico’s longest-operating freestanding birth center stopped delivering babies in December.

“When a new business opens, within the first three to five years you expect a certain number will close,” said Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers. “But we’ve had several long-standing birth centers close [in 2025] and that hits particularly hard.”

In California, which has some of the strictest birth center licensing rules in the country, concern over the closure of at least 19 birth centers between 2020 and 2024 prompted the state legislature to pass a law in October to streamline birth center licensure.

An appealing alternative

Freestanding birth centers are not attached to hospitals and aim to provide a more homelike, less traditional medical setting. They employ midwives and focus on low-risk pregnancies and births. Some also have an OB-GYN or family medicine doctor on staff, and they often have partnerships with nearby hospitals and doctors if more specialized care is required.

Some Black and Indigenous midwives and doulas say birth centers can be helpful alternatives to their community members, many of whom have had experiences in more medicalized settings that left them feeling marginalized, dismissed or unsafe.

Midwife Jamarah Amani, executive director of Southern Birth Justice Network, runs a mobile midwifery clinic serving majority-Black and Latino neighborhoods in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The nonprofit, which aims to make midwife and doula care more accessible, recently bought a building for a freestanding birth center it aims to open in 2027.

“[Midwifery] presents like a luxury concierge-type of service, and our goal is to really change that and to bring it back to the community in a very grassroots way,” Amani said. She added that expanding access to prenatal care could help address inequities in maternal health, as maternal death rates among Black women are three times higher than those among white women.

Freestanding birth centers also can be a solution for communities without a hospital nearby.

The closest hospital to the Colville Indian Reservation, located in northern Washington state, is half an hour away, said Faith Zacherle-Tonasket, founder of the nonprofit xa?xa? Indigenous Birth Justice.

So far, the group has trained nearly a dozen tribal doulas and midwives to serve the area. In the next few years, it plans to open a freestanding birth center. Zacherle-Tonasket said Indigenous-run birth centers are crucial alternatives for tribal women, who also have some of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation and often face prejudice in clinical settings.

“They don’t feel safe. So a lot of them just don’t get prenatal care,” said Zacherle-Tonasket. “Bringing traditional midwives that are from our own communities, that were born and raised in our communities, that know the families — we know that those babies will be birthed with love.”

Regulatory hurdles

When the Georgia legislature relaxed state health care regulations in 2024, it felt like a long-awaited win for Katie Chubb. A registered nurse and mother of three who’s worked in health and nonprofits, Chubb has spent years trying to open a birth center in Augusta.

The state denied her application to open the center in 2021. Georgia, like many states, requires health care providers to get state approval, called a certificate of need, before they can build a new facility or expand services. Rival providers, like other hospitals, can challenge an application, effectively vetoing their local competition.

That happened in Chubb’s case: Two local hospitals filed letters of opposition against her and refused to say they’d accept emergency transfers from her birth center, another requirement for opening.

Georgia currently has three freestanding birth centers, a fraction of the more than two dozen that operate in neighboring Florida.

“We’re seeing women giving birth in hospital hallways or at home unassisted, because there’s no in-between option like a birth center,” Chubb said. In October, Georgia lost another labor and delivery unit at a rural hospital two hours north of Augusta.

“Women are just left to figure things out.”

In Kentucky, the Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill in March that aimed to clear the way for freestanding birth centers by exempting them from the certificate of need process.

But Republican lawmakers attached a last-minute anti-abortion amendment to the bill, prompting Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear to veto it. The legislature eventually overrode his veto. Midwifery advocates hope the new law will help make it easier to open a birth center in the state.

Georgia legislators similarly revised Georgia’s certificate of need rules in 2024, exempting freestanding birth centers. Chubb, who championed the new law, hoped it would clear the path for herself and others.

But they hit another roadblock. The state still requires birth centers to secure a written agreement with a local hospital to accept transfers of clients in emergencies. Chubb and at least one other prospective birth center owner have been unable to get their local hospitals to sign such transfer agreements.

“We’re still fighting,” Chubb said. “Behind closed doors we’re still working very hard on getting legislation and regulations changed to make opening birth centers more equitable.”

Some hospitals view birth centers as a threat to the viability of their labor and delivery units, siphoning off patients and revenue from a service that’s already unprofitable for most hospitals.

Daniel Grigg, CEO of Wallowa Memorial Hospital, a 25-bed critical access hospital in northeast Oregon, said there aren’t enough births in the area for both hospitals and birth centers.

“When you’ve got a small-volume community like we have, every birth helps the providers keep their skills up and their competency,” he said. “When you’ve got a midwife taking, say, 10 patients out of that pool,” it can have an impact on physicians and hospitals.

Alabama lawsuit

After the Alabama Department of Public Health shut down Skanes’ birth center in 2023, she joined with two other women who had also been attempting to open birth centers in Alabama: Dr. Yashica Robinson, an OB-GYN in North Alabama, and Stephanie Mitchell, a licensed midwife in Alabama’s rural and economically disadvantaged Black Belt region. Together they sued the Alabama Department of Public Health over what they called a de facto ban on birth centers.

The state insisted its tighter regulations would ensure that birth center facilities are safe. The birth center owners said the state’s rules were overly burdensome and clinically unnecessary for the low-risk, nonsurgical births that are attended by midwives. And, they said, the rules prevented more families from accessing care where it’s desperately needed. The state has lost at least three hospital labor and delivery units since 2020.

“Entire swaths of the state are maternity care deserts without access to essential health care,” said Whitney White, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the birth center owners and their co-plaintiff, the Alabama affiliate of the American College of Nurse-Midwives.

“Hospital labor and delivery units are closing, and pregnant folks are reporting they’re really struggling to access the care they need, struggling to get appointments, struggling to find a provider,” White said.

Last May, an Alabama trial court permanently blocked the state from regulating freestanding birth centers as hospitals. Birth center staff are still overseen by state boards of midwifery and nursing.

All three Alabama centers are now open. But their licensed midwives are delivering babies under a cloud of uncertainty about the future.

The state appealed the ruling in November. The case is ongoing.

Struggles and solutions

Bauer, of the American Association of Birth Centers, said many centers face the same financial barriers. Uncomplicated births at freestanding birth centers cost less than they do at hospitals, but research has shown that insurers, including Medicaid, reimburse centers at lower rates. Some state Medicaid programs don’t cover some of the nonclinical services, such as lactation consultants and doulas, that birth centers may provide. And malpractice premiums are rising.

“We’re volunteering our time, essentially, to keep the birth center open as a service to the community,” said Sarah Simmons, co-owner of Maple Street Birth Center in rural Okanogan County, Washington. The center can’t afford to hire a front-desk staffer or another midwife, Simmons said. She added that on average, the center makes less than a third of what the local hospital makes for providing the same obstetric service.

But there may be solutions to some of these financial problems. For example, the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, a national health care policy center, has recommended that health insurance plans, both Medicaid and commercial, pay hospitals and birth centers monthly or quarterly “standby capacity payments” per woman of childbearing age covered by that health plan in the facility’s service area. It also recommends that plans pay a separate delivery fee for each birth.

In 2024, Democratic U.S. senators proposed a bill to allow for a similar payment model.

Standby payments could help freestanding birth centers, especially those that fill gaps in maternity care deserts — but not unless centers receive payments that are comparable to those that hospitals get, said Simmons, whose center serves four sparsely populated counties along with the Colville tribal communities.

“This would be most beneficial to freestanding birth centers if pay parity laws were enforced, so rural freestanding birth centers were paid the same rates for the same services as rural hospitals, ” she said.

State grants also can help, but birth centers say a one-time infusion won’t be enough. In 2024, Washington opened grant applications for distressed hospital labor and delivery units and freestanding birth centers.

Ashley Jones, of True North Birth Center and president of the Washington chapter of the American Association of Birth Centers, said the grant has helped keep their doors open.

Meanwhile, Chubb, the Georgia nurse, recently had to take another job to support her family while her birth center remains in legal limbo.

“I’m just waiting until the government figures out what they’re doing.”

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org. Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly speaks with reporters in the Mansfield Room of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Dec. 1, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department will attempt to downgrade Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s retirement rank and pay, seeking to punish him for making a video along with other Democrats in Congress, who told members of the military they didn’t need to follow illegal orders. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth originally threatened to recall Kelly from military retirement and court-martial him for his participation in the video, but announced Monday that the department would instead try to downgrade his rank of captain as well as his retirement pay. 

“Captain Kelly has been provided notice of the basis for this action and has thirty days to submit a response,” Hegseth wrote in a social media post. “The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty five days.”

Hegseth added that Kelly’s “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

Kelly wrote in a social media post that he planned to challenge Hegseth’s attempt to alter his retirement rank and pay, arguing it’s an attempt to punish him for challenging the Trump administration. 

“My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head– all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder,” Kelly wrote. “Generations of servicemembers have made these same patriotic sacrifices for this country, earning the respect, appreciation, and rank they deserve.”

Kelly added that Hegseth’s goal with the process is to “send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way. It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.”

Constitutional protection

Members of Congress are generally protected under the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that unless a lawmaker is involved in treason, felony and breach of the peace, they are “privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The Defense Department letter of censure to Kelly alleged that his participation in the video undermined the military chain of command, counseled disobedience, created confusion about duty, brought discredit upon the Armed Forces and included conduct unbecoming of an officer. 

Hegseth wrote in that letter that if Kelly continues “to engage in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, you may subject yourself to criminal prosecution or further administrative action.”

Allegations of misconduct

The Department of Defense posted in late November that officials were looking into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly for appearing in the video. 

It didn’t detail how Kelly might have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice but stated that “a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” 

Hegseth referred the issue to Navy Secretary John Phelan for any “review, consideration, and disposition” he deemed appropriate. Hegseth then asked for a briefing on the outcome of the review “by no later than December 10.”

Kelly said during a press conference in early December the military’s investigation and a separate one by the FBI were designed to intimidate the six lawmakers in the video from speaking out against Trump. 

The lawmakers in the video, who have backgrounds in the military or intelligence agencies, told members of those communities they “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

The other Democrats in the video — Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander — are not subject to the military justice system. 

Trump railed against the video a couple of days after it posted, saying the statements represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan leaves the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse on May 15, 2025. Judge Dugan appeared in federal court to answer charges that she helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, elude federal arrest while he was making an appearance in her courtroom on April 18. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan is resigning after she was convicted last month of a felony for helping a man avoid immigration enforcement agents in the county courthouse. 

Dugan submitted her letter of resignation to Gov. Tony Evers on Saturday, writing that serving as a judge has been “the honor of my life.” 

“Behind the bench, I have presided over thousands and thousands of cases — with a commitment to treat all persons with dignity and respect, to act justly, deliberatively, and consistently, and to maintain a courtroom with the decorum and safety the public deserves,” Dugan wrote.

Dugan was convicted last month of felony obstruction of justice following a four-day federal trial. The split jury also found she was not guilty of a related misdemeanor. 

The case against her stemmed from an incident at the courthouse April 18 in which she directed an immigrant appearing before her who was in the U.S. without legal authorization through a side door out of her courtroom while federal agents waited in the hallway outside to arrest him. Agents later apprehended the man outside the building. 

Since her April arrest, Dugan’s case has drawn national political attention as an illustration of the Trump administration’s efforts to increase immigration enforcement in ways that many critics say are heavy handed.  

Following the verdict, Wisconsin Republicans demanded that Dugan resign immediately, citing state law that forbids anyone who has been convicted of a felony from serving as a judge. She has been suspended from duty since her arrest. 

Dugan has not yet been sentenced and her legal team has signaled they’ll make a broad and lengthy appeal effort. But Dugan wrote in her letter that the people of Milwaukee County need a permanent judge on the bench. 

“I am the subject of unprecedented federal legal proceedings, which are far from concluded but which present immense and complex challenges that threaten the independence of our judiciary,” Dugan wrote. “I am pursuing this fight for myself and for our independent judiciary. However, the Wisconsin citizens that I cherish deserve to start the year with a judge on the bench in Milwaukee County Branch 31 rather than have the fate of that Court rest in a partisan fight in the state Legislature.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tim Walz speaks after the end of the special session in June Tuesday, June 10, 2025 at the Minnesota State Capitol. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Gov. Tim Walz ended his campaign for a historic third term on Monday amid mounting pressure from members of his own party and intense attacks from Republicans over widespread fraud in state-run social services programs.

Walz defended his record in a statement and said he was certain he could win a third term, but couldn’t give his entire attention to rooting out fraud while running a campaign.

“I’ve decided to step out of the race and let others worry about the election while I focus on the work,” Walz said in a statement.

Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor elected officials have quietly worried for months that Walz’s name at the top of the ticket would hand Republicans the governorship for the first time in 15 years and sink Democrats’ prospects down the ballot.

Walz met on Sunday with U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who expressed her interest in running for governor, The New York Times reported. Other possible Democratic candidates include Attorney General Keith Ellison and Secretary of State Steve Simon

A slew of Republicans have already entered the race including House Speaker Lisa Demuth, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and former congressional candidate Kendall Qualls.

Walz spent 12 years in Congress before winning the governor’s race in 2018. After the DFL won control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2022, Walz signed in the law the most significant progressive agenda in at least a generation, including free school meals for all students; paid family and medical leave; and the legalization of marijuana.

He burst onto the national political stage in 2024 after former President Joe Biden abandoned his campaign for re-election and then-Vice President Kamala Harris selected Walz as her running mate. Walz became a frequent target of President Donald Trump, whose attacks continued even after Trump won the presidential election.

Walz announced in September that he would run for an unprecedented third, four-year term, after deliberating for months. The assassination of Walz’s friend and close ally, House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman in June, forced Walz and his family to weigh the potential costs of another four years in office.

Trump’s attacks on Walz ratcheted up in recent months as national Republicans learned about the wide-scale fraud that has taken place in Minnesota’s social services programs during his tenure, including the highly-publicized Feeding Our Future scandal, in which fraudsters pocketed hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars intended to feed children during the pandemic.

In December, Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson announced new fraud charges in state-administered Medicaid programs, estimating that fraudsters have stolen as much as $9 billion in government funds. Walz disputed Thompson’s estimate, painting it as a political attack.

Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: info@minnesotareformer.com.

Wrongly convicted people in Wisconsin can wait months to have their cases reviewed and receive compensation that does not meet their needs, advocates say. A bipartisan bill in the state Legislature aims to address those problems. | Photo by Caspar Benson/Getty Images

On Dec. 3, a committee of Wisconsin lawmakers heard from Gabriel Lugo about his time in prison before his conviction was overturned. 

Lugo testified through a statement read by attorney Rex Anderegg in a hearing of the Assembly Committee on State Affairs. He said he experienced constant lockdowns that severely restricted his movement and some correctional officers treating him as less than human. 

Lugo, 36, was convicted of first-degree reckless homicide in 2009 and spent the majority of his incarceration in Waupun Correctional Institution, the state’s oldest prison, which has received scrutiny for prison deaths and living conditions. After Lugo’s conviction was overturned, he was released from jail in June 2023.

According to Christopher Lau of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, the project has helped exonerate more than 30 people. Clients leave prison with medical ailments and emotional trauma, without familial support, employment, savings, and often, with nowhere to call home, his testimony stated. Many struggle to re-enter society. 

Exonerees often have to wait months to get on the agenda for the claims board’s meetings, Lau stated. If they qualify, the law doesn’t provide enough to ensure stable housing, he said, “to say nothing of the costs of social services like counseling, vocational assistance and access to health insurance.” 

The Wisconsin Claims Board can award up to $25,000 in compensation, at a rate not greater than $5,000 per year for the imprisonment, and has also awarded attorney fees. It can recommend that the state Legislature issue additional compensation. 

In February 2016, the Assembly unanimously approved a bill that aimed to increase state support for wrongly convicted people, including enabling the claims board to issue higher payouts. It did not become law. 

AB 583, a bill currently in the Legislature, also aims to provide more aid more quickly to wrongly convicted people. Under the bill, a wrongly convicted person would receive compensation at a yearly rate of $50,000, prorated daily, for the imprisonment; the total would not exceed $1 million. The claims board would adjust the rate yearly to account for the cost of living, and it would be able to award compensation in an annuity payable over time. 

The bill addresses when people who received compensation for wrongful imprisonment in the past can petition for more under the new law, potentially allowing some to receive more compensation. 

The bill lays out when wrongly convicted people could have health care coverage under plans offered by the Group Insurance Board to state employees. 

Under the bill, if a person is released from imprisonment on the basis of a claim of innocence, they could petition for a court order directing the Department of Corrections to create a transition-to-release plan. They could also petition for a financial assistance award of up to 133% of the federal poverty level for up to 14 months, or while compensation proceedings are pending, whichever is shorter. 

State legislators who introduced the bill included Republican and Democratic lawmakers. Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, submitted testimony in support of the bill. 

The bill bars some people from filing a petition with the claims board for compensation for wrongful imprisonment, such as a person who is convicted of a violent crime after being released. 

Records-sealing language

Also under the bill, a person released from imprisonment on the basis of a claim of innocence could petition the court for the sealing of all records related to the case. For Lugo, it took about two years to get a response from job applications because his case was still visible online, his statement said. 

A similar provision in the bill that the Assembly passed in 2016 drew pushback from the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, which argued that it would “dramatically compromise the ability of media and the public to examine what went wrong in cases in which things are known to have gone terribly wrong.”

On Dec. 22, the Wisconsin Examiner reached out to the office of Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek), one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, about the provision and the council’s concern in 2016. 

“Thank you for bringing this information to our attention as we were not aware of this when we introduced the bill this session,” Rodriguez said in an emailed comment. “The organization has not reached out to us with any concerns at this time.”

Lawsuits

Wrongly convicted people may also attempt to obtain a monetary award through lawsuits. The bill addresses the possibility of a person receiving a settlement, judgement or award for damages in a federal or state action related to their wrongful imprisonment. 

Under one of these parts of the bill, if the person obtains a settlement before the claims board awards them compensation, the claims board would subtract the amount from the board’s compensation. 

Changing the process

Under current law, the claims board is responsible for finding whether the evidence of the person’s innocence is “clear and convincing.” 

The claims board members come from the Department of Justice, the Department of Administration, the Office of the Governor, the Wisconsin Senate and the Wisconsin Assembly. The Senate and Assembly members are Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Markesan).

Under the bill, when the claims board receives a petition for compensation for an innocent convict, it would be referred to the Division of Hearings and Appeals in the Department of Administration. The division would find whether the evidence is clear and convincing that the petitioner was innocent of the crime they were imprisoned for. 

If the evidence is clear and convincing for innocence, the division would transmit its findings to the claims board, which would decide what amount of compensation would be equitable. 

Individual bills

In a decision dated Jan. 30 of this year, the claims board awarded $25,000 to Gabriel Lugo, plus approximately $77,000 in attorney fees, and recommended that the Legislature award him an additional $750,000.

According to Rodriguez, the Legislature has only passed individual appropriation bills awarding additional compensation three times. 

Rodriguez’s testimony stated that it’s estimated that around 72 people have been exonerated in Wisconsin since 1990, and that seven received recommendations for compensation above the cap. She stated in a press release that “the Legislature should not have to play judge and jury again” when there is already a process at the claims board. 

“Without these reforms, exonerees would continue to need individual appropriation bills to receive an adequate amount of compensation,”  Rodriguez stated in a press release. “These bills have rarely been acted upon, and even more rarely are signed into law.”

The board has also recommended that the Legislature issue additional compensation for Robert and David Bintz, who were released from prison in the fall of last year.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Enrique Casiano addresses a rally at the Wisconsin State Capitol on Sept. 4, 2025, during a strike by UAW-represented employees against Mercyhealth East Clinic in Janesville. (Photo courtesy of Enrique Casiano)

Among the Democrats running for the chance to challenge the Republican incumbent in Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District are a nurse, a union leader, a working class activist and a Hispanic professional.

A fifth candidate, Enrique Casiano of Janesville, happens to check all four of those boxes. A 47-year-old registered nurse, Casiano said his decision to join the Democratic field of hopefuls for the 1st District seat arose during a four-month strike at the Mercyhealth East Clinic in Janesville, where he is a leader in United Auto Workers Local 95.

The walkout of UAW-represented nurses, physical therapists, medical assistants and maintenance employees at the clinic started July 2, centered on health care costs, wages and security for employees.

“When September came around we were still on strike,” Casiano recalled. “I was thinking to myself, What in the world is going on? Why would a company do this to their employees? Why would this even be allowed?”

He and fellow union members blamed federal labor laws. Casiano said they have “no teeth” and don’t hold employers accountable.

“That has to be changed at a national level,” Casiano said. “That’s what motivated me to get out there and run for Congress.”

The strike ended Nov. 3, when the clinic management and the union ratified a new contract. The agreement led to raises that were higher than nonunion employees received elsewhere in the Mercyhealth system, Casiano said, although still less than what the union had originally sought. Health care costs for employees will be “basically three times” what they were previously, he added.

“This was a big concession,” Casiano said. “Something I told the membership, this should be a wake-up call for everybody to vote for someone who’s going to do something about the health care crisis in our nation.”

Casiano argues that health care is a human right and government should do more to prevent health care costs from leaving people in debt or sending them into bankruptcy.

“If you have the money, you’ll get care,” he said. “If you don’t have the money, I’ve seen how many people end up being homeless or go into great debt because of their health.”

He supports Medicare for All, but also favors giving states greater freedom to regulate the health care systems. He opposes consolidation among health care groups and favors breaking up large hospital and health care systems, as well as keeping for-profit businesses, including private equity and venture capital firms, out of health care.

“The current system rewards profiting from people’s health care crisis,” Casiano said. “It is not a system of prevention and rewarding the best health care outcomes and practices.”

Casiano said that updating the 1930s-era National Labor Relations Act with laws that would strengthen the rights of workers to union representation is a top priority of his. If elected he would also seek to enact stronger federal laws against wage theft and against misclassifying workers as independent contractors with fewer protections. He said that he also wants “real tax relief to the working class” instead of the wealthy.

Casiano is one of five Democrats vying for the chance to challenge U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, the Republican incumbent in the 1st District now in his fourth term.

“I’m part of the working class. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a politician,” Casiano said — although he readily acknowledged that every other Democrat competing for the nomination could make the same claim.

“Pretty much everybody running this time around, we’re all just working class people who want to see a change in the 1st District,” he said.

The rest of the Democratic field includes ironworker Randy Bryce, emergency room nurse Mitchell Berman, Racine community activist Gage Stills and university administrator Miguel Aranda.

As he shapes his campaign, Casiano is leaning into his background as a health care professional, a union activist and also a member of the Hispanic community.

He said the Trump administration’s round-ups of immigrants — which has caught up U.S. citizens in addition to people without legal immigration status — has a personal dimension.

“It’s sad that I, when I go to Milwaukee, can be stopped [by police] just because of the way I look and the way I talk,” he said. “At the national level, we’re attacking specific [ethnic groups of] people, which we’ve never done before.”

The 1st Congressional District has been solidly Republican since the mid-1990s. Steil succeeded Paul Ryan in the office when Ryan stepped aside  in 2018 after a 20-year tenure. A corporate lawyer and former Ryan aide, Steil won with margins of 9 to 10 points in 2022 and 2024.

The Cook Political Report has rated the district as likely Republican in 2026, and gives the GOP a 2-point advantage based on past presidential elections.

Casiano contends political apathy accounts for Steil’s success. “In the last election, many of my coworkers, they just did not go out to vote,” he said. “It’s not winnable, somebody told me [because] it’s all about the money.”

He contends that 2026 can be different.

“What’s changed now is the Trump administration and how messed up everything is going,” Casiano said. “Only people that have blinders on will say everything is OK, because it’s not.”

Casiano said he knows he’s a long-shot candidate, but he believes Steil is vulnerable and that people can be motivated to vote if candidates reach out to them.

“I know he has let down a lot of his constituents,” Casiano said. “We know he’s not out there for the farmers, or some of the small businesses” in the district, he added. “That’s the big message we’ve got to bring forward.”

He believes enough people have stayed away from the polls in the past to make a difference in the outcome for 2026.

“We have to go and start talking to Black and brown people in our community and get them out to vote,” Casiano said. “This is what I’m going to be fighting for.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Neighbors confront Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Special Response Team officers following an immigration raid at the Italian restaurant Buono Forchetta in San Diego on May 30, 2025. (Photo courtesy of Pedro Rios)

This story was originally published by CalMatters. 

A series of immigration raids across California in 2025 had one thing in common: Most of the federal agents detaining people wore masks over their faces.

This month, the state of California and its largest county will ban law enforcement officers from covering their faces, with a few exceptions, putting local and state police at odds with masked immigration agents.

The state law gives law enforcement officers a choice: If they cover their faces, they lose the ability to assert “qualified immunity,” the doctrine that protects officers from individual liability for their actions. That means they can be sued for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest or malicious prosecution, and the law adds a clause that says the minimum penalty for committing those offenses while wearing a mask is $10,000.

Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, a Los Angeles Democrat who co-authored the law, said it was necessary to rein in anonymous federal agents.

“We initially were under the understanding that, oh, they’re only targeting folks who were not citizens,” Gonzalez said, “And then actually over time you learn they don’t give a [crap] who you are, they’re attacking you no matter what, with no due process.”

The Trump administration has sued to block the bill, and more than a century of federal court precedent is on its side. An 1890 Supreme Court case provides that a state cannot prosecute a federal law enforcement officer acting in the course of their duties.

The Trump administration said in its brief to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that forcing agents to reveal their identities would put the agents at risk.

During Immigration and Customs Enforcement “actions, individuals can be heard threatening to doxx and find out who officers and their family members are and where they live,” the administration’s lawyers said in the Nov. 17 brief. “There are even public websites that seek and publish personal information about ICE and other federal officers to harass and threaten them and their families.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, said the issue may not be as cut-and-dried as one or two Supreme Court cases. He pointed to a 2001 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed the case of a federal sniper who killed a woman during the 1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho, standoff to go to trial.

“It basically says that a federal officer can be criminally prosecuted for unreasonable actions,” Chemerinsky said. “Federal officers, by virtue of being federal officers, do not get immunity from all state civil and criminal laws.”

Brian Marvel, president of an organization that represents California police unions, said the law will make life harder for local cops and county sheriffs’ deputies. The organizations that represent police chiefs, sheriffs, agents in the attorney general’s office and California Highway Patrol officers opposed the law, too.

“I think that the state has put us in a tenuous position with this battle they’re having with the Trump administration,” said Marvel of the Peace Officers Research Association of California. “We don’t want to be in the middle of this fight. But unfortunately, [with] the desire for higher name recognition and elections in 2026, they decided to create things that are much more political and not geared toward legitimate public safety issues.”

Marvel said another drawback of the law is giving “a false sense of hope to the immigrant community in California” that the law will force federal agents to leave the state.

Los Angeles County supervisors have also approved a local mask ban on law enforcement for unincorporated areas of the county, a measure that will go into effect in mid-January, unless a court decision comes sooner.

Gonzalez noted that masks have played a significant role in recent California history. First, California temporarily made masks mandatory in public and at work during the pandemic. Then, a couple of years later, a rush of smash-and-grab robberies were harder to solve because the suspects all wore masks. Now, California finds itself in its third back-and-forth over face coverings.

The law provides exemptions for N-95 or medical-grade masks to prevent infection transmission, and permits undercover operatives to wear a mask.

“This is specifically aimed to federal agents because we gotta combat these kidnappings somehow,” Gonzalez said, “and this was our way in.”

A preschool teacher prepares lunch for students inside a day care center. (Photo by Billy Hustace/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — States must now provide “justification” that federal child care funds they receive are spent on “legitimate” providers in order to get those dollars, President Donald Trump’s administration announced. 

The Tuesday shift in policy came following allegations of fraud in Minnesota’s child care programs, which prompted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to freeze all child care payments to the state. 

HHS could not offer many specifics on how the review process will play out for other states, but clarified that the money in question is provided through the multibillion-dollar federal Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF. 

“States will be required to provide documentation, such as written justification, receipts, or photographic evidence, demonstrating that funds are supporting legitimate child care providers,” Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for HHS, said in a statement to States Newsroom on Wednesday. 

CCDF provides federal funding to states, territories and tribes to help low-income families obtain child care. 

The program, administered within the Office of Child Care under HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, combines funding from the Child Care and Development Block Grant, or CCDBG, and the Child Care Entitlement to States, or CCES. 

Funding for CCDF in fiscal year 2025 stood at roughly $12.3 billion — comprising $8.75 billion from CCDBG and $3.55 billion from CCES. 

Head Start — a separate program that provides early childhood education, nutritious meals, health screenings and other support services to low-income families — does not appear to be affected. 

In a Tuesday social media post announcing the move, Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said he had “activated our defend the spend system for all ACF payments” and “starting today, all ACF payments across America will require a justification and a receipt or photo evidence before we send money to a state.” 

He clarified in a separate post shortly after that “funds will be released only when states prove they are being spent legitimately.” 

Funds undergo ‘regular audits’

“Federal funding enables millions of parents in every state and Congressional district to access and afford quality child care,” Sarah Rittling, executive director of First Five Years Fund, a federal advocacy group, said in a Wednesday statement. 

Rittling added that “these funds are essential to the nation’s well-being, allowing parents to work while ensuring their children are cared for and safe.” 



She also described the reports of potential fraud as “deeply concerning” and pointed out that “state oversight through regular audits is required by law to ensure that every dollar intended to protect and support young children is used properly and effectively.” 

“At the same time, we must ensure that nothing takes away from making sure funds for child care continue to reach the children and families who depend on them,” she said. 

Smoke is seen over buildings after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard on Jan. 3, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela. According to some reports, explosions were heard in Caracas and other cities near airports and military bases around 2 a.m. (Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Saturday that the United States will “run the country” of Venezuela until “a proper transition can take place,” following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a strike against the South American nation, a stunning move conducted without congressional notice or approval.

Trump in a press conference from his Florida estate made it clear how much the secret military operation earlier Saturday related to securing oil, and he detailed how petroleum companies would finance the rebuilding of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. 

Trump as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio also signaled other countries, such as Cuba, could face the same interventionist fate as Venezuela. “If I lived in Havana and worked for the government I’d be concerned,” Rubio said, referring to the communist nation’s capital. 

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who was also captured, will be brought to New York to face a U.S. indictment on narco-terrorism and conspiracy charges originally levied in 2020. The Venezuelan’s reelection to the presidency in 2024 was determined by many countries, including the U.S., to be illegitimate, and he has been characterized by the administration as the leader of a drug cartel.

“This extremely successful operation should serve as (a) warning to anyone who would threaten American sovereignty or endanger American lives,” Trump said. “What happened to Maduro could happen to them.”

The military strike quickly drew strong rebukes from Democratic lawmakers, who said the action superseded Congress’ authority to declare war. It’s also caused deep concern among world leaders, some of whom pushed for an emergency United Nations meeting.

However, Republicans in Congress stood by the president’s decision, saying it was justified.

No timeline for US involvement

Trump did not give a timeline for how long the unusual U.S. intervention in Venezuela might go on, but said the next year would look different for the nation. 

“We are going to run the country until such time that we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said. He added that the U.S. would make Venezuela safe for “the great people of Venezuela, and that includes many from Venezuela that are now living in the United States and want to go back to their country.” 

Since taking office, the Trump administration has tried to end temporary and humanitarian legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants. Trump during the press conference repeated accusations that Maduro has sent Venezuelan immigrants with ties to the Tren de Aragua gang to the U.S.

Trump’s military action campaign, named “Absolute Resolve,” came after he waged a months-long pressure campaign to oust the authoritarian leader. Dozens of boat strikes have been carried out in the Caribbean that the president and members of his administration have justified, without showing evidence, by saying the boats were carrying drugs to the U.S.

“The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country,” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, early Saturday. “This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement.”

Before the Saturday press event at Mar-a-Lago started, the president posted a picture to social media of Maduro handcuffed, blindfolded and aboard the U.S.S. Iwo Jima Navy ship.

‘We’re not afraid of boots on the ground’

Trump at the press conference was joined by Rubio; Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth; Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine; CIA Director John Ratcliffe; and senior White House adviser Stephen Miller, who is a lead architect of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. 

Trump said that an “overwhelming American military power” was used to capture Maduro and his wife in the “dead of night” from “air, land and sea.”

He added that no U.S. military members were killed in the operation, but did not rule out a continued presence for American troops in Venezuelan territory. 

“We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” Trump said.

Trump said those officials standing behind him at his press conference, “for a period of time,” would “be running” Venezuela. 

The president offered few details on what that U.S. intervention would look like, but called it a “partnership.” It’s unclear if there are any American officials or troops stationed yet in or near Venezuela. 

Cuba

Trump also lodged a thinly veiled threat against the Cuban government.

“Cuba is not doing really well right now,” Trump said. “I think Cuba is going to be something we’ll end up talking about.”

He added that the U.S. also wants to help Cubans who have been “forced out of their country,” so they can return to the island nation. The Trump administration has also moved to end humanitarian protections for more than 110,000 Cubans. 

Rubio, whose parents were part of the first wave of Cuban exiles before the Fidel Castro regime took over the country, agreed, and criticized Cuba’s government as being run by “incompetent, senile men.”

It’s unclear how the next in line to the presidency for Venezuela, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, will fare. 

Trump said that Rubio had a conversation with Rodríguez, and said “she’s essentially willing to do what is necessary to make Venezuela great again.”

María Corina Machado, the leader of Venezuela’s opposition party, and recent Nobel Peace Prize winner for her work to advance democracy in her home country, called for national unity and said that “the hour for freedom has arrived.” 

“We have struggled for years, we have given it our all, and it has been worth it. What had to happen is happening,” she said in a statement.

Indictment in Southern District of New York

Maduro and his wife will face a trial in the U.S. They have been indicted in the Southern District of New York, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on social media. 

The DOJ also indicted their son, Nicolás Ernesto Maduro Guerra, along with several other Venezuelan politicians, and the alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua Venezuelan gang, Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores.

President Maduro is charged with “Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States,” Bondi said. 

In 2020, the first Trump administration lodged the same four counts of narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and conspiracy to possess machine guns. 

The new indictment includes Maduro’s wife, son and the alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua gang. 

Andy Kim: Officials ‘blatantly lied’ to Congress

The news drew ire from Congress, which has the authority to declare war. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said for weeks Trump officials briefed Congress that the boat strikes were not “about regime change.”

“I didn’t trust them then and we see now that they blatantly lied to Congress,” Kim wrote on social media. “Trump rejected our Constitutionally required approval process for armed conflict because the Administration knows the American people overwhelmingly reject risks pulling our nation into another war.”

However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said the capture of Maduro meant the Venezuelan president would be held accountable. 

“President Trump’s decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States,” Thune said.

He added that when senators return to Congress Monday, he looks forward to additional security briefings from Trump officials.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, made similar remarks and called the attack “justified.” He said he’s working with the Trump administration to schedule briefings with House lawmakers when they return to Washington.

The top Democrat on the House Rules Committee, Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, wrote on social media that without “authorization from Congress, and with the vast majority of Americans opposed to military action, Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela.” 

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who is also co-chair of the Congressional Venezuela Democracy Caucus, said in a statement that the “capture of the brutal, illegitimate ruler of Venezuela … is welcome news for my friends and neighbors who fled his violent, lawless, and disastrous rule.”

However, she called for the opportunity for Venezuelans to partake in democracy, such as being able to swear in the presidential candidate who won Venezuela’s election in the summer of 2024.

President-elect Edmundo Gonzalez was forced into exile and fled to Spain under asylum. Voter results showed that Gonzalez won by a large margin, but Venezuelan government officials, without providing proof, determined that Maduro won. 

Mike Lee speaks to Rubio

Utah’s GOP Sen. Mike Lee initially questioned “what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force.”

But Lee later changed course after speaking with Rubio.

“He informed me that Nicolás Maduro has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant,” Lee said of Rubio.

Rubio has long stated that Venezuela’s president is not legitimate, nor is his government. Rubio accused him of being the head of a drug cartel.  

“He is not the legitimate president of Venezuela,” Rubio said during Saturday’s press conference. “He is a fugitive of American justice.”

Rubio, who while in Congress was a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also defended a lack of notification to lawmakers.

“This is not the kind of mission you can do congressional notification,” Rubio said. 

For months, Democrats and a handful of Republican lawmakers have tried to curb the president’s strikes in the Caribbean, which have killed about 115, but Congress failed to pass several War Powers Resolutions.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a tool for Congress to check the power of the executive branch by limiting the president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.  

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who has pushed for the Senate to vote on the War Powers Resolution, said he will again advocate a vote to curb Trump’s military actions in Venezuela. 

Venezuelans in the US

As the U.S. conducts military land strikes on Venezuela, more than half a million Venezuelan immigrants are legally fighting the Trump administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status. 

TPS is granted when a nation’s home country is deemed too dangerous to return to, due to violence, such as war, or a major natural disaster.

More than 600,000 Venezuelans have TPS, which was initially granted in 2021, just one day before the first Trump administration finished its term. Temporary protections were granted to Venezuelans due to Maduro’s regime. 

Trump has also tried to apply the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to any Venezuelan national, aged 14 and older, who is a suspected gang member, for the purpose of removing them from the U.S. without due process. 

Trump and Maduro also clashed after several deportation planes carrying Venezuelan immigrants landed in El Salvador, where more than 200 men were detained at a brutal mega-prison known as CECOT.

Maduro called the move a “kidnapping,” and several months later the Venezuelans were returned to their home country in a prisoner exchange. 

World leaders call for UN to convene

It’s unclear what the consequences of the Trump administration’s move to capture a foreign leader will have on international relations, but many world leaders disavowed the attacks and called for an emergency United Nations General Assembly meeting. 

The U.N., which is five miles away from the New York court where Maduro will stand trial, did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo condemned the attacks and said they violated Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. 

“Based on its foreign policy principles and its pacifist vocation, Mexico makes an urgent call to respect international law, as well as the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, and to cease any act of aggression against the Venezuelan government and people,” she said in a statement.

Sheinbaum Pardo called on the United Nations to “act immediately to contribute to the de-escalation of tensions, facilitate dialogue and create conditions that allow a peaceful, sustainable solution in accordance with international law.”

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also criticized the attack in Caracas, Venezuela. 

“The justifications put forward for these actions have no factual basis. Ideological hostility has prevailed over pragmatic, businesslike approaches and over efforts to build relationships based on trust and predictability,” according to Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said on social media that the U.S. moves to capture Maduro and bomb Venezuela “cross an unacceptable line.”

“Attacking countries, in flagrant violation of international law, is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism,” he wrote. 

The prime minister of Spain, Pedro Sanchez, called for de-escalation and said that international law “and the principles of the United Nations Charter must be respected.”

California National Guard members stand guard at an entrance to the Wilshire Federal Building on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he will back off his plans to use National Guard troops in the Democratic-led cities of Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon. 

The move follows the Supreme Court’s decision last week that found Trump could not deploy guard members to Chicago, ruling that the president did not meet the requirements to send guard members to the Windy City for the purpose of assisting with federal immigration enforcement.

Several federal judges have either blocked the deployments or found them unlawful. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally prevents the military from participating in civilian law enforcement.

“We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again – Only a question of time!” Trump wrote on his social media site, TruthSocial.

The president first deployed National Guard troops earlier this summer to Los Angeles, following massive protests against immigration raids. 

He has continued to send service members to cities with Democratic leaders, a decision that has tested the legal bounds of presidential authority on military law all the way up to the Supreme Court.

An appeals court in early December ruled that the Trump administration must remove troops from Los Angeles, which upheld a lower court ruling that found it illegal to keep an extended military presence long after protests quelled. 

In November, a federal judge permanently blocked the Trump administration from deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon.

The judge, Karin Immergut, found the move to use service members for the purpose of protecting a federal immigration facility exceeded presidential authority. Trump nominated Immergut in his first term.

Guard members are still deployed in the District of Columbia; Memphis, Tennessee; and New Orleans, Louisiana.

A homeless teen, holding a sign “Only 19, alone on the street,” asks for help in Manhattan in New York City. A report from the Covenant House and researchers at the University of California, Berkeley finds that schools and agencies could do more to intervene when youth struggle at home. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Twenty-year-old Mikayla Foreman knows her experience is meaningful. Dealing with homelessness since 18 and currently living in a shelter, Foreman has managed to continue her academic journey, studying for exams this month in hopes of attaining a nursing degree.

But Foreman believes there were intervention points that could’ve prevented her from experiencing homelessness in the first place.

“If someone in school had understood what I was going through, things could’ve been very different,” she said in an interview with Stateline.

As more cities impose bans, fines or jail time for adults living on the streets, young people who have been homeless say they face unique problems that could have been addressed earlier. Through more than 400 interviews and survey responses, young people across the country recently told researchers how earlier guidance and intervention might have made a difference for them. The research suggests the country is missing its biggest opportunity to prevent youth homelessness — by intervening well before a young person reaches a shelter and years before they are chronically homeless.

The report, from Covenant House and the University of California, Berkeley, finds that the pathways into youth homelessness are different from those of adults experiencing temporary or chronic homelessness. A young person coming out to their family, or becoming pregnant, or experiencing untreated trauma can create conflicts that push them into homelessness. A lot of that doesn’t show up in current data.

The survey responses offer the nation’s schools and social services agencies the chance to get ahead of youth homelessness, researchers say, not only by intervening earlier, but also by pinpointing and responding to the diversity of needs among teenagers and young adults who might be close to losing their housing.

Advocates say there are multiple intervention points — in school, in child welfare organizations and inside family dynamics — where the worst outcomes can be avoided. States such as California, Florida, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington have explored some of those intervention points in policies that range from guaranteed income pilot programs to youth-specific rental assistance and campus housing protections.

Hawaii has made its youth drop-in and crisis-diversion program permanent, and Oregon and Washington have expanded rental assistance and education-centered supports for vulnerable youth. Florida now requires colleges to prioritize housing for homeless and foster students.

“With young people, we have opportunities to intervene much further upstream — in schools, in families, in child welfare — before anyone has to spend a single night on the streets. That’s simply not the case with older adults,” said David Howard, former senior vice president for Covenant House and a co-author of the new research, in an interview with Stateline.

“Even at 18, 20 or 24 [years old], young people are still developing,” Howard said. “Their vulnerabilities look very different from middle-aged adults, and the support systems they need are different too.”

One of the key points of intervention for potentially homeless youth is school. Public schools across the country have increasingly reported more homeless students since the COVID-19 pandemic.

And homelessness has many various regional factors outside of individual circumstances, such as climate-driven homelessness. More than 5,100 students in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina became homeless as a result of hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024.

“Homelessness is multifaceted and lots of us slip through the cracks because the system isn’t designed for our reality,” said Foreman, a former Covenant House resident who helped conduct the new research.

Foreman’s insights and lived experience were included in the study, which showed that youth homelessness rarely begins with an eviction or job loss — frequent causes of homelessness among adults.

The top three reasons that young people experience homelessness for the first time, according to respondents, were being kicked out of their family homes, running away, and leaving an unsafe living situation such as one affected by domestic violence. Other instigators included being unable to afford housing, aging out of foster care, being kicked out of or running away from foster care, and moving away from gang violence.

However, respondents also had suggestions for ways government, schools and the community could help or prevent youth homelessness. They suggested youth-specific housing options, identifying and helping at-risk youth in health care settings, providing direct cash assistance and offering conflict resolution support within families.

Among the most common suggestions was to offer services that create long-lasting connections for young people.

“Strong relationships with non-parental adults, including mentors, teachers, service providers, and elders, were identified as especially important when family connections were strained or absent,” the report said.

The surveys and interviews also demonstrated that young people want mental health care tailored to their personal experience, said Benjamin Parry, a lead researcher on the report, speaking during a September webinar hosted by Point Source Youth, a nonprofit that works to end youth homelessness.

The research breaks out responses from a few specific groups — Indigenous, Latino, immigrant, LGBTQ+ people of color and pregnant or parenting youth — to understand their distinct needs, said Parry, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Public Health. “There’s so much nuance and specificity within these different groups.”

Indigenous youth, for example, often are dealing with the effects of intergenerational trauma and alcoholism that have been projected onto them, Parry said. Those young people have far different needs than pregnant or parenting youth, he noted.

“They are like, ‘I don’t know where my next paycheck’s going to come from, I don’t know how to put food in my baby’s stomach, I don’t have a support network or someone to go to for this advice,’” he said. “That specificity is exactly why we need to understand this better and do better to tailor our approaches and responses.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

President Donald Trump holds up the "One, Big Beautiful Bill" Act that he signed into law on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Brandon - Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — This year produced a seemingly endless array of history-making events and nearly constant change to immigration policy, tariffs, the Education Department and federal health care programs.

President Donald Trump came back into office emboldened by a decisive 2024 election victory and empowered by Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. The unified GOP government enacted a major tax cuts and domestic spending law in July, but hit a roadblock in late September when the federal government shut down for a record-breaking six weeks.

Here’s a look back at some of the biggest news stories from Washington, D.C.

January 

The U.S. House began the year reelecting Louisiana Republican Mike Johnson as speaker and pushing through a series of GOP-favored bills focused on immigration and transgender student athletes. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., officially took over the role from Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., pledging to protect the legislative filibuster, the 60-vote procedural hurdle that requires at least some bipartisanship for major legislation to advance. Meanwhile, several committees began the confirmation process for Trump’s nominees.

Just days ahead of his second inauguration, a judge sentenced Trump in the New York hush money case for paying off an adult film star in the leadup to the 2016 election. 

Trump, who moved his inauguration indoors amid arctic weather, marked the first day of his second term by signing a series of executive orders addressing immigration and birthright citizenship, as well as climate change and LGBTQ rights. He also pardoned 1,500 people who were convicted of various crimes related to the Jan. 6. 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

Just before the end of the month, Trump signed the first bill approved by the Republican-controlled Congress, the Laken Riley Act. And he announced plans to implement tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, the start of one of his signature economic policies. 

February

Lawsuits against Trump’s actions began piling up within weeks as Democratic attorneys general, immigrant rights organizations and civil liberties groups accused the administration of overstepping its authority. 

Trump and other administration officials sought to reduce the size and scope of the federal government by firing thousands of probationary workers and called on the heads of all federal agencies to submit reorganization plans by mid-March. He also fired 20 immigration judges.

Republicans in Congress started working through the several complicated steps of the budget reconciliation process that would eventually lead to the “big, beautiful bill.” 

March

Trump’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education began advancing shortly after the Senate voted to confirm Linda McMahon as secretary. In one of her first acts leading the department, she wrote in a memo its “final mission” would be to “to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children.”

Trump signed an executive order later in the month directing McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the Education Department, though much of that authority rests with Congress. 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts issued a rare public statement defending the judicial branch against criticism from Trump. 

The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee asked the Defense Department inspector general to look into the use of the Signal messaging app by high-ranking officials to discuss an imminent bombing in Yemen. A journalist at The Atlantic was inadvertently added to the chat and later published a series of articles about the experience. 

April

The Trump administration admitted in court filings that officials mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia of Maryland to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador. 

The Supreme Court became more involved in the national debate about Trump’s policies toward immigrants, first ruling that the administration didn’t need to bring Abrego Garcia back before reversing course and ruling officials must “facilitate” his return to the United States. 

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, sitting alongside Trump in the Oval Office, later said he wouldn’t send Abrego Garcia back.

Separately, Trump’s tariff policies were the focus of a Senate hearing. Republicans in Congress settled on an outline for their “big, beautiful bill” and later began advancing different parts of that package out of House committees. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would refocus autism research funding on environmental factors. And Trump signed a series of executive orders addressing education policy. 

May

The Supreme Court ruled that a ban on transgender people serving in the military could remain in place while the case continued at a lower level, that the Trump administration violated due process rights when it tried to deport some Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, that the administration could end temporary protected status for 350,000 Venezuelans, and that the Trump administration could proceed with deportations for 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who had been granted temporary protected status. 

Republicans in the House voted to approve a 1,116-page package that combined 11 bills into what would eventually become the “big, beautiful bill,” sending the measure to the Senate. 

Former President Joe Biden was diagnosed with “a more aggressive form” of prostate cancer.

June

Trump doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum, from 25% to 50%, saying during a trip to a U.S. Steel plant in Pennsylvania that he would increase them even further if he thought it would be necessary to “secure the steel industry in the United States.” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported later in the month that his tariff policies would reduce the country’s deficit but likely slow the economy. 

Immigration continued to be a central part of the news cycle with Abrego Garcia returning to the U.S., California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla being forcibly removed and handcuffed while attempting to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question during a press conference in Los Angeles and the Supreme Court weighing in on lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions. 

Trump said the U.S. military had bombed “three key nuclear facilities” in Iran before calling for peace.   

July

The Senate approved the final, much reworked version of the “big, beautiful bill,” sending it back to the House, which voted along party lines to clear the sweeping tax and health care package for Trump, who signed it on the Fourth of July. 

The legislation included several policy goals for the GOP, including on Medicaid, immigration and deportations and a national private school voucher program. The Congressional Budget Office expects the law will increase the federal deficit by $3.394 trillion during the next decade and lead 10 million people to lose access to health insurance.

The Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration could continue with its plans for mass layoffs and downsizing at the Education Department.

Trump was diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a “benign and common” condition for people over the age of 70, according to U.S. Navy Capt. Sean Barbabella, the president’s physician.

Senators from both parties expressed frustration that Department of Agriculture officials didn’t consult with Congress before proposing to move thousands of jobs out of the Washington, D.C., area. 

Trump announced a deal with European Union leaders that would result in a 15% tariff on most goods coming into the U.S. from those 27 countries.

August

Trump started off the month instituting a 15% tariff on goods brought into the U.S. from about three dozen countries, though he raised that amount for several nations, including 18% on products from Nicaragua, 30% on imports from South Africa and 50% on goods from Brazil.

A New York State appeals court ruled the $465 million civil penalty against Trump in the case where he was found liable for financial fraud for inflating the worth of some of his real estate holdings was excessive.

Republican and Democratic state legislatures, urged on by the president and members of Congress, sought to begin the November 2026 midterm elections early by redrawing maps for U.S. House seats to give their party a baked-in advantage. 

Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook sued Trump after he attempted to fire her, arguing in court documents his actions were an “unprecedented and illegal attempt” that would erode the board’s independence. 

September

A federal appeals court ruled that Trump did need to pay an $83 million penalty for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll. 

The Supreme Court ruled that federal immigration agents could racially profile Latinos in Southern California as a lawsuit over the issue continued through the federal courts. 

Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez testified before a Senate committee that she was fired from that role after less than a month because she refused to pre-approve vaccine recommendations. 

Trump and several other high-ranking Republicans spoke at the memorial service for conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated during an event at Utah Valley University. 

Kirk’s death was one of several instances of political violence this year that also included the killing of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, the arson at the official home of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the shooting at the CDC’s headquarters in Atlanta.

A group of U.S. investors reached an agreement to take over TikTok, the immensely popular social media app, avoiding the need for it to go offline in the United States. 

October

Congress failed to approve the dozen full-year government funding bills before the start of the new fiscal year, leaving an opening for a government shutdown. Democrats tried to bring attention to health care costs and other issues throughout the weeks-long debacle. 

The funding stalemate impacted nearly every corner of the federal government, including pay for federal employees like air traffic controllers, food aid for lower-income families, Head Start and public lands.  

The No Kings day protests highlighted some Americans’ discontent with Trump and Republican policies a little more than a year before the 2026 midterm elections will measure that frustration at the ballot box. 

Trump demolished the East Wing of the White House to make way for construction of a ballroom that will be nearly double the size of the 55,000-square-foot residence and workplace. 

November 

The shutdown stalemate ended after Senate Majority Leader Thune promised Democrats a vote on a health care bill of their choosing before the end of the year. 

The funding bill approved by Congress and signed by Trump included three full-year funding bills but a stopgap for the rest of government, setting up the possibility of a partial government shutdown beginning in February if lawmakers don’t broker a deal before then. 

The final days of the shutdown included a tug-of-war between the judicial branch and the Trump administration over whether they needed to pay full benefits for the 42 million people enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case that will determine whether Trump overstepped when he instituted tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. 

Separately, the justices allowed the Trump administration to continue issuing male or female passports based on a person’s assigned sex at birth. 

Congress approved a bill forcing the Trump administration to release the Epstein files. 

A gunman opened fired on two National Guard members from West Virginia who were just blocks from the White House. U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died the next day as a result of her injuries. 

December 

The man charged with shooting the two National Guard members pleaded not guilty during an arraignment hearing and was denied bond in the case, which was later moved to federal court as prosecutors contemplated whether to seek the death penalty.  

The Trump administration moved to limit legal immigration and pressed for mass deportations, raising concerns about the shooter, an Afghan national who worked alongside allied troops and was granted asylum in the United States.

Separately, the FBI charged a 30-year-old Virginia man with placing pipe bombs outside the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee offices ahead of the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

A federal judge ordered immigration officials to release Abrego Garcia.

The House and Senate were unable to come up with a bipartisan agreement to avoid a spike in health insurance premiums for the 22 million Americans enrolled in the Affordable Care Act marketplace who have benefited from an enhanced tax credit created during the coronavirus pandemic to make coverage less expensive. But a discharge petition in the House will force a floor vote early in the new year to extend the subsidies for three more years. 

The Department of Justice released tens of thousands of documents linked to the investigation into deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein before announcing officials had received a million more pages that will be published in the coming weeks. 

Kilmar Abrego Garcia stands outside U.S. District Court in Greenbelt with his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, left, and Lydia Walther-Rodriguez with CASA, after a federal judge ruled earlier this month he was allowed to remain free. (File photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

A federal judge in Tennessee is ordering federal prosecutors to turn over some documents to lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia as they try to show his indictment on human smuggling charges was the product of vindictive prosecution.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s nine-page ruling — issued under seal Dec. 3, but unsealed at noon Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville — said a “subset” of more than 3,000 government documents he reviewed appear to undercut the government’s defense against vindictive prosecution.

“Specifically, the government’s documents may contradict its prior representations that the decision to prosecute was made locally and that there were no outside influences,” Crenshaw wrote.

The order is a partial victory for Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran native who lives in Maryland, where he was stopped by immigration agents in March and deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. His removal came without due process and despite an earlier court order that prohibited  immigration officials from deporting Abrego Garcia to his home country, for fear of violence.

A series of court battles ended with the U.S. Supreme Court in April ordering Abrego Garcia be returned to the United States. He was finally brought back to the U.S. in June, where he faced new charges of human smuggling, stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee where he was let go without a citation.

Abrego Garcia argues that the smuggling charge was concocted years after the fact to punish him for embarrassing the administration in court, and should be thrown out.

The charges of “conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain” are tied to a 2022 traffic stop in Putnam County, Tennessee, where he was pulled over for speeding. There were nine passengers in the back of his car.

Abrego Garcia was not arrested. No ticket was issued.

But three years later, as he was winning his case to be returned to the U.S., federal prosecutors were revisiting that traffic stop. A Homeland Security agent told a federal judge earlier this year that he was told on April 28 of this year to investigate the traffic stop.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charges, that his attorneys have claimed were filed as retaliation against their client. They claim senior officials in the Justice Department pushed for the indictment, citing television interviews where Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the investigation began after “a judge in Maryland … questioned” the government and accused it of “doing something wrong,” according to Crenshaw’s order.

The government denies involvement by higher-ups, saying the decision to prosecute Abrego Garcia was made solely by Robert McGuire, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Crenshaw’s order includes a timeline of events. In it are several communications between McGuire and D.C.-based U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh that began on April 27, one day before a federal agent was assigned to investigate the 2022 traffic stop.

In an April 30 exchange, Singh writes that Abrego’s case is “a top priority.” McGuire writes “we want the high command looped in.”

In a May 15 email, McGuire writes about the pending indictment.

“Ultimately, I would hope to have ODAG [Office of the Deputy Attorney General] eyes on it as we move towards a decision about whether this matter is going to ultimately be charged,” he wrote, according to Crenshaw’s order.

McGuire adds: “While ultimately, the office’s decision to charge will land on me. I think it makes sense to get the benefit of all of your brains and talent in this process and as we consider this case. I have not received specific direction from ODAG other than I have heard anecdotally that the DAG and PDAG would like Garcia charged sooner rather than later.”

Singh is updated about the indictment over the next week, according to Crenshaw’s timeline.

“These documents show that McGuire did not act alone and to the extent McGuire had input on the decision to prosecute, he shared it with Singh and others,” Crenshaw wrote.

Abrego’s attorneys successfully made a case before Crenshaw that prosecutors had acted vindictively. They sought the release of documents through discovery. Federal prosecutors balked and withheld those documents, citing privilege.

Crenshaw, in his now-unsealed order, said allowing the privilege assertion to trump due process protections would undermine rulings by other federal courts.

“The Court recognizes the government’s assertion of privileges, but Abrego’s due process right to a non-vindictive prosecution outweighs the blanket evidentiary privileges asserted by the government,” Crenshaw wrote. “If the work product, attorney-client, and deliberative process privileges asserted by the government precluded all discovery in the context of a vindictiveness motion, defendants would never be able to answer the question ‘what motivated the government’s prosecution?'”

Democratic and Republican candidates for governor appeared for a joint forum in early November. Shown are, from left, Matt Smith of WISN-12, Francesca Hong, Sara Rodriguez, Kelda Roys, David Crowley and Missy Hughes, all Democrats, and Josh Schoemann, a Republican. Republican Tom Tiffany did not participate. Since that event two more Democrats have entered the contest, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and former cabinent member Joel Brennan. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A popular two-term governor decides to retire, and triggers a flood of prospective replacements. Democrats vow to flip the Republican-majority Legislature. A state Supreme Court race blows the doors off spending records, and another one is waiting in the wings.

Each of those could be considered a big story by itself in Wisconsin, but they’re all part of this year’s single biggest story in government and politics. And that story — that it was a really big year for Wisconsin politics — wasn’t just about 2025: It set the stage for 2026.

The  three-stories-in-one about Wisconsin politics are just the beginning of the news that flooded our pages in 2025. Wisconsin Examiner’s five-person staff published 550 stories in 2025, a total that includes opinion columns by Editor Ruth Conniff, but doesn’t include briefs that also appeared under the bylines of Conniff, Erik Gunn, Isiah Holmes, Henry Redman, Baylor Spears and Criminal Justice Fellows Andrew Kennard and Frank Zufall.

Herewith, then, our list of 10 big stories that the Wisconsin Examiner covered over the course of the last year.

1. Wisconsin politics goes into overdrive

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers put an end to the last Wisconsin governor’s quest for a third term when he defeated Republican Scott Walker in 2018. Midway through his own second term, Evers surprised many by deciding to call it quits when his current  term ends rather than run again.

The decision created the first open race for governor in more than a decade and opened the floodgates, with a bevy of Democrats entering the fray. By contrast, the Republican field was down to two at year’s end, with one early contender dropping out after the entry of Congressman Tom Tiffany.

In the Wisconsin Legislature, Democrats, having narrowed the Republicans’ majority in 2024 thanks to new maps that undid the state’s 15 years of GOP gerrymandering, launched twin efforts to flip both the Assembly and the Senate in 2026. Republicans vowed to maintain their majority in both houses.

The new Senate and Assembly maps were made possible after the 2023 state Supreme Court election flipped the seven-member Court’s ideological majority from conservative to liberal. With the balance of the Court  at stake again after liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley retired in 2025, Democrats went all out, electing Dane County Judge Susan Crawford to the nominally nonpartisan Court and handily overcoming the efforts of billionaire Elon Musk who spent millions  supporting Crawford’s opponent, former state Attorney General Brad Schimel. The contest set both state and national records for campaign spending in a U.S. judicial election, and maintained the one-vote liberal majority. Now supporters of the current Court majority have their eyes on extending that ideological advantage in 2026. 

Chris Taylor, currently a District IV appeals court judge and a former Democratic state representative, is running to succeed sharply conservative Rebecca Bradley. Bradley opted not to seek a new term on the Court, and conservative Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar has announced plans to seek the post.

2. A  bipartisan state budget splits both parties

Evers went into the 2025-27 state budget process with an ambitious list of goals. Lengthy negotiations between the Democratic governor and Republican lawmakers produced a deal. While the final result fell well short of his original vision, Evers claimed victory nevertheless, with gains on paper for child care funding and for public school special education funding.

Both, however, left their strongest advocates disappointed, and by the end of the year, the special education funding did not live up to the promises made when the budget was signed.

3. Public school troubles

The budget’s lack of additional school aid for regular classes was especially upsetting to public school advocates, and was exacerbated by the state’s expanding school choice systems that use tax dollars to pay for private schools and charter schools outside the common public schools. It also underscored the extent to which local communities have been voting to raise their own property taxes to support their school systems.

The defeat of some school referendum requests further accentuated the sense of crisis, while Republican lawmakers called for new restrictions on the referendum process. And in the state’s largest system, Milwaukee Public Schools, an audit called for sweeping changes in response to a range of challenges, from declining enrollments and staff turnover to the continuing pressure of having to fund the parallel voucher and charter systems.

Throughout the year, the state Department of Public Instruction came under intense scrutiny from Republican lawmakers over policies ranging from school performance evaluations to the handling of sexual abuse complaints against school employees.

4. Federal fallout from a new administration

With the inauguration of President Donald Trump to a second term in the White House, the fallout from new federal actions reached Wisconsin in a myriad of ways. The giant legislation to cut taxes (mostly for the wealthy) and spending (much of it for health care) that Trump signed in July was one cause, setting the stage for future cuts to Medicaid and to health care under the Affordable Care Act, while also imposing new restrictions on programs aimed at reducing hunger.

But there were other reductions as well, some coming from the actions of the “Department of Government Efficiency” or DOGE that Trump authorized, and others from unilateral — and often legally challenged — actions by the administration itself. Clean energy and climate change projects, scientific research, education assistance, help with removing lead from public schools, community service, child care, economic policies, numerous federal agencies and the federal workforce itself along with countless other federal initiatives were swept up in the administration’s first year.

The record-long federal shutdown — when Congress failed to agree on a temporary spending plan and the GOP majority refused to extend extra tax breaks for Affordable Care Act health plans into 2026 — added to the chaos, with a temporary halt to the federal SNAP food assistance program.

Wisconsinites joined people from across the country in the recurring protests that started just weeks into the Trump presidency, culminating in the Oct. 18 “No Kings” rallies from coast to coast that some analysts identified as the largest mass protest ever in the United States.

5. Immigration arrests spark turmoil

The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown reverberated in Wisconsin from Inauguration Day. At the start of this term, Editor Ruth Conniff traveled to Mexico, documenting the longstanding relationships Wisconsin farmers have had with migrants who provide 70% of the labor that the state’s dairy industry has relied on.

Republican lawmakers called for cementing the state’s relationship with the newly unleashed Immigration and Customs Enforcement — ICE — agency , while the Evers administration resisted those calls. Individual counties signed on to assist ICE, sometimes facing opposition, but while Wisconsin was less in the national spotlight than other states, it wasn’t immune to periodic episodes of immigration enforcement.

Visa cancellations caught up students from overseas, and migrant arrests rose across the state. Immigration enforcement officers focused on the Milwaukee County Courthouse in their search for immigrants to take into custody, prompting criticism from advocates who warned the result would drive migrants underground rather than encouraging them to show up for court dates as witnesses, plaintiffs or defendants.

After a four-day trial in December, Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted on a felony charge of obstruction but acquitted of a misdemeanor charge of concealing a man who had appeared in her courtroom in April and was targeted by immigration officials. The case had national repercussions as the Trump administration targets judges it sees as opponents to its policies.

6. Environment: Data centers, stewardship and PFAS conflicts

In Wisconsin a statewide — indeed, nationwide — the rush to embrace massive data centers to serve emerging artificial intelligence-based technology sparked widespread debate over water use, electricity demands and power generation.

Meanwhile, a longstanding and widely popular land preservation program — the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship fund — hovered on the verge of collapse as Republican lawmakers demanded the power to veto stewardship decisions after a state Supreme Court ruling in 2024 removed the Legislature from the process.

After a running battle against rerouting an Enbridge oil pipeline, the Army Corps of Engineers approved permits for the project over the strenuous objections of opponents, only to be sued by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

A standoff between the Evers administration and the Legislature’s Republican leaders over how to address PFAS “forever chemicals” was eased by a state Supreme Court ruling allowing the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to apply Wisconsin’s spills law to PFAS contamination, along with a bipartisan bill that would require the DNR to notify local and tribal officials about groundwater PFAS contamination.

7.  Law enforcement: Investigating themselves, surveillance of the public

A lengthy investigation by Isiah Holmes of the Wisconsin Examiner in partnership with Type Investigations documented how the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team, assigned to probe death investigations for people killed by metro Milwaukee police officers, use protocols that grant officers privileges not afforded to the general public.

Among many other issues involving policing and law enforcement in Wisconsin, police surveillance was a recurring matter, with debates arising over facial recognition technology, department interest in expanding phone-tracking resources and increasing attention to how police agencies make use of widespread surveillance cameras.

8. Prison reform struggles

Evers’ budget proposal included a sweeping plan for prison reform, but the  result was more limited, leaving advocates dissatisfied. One concrete element is the start of a project to close the Green Bay Correctional Institution, a longtime objective, but divisions remain between the governor and GOP lawmakers about the details.

9. Voting rights debates revive 2020 election denial

With the return of President Donald Trump to the White House, the conspiracy theories that were amplified after his reelection loss in November 2020 got a new burst of energy. The Wisconsin Elections Commission twice rejected an administration demand for the personal identifying information of Wisconsin voters.

Trump issued a largely symbolic pardon of the Republicans who signed certificates falsely stating he won the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin, while a Dane County judge kept alive a criminal case against three men charged with orchestrating the fake elector scheme.

Although bipartisan lawmakers in the Assembly sought common ground over absentee ballot drop boxes and a measure to allow election clerks to begin counting absentee ballots on the Monday before Election Day, their efforts stalled.

10. Flooding and disasters

August flooding in Southeast Wisconsin that followed torrential storms and was centered on the metro Milwaukee area left behind devastation, damaging nearly 2,000 homes and some $34 million worth of public infrastructure.

The Trump administration’s Federal Emergency Management Agency approved $30 million in initial relief to support the victims of flood damage, but the administration denied a subsequent request for aid to mitigate future disasters.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The James H. Shannon Building (Building One), on the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland. (Photo by Lydia Polimeni,/National Institutes of Health)

The Trump administration will review frozen grants to universities without using its controversial standards that discouraged gender, race and sexual orientation initiatives and vaccine research.

In a settlement agreement filed in Massachusetts federal court Monday, the National Institutes of Health and a group of Democratic attorneys general who’d challenged the new criteria for grant funding said the NIH would consider grant applications made up to Sept. 29, 2025, without judging the efforts related to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, or vaccines.

The settlement provides an uncontested path for the agency while courts decide whether the administration can use its controversial analysis. The administration did not agree to permanently ditch its campaign to evaluate health research funding decisions based on schools’ DEI programs.

NIH officials “will complete their consideration of the Applications in the ordinary course of NIH’s scientific review process, without applying the Challenged Directives,” the settlement said, adding that the agency would “evaluate each application individually and in good faith.”

The settlement was signed by U.S. Department of Justice lawyers and the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

In a Tuesday statement, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the agreement commits the Department of Health and Human Services to resume “the usual process for considering NIH grant applications on a prompt, agreed-upon timeline.” 

The 17 attorneys general sued in April over $783 million in frozen grants. 

A trial court and appeals court in Massachusetts sided with the states, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in August that the trial judge lacked the authority to compel the grants to be paid, especially in light of a similar decision involving the Education Department.

A U.S. Postal Service employee sorts packages inside the Los Angeles Mail Processing & Distribution Center in December. A new USPS rule on postmarks took effect on Dec. 24 that says mail might not be postmarked on the day it’s dropped off. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

The U.S. Postal Service has adopted a new rule that could create doubt about whether some ballots mailed by voters by Election Day will receive postmarks in time to be counted.

A USPS rule that took effect on Dec. 24 says mail might not receive a postmark on the same day the agency takes possession of it. The postal service says it isn’t changing its existing postmark practices and is merely clarifying its policy, but some election officials have looked to postmarks as a guarantee that mail ballots were cast before polls closed.

The new rule holds implications for 14 states and Washington, D.C., that count ballots arriving after Election Day if they are postmarked on or before that day — commonly called a “ballot grace period.” In these states, ballots placed in the mail by voters before the deadline may not be counted if the postal service applies a postmark after Election Day.

The USPS rule says that “the postmark date does not necessarily indicate the first day that the Postal Service had possession of the mailpiece.”

The USPS rule comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider a case that could eliminate ballot grace periods nationwide. The court’s decision, expected late this spring or next summer, could render the issues raised by the postmark rule moot.

Mail-in voting surged in 2020’s general election amid the COVID-19 pandemic, when 43% of voters cast their votes by mail. The percentage of voters mailing their ballots has fallen from that peak but remains above pre-pandemic levels. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

While the vast majority of mail ballots were successfully cast last year, hundreds of thousands weren’t counted. During the 2024 election, 584,463 mail ballots returned by voters were rejected by election officials — 1.2% of returned mail ballots. About 18% of those ballots were rejected because they didn’t arrive on time.

The USPS defended the change in a lengthy response to criticisms published in the Federal Register. The agency emphasized that it does not administer elections and doesn’t advocate for or against voting by mail.

The postal service repeated its advice that voters mail their completed ballots at least a week before Election Day. And it noted that voters may request a manual postmark at their local post office free of charge.

“If customers are aware that the postmark date may not align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece, they will be better equipped to adjust their plans accordingly,” the response reads.

“And if policymakers or other entities that create rules utilizing the postmark date are aware of what the postmark date signifies, they are better equipped to determine whether their rules adequately serve their purposes.”

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Medical bills are spread out on the kitchen table of a cancer patient in Salem, Va. (Photo by Don Petersen/The Associated Press)

This article first appeared on KFF Health News.

As Congress debates whether to extend the temporary federal subsidies that have helped millions of Americans buy health coverage, a crucial underlying reality is sometimes overlooked: Those subsidies are merely a band-aid covering the often unaffordable cost of health care.

California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and five other states have set caps on health care spending in a bid to rein in the intense financial pressure felt by many families, individuals and employers who every year face increases in premiums, deductibles and other health-related expenses.

Hospitals and other health care providers are citing Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Donald Trump in July, as one more reason to challenge those limits.

The law is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over a decade, which mathematically should help the overall health care system meet the caps. But the law is also expected to increase the number of uninsured Americans, mostly Medicaid beneficiaries, by an estimated 10 million people. Health care analysts predict hospitals and other providers will raise prices to cover the double whammy of lost Medicaid revenue and the cost of caring for an influx of newly uninsured patients.

Whether regulators in some states will allow providers to justify higher prices and exceed the spending caps is unclear. Only California and Oregon can penalize providers financially if they fail to meet targets.

“Are we going to say, ‘That’s OK’? Or are we going to say, ‘Well, you exceeded the target. We’re still going to penalize you for that’?” said Richard Pan, a former state lawmaker and a member of the California Office of Health Care Affordability’s board. “That has not yet been decided.”

The California Hospital Association, the industry’s main state lobbying group, filed a lawsuit in October asking a state court to strike down the spending caps, which it argued fail to account for all the cost pressures hospitals face. Those pressures, it said, include an aging, sicker population; the rising cost of labor; expensive advances in medical technology; large capital outlays on required seismic retrofitting; and changes in federal policy, including the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The hospital group’s lawsuit also asserted that the state affordability office, by hastily imposing ill-considered cost-cutting targets, was undermining its other key mission of improving health care access, quality and equity.

California’s affordability office last year set a five-year target to cap statewide spending growth, starting at 3.5% in 2025 and declining to 3% by 2029. The annual caps apply to a wide range of health care entities, including hospitals, medical groups, insurers and other payers.

Earlier this year, it imposed much lower spending growth caps — starting at 1.8% in 2026 and declining to 1.6% by 2029 — for seven “high-cost” hospitals.

“The spending caps set by politically appointed bureaucrats could force cuts that result in many Californians traveling farther for care, facing longer emergency room wait times, experiencing more overcrowding and losing access to critical services,” Carmela Coyle, the hospital association’s president and CEO, said in an October press release.

The California attorney general’s office, which will represent the affordability agency, has not yet filed a response to the hospital group’s complaint and did not respond to a request for comment.

Hospitals’ pushback

California is not the only state taking a close look at hospital prices, which are widely considered a primary driver of health care costs.

“States, armed with information that points to payments to hospitals as a driver of what is way beyond affordable commercial premiums, have begun to take increasingly targeted actions focused on commercial hospital prices,” said Michael Bailit, founder of the Needham, Massachusetts-based consultancy Bailit Health, which has advised multiple states, including California, on ways to tame health care spending. “It is not surprising that the hospital industry is going to oppose such state actions.”

In its lawsuit, the California Hospital Association said the affordability office’s own report showed that pharmaceutical and insurance companies are largely responsible for high costs.

Hospitals in some states with cost growth limits, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, have expressed objections similar to the ones raised in the California lawsuit. They could follow their counterparts in California if their lawsuit succeeds, said Peter Lee, who led California’s Affordable Care Act marketplace, Covered California, for over a decade and is now a senior scholar at Stanford Medicine’s Clinical Excellence Research Center.

Lee said the work of California’s affordability office and similar agencies in other states is just about the only systemwide effort being made to cut health care costs. They are basically saying, “‘Look, health care is taking money away from education, it is taking money away from the environment, it is taking money away from everything in the public sector, and in the private sector it is taking money away from wages,’” he said. “‘We don’t know how you, the health system, are going to do it, but it is your job not just to provide quality but to lower costs. Here’s the target.’”

To be sure, achieving the cost savings that California and those other states are seeking is no easy lift. It will ultimately require persuading large, financially powerful players that compete fiercely for health care dollars to adopt a different mindset and begin cooperating to reduce costs instead. And that, in many cases, will mean lower revenue.

But the status quo, as many people know all too well, means continued financial pain for millions.

In early 2020, Estevan Rodriguez, a bartender at California’s Monterey Beach Hotel, had surgery for a staph infection in his leg. The bill came to nearly $168,000. His insurance paid most of it, but he still owed $5,665, which took him two years to pay, more than $200 every month. “It may not be a lot to some people, but it was a lot to me,” Rodriguez said.

He said he dropped his Hulu subscription, switched to a lower-cost cellphone, and got cheaper car insurance. He started going to food banks rather than the grocery store, he said, and had a lot less time with his kids, because he was constantly working to pay off the hospital bill.

Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, where Rodriguez had his surgery, is one of the seven hospitals identified by California’s affordability office as high-cost. A study by the office attributed high hospital prices in Monterey County to a lack of market competition “rather than higher operating costs or superior quality of care.”

The Monterey hospital referred a request for comment about its “high-cost” designation to the California Hospital Association. CHA spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea declined to comment beyond the language of the lawsuit and Coyle’s press release statement.

Reduced competition

Health care analysts worry the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will reduce market competition even further by stressing already weak hospitals, leading some to shut services, merge with larger health systems, or close. One study estimates 338 rural hospitals are at risk of closing nationwide.

Less competition, in addition to fewer Medicaid dollars and an increase in uninsured patients, will only strengthen the incentive of health systems with the requisite market clout to raise their commercial prices, increasing premiums for employers and individuals.

“We think commercial prices will continue to increase as health care providers, and hospitals in particular, will seek to preserve or increase their revenue,” said Rachel Block, a program officer at the Milbank Memorial Fund, a foundation that focuses on health equity.

That in turn could pose a challenge to state affordability regulators tasked with overseeing compliance with growth targets for health care spending.

California’s affordability office is required to consider mitigating factors, including changes in federal and state laws. But some of its board members have expressed skepticism about letting hospitals offset Medicaid losses with higher commercial prices.

“There’s a lot of talk about using HR 1 and other federal policies as an excuse to raise prices on commercial payers,” Ian Lewis, an affordability office board member and policy director for UNITE HERE Local 2, a hospitality workers union in the Bay Area, said at the agency’s July board meeting, referring to the One Big Beautiful Bill. “There’s no more blood to be squeezed from this stone.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

A vacant hallway at Vaughan Regional Medical Center in Selma, Alabama, on Tuesday, Sep. 3, 2024 in Selma, Alabama. (Will McLelland for Alabama Reflector)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled Monday hundreds of millions of dollars each state will receive this fiscal year as part of a massive $50 billion rural health fund baked into Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law. 

The five-year Rural Health Transformation Program — authorized under GOP lawmakers’ mega tax and spending cut package Trump signed into law in July — is designed to offset the budget impacts on rural areas due to sweeping Medicaid cuts.  

Half of the $50 billion will be distributed equally among each state between fiscal years 2026 and 2030, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The agency under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the remaining $25 billion, doled out over the same time period, is being allocated to states based on several factors, such as steps states are taking to improve access to care in rural communities. 

Texas will get the highest first-year award at $281.3 million, followed by Alaska at $272.2 million, California at $233.6 million, Montana at $233.5 million and Oklahoma, at $223.5 million. 

New Jersey is receiving the lowest first-year award, at $147.2 million. 

“Thanks to Congress establishing this investment and President Trump for his leadership, states are stepping forward with bold, creative plans to expand rural access, strengthen their workforces, modernize care, and support the communities that keep our nation running,” CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a statement alongside the announcement. 

Oz added that “CMS is proud to partner with every state to turn their ideas into lasting improvements for rural families.” 

Meanwhile, the nonpartisan health research organization KFF found that the program would only offset a little more than one-third of the package’s estimated $137 billion cut to federal Medicaid spending in rural areas over the next decade.

Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

Johann Teran, photographed in Minneapolis on Jan. 31, 2025, is among the Venezuelans living in the United States with temporary protected status who is likely to see his legal status expire. The Trump administration has canceled TPS for more than 1 million people from 11 countries. (Photo by Madison McVan/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — Since Inauguration Day, more than 1.5 million immigrants have either lost or will lose their temporary legal status, including their work authorizations and deportation protections, due to President Donald Trump’s aggressive revocation of legal immigration.

It’s the most rapid loss in legal status for immigrants in recent United States history, experts in immigration policy told States Newsroom. The Trump administration curtailed legal immigration by terminating Temporary Protected Status for more than 1 million immigrants and ending Humanitarian Parole protections for half a million more individuals. 

“I don’t think we’ve ever, as a country, seen such a huge number of people losing their immigration status all at once,” said Julia Gelatt, the associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute.  

The move to strip so many immigrants of their work authorization is likely to not only affect communities, but also batter the economy, both immigration and economic experts told States Newsroom. 

“Seeing well over 1 million people lose their work authorization in a single year is a really huge event that has ripple effects for employers and communities and families and our economy as well,” Gelatt said.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by immigrant rights groups and TPS recipients themselves challenging the terminations as unlawful. 

“This is the continuation of the Trump administration attack against the immigrant community, and specifically about the TPS program, a program that, for many of us has been a good program, a life-saving program,” said Jose Palma, a TPS recipient from El Salvador and coordinator of the National TPS Alliance, which is part of several TPS lawsuits.

Who is granted Temporary Protected Status?

A TPS designation is given because a national’s home country is deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, war, natural disasters or some other unstable condition. 

When Congress created the program in 1990, it was initially meant to be temporary, which is why authorizations can be as short as six months and as long as 18 months. 

Immigrants who are granted TPS must go through background checks and be vetted each time their status is renewed, but the program does not provide a path to citizenship.

Under the Biden administration, the number of TPS recipients grew, as did the category of humanitarian parole.

That policy decision was heavily criticized by Republicans, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem vowed to reevaluate TPS country designations for terminations during her Senate confirmation hearing this year.

“This program has been abused and manipulated by the Biden administration, and that will no longer be allowed,” Noem said during her hearing.

Before the Trump administration came into office in late January, there were more than 1.3 million immigrants in the TPS program, hailing from 17 countries. Under the first Trump administration, there were roughly 400,000 TPS recipients.

“Almost a million new people got onto TPS protections under President Biden, so we saw a really rapid expansion, and now we’re seeing a very rapid contraction, which is all to say that in the first Trump administration, there weren’t so many people who had TPS,” Gelatt said.

Noem has terminated TPS for immigrants from 11 countries, and the more than 1 million immigrants affected will lose their protections by February.

Noem extended six months’ protection for South Sudan earlier this year, but decided in November to terminate protections by January. She most recently terminated a TPS designation for Ethiopia on Dec. 12. 

The other countries with TPS termination are Afghanistan, Burma, Cameroon, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Syria and Venezuela. 

“We’ve never seen this many people lose their legal status in the history of the United States,” David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said. “This is totally unprecedented.”

People losing their status are also concentrated in certain areas. Florida has more than 400,000 TPS recipients, and Texas has nearly 150,000. Bier said he expects certain industries with high TPS workers to feel the impact, such as construction and health care. 

Haiti, Venezuela

Immigrants from two countries — Haiti and Venezuela – make up a majority of recipients set to lose their TPS protections, at nearly 935,000 people.

Venezuelans, who make up 605,000 of those 935,000 TPS recipients, were first granted protections during Trump’s first term. 

On his final day in office in 2021, his administration issued 18-month deportation protections for Venezuelans — known as Deferred Enforcement Departure, or DED — citing the country’s unstable government under President Nicolás Maduro.

“Through force and fraud, the Maduro regime is responsible for the worst humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere in recent memory,” according to the Jan. 19, 2021 memo. “A catastrophic economic crisis and shortages of basic goods and medicine have forced about five million Venezuelans to flee the country, often under dangerous conditions.”

After the Trump administration’s 18-month DED designation, the Biden administration issued the TPS designation for Venezuelans who came to the U.S. in 2021 and again in 2023. The move created two separate TPS groups for Venezuelans.

“The bottom line is that removing the 935,000 Venezuelans and Haitians would cause the entire economy to contract by more than $14 billion,” said Michael Clemens, a professor in the Department of Economics at George Mason University. 

He added that not all the TPS recipients are in the labor market. Some are children or elderly dependents who cannot work. Clemens said the TPS workforce population of Haitians and Venezuelans is about 400,000.

Humanitarian Parole program

Separately, under the Biden administration, nearly 750,000 immigrants had some form of humanitarian parole, granting them work and temporary legal status due to either Russia’s war in Ukraine or efforts by the administration to manage mass migration from Central American countries. 

DHS has moved to end humanitarian parole for 532,000 immigrants hailing from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, opening them up for deportation proceedings. 

“The onslaught of attacks that we’ve been seeing on temporary forms of immigration status, specifically with a humanitarian focus, is truly saddening and concerning,” said Alice Barrett, a supervising immigration attorney at the immigrant rights group CASA. 

Not every recipient has been affected. The agency has kept humanitarian parole for 140,000 Ukrainians who came to the United States after Russia’s invasion in 2022, and 76,000 Afghans who were brought in after the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from their country. 

But since the National Guard shooting last month in Washington, D.C., allegedly by an Afghan national granted asylum, the program is under increased scrutiny and all immigration-related paperwork from Afghans has been halted. 

Court decisions influential

This is not the first time the Trump administration has tried to end TPS. 

During the president’s first term, he tried to end TPS for Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sudan, but the courts blocked those attempts in 2018.

This time is different, said Palma of the National TPS alliance. 

“The only thing different right now is that the Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to continue with termination of TPS, even though lower courts are saying, ‘No, we should stop the cancellation of TPS for now, until it’s clear whether the decision was illegal or not,’” he said. 

So far, in emergency appeals, the high court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward in stripping legal status for the two groups of Venezuelan TPS recipients and individuals in the humanitarian parole program. 

Barrett at CASA, which is leading the legal challenge of TPS termination for Cameroon and Afghanistan, said when it comes to TPS termination, “what we are seeing in the second Trump administration is a supercharged version of what we saw in the first Trump administration.” 

“We are essentially seeing during this administration more actual terminations happening early on even while litigation is pending, which has certainly been disappointing for members of the community, because they’re still left in this limbo,” she said. 

Barrett added that even when TPS recipients try to apply for longer-term legal status they face multiple hurdles. 

“For example, we are seeing them questioned or denied relief at asylum interviews because they did not apply for asylum within one year of entering the United States, even though the Code of Federal Regulations clearly creates an exception to this one-year filing deadline for people who have been in other valid status before applying for asylum,” Barrett said. 

“These members of our community who have been in lawful status therefore now risk being placed in removal proceedings and even (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) detention, where conditions are increasingly inhumane and dangerous,” she continued.

TPS recipients are still continuing to fight in the courts and share their stories, Barrett said.  

“These cases are still in progress, and we remain hopeful that despite preliminary rulings leaving so many hardworking individuals and their families in a state of uncertainty, upon thorough review and litigation of these cases the courts will recognize the improper nature of recent TPS terminations and restore status for those seeking safety here in the United States,” she said.

Missouri Capitol Police officers conduct security checks on boxes of petition signatures submitted to force a referendum vote on the state’s new congressional map. State courts in Missouri and other states may decide whether new maps passed this year are used in the 2026 midterm elections. (Photo by Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent)

After Missouri lawmakers passed a gerrymandered congressional map this fall, opponents submitted more than 300,000 signatures seeking to force a statewide vote on whether to overturn the map. But Republican state officials say they will use the map in the meantime.

Missouri courts now appear likely to weigh in.

“If we need to continue to litigate to enforce our constitutional rights, we will,” said Richard von Glahn, a progressive activist who leads People Not Politicians, which is leading the campaign opposing the gerrymandered map.

As some states engage in an extraordinary redraw of congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, state courts may decide the fate of the new maps. President Donald Trump has pushed Republican state lawmakers to gerrymander their states’ congressional maps, prompting Democratic state lawmakers to respond in kind.

Nationwide, state judges are poised to play a pivotal role in adjudicating legal challenges to the maps, which have been drafted to maximize partisan advantage for either Republicans or Democrats, depending on the state. Maps are typically only redrawn once a decade following the census.

While some state courts have long heard map-related lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court has all but taken federal courts out of the business of reviewing redrawn maps this year. On Dec. 4, a majority of the court allowed Texas’ new map, which seeks to secure five more U.S. House seats for Republicans, to proceed. A federal lawsuit against California’s new gerrymandered map, drawn to favor Democrats, hasn’t reached the high court.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s brief, unsigned majority decision voiced concern about inserting federal courts into an “active primary campaign,” though Texas’s primary election will occur in March. Critics of the court’s decision have said it effectively forecloses federal challenges to this year’s gerrymanders. The justices could also issue a decision next year that makes it more difficult to challenge maps as racially discriminatory.

State courts are taking center stage after gerrymandering opponents have spent decades encouraging them to play a more active role in policing maps that had been drawn for partisan advantage. Those efforts accelerated after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 limited the power of federal courts to block such maps.

“Basically, every one of the 50 states has something in its constitution that could be used to constrain partisan gerrymandering,” said Samuel Wang, director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.

State constitutions, which are interpreted by state supreme courts, typically have language that echoes the right to freedom of speech and association found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Wang said. They also include a right to equal protection under the law, similar to the 14th Amendment.

Some state constitutions guarantee free and fair elections, language that doesn’t appear in the U.S. Constitution. Thirty states have some form of a constitutional requirement for free elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

At least 10 state supreme courts have found that state courts can decide cases involving allegations of partisan gerrymandering, according to a 2024 review by the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

So far this year, California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Utah have adopted new congressional maps. New maps also appear possible in Florida, Maryland and Virginia. A handful of other states — Alabama, Louisiana, New York and North Dakota — may have to change their maps depending on the outcome of court cases.

Some of those new or potential maps could face legal obstacles. Florida, New York and Ohio all have state supreme courts that have previously found problems with partisan gerrymanders. Maryland Democrats have so far not moved forward with a gerrymander, in part because of fears of an adverse decision from the state Supreme Court.

Four state supreme courts — including in Missouri — have determined that they cannot review partisan gerrymandering claims, though state courts may still consider challenges on other grounds, such as whether the districts are compact or contiguous.

In Missouri’s case, courts could also clear the way for a referendum vote over the new map, which is intended to force out U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat who has represented Kansas City in Congress for the past two decades. Republicans currently hold six of the state’s eight congressional districts.

The map already faces a bevy of lawsuits, most notably over whether state officials must count some 103,000 referendum signatures gathered before the governor signed the map into law; at least 106,000 signatures are needed to send the map to voters.

Opponents of the new map have also filed lawsuits asserting the Missouri Constitution prevents redistricting without new census data and that an area of Kansas City was simultaneously placed into two separate congressional districts.

Missouri Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’ decision this month (relying on an opinion from Missouri Republican Attorney General Catherine Hanaway) to implement the new congressional map, despite a submitted referendum petition, is expected to become the latest legal flashpoint. Opponents of the map argue it is now paused under state law.

Hoskins spokesperson Rachael Dunn said in a statement to Stateline that local election officials have until late July to verify referendum signatures — months after candidate filing ends March 31 and days before the Aug. 4 primary election. At that point, blocking the new map would be all but impossible, even if map opponents have gathered enough signatures to force a vote.

“Once signatures are all verified, the Secretary will certify the referendum based on constitutionality and verification,” Dunn wrote.

Hanaway’s office didn’t respond to questions.

Breaking out of lockstep

As federal courts limit their review of gerrymandering because of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, some state supreme courts are reluctant to wade into the issue because of a practice called “lockstepping.”

State supreme courts often interpret their state constitutions in line with — or in lockstep with — how the U.S. Supreme Court views similar language in the U.S. Constitution. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to limit partisan gerrymandering, some state supreme courts have also declined to impose limits.

Gerrymandering opponents have used a variety of arguments over the years to try to prod state supreme courts out of lockstep. They have emphasized differences in wording between state constitutions and the federal one, and provisions in state constitutions — such as the free elections requirement — not found in the U.S. Constitution.

Sometimes these arguments work — and sometimes they don’t. The North Carolina Supreme Court in 2022 ruled against partisan gerrymandering. But after two Republicans were elected as justices that fall, the court reversed itself months later.

“Across the country, we have seen advocates turn to state supreme courts, and state courts in general, for state constitutional arguments against gerrymandering or voter suppression more broadly. And it’s been met with mixed success,” said Sharon Brett, a University of Kansas associate professor of law. In 2022 as litigation director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, she unsuccessfully argued a case before the state’s high court challenging Kansas’ congressional map.

In states where legislatures draw congressional maps, some lawmakers argue that state constitutions shouldn’t be interpreted to curb legislative authority over mapmaking. Court-imposed limits amount to violations of the traditional separation of powers, they say, with the judiciary overstepping its authority to interfere in politics.

“We expect them to be nonpartisan. We expect them to be unbiased. We expect them to be fair. We expect them to read the constitution and to protect or at least respect the separation of powers,” said Utah Republican state Rep. Casey Snider, speaking of Utah courts during a floor speech earlier this month.

In Utah, state courts waded through a yearslong legal battle over whether state lawmakers must adopt a non-gerrymandered map. After the Republican-controlled legislature repealed and replaced an independent redistricting process, the Utah Supreme Court last year ruled lawmakers had violated the state constitution.

A Utah district court judge in November then adopted a congressional map that will likely lead next year to the election of a Democrat. The state’s four congressional seats are currently all held by Republicans.

“What we would like is them to redistrict based on population — fairly,” Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah, said of state lawmakers.

Republican Gov. Spencer Cox called the Utah legislature into special session earlier in December to respond to the judge’s decision. Lawmakers pushed back candidate filing deadlines in hopes that an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court will result in a decision overturning the judge’s adopted map.

They also passed a resolution condemning the judiciary.

Constitutional concerns

As the Indiana legislature weighed a gerrymandered map to boost Republicans this month, some lawmakers were reluctant to constrain state courts. Democrats currently hold two of the state’s nine congressional districts.

The GOP-controlled Indiana Senate voted down the map in a major setback to Trump’s national redistricting push. The vote came after a floor debate where opponents raised concerns about limiting court involvement; the legislation included a provision sending any legal challenge directly to the Indiana Supreme Court, bypassing a jury trial.

Indiana Republican state Sen. Greg Walker said the measure violated the state constitution, which guarantees an “inviolate” right to a jury trial in all civil cases. “In legal terms, ‘inviolate’ has the implication of being sacred, as opposed to being just a piece of the law,” Walker said on the floor.

State Sen. Mike Gaskill, a Republican who sponsored the map, said during a speech that Indiana residents would benefit from a quick process to resolve legal challenges. “Both sides, in any case, want them to be settled quickly so that they don’t cause chaos and interruptions in the elections process,” he said.

If the map had passed, opponents would have likely attacked the measure using a provision of the Indiana Constitution that requires “free and equal” elections.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.