The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a significant climate lawsuit in which oil companies are seeking to avoid being tried in state court. 

The fate of several dozen climate lawsuits brought against oil companies by state and local governments could hinge on the decision, which could determine whether the cases can be tried in state court. The suits seek to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to help governments grapple with the costs of climate-related damages, such as natural disasters, rising sea levels and drought.

Exxon Mobil Corp. and Suncor Energy Inc., which have been sued by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, argue the case should be dismissed because they followed national regulations when extracting and selling their products. Oil companies have claimed that federal rules around greenhouse gas emissions should preempt efforts to sue them under state laws.

Some oil companies have previously attempted to have climate cases removed to federal courts, petitions that have been denied by federal circuit courts and the Supreme Court.

But the roughly three dozen state and local governments that have sued oil companies in recent years argue that the cases belong in state court. Many of the lawsuits cite state consumer protection and fraud laws, along with evidence that the companies knew about the risks of climate change while downplaying it in public.

“We had hoped that the Supreme Court would let the decision of the lower courts rest, but we’re also confident in our case and looking forward for the chance to have it heard,” Boulder Mayor Aaron Brockett said in an interview. “I do think it’s a significant case. If the motion to dismiss is not granted, then we can get into discovery and learn exactly what Exxon and Suncor knew and when they knew it.”

The states of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont, as well as many more cities, counties and tribes, have all filed lawsuits against oil companies over climate change. 

If the Supreme Court were to rule that the Boulder case is preempted by federal law, it would be a major win for oil companies, who have long claimed that national regulations such as the Clean Air Act should supersede state laws. Such a ruling could also prevent many of the other cases from moving forward in state courts.

The case could also be complicated by the Trump administration’s recent repeal of the endangerment finding, the scientific determination that underpinned the federal government’s regulations of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. With the feds stepping back from climate regulation, some observers believe the oil companies will have a harder time claiming that state lawsuits fall under the scope of federal policy.

In a written statement to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prior to the repeal of the endangerment finding, a group of investor-owned electric utilities raised that concern. The Edison Electric Institute, in its letter to the agency, said that federal greenhouse gas emissions helped “protect the power sector” from legal claims by “displacing” lawsuits over companies’ role in contributing to climate change. 

“Should EPA remove its regulation of [greenhouse gases], it increases the likelihood that environmental non-governmental organizations, advocacy groups, citizen groups, and other parties will seek to bring new tort suits and other litigation to test the bounds of continued [Clean Air Act] displacement of federal common law,” the group wrote.

Editor’s Note: The story has been corrected to reflect that the Supreme Court in 2023 denied oil companies’ attempts to remove the case to federal court.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org. 

A coalition of public health and environmental groups filed a suit Wednesday challenging the Trump administration’s recent finding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not regulate climate-warming greenhouse gases.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and President Donald Trump announced last week the administration was finalizing a repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, which declared the agency could regulate greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from vehicle emissions, because climate change posed a danger to human health.

The 17 groups who jointly filed the suit Wednesday include the American Public Health Association, Clean Wisconsin, Union of Concerned Scientists, Earthjustice and Natural Resources Defense Council. 

‘Required by law to protect us’

Their two-page filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit does not detail any of the groups’ legal arguments against the repeal, but lawyers and officials for the groups said the EPA was legally bound, under the Clean Air Act, to protect people from greenhouse gas emissions. 

“They are required by law to protect us from air pollution that endangers public health and welfare,” Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the CEO of the American Public Health Association, said on a video call with reporters. “And that includes greenhouse gases that are driving climate change.”

The law requires challenges to new nationwide agency actions on emissions to be filed in the D.C. Circuit.

In an email, EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch said the agency had reviewed the endangerment finding, the Clean Air Act and related court decisions, including “robust analysis” of recent Supreme Court decisions. The agency concluded it did not have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

“Unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended—not as others might wish it to be,” Hirsch said. 

“In the absence of such authority, the Endangerment Finding is not valid, and EPA cannot retain the regulations that resulted from it,” she continued. “EPA is bound by the laws established by Congress, including under the CAA. Congress never intended to give EPA authority to impose GHG regulations for cars and trucks.”

Emissions are pollutants, opponents say

But the groups said the EPA’s reasoning ignored that the agency has long regulated emissions as part of its mandate to protect clear air. The omission of the term “greenhouse gases” in the Clean Air Act is “a manufactured problem” by opponents of regulation, Hana Vizcarra, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, said.

“The Clean Air Act was intended to cover air pollutants, full stop. Air pollutants include greenhouse gases,” she said. “This argument that Congress needs to do something different to be able to regulate greenhouse gases… it’s just a way to avoid the issue and avoid regulation.”

The matter is “settled law,” the groups said, as federal courts have affirmed and reaffirmed the EPA’s power to regulate emissions.

A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case established that the Clean Air Act “was unambiguous” in authorizing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at NRDC, said. 

That decision led to the EPA’s so-called endangerment finding two years later, during President Barack Obama’s first year in office.

Attorneys general likely to weigh in

Wednesday’s challenge will likely be consolidated with other challenges, including those from “blue-state attorneys general,” Hankins said.

In the announcement last week, Trump said the endangerment finding, and the tailpipe emissions standards that relied on it, had dragged down the automotive sector and the broader economy nationwide.

The administration has said the move will save Americans more than $1 trillion by reducing regulations.

The repeal’s opponents, though, said Wednesday that projection ignored more than $100 billion in additional costs American drivers would see if fuel efficiency standards are relaxed or the enormous public health costs from worsened air quality and increased climate risks.

Chinese juggernaut BYD has expanded rapidly across global markets in a remarkably short time, positioning itself as one of the world’s largest car manufacturers. Yet despite its international reach, it has so far been unable to enter the world’s second-largest new car market: the United States. The main obstacle has been import tariffs, but BYD is now pushing back.

Eager to establish a foothold in the US market with its passenger vehicles, four BYD subsidiaries based in the United States have filed suit against the federal government.

Read: China’s EV Boom Is Cooling, And The Big Names Are Feeling It

The case, brought before the US Court of International Trade, challenges tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The plaintiffs include BYD America LLC, BYD Coach & Bus LLC, BYD Energy LLC, and BYD Motors LLC.

The lawsuit names not only the federal government but also officials from the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, the Office of the US Trade Representative, and the Treasury Department.

It argues that these agencies exceeded the authority granted to them under the IEEPA statute and contends that the resulting tariff orders are legally invalid.

Tariffs Under Fire

In addition, the lawsuit specifically challenges nine executive orders and amendments issued since February 2025, including tariffs at the borders with Mexico and Canada, as well as tariffs targeting China and related to fentanyl.

The Chinese car manufacturer is seeking permanent injunctions against these measures and wants refunds for all IEEPA tariffs collected, in addition to interest and reasonable litigation costs.

While it may sound like a long shot for BYD to try and get these tariffs overthrown, its efforts aren’t without precedent. The lawsuit cites the case of New York-based wine importer V.O.S. Selections, which successfully sued the US government over tariffs, arguing that the US President lacks authority to impose them, even under the IEEPA framework.

Already On American Soil

Though it may surprise many American consumers, BYD already maintains a manufacturing presence in the United States. Its 550,000 square-foot facility in Lancaster, California, produces hundreds of electric buses and employs roughly 500 workers.

Getting the tariffs thrown out wouldn’t just help this complex, but also open the door for BYD to sell cars in the United States, perhaps importing them from factories in Canada and Mexico.

Could This Open the Floodgates?

Sun Xiaohong, secretary-general of the automotive branch of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products, told Global Times that “BYD’s move follows a growing trend of companies using legal channels to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.”

While the case still faces legal hurdles, Sun told the outlet that it could set an important precedent for other Chinese companies looking to assert their rights through formal channels. He also argues that letting automakers like BYD in could benefit US buyers by adding more affordable EV options to a market that’s only getting more competitive.

Tesla has been hit with yet another lawsuit related to its electrically powered doors. Last week, the mother of a 20-year-old man who died following a collision in a 2021 Tesla Model Y filed a lawsuit against the automaker. The complaint was submitted to federal court in Massachusetts.

According to the filing, Samuel Tremblett was still alive after crashing his Model Y into a tree along Route 138 in Easton, a small town just south of Boston. He managed to dial 911 from inside the car, but a transcript of the call reveals he was unable to open the doors as fire began to engulf the car.

Trapped And Unable To Escape

“I’m stuck in a car crash,” Tremblett said on the call, no doubt in a frenzied state. “I can’t get out, please help me. I can’t breathe…It’s on fire…I’m going to die.”

Read: Families Claim Tesla Door Handles Trapped Teens In Burning Cybertruck

Emergency crews were dispatched to the scene, but they couldn’t extinguish the blaze fast enough to save the young man. According to local media, fire responders heard four explosions from the Model Y within the first 10 minutes at the scene. It took four hours before the inferno was put out.

The lawsuit states that Tremblett suffered “catastrophic thermal” injuries as well as smoke inhalation. His body was found in the back seat of the Model Y. According to the complaint, he was unable to open the doors after the crash and succumbed to the fire before help could reach him.

How Tesla Doors May Fail

The lawsuit claims that the electronic exterior door handles on the Tesla Model Y may fail to open during a crash, making it impossible to access the vehicle from outside. In addition, the suite says that the interior mechanical door release is not clearly marked and may be difficult to locate.

This is especially problematic in the rear, where the emergency release is hidden beneath a plastic panel in the door pocket. It’s a simple cable, and many Model Y owners and/or passengers may not even realize it’s there.

The lawsuit cites 17 incidents, going back to 2016, in which Tesla reportedly received complaints of both adults and children becoming trapped inside vehicles during thermal runaway events.

Growing Regulatory Pressure

A recent report from Bloomberg says that at least 15 people in the US have been killed in crashes involving Tesla vehicles where the doors couldn’t be opened. Concerns over the operation of these electronic door handles have recently prompted a ban in China, and it’s possible that other countries could follow suit.

In the US, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced in September that it is investigating potential defects in some Model Y vehicles. These cases involve incidents where the external door handles allegedly failed following collisions.

Meanwhile, a US lawmaker has proposed legislation that would require manual door releases in new vehicles and provide first responders with reliable access when power is lost.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on June 17, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic proposal Thursday to sue the Trump administration over allegations that it did not fully release the Epstein files, as mandated under a law unanimously approved by senators and signed by the president nearly three months ago.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asked for unanimous consent on a resolution compelling the Republican-led Senate to challenge President Donald Trump in court to release more records from the government’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019 awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense attorney, said Jan. 30 that the department had finished complying with the new law after a final release of 3 million pages, containing 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. In total, the department released about 3.5 million records since the law’s passage.

The latest tranche revealed a global network of numerous men in powerful positions in communication with Epstein.

Late and redacted

The legal deadline to release the files was Dec. 19.

“Fifty days past the deadline, at best, according to the Department of Justice’s own admissions, maybe half of all the available Epstein files have been released,” Schumer said on the floor Thursday morning.

Schumer said that among the records released, many have been “redacted to an absurd degree.”

“This is not what the law requires. This is a mockery of the truth and an insult to the survivors. What makes this all the more sickening is that in over 1,000 instances, the Justice Department failed to follow the law and leaked the identities of over 100 victims. But do you know who the Justice Department did seem to protect? Epstein’s co-conspirators,” Schumer continued.

The minority leader entered into the congressional record a letter he brought along from roughly 20 Epstein victims decrying the “reckless and dangerous” release of victims’ identities.

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., blocked the resolution, chalking it up as “another reckless political stunt designed to distract Americans from Democrats’ dangerous plan to shut down the Department of Homeland Security.”

Barrasso was referring to negotiations underway to fund DHS. Democrats have demanded changes to immigration enforcement tactics after two U.S. citizens were fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis, and numerous other U.S. citizens were injured by federal agents during Trump’s surge into blue states.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., criticized Barrasso’s objection on the floor, calling it “morally wrong.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

A DOJ official told States Newsroom in an email that the resolution presented “a tired narrative.”

“Just because you wish something to be true, doesn’t mean it is. This Department produced more than 3.5 million pages in compliance with the law and, in full transparency, has disclosed to the public and to Congress what items were not responsive. I assume all members of Congress read the actual language before voting on it, but if not, our press release and letter to Congress clearly spells this out,” the official wrote, including a link to the department’s Jan. 30 press release.

‘Hunger or thirst for information’

Blanche told reporters on Jan. 30, “There’s a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents. There’s nothing I can do about that.” 

He said no information uncovered in the files warranted new prosecutions.

The new law, dubbed by lawmakers as the Epstein Files Transparency Act, required the DOJ to make publicly available “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein,” including materials related to Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. 

Epstein avoided federal charges in 2008 when he pleaded guilty to Florida state prostitution charges, including for the solicitation of a minor. 

A 2007 draft of a federal indictment that laid out more robust charges was among the files released by the DOJ on Jan. 30.

A dissatisfied Rolls-Royce buyer in Texas has filed a lawsuit against the automaker, claiming her 2025 Spectre Black Badge failed just four months after delivery due to an serious battery defect. With the brand planning additional EVs, including an electric sedan and SUV, the legal dispute is a headache it’d rather not have to deal with.

Read: Spectre Black Badge Is The Most Powerful Rolls-Royce Ever Created

The complaint, filed against Rolls-Royce Motor Cars North America and authorized dealer Avondale Dealership, alleges that plaintiff Marci M. Donovitz paid $546,385 for a bespoke Rolls-Royce Spectre Black Badge in early 2025. She took delivery on June 23, 2025.

Buyer Says Car Failed in Four Months

Things soon turned sour. According to the filing, the vehicle “experienced a sudden and serious malfunction” in October, just months after delivery. The plaintiff claims the EV would “soon become inoperable” and sent it to the dealer for inspection.

The dealership reportedly informed her by text that parts had been ordered, but were on backorder with no estimated delivery date.

Rolls-Royce Spectre Black Badge

After 40 days with no progress, Donovitz retained legal counsel and sent a letter to Rolls-Royce requesting that it repurchase the vehicle and issue a refund. The company declined. As of February, the lawsuit states, the Spectre remains in the possession of Avondale Dealership and has not been repaired. The filing refers to the luxury EV as a “lemon.”

Also: California Court Strips Lemon Law Protections For Used Cars Under Warranty

It further claims the vehicle suffers from a “serious battery defect rendering it unsafe and undrivable.” It’s also claimed that Rolls-Royce and the dealer have failed to diagnose or repair the vehicle within a reasonable timeframe, and they’ve retained the car even as it depreciates.

Resale Value in Question

The complaint additionally alleges that Rolls-Royce was aware of reliability concerns and declining secondary-market performance related to the Spectre but failed to disclose this information to the plaintiff at or before the time of sale.

More: GM Buys Back Lemon C8 Corvette And Allows Customer To Upgrade To New Z06

Donovitz is seeking economic damages, including a full repurchase or rescission of the sale, damages for loss of use and enjoyment, diminished value, incidental and consequential losses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees and legal costs associated with pursuing the case.

Demonstrators gather outside of the Henry Whipple Federal Building, shouting at federal vehicles and recording their plates Saturday, Jan. 17, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

A Minneapolis-based human rights group is suing the Department of Homeland Security, accusing DHS officials and agents of illegally and systematically preventing detained immigrants from meeting with their lawyers.

The proposed class action lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court of Minnesota, was brought on behalf of the Advocates for Human Rights and a St. Paul woman referred to by the initials “L.H.M.”

According to the complaint, L.H.M., who has lived in Minnesota since 2019 and has a pending asylum claim, was arrested Monday after a routine check-in at ICE’s Office of Intensive Supervision in Bloomington.

After L.H.M.’s family contacted her attorney, the lawyer immediately travelled to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building but was unilaterally refused access to L.H.M.

L.H.M. recently underwent cranial surgery, the lawsuit states, and “has significant medical needs that may be severely adversely affected by detention conditions or involuntary transfer out of state.”

According to the claim, federal agents at the Whipple Building — and at least one ICE attorney — have repeatedly told frustrated lawyers that “no visitation between detainees and attorneys is or has ever been permitted at Whipple.”

“This is false,” the complaint continues. “Whipple has rooms labeled ‘ERO Visitation,’ where attorneys have met with clients held at Whipple for years.”

Nowadays, when lawyers attempt to arrange visits at Whipple, phone calls and emails allegedly go unanswered.

According to the suit, one lawyer was recently threatened with arrest at the Whipple Building, despite having received prior permission from agency officials. Another attorney attempting to speak to a client was “confronted by six armed security personnel, one of whom said, ‘We’re not having a debate here, turn your car around and get the hell out of here.’”

The lawsuit asserts claims under the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedures Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

A spokesperson for Homeland Security responded: “Any allegations people detained by ICE do not have access to attorneys are false. Illegal aliens in the Whipple Federal Building have access to phones they can use to contact their families and lawyers. Additionally, ICE gives all illegal aliens arrested a court-approved list of free or low-cost attorneys. All detainees receive full due process.”

(Homeland Security has a burgeoning record of providing false information to the public, as detailed in a recent Stateline story; after the recent killing of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol, a Homeland Security spokesperson claimed Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement” even though he never drew his gun, for which he had a permit.)

This is not the first time DHS has been sued for impeding detainees’ access to counsel. Similar suits in New York and Illinois have resulted in court orders.

DHS also has a recent history of defying court orders.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz, chief judge of the Minnesota district, issued an order in a habeas petition in which he identified 96 court orders that ICE has violated since January 1 – a tally that he said is likely an undercount because it was assembled in haste.

“This list should give pause to anyone — no matter his or her political beliefs — who cares about the rule of law,” wrote Schiltz, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush and clerked for Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice and conservative icon.

“ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence,” Schiltz wrote.

Bystander video shows U.S. Border Patrol agents kneeing a man several times in the face as others hold him down in Minneapolis on Jan. 9, 2026. Violence on behalf of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown is on the rise. (Screenshot from video by Monica Bicking via Minnesota Reformer)

State leaders who want to curb the increasingly violent arrest tactics of immigration enforcement agents in Minneapolis and elsewhere are struggling to push back.

They’ve promised civil rights legislation that could offer alleged victims another route to courts, ordered up official tribunals to gather video and other records, or asked cities to refuse requests to cooperate with raids. But for the most part, states looking for concrete ways to push back find themselves largely hamstrung.

Violence in immigration enforcement is on the rise. A federal immigration agent’s killing of Renee Good in Minnesota on Jan. 7 was one of half a dozen shootings since December. An immigrant’s death in a Texas detention facility this month was ruled a homicide. And detention deaths last year totaled at least 31, a two-decade peak and more than the previous four years combined.

There also have been dozens of cases in the past year of agents using dangerous and federally banned arrest maneuvers, such as chokeholds, that can stop breathing.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks and tactical vests have been recorded firing pepper spray into the faces of protesters, shattering car windows with little warning, punching and kneeing people pinned face down on the ground, using battering rams on front doors, and questioning people of color about their identities.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has defended many recorded incidents as legitimate uses of force against dangerous people. And some Republican state lawmakers have said they’ll work to bolster ICE’s work within their borders.

Some lawmakers, legal experts and immigrant advocates worry about whether a lack of oversight from the federal government and the weak positions of state governments could give rise to even more violence as President Donald Trump continues his push to arrest immigrants who are living illegally in the United States.

Previous administrations have prioritized arresting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally who also have criminal records, but that isn’t the case in Trump’s second term.

“You can’t go after a murderer and a garden-variety immigration violator like a poor nanny or a poor landscaper with equal emphasis. This administration has abandoned all discretion and all priorities, and you create this narrative that you’re doing this patriotic, godly thing,” said Muzaffar Chishti, an attorney and policy expert at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

Chishti said there has been a surge in abusive tactics that comes from a series of federal policies. He cited the massive infusion of inexperienced officers under heavy pressure to make arrests, the military-style tactics meant to create spectacle and fear, and the harsh rhetoric aimed, he said, at instilling warlike hostility toward immigrants and protesters.

More agents, more incidents

The number of ICE law enforcement agents doubled in less than a year, with Homeland Security announcing this month it has hired 12,000 new agents out of some 220,000 applicants. More agents have surged into cities such as Chicago and Minneapolis, their semiautomatic weapons, bulky vests and balaclavas often contrasting with local police officers wearing name badges and carrying sidearms.

Noem has insisted that ICE and other officers are the real victims of increased violence, citing instances like one on Jan. 14, when a man was shot in the leg by an ICE agent. She said in a news release that bystanders struck an officer with a snow shovel and broom handle in Minneapolis as the officer tried to catch a fleeing suspect. Noem called it “an attempted murder of federal law enforcement” in which, “ambushed by three individuals, the officer fired a defensive shot to defend his life.”

Court papers released Jan. 20 included an officer’s account of only two assailants, the suspect and a friend who owned the car he had been driving, and said the injured suspect was trying to escape into the apartment building and that tear gas had been used to force the men to surrender.

Noem, who claimed Monday that more than 10,000 immigrants have been arrested in Minnesota, has described some people living in the U.S. illegally as “foreign invaders.” She characterized Good’s shooting as self-defense against “an act of domestic terrorism.”

And in a press briefing Tuesday, Trump told reporters that the people being deported “make our criminals look like babies. They make our Hells Angels look like the sweetest people on Earth.”

Such descriptions have become a tool that incites violence, Chishti said.

“When they say that they were doing God’s work with Renee Good, that she was a domestic terrorist, when you frame it that way from the highest leadership of the agency, you’re basically sending a signal that there’s no accountability,” he said.

Democrats push back

State leaders who say they’re worried about violence are trying different approaches, though they can’t completely curb federal policies.

New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said state resources would not be used to assist in immigration raids, citing the shooting of Good. But local agencies in New York could still use other funds to help with raids.

New Mexico Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham called for curbs on immigrant detention in the state, though two of three existing detention centers there could still continue to operate.

Colorado has launched a new system for claims of misconduct by federal agents, including ICE agents.

Some Republican-led states are taking the opposite tack, with Tennessee proposing legislation that would go beyond cooperation with federal immigration by setting up its own state immigration laws. If enacted, it would test the limits of a 2012 Supreme Court decision that struck down state-based immigration enforcement based on a similar Arizona law.

Tennessee is using White House guidance to draft the legislation, and other states are likely to follow. That would create new civil rights concerns if states pick up some of the same tactics as the federal government.

“That’s another way of unleashing the states, not only to work with the federal government, but also to acquiesce in the states’ enactment of their own immigration enforcement, detention, and removal regimes,” said Lucas Guttentag, a Stanford Law School professor who runs a project tracking federal immigration policy, speaking in a May interview published by Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law.

Combating the federal moves is already fraught, said Guttentag, who has served in immigration policy positions in the Obama and Biden administrations.

“No single political strategy can change it,” Guttentag told Stateline this week. “But litigation has proven both critical and effective in limiting some of the most egregious violations. The violence is a clear violation.”

It’s hard to police an administration that constantly pushes legal boundaries, Guttentag added.

“It’s like a ‘catch me if you can’ administration. They adopt tactics and basically challenge anyone to try to stop them.”

Two former federal prosecutors, Kristy Parker and Samantha Trepel, argued for state civil rights legislation and investigation in a Jan.14 op-ed published in The Guardian with the headline “Cities and states must hold ICE accountable for violence. The feds won’t.”

Accountability commissions — like one created by Illinois in October after ICE operations there — can help, they wrote, preserving evidence and gathering testimony in the face of federal obstruction, like the blocking of a state investigation into Good’s death in Minnesota.

Potential civil rights legislation

Another method mentioned by the former prosecutors: State civil rights legislation could theoretically give people harmed by federal agents a hearing in state court under a legal concept called “converse-1983.”

New York’s Gov. Hochul has proposed such legislation. A similar Wisconsin measure died in July when the Republican majority on the Assembly judiciary committee would not give it a hearing, said Democratic Rep. Andrew Hysell, the bill’s sponsor.

“It’s a positive approach to preserving our rights here in Wisconsin, our constitutional rights, because you can no longer count on the federal government to do that,” Hysell said. “In the situations we’ve seen in Minnesota, the federal government is crossing the line into what appears to be violations of constitutional rights.”

However, the idea of “converse-1983” has yet to be used successfully to sue a federal agent, and might never succeed, said John Preis, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

“I would be shocked if converse-1983 [lawsuits] went anywhere,” Preis said. “States may not enact laws that impede federal officers who were doing their jobs. A converse-1983 action would seem to do this.”

However, in some cases, such as the shooting death of Renee Good, victims may be able to successfully sue the federal government without such a state law, Preis said. The process is difficult but the lawsuit could succeed if a constitutional civil rights violation can be proven, he said. Attorneys for Good’s family announced Jan. 14 that they were considering a lawsuit.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

A voter casts a paper ballot in Virginia. Despite two recent legal setbacks, the Trump administration has sued the Virginia elections commissioner in its quest to obtain sensitive voter data. (Photo by Markus Schmidt/Virginia Mercury)

The Trump administration has sued another state — Virginia — in its quest to obtain sensitive voter data, despite two recent legal setbacks in suits against other states.

The Justice Department on Friday sued Susan Beals, the elections commissioner in Virginia, after months of seeking a copy of the state’s voter registration lists, including individual names, addresses, dates of birth and Social Security numbers.

“Virginia becomes the next state sued for ignoring federal law!” U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon wrote on the social media platform X.

The Trump administration has sued more than 20 states, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, in what the administration frames as a quest to ensure that states are properly maintaining voter rolls, that ineligible people are kept off rolls and that only citizens are voting.

The U.S. Department of Justice is sharing state voter roll information with the Department of Homeland Security in a search for noncitizens, the Trump administration confirmed in September.

While election officials stress that well-maintained voter rolls are important, President Donald Trump and some of his Republican allies have long promoted baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

In the Virginia case, the Justice Department claims it was reassured by the administration of former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin that it would hand over voter rolls. But that did not occur and Youngkin was term-limited. On Saturday, Democrat Abigail Spanberger was sworn in as Virginia’s 75th governor.

Beals, the elections commissioner, was appointed by Youngkin in 2022. The state election department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last week, similar federal lawsuits hit roadblocks in California and Oregon.

U.S. District Court Judge David Carter dismissed a lawsuit by the Department of Justice against California seeking voter information, calling the request “unprecedented and illegal.” Just a day earlier, a separate federal judge said from the bench he planned to dismiss a similar lawsuit against Oregon.

Democratic secretaries of state have criticized the federal government’s data requests, calling them an unwarranted attempt by the Trump administration to exercise federal power over elections. Under the U.S. Constitution, states administer elections, though Congress can regulate them.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Ryan Patraw processes ballots at the Marion County Clerk’s Office in Salem, Ore., on May 16. Judges in Oregon and California have ruled against the Trump administration’s requests to turn over voter data. (Photo by Ron Cooper/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

The Trump administration hit two major legal roadblocks this week in its effort to obtain sensitive personal voter data from states.

On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter dismissed a lawsuit by the Department of Justice against California seeking voter information. The Trump administration has demanded that at least 40 states provide unredacted voter data, which can include driver’s license and Social Security numbers. The department has sued 21 states and Washington, D.C., that have refused to provide the data.

Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, called the government’s request “unprecedented and illegal” in a 33-page ruling.

Just a day earlier, U.S. District Court Judge Mustafa Kasubhai said he planned to dismiss a similar lawsuit against Oregon. Kasubhai, an appointee of President Joe Biden, said his final written decision may be different.

“The federal government tried to abuse their power to force me to break my oath of office and hand over your private data,” Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read said in a statement about the tentative ruling, according to the Oregon Capital Chronicle. “I stood up to them and said no. Now, the court sided with us. Tonight, we proved, once again, we have the power to push back and win.”

The Justice Department has framed its demands as necessary to ensure states are properly maintaining their voter rolls. It says it needs the information to ensure ineligible people are kept off rolls and that only citizens are voting. The department is sharing state voter roll information with the Department of Homeland Security in a search for noncitizens, the Trump administration confirmed in September.

While election officials say well-maintained voter rolls are important, President Donald Trump and some of his Republican allies have long promoted baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. 

Democratic election officials have criticized the data requests, calling them an unwarranted attempt by the Trump administration to exercise federal power over elections. Under the U.S. Constitution, states administer elections, though Congress can regulate them.

In arguing for the data, the federal government cited the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, all of which were intended to protect elections and the right to vote. 

In California, Carter ruled that the federal government — and the court — are not authorized to use civil rights legislation “as a tool to forsake the privacy rights of millions of Americans.”

“There cannot be unbridled consolidation of all elections power in the Executive without action from Congress and public debate,” Carter wrote. “This is antithetical to the promise of fair and free elections our country promises and the franchise that civil rights leaders fought and died for.” 

The Justice Department did not immediately say whether it planned to appeal the ruling.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Planned Parenthood and other providers got word in March that millions they anticipated in Title X funding would be withheld. The money was eventually released last year, though some providers say damage was still done. (Getty Images)

Planned Parenthood clinics in Utah resumed family planning services after the Trump administration unfroze millions in federal funds.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday submitted a brief to dismiss a lawsuit filed on behalf of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association after the federal government notified nine Planned Parenthood affiliates and other family planning providers in March it would withhold annual Title X funding. 

Shireen Ghorbani, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, said in a statement Monday that the restored funding does not erase all of the damage caused by nine months without it. Title X funds are meant to provide affordable family planning services, such as birth control, cancer screening, and STI tests and treatment. 

Ghorbani noted that the Utah affiliate has been the only Title X grant recipient in the state since 1985. 

“We are thrilled that Title X funding is restored to Utah for now, allowing more Utahns to get critical family planning services,” Ghorbani said. “But we cannot ignore the fact that too many Utahns have already felt the devastating effects of the Trump administration’s unwarranted decision to withhold this funding for the last nine months. Many of the 26,000 Utahns who rely on the program were forced to pay more for their health care or go without care altogether.”

Crucially, she said, the affiliate closed two health centers, in St. George and Logan, among dozens that have closed because of the withheld Title X funding and are unlikely to reopen, according to Planned Parenthood. 

Some grantees had their funding restored over the summer, Politico reported, while others remained under investigation for possibly violating the Trump administration’s new rules around so-called diversity, equity and inclusion practices until December. That’s when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services informed Planned Parenthood affiliates that they would receive their promised funds dating back to last April, with no explanation beyond unspecified “clarifications made by, and actions taken by, the grantees.” 

Planned Parenthood’s Utah affiliate said that on Jan. 9 it received $2 million in Title X funding for the current grant year that had been withheld since April.

In the lawsuit over the Title X funding, plaintiffs argued that the federal government withholding 22 federal Title X grants from Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations was illegal and unjustified. 

“Our lawsuit succeeded in holding the administration accountable for its unlawful acts, and today, NFPRHA members’ grants have been restored. We are relieved all of our members now have access to their promised funds, but we know the fight for contraceptive access in this country goes on,” said Clare Coleman, president & CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, in a statement Tuesday. 

She estimated that 865 family planning service sites were unable to provide Title X-funded services to an estimated 842,000 patients across nearly two dozen states.

While some states have fought to restore Title X family planning funding, Idaho last year declined its annual $1.5 million federal Title X funding, leaving patients statewide without free and low-cost contraception and reproductive health care services.

At least 20 more Planned Parenthood clinics have also closed because of last year’s budget reconciliation bill, which effectively blocked Planned Parenthood and other nonprofit reproductive health care providers from being able to participate in Medicaid, reducing low-income health care options throughout the country. Litigation remains ongoing in several cases over that Medicaid rule.

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 — Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the department on Monday for trying to demote Kelly’s retirement rank and pay after he appeared in a video where he and other lawmakers told service members they didn’t need to follow illegal orders. 

Kelly’s suit, filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, says attempts by the Trump administration to punish him violate the First Amendment, the separation of powers, due process protections and the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution.

“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly wrote in a statement. “His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”

Kelly appeared in the video alongside Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander — all of whom are former members of the military or intelligence agencies, though none of the others are still subject to the military’s legal system.

President Donald Trump was irate after seeing the video, posting on social media that he believed it represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

DOD investigation

The Defense Department announced in late November that it was looking into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly, a retired Navy captain, for participating in the video. 

Kelly said during a press conference on Capitol Hill in December the Defense Department investigation into him, along with one by the FBI into all of the lawmakers in the video, marked “a dangerous moment for the United States of America when the president and his loyalists use every lever of power to silence United States senators for speaking up.”

Hegseth, who originally threatened to court-martial Kelly, said in early January the Defense Department would instead downgrade his retirement rank and 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.”

Kelly said at the time he would challenge Hegseth’s course of action. 

First Amendment cited

The 46-page lawsuit marks the next step in the months-long saga, with Kelly asking a federal judge to declare the effort to demote him “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

“The First Amendment forbids the government and its officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech,” the lawsuit states. “That prohibition applies with particular force to legislators speaking on matters of public policy. As the Supreme Court held 60 years ago, the Constitution ‘requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy,’ and the government may not recharacterize protected speech as supposed incitement in order to punish it.”

The lawsuit alleges that the Pentagon’s actions against Kelly “also trample on protections the Constitution singles out as essential to legislative independence.” 

“It appears that never in our nation’s history has the Executive Branch imposed military sanctions on a Member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech,” the lawsuit states. ”Allowing that unprecedented step here would invert the constitutional structure by subordinating the Legislative Branch to executive discipline and chilling congressional oversight of the armed forces.”

Kelly’s legal team asked the judge to grant “emergency relief” in their favor by Friday, Jan. 16.

The case was assigned to Senior Judge Richard J. Leon, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush.

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., left, and Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., arrive at the regional ICE headquarters at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building on Jan. 10, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The lawmakers attempted to access the facility where the Department of Homeland Security has been headquartering operations in the state. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A dozen Democratic members of Congress Monday asked a federal judge for an emergency hearing, arguing the Department of Homeland Security violated a court order when Minnesota lawmakers were denied access to conduct oversight into facilities that hold immigrants.

The oversight visits to Minneapolis ICE facilities followed the deadly shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross. Federal immigration officers have intensified immigration enforcement in the Twin Cities following the shooting, leading to massive protests there and across the country. 

“On Saturday, January 9—three days after U.S. citizen Renee Good was shot dead by an ICE agent in Minneapolis—three members of Congress from the Minnesota delegation, with this Court’s order in hand, attempted to conduct an oversight visit of an ICE facility near Minneapolis,” according to Monday’s filing in the District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Democratic U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig and Kelly Morrison of Minnesota said they were denied entry to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building shortly after arriving for their visit on Saturday morning.

Lawmakers said in the filing the Minnesotans were denied access due to a new policy from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The new Noem policy, similar to one temporarily blocked by U.S. Judge Jia Cobb last month, requires seven days notice for lawmakers to conduct oversight visits.

“The duplicate notice policy is a transparent attempt by DHS to again subvert Congress’s will … and this Court’s stay of DHS’s oversight visit policy,” according to the new filing by lawyers representing the 12 Democrats.

DHS cites reconciliation bill

Noem in filings argued the funds for immigration enforcement are not subject to a 2019 appropriations law, referred to as Section 527, that allows for unannounced oversight visits at facilities that hold immigrants.

She said that because the facilities are funded through the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act” passed and signed into law last year, the department does not need to comply with Section 527.

The OBBBA, passed through a congressional process called reconciliation, is allowed to adjust federal spending even though it is not an appropriations law.

“This policy is consistent with and effectuates the clear intent of Congress to not subject OBBBA funding to Section 527’s limitations,” according to the Noem memo.  

Congress is currently working on the next funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The lawmakers in their filing argue “members of Congress must be able to conduct oversight at ICE detention facilities, without notice, to obtain urgent and essential information for ongoing funding negotiations.”

“Members of Congress are actively negotiating over the funding of DHS and ICE, including consideration of the scope of and limitations on DHS’s funding for the next fiscal year,” according to the filing.

The Democrats who sued include Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

Neguse, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement that the “law is crystal clear.”

“Instead of complying with the law, DHS is abrogating the court’s order by re-imposing the same unlawful policy,” he said. “Their actions are outrageous and subverting the law, which is why we are going back to court to challenge it — immediately.”