A sign explaining delays in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the government shutdown is displayed at a Sprouts grocery store in Bountiful, Utah, on Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2025. (McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

The Trump administration will release full benefits for most participants in the nation’s major federal nutrition program within 24 hours of the reopening of the federal government, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesperson said Wednesday. 

Many of the roughly 42 million Americans who rely on USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to help afford groceries have faced uncertainty for weeks about their November benefits, which President Donald Trump and other top administration officials said could not be paid while the government was shut down. 

A USDA spokesperson answered an afternoon email from States Newsroom inquiring about when benefits would restart with a single sentence:

“Upon the government reopening, within 24 hours for most States,” the spokesperson wrote. 

Politico first reported the department’s 24-hour timeline.

While the federal government funds SNAP benefits, states are responsible for their administration, meaning an array of different processes across the country. 

The U.S. House was set to vote Wednesday evening to clear a bill to reopen the government after a record 43-day shutdown, after the Senate acted earlier this week. Trump is expected to sign it into law as early as Wednesday night. 

The enactment of the bill — and the subsequent renewal of federal payments — would resolve a dizzying weekslong saga over SNAP that placed the roughly 1 in 8 Americans who use the program in the middle of a political and legal battle playing out across every level of the federal judiciary. 

Since the shutdown began Oct. 1, the USDA has reversed its own position, the U.S. Supreme Court paused lower court orders and Trump himself expressed contradicting views.

In the most recent chapter, USDA said it would authorize states to pay 65% of benefits for November, and the Supreme Court paused until Thursday night lower court orders compelling full payments. 

The department had previously told a Rhode Island federal court it could take weeks or even months for beneficiaries to receive the partial allotments and the administration continued to fight rulings to immediately release full funding, even as the shutdown crept toward its conclusion.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The U.S. Supreme Court has extended through Thursday a pause on lower courts’ orders that the Trump administration authorize a full month of benefits for a food assistance program that 1 in 8 Americans use to buy groceries.

A brief, unsigned order published Tuesday evening also said the full court would decide on the administration’s request to block court orders that the U.S. Department of Agriculture release full November benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 

The case was presented to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said she would have dismissed the case and denied the request for an administrative stay. Jackson was appointed to the high court by President Joe Biden.

The order adds another wrinkle to a case that was already the object of a weekslong tug-of-war over how the program should operate during the government shutdown.

The shutdown could end before the stay expires. The U.S. Senate passed a bill Monday to reopen the government, and the House is expected to pass it Wednesday. President Donald Trump has said he supports the measure and will likely sign it before the end of the day Thursday.

Trump and administration officials have maintained they were not authorized to release November SNAP benefits during the shutdown.

A Rhode Island federal judge ordered the USDA on Thursday to release full benefits for November. The department sent states a memo authorizing those payments Friday morning, then appealed to the Supreme Court on Friday evening to have the district court’s order overturned.

At the same time, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order.

In the face of often contradicting administrative guidance and court orders, some states began processing full benefits for November, while others have yet to release them.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a challenge to a landmark ruling protecting same-sex marriage equality. The rainbow flag of the gay pride movement and the flag of the United States | Getty Images

The United States Supreme Court has declined to revisit the 2015 landmark ruling that gave same-sex couples marriage equality, a failure for former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis.

Davis made national headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to several same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs. With the help of conservative legal firm Liberty Counsel, Davis has tried to avoid paying $100,000 as ordered by a federal jury to one of the couples she refused, David Ermold and David Moore. She ultimately tried to use that appeal to challenge Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that required states to license same-sex marriages.

The nation’s highest court on Monday said it will not hear the challenge.

Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel’s founder and chairman who represents Davis, said he “will continue to work to overturn Obergefell.”

“Davis was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported hurt feelings,” Staver said. “By denying this petition, the High Court has let stand a decision to strip a government defendant of their immunity and any personal First Amendment defense for their religious expression.”

Kevin Jennings, the CEO of Lambda Legal, a pro-LGBTQ+ advocacy law firm, called the case “frivolous” in celebrating its defeat.

“This is a victory not only for the LGBTQ+ community, but for everyone who believes in our Constitution and the rule of law. The court’s decision reaffirms a simple fact: equal protection of the law applies to all, not just some,” Jennings said in a statement. “This frivolous case now belongs in the trash bin of history.”

Jenny Pizer, Lambda Legal’s senior director of strategic initiatives said the decision to not hear the case by the Supreme Court “rightly leaves marriage equality crystal clear and undisturbed.”

Pizer said LGBTQ+ people and their families “still need vigilance and protection,” though.

“We secured the freedom to marry for same-sex couples over a decade ago in our landmark 2015 Supreme Court victory, Obergefell v. Hodges, thanks to the powerful stories of thousands of couples and their families throughout the country, including in our many court cases,” Pizer said. “The fundamental rights of liberty and equal protection that the court affirmed back then remain essential for all American families today.”

Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up a challenge to a mail-in voting law in Mississippi. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday took up a Republican-backed challenge to counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

Depending how the justices rule, the case could be consequential for Washington and other states that vote by mail.

It stems from a lawsuit against a Mississippi state law allowing mail-in ballots received within five business days after Election Day to still be counted. Roughly 30 states have similar laws, with varying grace periods. 

The decision could also have ramifications for next year’s high-stakes midterms, which will decide whether Republicans maintain control of both the U.S. House and Senate. The court will likely hear arguments and rule by mid-2026.

Washington is one of a handful of states that conduct elections by mail and ballot drop boxes. The state accepts mail-in ballots up until the day before certification, which is 21 days after the election, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. 

Ballots for this month’s elections in Washington are still being counted, and the results of some close races have flipped and narrowed during the past week.

A federal judge in Mississippi upheld the state’s law, ruling the state’s statute isn’t preempted by federal law, which says Election Day is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. 

But a federal appeals panel sided with the law’s challengers, the Republican National Committee and the state’s Republican and Libertarian parties. The appeals judges cited the U.S. Constitution’s clause that gives states the power to regulate elections, but also noted that clause says “Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” 

President Donald Trump, in his first term, appointed the three judges who issued that decision.

The legal question now is whether “election day” is when voters cast their ballots, or also when they must be received. The appeals court decided that ballots aren’t cast until election officials get them.

While the ruling doesn’t apply in Washington, if the Supreme Court upheld it, the ballot-counting system here would also be thrown into question.

Mississippi officials appealed to the Supreme Court to protect their five-day grace period. The state’s attorney general, a Republican, wrote in a brief to the high court that the appeals decision “would require scrapping election laws in most States.”

“The stakes are high: ballots cast by — but received after — election day can swing close races and change the course of the country,” Attorney General Lynn Fitch wrote.

The law’s opponents say these measures “deprive the electorate of a clear nationwide deadline that ‘puts all voters on the same footing.’”

In the 2024 general election, Washington election officials received nearly 120,000 valid ballots after Election Day that were postmarked on time. 

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, along with colleagues in other states, filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to side with Mississippi. They note the appeals court decision “jeopardizes the ability of military service members and their families stationed abroad to have their timely cast ballots counted.”

Asked for comment on the case Monday, Brown’s office referred to the earlier brief.

A spokesperson for Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, also a Democrat, said in a statement that Hobbs’ office supports the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case.

“We view this as an important opportunity for the Court to provide clarity on the authority of states to accept ballots received after Election Day, provided they are mailed by Election Day and meet all other requirements established in state law,” Charlie Boisner added.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked mail-in voting. 

In a March executive order, for example, he urged U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to stop states from counting absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day in federal elections. 

Brown and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield sued the Trump administration over the order. That case is pending in federal court in Seattle.

Washington state’s Republican Party also wants to see a return to in-person voting, with same-day vote counts.

The Supreme Court is already grappling with other litigation focused on mail-in ballots. 

Last month, they heard arguments in the case of an Illinois congressman who sued over a law in his state counting ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day. That case deals with the more procedural issue of the standard plaintiffs must meet to be allowed to sue over an election law.

This article was updated with comment from the Washington secretary of state’s office.

The Saturday Morning Market, in St. Petersburg, Florida, on April 14, 2012. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA)

Following a late Friday emergency ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump administration has instructed states that authorized full November nutrition assistance benefits to return a portion, another unprecedented reversal for a program that helps 42 million people afford groceries.

A Saturday memo from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service said states should fund 65% of benefits for users of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, often called food stamps. 

Those that had authorized full payments in line with earlier administration guidance should “immediately undo” that action, according to the memo.

“To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” the memo said. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025. Please advise the appropriate FNS Regional Office representative of steps taken to correct any actions taken that do not comply with this memorandum.”

President Donald Trump and top administration officials have said they cannot pay full SNAP benefits during the government shutdown that began Oct. 1 and instead, under court orders, are using a contingency fund to make partial payments.

Shutdown chaos surrounds SNAP

Saturday’s guidance from Patrick A. Penn, the department’s deputy under secretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, marked the latest turnaround in a chaotic few days for the agency, states that administer SNAP and the millions of Americans who depend on it to afford food.

Penn wrote that, in light of the Supreme Court’s order pausing lower court rulings that USDA must pay full November benefits, the administration was returning to its position that SNAP benefits should be funded at 65%. 

States — including Wisconsin and Kansas — that issued full benefits did so under a Friday memo, also signed by Penn, that said states should authorize full payments for SNAP, consistent with a Thursday ruling in federal court.

Kansas, Wisconsin, Oregon govs express dismay

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, in a late Friday statement expressed disappointment with the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court and noted the state had authorized full payments earlier in the day for all eligible Kansans.

“These Kansans, most of them children, seniors or people with disabilities, were struggling to put food on their plates,” she said. “Why the President would petition the highest court to deny food to hungry children is beyond me. It does nothing to advance his political agenda. It does not hurt his perceived enemies. It only hurts our most vulnerable and our reputation around the globe.”

In a Sunday statement, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, flatly refused to try to claw back any authorized benefits. The state acted in compliance with a court order, he said.

“After we did so, the Trump Administration assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would ‘complete the processes necessary to make funds available,’” he said. “They have failed to do so to date.”

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said her state will not comply.

“Oregon acted lawfully, given the federal court’s directive and the communications with the USDA, and my decision to ensure SNAP benefits went out quickly was in direct alignment with my food emergency declaration,” said Kotek, a Democrat. “I am disgusted that President Trump has the audacity to take taxpayers’ money away from them when they are in crisis. I have a question for the President: What would he prefer to spend the money on over groceries for people in need? This is ridiculous, immoral, and Oregon will fight this every step of the way.”

U.S. Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement: “Let’s be clear about what this is —  the Trump administration is demanding that food assistance be taken away from the households that have already received it. They would rather go door to door, taking away people’s food, than do the right thing and fully fund SNAP for November so that struggling veterans, seniors, and children can keep food on the table. It is incomprehensible, incompetent and inconsistent with our values as Americans.” 

Court action

The earlier order, from U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island, told the department to use sources outside the contingency fund to make full November payments by Friday. The order was appealed to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acting on behalf of the high court, granted the administration’s request for an emergency stay on Friday night, speeding up the process for what Jackson said would then be an “expeditious” decision by the appeals court but also changing things yet again.

No longer, for the moment, required by a court order to pay full November benefits, the administration instructed states in the Saturday memo to have the vendors that process payments to the electronic benefit transfer cards withhold part of the month’s allotment.

“States must not transmit full benefit issuance files to EBT processors,” Penn wrote. “Instead, States must continue to process and load the partial issuance files that reflect the 35 percent reduction of maximum allotments detailed in the November 5 guidance.”

Shutdown negotiations

SNAP funding has been a key issue during the shutdown. 

In a plan published Sept. 30, the USDA said it would continue to pay for the roughly $9 billion per month program through its contingency fund. The administration reversed itself 10 days later, telling states there would be no SNAP available for November.

A bipartisan U.S. Senate bill filed Sunday would end the shutdown. It includes provisions to fully fund SNAP, the contingency fund and the $23 billion children nutrition programs fund that may be a source of emergency funding for SNAP if the shutdown persists.

Kansas Reflector Editor in Chief Sherman Smith, Wisconsin Examiner Editor in Chief Ruth Conniff and Oregon Capital Chronicle Editor in Chief Julia Shumway  contributed to this report.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a case over a policy to allow only sex assigned at birth to be used on a passport application. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to continue carrying out, for now, its policy requiring that passports only list a person’s sex assigned at birth.

The nation’s highest court paused a lower court order that temporarily barred the administration from enforcing the policy, codified in an executive order Trump signed in January. 

The executive order made it the “policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female” and called on the State Department to “implement changes to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.” 

Under then-President Joe Biden, the State Department allowed people to “select an ‘X’ as their gender marker on their U.S. passport application.”

In the unsigned court order, the majority noted that “displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”  

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, indicating a 6-3 decision.

Jackson, who authored the dissent, wrote that the court “fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government’s favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party.” 

“This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification,” she wrote. “Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent.” 

In February, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the administration on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people over the suspension of the Biden-era policy.

A federal judge in Massachusetts in June temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing the policy. The judge had issued an earlier preliminary injunction in April that applied to six of the case’s plaintiffs. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit kept in place the district court’s order in September, prompting the administration to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.  

Victor Schwartz, founder and president of VOS Selections, spoke to reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025. Schwartz, a New York-based wine and spirits importer of 40 years, was the lead plaintiff in the case against President Donald Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court during lengthy arguments Wednesday weighed whether President Donald Trump violated the Constitution when he became the first U.S. president to impose sweeping global tariffs under an economic emergency powers statute usually reserved to combat rare and unusual threats.

Justices in both the conservative 6-3 majority and liberal minority questioned the sweeping presidential power the administration is claiming under IEEPA, including Chief Justice John Roberts. Questions about how Trump officials interpret the statute and view its limits, or lack thereof, revealed their skepticism.

Members of the president’s Cabinet, members of Congress and even comedian John Mulaney packed into the high court for the first major case of Trump’s second term to be fully argued before the justices. 

Tariffs are the centerpiece of Trump’s foreign policy, and he credits them in his recent negotiations to reach several unfinalized trade framework agreements with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and China, among other nations.

For nearly three hours the justices poked and prodded at the language of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, a 1970s-era sanctions law that Trump has invoked since January in a series of emergency declarations and proclamations triggering import taxes on goods from nearly every country.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer. 

Not far down the crowded rows were U.S. House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

Mulaney sat a few rows from the back, and was reportedly there to support former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argued Wednesday on behalf of several private small businesses who sued Trump over the tariffs. Katyal, who served under President Barack Obama and hosts the “COURTSIDE” podcast, has collaborated with Mulaney on his show.

Small business owners ‘footing the bill’

The case centered on whether the president has unilateral authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA. 

Trump became the first president to ever invoke import taxes under the 1977 emergency powers law, which has traditionally used sanctions to control economic transactions of hostile groups and individuals. For example, IEEPA was first invoked during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis and later used to freeze assets of terrorist groups after 9/11. In all, presidents have declared 77 national emergencies under the statute.

Small business owners who challenged Trump’s usage of the law argued the president doesn’t have the authority to tax them, and that the policy is upending their livelihoods. 

Since Trump declared emergencies around fentanyl smuggling and imbalanced trade relationships, U.S. businesses have been paying anywhere from 10% to upwards of 50% on imports, depending on country of origin.

“It’s American businesses like mine and American consumers that are footing the bill for the billions of dollars collected,” Victor Schwartz, founder and president of the family-owned wine and spirits importer VOS Selections and lead plaintiff, said outside the courthouse following arguments.

Small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the charge in the two separate cases, consolidated before the Supreme Court. They allege Trump usurped taxing power, which belongs to Congress as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.

Schwartz’s fellow plaintiffs included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Among the state officials who also joined the suit were state attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.

Two Illinois-based toy makers that primarily manufacture products in Asia filed a separate challenge.

Solicitor general argues ‘power to tariff’

The Trump administration argues tariffs are a necessary tool to achieve economic and national security goals. Officials claim the president’s power to impose duties under IEEPA is spelled out in the statute’s language authorizing the president to “regulate” importation and exportation during times of an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

“One of the most natural applications of that is the power to tariff,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer — the former Missouri solicitor general — said in response to questioning by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 

“So when Congress confers the power to regulate imports, it is, naturally, conferring the power to tariff,” Sauer continued.

Chief Justice Roberts asked Sauer to clarify the “major power” he claimed was granted in the statute.

“The exercise of the power is to impose tariffs, right? And the statute doesn’t use the word tariffs?” Roberts said.

“But it uses the words ‘regulate importations,’ and historically, a core, central application of that, a big piece of that, has always been to tariff,” Sauer answered, speaking at a quick and excited pace.

Many emergencies

Justice Elena Kagan asked Sauer why a president would ever use any of the other specific and constraint-bound tariff powers delegated by Congress if IEEPA “gives the president the opportunity to blow past those limits.”

“Because if you look at Title 19 (of the U.S. Code), which is loaded with tariffs and duties of various kinds, all of them have real constraints on them. They are, you know, you can’t go over X percent, or it can’t last more than one year. And of course, the way you interpret this statute, it has none of those constraints,” Kagan said.

Sauer responded that IEEPA “has its own constraints.”

“The president has to make a formal declaration of a national emergency, which subjects him to particularly intensive oversight by Congress, repeated natural lapsing, repeated review reports and so forth,” he said.

Kagan swiftly interjected: “I mean, you yourself think that the declaration of emergency is unreviewable, and even if it’s not unreviewable, it is, of course, the kind of determination that this Court would grant considerable deference to the president on, so that doesn’t seem like much of a constraint.”

“And in fact, you know, we’ve had cases recently which deal with the president’s emergency powers, and it turns out we’re in emergencies, about everything all the time, about like half the world,” Kagan said, to laughter in the courtroom.

Trump has petitioned the high court numerous times in 2025, putting cases regarding mass layoffs and immigration on the justices’ unofficial shadow docket, which bypasses a full argument process.

Trump comfort with tariffs

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why of the nearly 70 emergencies declared under IEEPA in past decades, none of them have invoked tariffs as a solution.

“Why do you think Presidents, Clinton, Bush, Obama, have not used IEEPA to impose tariffs? Because there have been trade disputes, certainly President Bush, steel imports and the like. Why do you think IEEPA has not been used?” Kavanaugh asked.

Sauer answered: “When you go through them one at a time, which we had our team do, it’s really hard to find one when you look at that emergency, you say, ‘Oh, tariffs is the natural tool you would use to address that emergency.’”

There are also “political reasons,” Sauer added. “I think that it’s no question that President Trump is by far the most comfortable with the tariffs as a tool, both economic and foreign policy, than many of others.”

Fentanyl smuggling targeted

Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA through a series of executive orders and proclamations in February and March on products from China, Canada and Mexico, declaring these countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggling into the United States.

The president escalated the emergency tariffs over the following months on goods from around the globe, declaring trade imbalances a national emergency. In addition to a baseline 10% global tariff, Trump specifically targeted countries that export more goods to the U.S. than they import from U.S. suppliers.

As recently as late August, Trump imposed an extra 25% tariff on goods imported from India, bringing the total tariffs on Indian products to 50%, because of the country’s usage of Russian oil. 

In early August, Trump slapped a 40% tax on all Brazilian goods after he disagreed with the country’s prosecution of its former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022.

Speaking to reporters following the arguments, Bessent said he thought the case “went very well.” 

“I think the solicitor general has made a very powerful case,” he said.

When asked whether the administration was crafting plans for what to do if the Supreme Court invalidates Trump’s emergency tariffs, he replied, “We’re not going to discuss that now.”

French wine on display in a District of Columbia shop on March 13, 2025.  The Supreme Court will hear a case on Nov. 5, 2025 challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs and one of the plaintiffs is a wine importer. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear one of the first major cases of President Donald Trump’s second term Wednesday, when the administration defends the president’s emergency tariffs that American small business owners say are upending their livelihoods.

The question at the heart of the case is whether Trump can authorize sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA — the first time a president has used the statute to impose taxes on imports.

The suit, which challenges the bounds of Trump’s presidential power, is the first of the administration’s appeals to the high court to be fully argued on its merits. The justices have so far addressed Trump’s numerous appeals on other issues on what is known as the shadow docket, a fast track to make a decision without full arguments.

The president initially said he would attend the arguments in person but has since changed course and will go to a business forum in Miami Wednesday.

The high court convenes at 10 a.m. Eastern and live audio of the arguments is posted on the court’s website.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he plans to attend the arguments, “hopefully in the front row (to) have a ringside seat,” he told Fox News’ Jesse Watters Monday

The tariff case is “one for the ages,” said Michael McConnell, professor and faculty director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and member of the legal team representing the small businesses challenging Trump’s tariffs.

“The president has important powers that come directly from the Constitution, but he has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without the authorization of Congress, and tariffs are taxes on American importers,” said McConnell, who sat on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit from 2002 to 2009.

“IEEPA simply does not apply here,” he told reporters during an Oct. 28 virtual press conference. “It is a statute about imposing various forms of sanctions, economic sanctions, on countries with whom we are in conflict. It has nothing to do with imposing taxes on Americans for engaging in perfectly lawful trade with friendly nations.”

Tariffs a ‘terrible and unsustainable weight’

Victor Schwartz, founder and president of VOS Selections, a family-owned wine and spirits importer in business for four decades, said Trump’s tariff policy is an “existential threat.” 

Schwartz is the lead plaintiff in one of two consolidated cases brought by small business owners and Democratic state attorneys general to challenge the duties that can range from 10% to 50%, depending on the product’s origin.

“These tariffs threaten the very existence of small businesses like mine, making it difficult to survive, let alone grow,” Schwartz told reporters during the Oct. 28 virtual press call.

“Let me be clear, Americans are paying these tariffs, not foreign entities, and the tariffs are a terrible and unsustainable weight. We have to pay tariffs immediately at the port of entry, and we don’t see revenue from those products for at least five or six months,” Schwartz said.

Schwartz said he and his daughter, with whom he runs the business, can no longer import wines from South Africa, as tariffs on products from that country are set at 30%.

Other businesses that joined Schwartz on the lawsuit include a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among states, led by Democratic state attorneys general, that also sued.

The U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the plaintiffs in finding Trump’s IEEPA tariffs unconstitutional.

The justices will also hear from two Illinois-based toy companies who, in a separate case, challenged Trump’s emergency tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind manufacture most of their educational toys in China, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand and India. Imports from those countries are taxed anywhere from 15% to above 50%, and in the case of China have been unpredictable.

Trump says ‘country is wealthy again’ 

Trump told reporters Sunday aboard Air Force One that the case is “one of the most important decisions in the history of our country.”

In an interview with the CBS show “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night, Trump said the economy “will go to hell” if the high court invalidates his emergency tariffs.

“Because of tariffs, our country is wealthy again,” the president told CBS correspondent Norah O’Donnell, arguing his use of tariffs as a negotiation tool will yield billions of dollars in investment in the United States from other countries. Many of the framework trade deals Trump has announced, including with the European Union, South Korea and Japan, are not yet finalized.

The government has so far collected $195 billion this year in customs duties at the end of September, according to a U.S. Treasury monthly statement.

In a September filing asking the Supreme Court to expedite the case, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote the U.S. would face “catastrophic” financial consequences, up to $1 trillion, if the emergency tariffs were overturned.

In the same filing, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued the import taxes are Trump’s “most significant economic and foreign-policy initiative … which President Trump has determined are necessary to rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl across our borders.” 

The administration is facing pushback on those arguments. 

Scott Lincicome, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said a ruling against the tariffs “would not lead to financial ruin, as the administration has said.”

“The government also claims that ‘With tariffs, we are a rich nation. Without tariffs, we are a poor nation,’ — except studies of the fiscal trajectory of the United States with both the IEEPA tariffs, and without, show that we are drowning in debt either way,” Lincicome told reporters at the late October press briefing.

Cato filed a brief in the case arguing against the tariffs.

Some Republicans break ranks

The case has attracted nearly two dozen friend-of-the-court briefs urging the justices to deem Trump’s IEEPA tariffs illegal, including one signed by hundreds of Democrats in Congress and one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. 

The lawmakers argued IEEPA “contains none of the hallmarks of legislation delegating tariff power to the executive, such as limitations tied to specific products or countries, caps on the amount of tariff increases, procedural safeguards, public input, collaboration with Congress, or time limitations.”

In the days leading up to the oral arguments, four Republican senators broke ranks to join Democrats in passing joint resolutions ending Trump’s emergency declarations triggering tariffs. 

One of the bills, passed Oct. 28, targeted Trump’s emergency declaration that led to 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods, including that nation’s major export: coffee. The symbolic bills are not expected to be taken up in the GOP-led House, but mark a shift from when Senate Republicans blocked a similar measure in April.

In its Supreme Court filing, Cato argued the administration’s reading of IEEPA “not only stretches the text beyond recognition but also undermines the Framers’ designs for the separation of powers. Accepting the government’s theory would mean that Congress, through ambiguous text and silence, can transfer sweeping legislative power to the President — a result this Court has cautioned against.”

In an amicus brief supporting Trump’s trade strategy, the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank heavily involved in Trump’s second presidential campaign, defended the tariffs as a “pillar of the America-first policies of the current administration” and argued the president has unilateral power to impose the taxes under a Depression-era law.

Executive orders and more

Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA through a series of executive orders and proclamations in February and March on products from China, Canada and Mexico, declaring these countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggling into the U.S. 

The president escalated the emergency tariffs over the following months on goods from around the globe, declaring trade imbalances a national emergency. In addition to a baseline 10% global tariff, Trump specifically targeted countries that export more goods to the U.S. than they import from U.S. suppliers.

As recently as late August, Trump imposed an extra 25% tariff on goods imported from India, bringing the total tariffs on Indian products to 50%, because of the country’s usage of Russian oil. 

In early August, Trump slapped a 40% tax on all Brazilian goods after he disagreed with the country’s prosecution of its former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022.

President Donald Trump attends inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump sought to remove his status as the only felon to be elected president by appealing his conviction on 34 New York state charges just before midnight Tuesday, arguing, in part, that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling giving the president broad immunity invalidated the conviction.

In a 96-page appeal nearly 18 months after his state court conviction that he falsified business records by disguising hush money payments over an alleged affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels as legitimate legal payments, Trump’s attorneys recited a list of complaints over his prosecution.  

Among those complaints were that New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, targeted the then-former president, and that the presiding Democratic judge created at least the appearance of partiality, the appeal said.

“This is the most politically charged prosecution in our Nation’s history,” the lengthy brief began. “After years of fruitless investigation into decade-old, baseless allegations — and under immense political pressure to criminally charge President Donald J. Trump for something — New York’s district attorney manufactured felony charges against a once-former and now-sitting President of the United States.”

Bragg’s office declined to comment on the appeal Tuesday. 

Hush money

The case centered on payments Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, made to Daniels in the run up to the 2016 election. Trump wanted to keep her from telling the tabloid National Enquirer about a tryst she said she had with the married Trump years earlier. 

After Trump won the White House, his private business reimbursed Cohen for the payment to Daniels, according to the 2023 indictment.

Federal prosecutors had explored whether the payment to Daniels could have violated campaign finance laws. Cohen paid Daniels to keep her from publicizing her account during Trump’s 2016 race against Hillary Clinton. 

They ultimately declined to bring charges.

Trump’s appeal this week said New York prosecutors impermissibly depended on campaign finance violations to charge him with felony business record falsification. 

To be charged as a felony, the business records must be falsified in service of another crime, but Trump argued Monday those allegations could not have been charged because federal law preempts state law.

The New York law also requires prosecutors to show the defendant had “intent to defraud” to win a conviction for falsifying business records. Bragg and his team did not do that at trial, Trump’s attorneys said.

SCOTUS immunity ruling

Trump’s attorneys also said the trial court admitted evidence that should have been protected by presidential immunity, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that established broad protections for sitting presidents.

The Supreme Court opinion said the president was not only protected from criminal charges based on official actions, but that any official action could not be used as evidence to prove an allegation that centered on an unofficial act.

The prosecution did include some official acts Trump took while in office, his lawyers said.

Prosecutors examined Hope Hicks, a former Trump White House communications director, Trump’s statements on social media, communications with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions — which Trump denies took place — and the president’s general work habits while in office. 

Those examples should all be considered official actions that are immune from being used in a criminal case, Trump’s attorneys wrote.

Lack of recusal broached

Trump’s attorneys also argued Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the trial, should have recused himself.

Merchan donated a total of $25 to Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign and to a political action committee called “Stop Republicans.” 

The nominal contributions violated a “clear bar on sitting judges making political contributions,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

His daughter also worked for a political organization that opposed Trump in 2020, the brief noted.

Trump had asked Merchan to recuse himself during the trial phase, but the judge declined. Trump’s attorneys said Monday that was a “clear ground for reversal” of the conviction.

“In the face of all these undisputed and damaging facts, Justice Merchan’s refusal to recuse created, at the very least, ‘the appearance of bias,’” they wrote.

Elected felon 

Whatever problems arose from Trump’s prosecution in New York, it had the political effect of elevating his stagnant comeback campaign.

At the nadir of his popularity following his 2020 election loss and the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, several credible challengers entered the Republican presidential field for the 2024 cycle and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis led in some early polls.

But four criminal prosecutions, of which the New York hush money case was the first, had the effect of galvanizing Republicans and other voters who believed the former president was the victim of a political prosecution, and he easily won the GOP nomination. 

The prosecutions played out amid the 2024 campaign, and a New York jury convicted Trump of 34 felony counts on May 30, making him the first former president to be convicted of a felony.

He won that November’s election and became the first felon to be elected president. 

He successfully delayed sentencing until after the 2024 election. Merchan imposed a sentence of unconditional discharge on Jan. 10, 2025, allowing Trump to avoid prison time. 

President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during an event announcing broad global tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House on April 2, 2025.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — More than 200 Democratic lawmakers and one Republican are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global emergency tariffs.

The 207 members of the U.S. House and Senate argued in an amicus brief late Friday that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose tariffs. The lawmakers urged the justices to agree with a lower court finding that Trump’s wide reaching import taxes triggered under IEEPA violate the Constitution, which grants duty powers to Congress.

“IEEPA contains none of the hallmarks of legislation delegating tariff power to the executive, such as limitations tied to specific products or countries, caps on the amount of tariff increases, procedural safeguards, public input, collaboration with Congress, or time limitations,” the lawmakers wrote. 

“In the five decades since IEEPA’s enactment, no President from either party, until now, has ever invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs.” 

Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., ranking members of the Senate committees on Foreign Relations and Finance, led the signatures of 36 members of the upper chamber. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, was the single GOP co-signer on the brief. A majority of House Democrats, 171 in total, also joined.

The lawmakers filed the friend-of-the-court brief ahead of oral arguments scheduled before the Supreme Court next week on the question of whether Trump’s emergency tariffs are legal. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in late August upheld a lower court ruling striking down the administration’s IEEPA tariffs.

The Senate is expected to vote on three bills this week that aim to terminate Trump’s import taxes on products from Canada, Brazil and any other country subject to emergency duties.

Fentanyl, trade deficits as emergencies

Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA in February and March on China, Canada and Mexico, declaring these countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggling into the U.S. 

The president escalated the emergency tariffs over the following months on goods from around the globe, declaring trade deficits a national emergency. A trade deficit means the U.S. imports more goods from a country than that nation purchases from U.S. suppliers.

Domestic businesses and purchasers now pay the U.S. government anywhere from 10% to 50% in tariffs on most imported products. The government had collected $195 billion this year in customs duties at the end of September, according to a U.S. Treasury monthly statement.

State AGs and businesses launched court challenge

Several private businesses and a dozen states sued Trump over the use of the emergency statute to trigger the steep import taxes.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among states, led by Democratic state attorneys general, that brought the suit.

Businesses that sued the Trump administration include the lead plaintiff, V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, according to its website. 

Other plaintiffs include a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company, and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Trump’s tariffs under IEEPA illegal in late May.

The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., home of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on July 14, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary are set to run out of funding in the next few days, a new development in the ongoing government shutdown that will likely reverberate throughout much of the country. 

The Supreme Court, which is in the middle of its fall term and slated to hear oral arguments for the next several months, will run out of funding Saturday, according to a statement from public information officer Patricia McCabe.

“At that point, if new appropriated funds do not become available, the Court will make changes in its operations to comply with the Anti Deficiency Act,” McCabe wrote. “The Supreme Court will continue to conduct essential work such as hearing oral arguments, issuing orders and opinions, processing case filings, and providing police and building support needed for those operations.”

The building, she added, will be closed to the public but remain open for official business.

A spokesperson for the Supreme Court told States Newsroom in late September that it planned to “rely on permanent funds not subject to annual approval, as it has in the past, to maintain operations through the duration of short-term lapses of annual appropriations.”

U.S. federal courts will run out of funding “to sustain full, paid operations” Monday due to the ongoing government shutdown, though they “will maintain limited operations necessary to perform the Judiciary’s constitutional functions,” according to an announcement released Friday.

“Federal judges will continue to serve, in accordance with the Constitution, but court staff may only perform certain excepted activities permitted under the Anti-Deficiency Act,” the U.S. Courts statement said.

The shutdown began on Oct. 1 after Congress was unable to find a bipartisan path forward on a stopgap spending bill. The U.S. Courts said at the time they would be able to use “court fee balances and other funds not dependent on a new appropriation” to keep up and running through Friday.

The new announcement from the courts said that several activities are excepted and can legally continue during the funding lapse. Those include anything necessary “for the safety of human life and protection of property, and activities otherwise authorized by federal law. 

“Excepted work will be performed without pay during the funding lapse. Staff members not performing excepted work will be placed on furlough.”

The statement said that each individual court throughout the federal system will make its own decision about how active cases will proceed during the shutdown. 

“Anyone with Judiciary business should direct questions to the appropriate clerk of court’s office, probation and pretrial supervision office, or federal defender organization, or consult their websites,” the announcement read. 

People summoned for federal jury duty will still need to report as instructed, since that program “is funded by money not affected by the appropriations lapse and will continue to operate.”

The online case management and electronic filing system, known as PACER, will keep operating despite the shutdown’s impact on the courts. 

Brandon Parnell, 39, and Latoya Gaines, 40, both of Birmingham, Alabama, traveled to Washington, D.C., to demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday drew protests from activists and lawmakers who warned the case threatens to gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and strip minority populations of the chance to elect candidates to Congress.

The Congressional Black Caucus convened a press conference on Capitol Hill just hours after the justices heard the case brought by the state of Louisiana and a group of voters who argue Section 2 of the landmark 1965 law violates the Constitution by discriminating against white voters. The section prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate based on race.

Protesters rally at the U.S. Capitol and in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2025, as justices heard a case from Louisiana challenging the Voting Rights Act. (Video by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a Louisiana Democrat and member of the caucus, cautioned his state could lose two majority Black congressional districts if the court strikes down the section in question.

“Critics claim that the VRA is no longer needed, but history and data tells quite a different story,” Carter said.

“Though Black people make up one-third of the population (in the state), only five (Black) Louisianians have served in the U.S. House out of 171. That’s not equal representation. That’s a travesty. Without protections like Section 2, Black communities will lose power. Their concerns are sidelined, and our democracy is weakened.”

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, a Democrat of Alabama, said she sat through the more than two hours of oral arguments in the Supreme Court Wednesday morning into afternoon.

“What was clear in the questioning of the majority on the court is that they have something in mind,” Sewell said, adding that she believes the conservative majority wants to “claw back Section 2, if not to eliminate it totally.” 

Two years ago, the justices affirmed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, finding that an Alabama congressional district map likely violated it. 

“This case is more than just about congressional maps. It’s about who we are as a nation and what we want our democracy to be. Now, I may be the first Black congresswoman from Alabama, but I damn sure won’t be the last,” Sewell said.

Earlier Wednesday, hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court before and during oral arguments. 

Nearly two dozen advocacy groups organized the rally, dubbed “Fight for Fair Maps.” Speakers included leaders from the NAACP, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The Urban League and the National Council of Negro Women.

Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, invoked in her speech the names of past civil and voting rights leaders, like Ida B. Wells and Amelia Boynton Robinson.

“These black women were on the front line of the battle to secure voting rights. They understood that it was a necessary foundation for everything else, for our freedom, for our safety, for our economic security,” Graves said.

Those fighting against Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “want to make the right to vote nothing but words on a paper. They want to take away anything that feels real about our ability to have these rights,” Graves said.

Many in the crowd held signs featuring the face of the late civil rights leader and Georgia U.S. Rep. John Lewis next to the words “Protect Our Vote.”

Latoya Gaines, 40, of Birmingham, Alabama, said she traveled to Washington, D.C., “to stand in solidarity with my people.” 

“We believe in fair math,” said Gaines, as she demonstrated with the group Black Voters Matter and held a sign bearing the message “We Fight Back.”

Brandon Parnell, who also traveled from Birmingham and represented Black Voters Matter, stood alongside Gaines as they held signs toward the traffic driving by the Supreme Court.

“I’m here to fight for my voting rights because I’m a voter,” said the 39-year-old, as he waved an American flag and clasped an ACLU-sponsored sign reading “Protect People, Not Power.”

Jan Kleinman, 65, of Baltimore, Maryland, attended with fellow League of Women Voters members. 

“I grew up in a League of Women Voters household,” Kleinman said. “The vote is really powerful and shouldn’t be diluted.”

“I truly believe in fair redistricting, like districts that accurately represent a majority of their citizens. Obviously not everyone is going to always be happy with who gets elected, but the closer we can get to making more people happy, the better our democracy,” Kleinman said.

Rallygoers hold a sign that reads “Free Kilmar” during a rally Friday, Oct. 10, 2025, outside the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge in Maryland seemed inclined to order the release of  Kilmar Abrego Garcia from immigration detention after oral arguments in court Friday, a potentially major development in the high-profile case.

After a more than six-hour hearing, District Judge Paula Xinis said a witness provided by the Justice Department showed little evidence that the Trump administration made an effort to remove Abrego Garcia to the southern African nation of Eswatini, and knew nothing about Abrego Garcia agreeing to be removed to Costa Rica. 

The witness tapped by the Department of Justice was John Schultz, a deputy assistant director who oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement removal operations.

After hearing from him, Xinis said keeping Abrego Garcia detained indefinitely would likely be unconstitutional. She said she would issue an order soon.

Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant whose wrongful deportation from Maryland put a spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown, is currently detained in Pennsylvania. 

His attorneys have argued the Trump administration is using detention to punish Abrego Garcia because officials are not trying to remove him, even after Abrego Garcia agreed to be deported to Costa Rica.

‘Three strikes, you’re out’

Xinis expressed her frustration with Department of Justice attorneys for not providing a witness who would give clear answers on how immigration officials were handling the removal of Abrego Garcia. 

“We’re getting to the three strikes, you’re out,” Xinis said. 

Andrew J. Rossman, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, argued that if Immigration and Customs Enforcement is making no plans to immediately remove him, he should be released from detention. 

He also argued that since March, when the Trump administration erroneously deported Abrego Garcia to a mega-prison in El Salvador, to the present, Abrego Garcia has been “in continuous containment” way past the six-month limit set by the Supreme Court regarding the detention of immigrants.

“The real aim of the government… is punitive, which is just to keep him incarcerated,” Rossman said. “It’s an overtly political purpose.”

Rossman told Xinis that he has not received an answer from the federal government as to why they will not remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica, after he agreed to that proposal in August.

Xinis asked DOJ attorney Drew Ensign why Abrego Garcia hasn’t been removed to Costa Rica.

Ensign said that it was not clear to the government until Friday that Abrego Garcia had agreed to be removed to Costa Rica, because Abrego Garcia had previously expressed fear of being sent there. 

Abrego Garcia changed his position after Costa Rica assured him he would be given refugee status.

“That is a new development that I will report back to people,” Ensign said.

Supreme Court ruling

A 2001 Supreme Court ruling does not allow for immigrants to be detained longer than six months if the federal government is making no efforts to remove them. 

After 90 days without efforts to deport an immigrant, a challenge can be made because detaining that person any longer than a maximum of 180 days, or six months, would likely be unconstitutional, the high court found in Zadvydas v. Davis. 

Earlier this week, Xinis seemed likely to order Abrego Garcia’s release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, where he has remained since late August. 

Xinis, who also ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego Garica to the United States after she found his removal to El Salvador unlawful, is overseeing his habeas corpus petition, which challenges his detention.

Protesters rally outside the courthouse

Ahead of the hearing, dozens of supporters from the immigrant advocacy group CASA gathered in front of the District Court for the District of Maryland, chanting, “Somos todos Kilmar,” or, “We are all Kilmar.” 

Rallygoers also chanted “What do we want? Justice!” “When do we want it? Now!” 

Some also held signs urging the Trump administration to free Abrego Garcia.

Two Maryland state legislators, Dels. Nicole Williams and Bernice Mireku-North, both Democrats, joined the rally.

Williams sponsored legislation during this year’s General Assembly session to prohibit local police from entering into certain agreements with ICE. On the last day of the legislative session in April, lawmakers passed a watered-down version of a bill that does not include the ban, the biggest loss for Maryland immigration advocates this year.

“We are going to be working on legislation with regards to masking by law enforcement officers,” Williams said. “We need to start treating everyone, I don’t care where you’re from, in a humane and decent way. And that’s what we’re going to be fighting for every single day until Kilmar is free and Kilmar comes home. So stop using Kilmar for your own political gain. Bring Kilmar home.”

White House involvement

Schultz, the DOJ witness, revealed that the White House had direct involvement in picking Uganda as a potential third country of removal for ICE’s deportation of Abrego Garcia. 

The move was unusual because the State Department typically coordinates third-country removals for the Department of Homeland Security.

Schultz said the Homeland Security Council, which operates within the White House, notified ICE of Uganda as a third country of removal. The Homeland Security Council works with the National Security Council of the White House. 

While Uganda is no longer a third country of removal for Abrego Garcia, ICE is trying to now remove him to Eswatini. 

Schultz said Eswatini has not agreed to take Abrego Garcia, but discussions, which he said started on Wednesday, are underway. 

“The discussions are continuing,” Schultz said. 

Schultz said he is not aware if ICE has not made any efforts to determine if Abrego Garcia would face persecution or be tortured or confined in Eswatini, or be removed a second time to El Salvador.  

Eswatini has previously agreed to accept third-country removals from the U.S. and the two countries have a memorandum of understanding, he added.

Ghana another potential destination

Schultz said that ICE has also identified the west African country of Ghana as a potential nation for Abrego Garica’s removal. Schultz said once a third country has agreed to accept Abrego Garica, he could be removed by ICE within 72 hours.

However, Ghana’s Foreign Minister, Sam Okudzeto Ablakwa, wrote on social media that the country will not accept Abrego Garcia. 

“This has been directly and unambiguously conveyed to US authorities,” he wrote. “In my interactions with US officials, I made clear that our understanding to accept a limited number of non-criminal West Africans, purely on the grounds of African solidarity and humanitarian principles would not be expanded.”

Schultz said that ICE “prematurely” sent a notice of removal to Abrego Garcia with Ghana as the designation.

The Costa Rica alternative

One of Abrego Garcia’s attorneys, Sascha Rand, grilled Schultz about why DHS would not remove him to Costa Rica, despite Abrego Garcia agreeing to go.

Schultz said he was unaware of the letter from Costa Rica’s government saying it would accept Abrego Garcia.

Another attorney for Abrego Garcia, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said that the Trump administration offered to remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica in August if he were to plead guilty to criminal charges in a federal case in Tennessee. 

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in his criminal case in Nashville said in court filings that the Trump administration is trying to get him to plead guilty to human smuggling charges by promising to remove him to Costa Rica if he does so, and threatening to deport him to Uganda if he refuses. 

Rand asked Schultz if anyone from DHS was in contact with Costa Rica.

Schultz said he was unaware if there were conversations between the federal government and Costa Rica about removing him there. 

Rossman said based on Schultz’s testimony, it was clear the Trump administration was “holding hostage passage to Costa Rica.”

“They aren’t presently intending to remove him,” he said. “They have spun the globe and picked various (African) countries… to fail on purpose.”

William J. Ford of Maryland Matters contributed to this report.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The voting rights focused firm Law Forward and former Democratic U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold filed an amicus brief Monday in a lawsuit brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee to strike down a law that limits the amount of money political parties can contribute to individual candidates for office. 

The lawsuit was initially brought in 2022 by two Republican candidates, including then-Sen. J.D. Vance. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Republican argument and now that decision is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court is expected to hear the case during its 2025-26 term, which began on Monday. 

In the amicus brief, Feingold and Law Forward argue that the weakening of campaign finance laws over the past few decades has deeply harmed American democracy — making elected officials more responsive to the needs of their wealthiest donors, in or out of their states and districts, rather than their constituents. 

“We don’t have to guess what will happen if additional campaign finance rules are torn up, we’ve already witnessed it in Wisconsin. Striking down these federal limits will remove guardrails that are necessary for a representative democracy to thrive,” Feingold said in a statement. “The erosion of regulations is responsible for an alarming increase in the amount of money flowing through elections, giving wealthy donors an outsized voice in the political process, reducing the public’s faith in their elected representatives, and diminishing voters’ willingness to continue participating in the political process.”

During his 18 years in the Senate, Feingold regularly focused on campaign finance issues, including the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which is commonly known as McCain-Feingold and instituted a number of rules guiding the use of “soft money” by outside groups running ads to influence elections.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010 weakened the law and the brief filed Monday argues the erosion of campaign finance rules has damaged the country’s politics and made its government vulnerable to corruption. 

“For a representative democracy to thrive, elected officials must be responsive to their constituents and avoid even the appearance of corruption,” the brief states. “Campaign finance regulation exists to reinforce these guardrails. Yet, for years, opponents of regulation have persistently chiseled away at the limits established to prevent excessive campaign cash from corrupting our elections.” 

The brief uses Wisconsin as an example, which since 2015 has not placed a limit on the amount political parties can give to candidates. That change has resulted in wealthy donors from Wisconsin and across the country giving maximum contributions to candidates’ campaigns while giving much larger donations to each candidate’s party — essentially using the party committee as a middleman to funnel millions of dollars into candidate accounts. 

“With each election cycle, the total contributions made, especially for statewide candidates, grows at a shocking rate, incentivizing candidates to court the wealthiest donors,” the brief states. “And, as Wisconsin elections have drawn more and more national attention, the pool of prospective donors has expanded to include increasing numbers of millionaires and billionaires residing in other states. Thus, the cycle continues. The flood of money into Wisconsin’s elections has bred accusations of corruption and threatens to drown out — if not completely silence — the voices of average voters.”

The brief argues that the decision by Wisconsin Republicans in 2015 to weaken the state’s campaign finance laws resulted in a downward spiral that opened the floodgates to money pouring into high profile races — most notably campaigns for governor and state Supreme Court. 

“Wisconsin’s experience shows exactly what happens when we eliminate these crucial guardrails,” Law Forward attorney Rachel Snyder said. “The wealthiest donors route massive contributions through political parties, effectively buying themselves significant access to and influence with both political parties and elected officials. This isn’t about partisan politics — it’s about preserving a democracy where average citizens’ voices aren’t drowned out by billionaires’ checkbooks.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case that could impact state laws around the country that ban “conversion therapy,” a controversial counseling practice for LGBTQ+ youth. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case that could reverse or solidify state laws across the country that ban a controversial counseling practice for LGBTQ+ youth.

The case challenges a 2019 Colorado law that bans “conversion therapy” for children and teens. Conversion therapy is a catchall term for efforts to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ+ people. Sometimes called “reparative therapy,” it can range from talk therapy and religious counseling to electrical shocks, pain-inducing aversion therapy and physical isolation. The therapy has been widely discredited by medical groups.

More than half of states — including some led by Republicans — have banned or restricted the practice for children and teens since California became the first to do so in 2012, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a left-leaning nonprofit research organization that tracks LGBTQ+-related laws and policies.

In recent years, however, Republicans in several states have worked to reverse bans, with some success. A poll in June by Data for Progress, a liberal think tank, found that although less than half of Republican voters, 43%, support or strongly support conversion therapy, more than half — 56% — said the Supreme Court ought to allow states to ban it.

A decision in the Colorado case, expected next year, could have far-reaching ramifications for dozens of other states.

“I think we’re all really worried about the implications,” said Cliff Rosky, a professor of law at the University of Utah. Rosky helped draft Utah’s 2023 law prohibiting licensed professionals from practicing conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ youth. That measure unanimously passed the Republican-controlled legislature.

“We certainly hope the court will uphold the right of states to regulate the behavior of therapists that it licenses and protect children from a lethal public health threat,” he told Stateline.

The impact on other states’ laws would depend on the scope of the high court’s ruling. But most of those laws are similar to Colorado’s, Rosky said.

“Certainly, a broad ruling against Colorado’s law would jeopardize the constitutionality of all the other laws.”

In Chiles v. Salazar, a licensed counselor in Colorado Springs, Kaley Chiles, sued state officials in 2022 over a law that bars licensed mental health professionals from conducting conversion therapy on clients under 18. She argues the law violates her First Amendment right to free speech and interferes with her ability to practice counseling in a way that aligns with her religious convictions. Chiles is represented by conservative religious law firm Alliance Defending Freedom.

“The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors,” Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a news release when the group filed its opening brief in June. “Colorado’s law harms these young people by depriving them of caring and compassionate conversations with a counselor who helps them pursue the goals they desire.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, said in an August news conference that the law doesn’t prohibit a provider from sharing information or viewpoints with a patient, and that therapists are still allowed to talk with patients about conversion practices offered by religious groups.

But he called conversion therapy a “substandard, discredited practice.” Conversion therapy has been denounced by major medical organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

“This practice has been used in the past to try to force patients to change their sexual orientation or their gender identity,” Weiser said. “The science, however, says that this practice is harmful. It doesn’t work.

“Regardless of how it’s performed, there can be real harms from this practice. And those harms can include depression, self-hatred, loss of faith, even suicide.”

The key question in the case is whether Colorado’s law regulates professional standards of conduct and speech, or whether it attempts to regulate the right to free speech, said Marie-Amélie George, a legal historian who has published extensively on LGBTQ+ rights and is a professor of law at Wake Forest University School of Law.

“What is really interesting about these laws is that most licensed health professionals don’t offer conversion therapy because professional associations across the board have condemned it as extremely harmful,” George told Stateline. After the mainstream mental health community disavowed efforts to change people’s sexual orientation by the late 1980s, conversion therapy “became primarily the province of religious and lay ministers,” she said.

State laws like Colorado’s don’t restrict clergy and lay ministers from engaging in conversion therapy, she said. They address only the small subset of state-licensed mental health professionals who wish to use it.

In August, attorneys general in 20 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief supporting Colorado’s law. They argue the First Amendment doesn’t shield mental health practices from regulation when the state deems them dangerous or ineffective, and that states have a long and established history of regulating professional standards of care.

Colorado isn’t the only recent battleground over conversion therapy, as conservative majorities in the courts, state legislatures and at the federal level have opened the door for Republican lawmakers and conservative Christian groups to reinstate the practice.

Earlier this year, Kentucky’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill canceling Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s 2024 executive order that banned conversion therapy for minors. Beshear promptly vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode his veto in March.

In April, a coalition of Republican attorneys general from 11 states, led by Iowa and South Carolina, appealed a January decision by a U.S. district court judge to uphold a 2023 Michigan law that’s similar to Colorado’s. It prohibits mental health professionals from trying to alter a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The case began when Catholic Charities of three Michigan counties filed a lawsuit targeting Michigan’s law in 2024 on behalf of a licensed therapist.

In July, a Virginia court partially struck down the state’s 2020 ban on conversion therapy for minors. Republican lawmakers in Michigan introduced a bill in July to repeal their state’s ban, while Missouri’s Republican attorney general sued to overturn local conversion therapy bans.

From the mid-1990s until the mid-2010s, LGBTQ+ rights advocates won a lot of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, said George, the Wake Forest professor.

“But in the years since, the Supreme Court has been more hostile to LGBTQ+ rights claims,” she said. “I think, with the political environment of the court, it will be interesting to see what they do given how they have treated other LGBTQ+ rights cases in recent years.

“States are extremely similar in the laws they have enacted, so the decision in this case will probably affect all of the conversion therapy bans in this country.”

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

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a Nashville press conference on July 18, 2025, to discuss arrests of immigrants during recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps. (Photo by John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday again allowed the Trump administration to strip temporary protections for more than 300,000 Venezuelans, opening them up for quick deportations as the president continues with his plans for mass deportations.  

The conservative justices granted, 6-3, President Donald Trump’s request from last month to pause a federal judge’s ruling that found Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem lacked the authority to revoke Temporary Protected Status granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants under the Biden administration. 

All three liberal justices sided with the lower court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing a dissent with the conservative Supreme Court majority. She criticized the high court’s use of the emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket, which can allow the justices to avoid explaining their reasoning for decisions brought on an emergency basis. 

“We once again use our equitable power (but not our opinion-writing capacity) to allow this Administration to disrupt as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible,” Jackson wrote. 

The conservative justices did not explain their reasoning but said the harms faced by the Trump administration remained the same as when the case was first brought to the high court in May.

Jackson said that not only were the lower courts correct in their orders to block the removal of TPS protections to limit harm, but that the Supreme Court should have denied the emergency request from the Trump administration.

“Having opted instead to join the fray, the Court plainly misjudges the irreparable harm and balance-of-the-equities factors by privileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families’ pleas for the stability our Government has promised them,” Jackson wrote. 

“Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent,” she continued. 

The suit in the Northern District of California will continue despite Friday’s emergency ruling from the high court. 

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Noem had the authority to revoke extended protections initially granted to Venezuelans under the Biden administration. 

Former President Joe Biden granted TPS for Venezuelans who came to the U.S. in 2021 and 2023. Those TPS protections were set to last until October 2026. 

TPS is granted when a national’s home country is deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, political instability or extreme natural disasters. It’s renewed every 18 months and protects immigrants from deportation and allows them access to work permits.

This is the second time the Trump administration has appealed to the high court to allow it to end TPS protections for Venezuelans. In late May, the Supreme Court paved the way for the Trump administration to temporarily terminate TPS for more than 300,000 Venezuelans while the case continued in lower courts.

Chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell, left, administers the oath of office to Lisa Cook, right, to serve as a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve System during a ceremony at the William McChesney Martin Jr. Building of the Federal Reserve May 23, 2022 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will take up in January the question of President Donald Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook, according to an order filed by the court Wednesday.

The unsigned order states Trump’s application to stay a lower court’s decision to keep Cook on board while the case plays out will be deferred until oral arguments on an unspecified date in January. 

Trump tried to remove Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in late August, alleging she lied on a mortgage application. A federal district judge sided with Cook in early September after she challenged the president in court.  

A three-judge panel then split 2-1 in rejecting Trump’s appeal to overturn the lower court decision and affirmed on Sept. 16 that Cook could keep her position as the case plays out. 

Trump asked the Supreme Court to intervene, adding to his series of petitions to the justices since his second term began. The decision could have major bearing on Trump’s powers as the chief executive.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters during Wednesday’s briefing that the administration remains confident about the legality of Cook’s firing.  

“Look, we have respect for the Supreme Court but they’re going to hear the actual case and make a determination on the legal argument in January. And we look forward to that because we maintain that she was fired well within the president’s legal authority to do so. She was removed from the board. And we look forward to that case being fully played out at the Supreme Court,” Leavitt said.

The legal battle is occurring against a backdrop of Trump’s ongoing pressure to insert himself in the decisions of the independent central bank. 

For months Trump and his allies have attacked Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell with antagonizing social media posts amid Trump’s continued campaign for lower interest rates.

The president and Senate Republicans recently installed White House economist Stephen Miran on the board. Miran is taking a leave of absence as chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers while he serves in the role.

The Fed lowered interest rates for the first time in 2025 by a quarter percentage point on Sept. 17. Miran was the only board governor to vote against the change after lobbying for a half-point cut.

Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed board, was appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2023 and confirmed by the Senate in a 51-47 vote.

The Federal Reserve’s dual mandate is to maximize the nation’s employment while also stabilizing prices by keeping inflation low and steady over a long period of time. Among the tools the central bank uses to accomplish the two missions is regulating interest rates to cool inflation or stimulate the economy.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Elections in Wisconsin are setting new spending records every year, but the U.S. Supreme Court appears set to allow even more money into political races across the country if it rules the way experts expect it to in a pending case.

A case brought to the court by Republican plaintiffs in December seeks to abolish limits on coordinated campaign expenditures – money political parties spend in collaboration with candidates. The court’s June decision to hear a challenge to its decades-old precedent speaks to the conservative majority’s distaste for regulating campaign finance, experts say.

“We know where this thing is going because of how the (Chief Justice John) Roberts’ court has dealt with campaign finance restrictions,” said Anthony Chergosky, a political science professor at UW-La Crosse.

The Supreme Court will reconsider its 2001 decision, which ruled that limits on coordinated campaign expenditures are constitutional. The limits apply to shared expenses between party and candidate, such as advertising costs.

Undoing these limits “would open a new, significant way for political parties to spend in direct support of their candidates’ campaigns,” Chergosky said.

In Wisconsin, parties coordinating with U.S. Senate candidates can spend up to about $600,000 in a general election campaign before the limits kick in, according to the Federal Elections Commission. Nationwide, limits vary from $127,200 to $3,946,100 based on the state’s voting age population. For U.S. House nominees in states with more than one representative, which includes Wisconsin, the spending cap is about $63,000.

The Republican plaintiffs – which include the National Republican Congressional Committee, Vice President J.D. Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot – filed their case in 2022 and went to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court upheld the spending limits.

The court will likely hear the case in the fall and release a decision in 2026 just as U.S. midterm elections kick into gear, according to a SCOTUSblog analysis. All eight of Wisconsin’s U.S. House members will face reelection, though neither senator will.

The limits the court will review only apply to federal elections for president or Congress, said Brendan Glavin, the research director for OpenSecrets, a Washington-based watchdog that tracks lobbying and campaign finance data. The limits do not apply to state-level candidates.

But “even with the limit, people can still give quite a lot of money to the party, and the party is still allowed to make independent expenditures,” Glavin said. “It’s not like anybody’s being shut down.”

Even if the Supreme Court struck down these limits, federal contribution caps would still apply. This year and next, the federal limits on how much an individual can give to a candidate committee is $3,500 per election. Individuals are also limited to a yearly donation of about $44,000 to a national party committee, according to the FEC.

But the coordinated campaign expenditure limits seal a loophole, Glavin said. The limits prevent donors from circumventing individual contribution caps by donating to a party that can essentially earmark the money for a specific candidate.

“When you take these coordinated limits away, then you’re essentially providing a bit of an end run around the contribution limits for an individual,” said Glavin. However, the Republican challenge “does fit into a broader trend of what we’ve seen over time.”

Campaign finance reform, including limits on coordinated campaign expenditures, were taken up in the 1970s and expanded in 2002, Glavin said. Since then, the reforms have been incrementally rolled back through court decisions like Citizens United v. F.E.C., the 2010 Supreme Court case that paved the way for unlimited political spending organizations called Super PACs.

Reversing the law isn’t likely to affect dark money or Super PAC spending, Glavin said. But you’d likely see more candidates and parties approaching a donor together.

“One ask, one check, that’s an easier way to get the donor,” Glavin said.

Thus, overruling precedent in this case would “tilt the balance of power back in favor of party committees,” Chergosky said. Though partisan loyalty is strong, Chergosky explained, party organizations have seen their influence weaken in light of outside groups like Super PACs.

Though none of Wisconsin’s U.S. Senate seats will be in play next year, Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District is set to be one of the most expensive House races in the 2026 cycle, Chergosky said.

The race will likely be a rematch between Republican incumbent Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Prairie du Chien and Democratic challenger Rebecca Cooke of Eau Claire, both of whom are “exceptional fundraisers,” Chergosky said.

As the number of competitive seats continues to decline, an “enormous amount of money gets funneled into fewer and fewer districts,” Chergosky said. But regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, there won’t be a shortage of money spent in the 3rd District, he said.

Wisconsin law provides an interesting contrast, Chergosky said. Here, state law limits how much individuals can give directly to candidates, but it does not limit the amount individuals can give to parties, nor does it limit how much party committees can give to state-level candidates.

“The comparison to the Wisconsin law is interesting because that has really motivated donors to give to state parties in a way that we just haven’t seen at the national level,” Chergosky said.

The piles of cash that fuel state and national politics has encouraged some Wisconsin legislators to propose resolutions amending the U.S. Constitution.

A Republican-backed proposal calls for an amendment that would also allow states to regulate spending in elections. A Democratic proposal calls for an advisory referendum to appear on Wisconsin ballots; it would ask voters whether they approve of amending the Constitution in order to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.

If two-thirds of the state legislatures in the country request it, Congress can convene to consider amending the Constitution. The joint resolutions, if successful, are necessary if Wisconsin wants Congress to convene a constitutional convention. A joint resolution must pass both chambers of the state Legislature; the governor’s signature is not required.

Lawmakers last acted on the Democrats’ proposal in May, and the most recent action on the Republican proposal was in June.

This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The Badger Project is a nonpartisan, citizen-supported journalism nonprofit in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin’s cash-flooded elections could get even more expensive is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.