Research shows that children benefit from after-school programs, but four in five Wisconsin children are missing out. | Photo of girl on playground by Tang Ming Tung/Getty Images

I have visited many after-school and summer programs across Wisconsin, from large urban sites to small rural schools, and what I’ve seen has stayed with me. I’ve watched students immersed in creative writing, acting and robotics. I’ve observed staff working one-on-one with kids navigating intense emotional challenges. And I’ve seen the smiles on middle schoolers’ faces as they reconnect with trusted mentors at the end of the school day. These programs are not “extras”; they provide crucial support to kids, families, and entire communities.

The access gap

And yet, for far too many Wisconsin families, these opportunities remain out of reach. According to the latest America After 3PM report, nearly 275,000 Wisconsin children who would participate in after-school programs are not enrolled because none are available. Four in five children who could benefit from these supports are missing out. Parents cite cost, lack of transportation, and a simple lack of local programming as the biggest barriers.

The benefits are clear

The impact of these programs is undeniable. Parents overwhelmingly rate their children’s after-school programs as excellent or very good, reporting that they keep kids safe, build social skills, and support mental wellness. Research in Wisconsin shows that students who participate in extracurricular activities are less likely to report anxiety or depression and more likely to feel a sense of belonging.

Out-of-school time programs often provide the space for deep, long-term mentoring, a powerful protective factor in a young person’s life. While teachers are often stretched thin during the academic day, out-of-school time  staff can focus on the relational side of development.

The cost of instability

When funding is unstable, it undermines the very connections that make these programs transformative. Recently, a Boys & Girls Club director shared the human cost of budget constraints: they were forced to reduce a veteran staff member to part-time. This didn’t just trim a budget; it severed a multi-year mentorship. When that bond was broken, several youths stopped attending entirely.

Wisconsin lags behind national trends

Across the country, after-school and summer programs are increasingly viewed as essential to youth development. Twenty-seven states provide dedicated state funding for these programs; Wisconsin provides none. States as different as Alabama and Texas recognize that federal funding alone is not enough. So do our  Midwestern neighbors.

• Minnesota and Illinois have invested in these programs for years.
• Michigan established a $73 million grant program to expand before-school, after-school, and summer learning statewide.
• Pennsylvania created the $11.5 million Building Opportunity through Out-of-School Time (BOOST) program.

The opportunity to act

Public support for these programs is strong and bipartisan. Families across Wisconsin want safe, enriching opportunities for their children. With a significant budget surplus, Wisconsin is uniquely positioned to invest in its future.

State leaders should view out-of-school programming as a foundation for safety, mental health, and long-term economic opportunity. We have the resources; now we need the will. By committing to consistent state funding, we can ensure that every young person in Wisconsin has a place to belong when the school bell rings.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Eau Claire County Government Center | Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner

Eau Claire County Sheriff Dave Riewestahl announced Tuesday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents had detained four individuals, including one at a construction site in the city of Altoona and three others who fled and barricaded themselves in a garage in the town of Washington.

Riewestahl said his office was contacted by ICE agents who said they would be at a construction site in the city of Altoona, near the city of Eau Claire, to arrest a suspect who had allegedly assaulted a law enforcement officer.

After agents attempted  to arrest the suspect, Riewestahl said four individuals fled the site, and one was apprehended. The sheriff did not specify if the individual detained was the individual ICE was seeking.

The three who fled the scene entered a residence in the town of Washington, confronted a homeowner, then went into the garage. The homeowner then locked the door between the house and the garage.

Riewestahl said his office was called to address a criminal trespass to a dwelling, and then county deputies requested assistance by the city of Altoona police.

Upon the request of the homeowner, the sheriff said, his officers entered the home and attempted to gain voluntary compliance with the three individuals in the garage, but when verbal requests failed, the officers used pepperballs and the three surrendered.

Riewestahl said the three individuals who had trespassed at the town of Washington home were turned over to ICE agents. None of the four taken into ICE’s custody were detained at the Eau Claire County Jail.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar speaks at a Feb. 17 forum at the Marquette University law school. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Maria Lazar says she wants disagreements on the Court to be more respectful. 

At a Tuesday forum hosted by the Marquette University School of Law, Lazar attempted to distance herself from the highly politicized Supreme Court campaigns of recent years, painting herself as an independent judge who, while leaning more conservative than the Court’s current liberal majority, wants to just follow the law. 

However, since her election to the state’s District Two Court of Appeals, Lazar has been a reliably conservative vote on the reliably conservative appellate panel — including a case in which she sided with election deniers attempting to gain access to confidential voter information. Lazar’s campaign has also received endorsements and financial support from high profile Republicans. 

But she says she’s never been a member of a political party, contrasting herself with her opponent, Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor, who was previously a Democratic member of the state Assembly. State Supreme Court races are nominally nonpartisan, but both political parties have been heavily involved in supporting their preferred candidates in recent years.  

“I am the one on my court that sort of solves the disputes, and I think that on the Supreme Court I would be the same way,” she said. “I know that it would be 3-4, and I know that I’d be in the minority with the more conservative leaning than liberal leaning, and I get that. But the decisions aren’t all 4-to-3. I mean, sometimes they’re 7-0 or 6-1, and I just think that I would bring a level of collegiality, a level of really hard dedication and work.” 

Since the liberal wing of the Court gained the majority with the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz in 2023, the Court’s conservatives — most notably Justice Annette Ziegler and the outgoing Justice Rebecca Bradley — have frequently lobbed personal attacks at the majority in their published opinions, accusing the majority of being partisan lackeys for the Democratic party. 

Lazar said she doesn’t think the Court should work that way. 

“But some of the opinions written by our Court right now, the differences that are going on on that bench, there’s such a level of dissatisfaction with each other and personal animus that when you read those dissents, you say, how can you write something that personal and mean and then go and work the next day and sit across from that person and say, ‘Let’s talk about the next appeal?’” she said. 

Despite her efforts to paint herself as a moderate, Lazar has occasionally shared her agreement with conservative beliefs on abortion. As an attorney for the state Department of Justice under Gov. Scott Walker, Lazar defended Act 10, the law that repealed labor rights for public employees, and argued in favor of gerrymandered maps Republicans drew in 2011, locking in disproportionate GOP legislative majorities. 

“I would never be on that Court to be a firebrand,” Lazar said Tuesday. “I would be on that Court to stand up for what I believe in and what I believe the law says.” 

At the forum, Lazar said she can’t share with voters how she would decide hypothetical cases, but she can share “what I believe in and what I stand for.” The remark closely mirrors statements Protasiewicz made about her political beliefs during her 2023 campaign. Those remarks have followed Protasiewicz onto the bench, with Republicans often raising them to demand that she recuse herself from controversial cases. 

On her judicial philosophy, Lazar said she’s “an originalist with a slight tinge of textualism.” 

Originalism is a legal theory that emerged in the 1980s and has become the dominant ideology of conservative justices across the country. Under the theory, judges argue that laws should be interpreted through the intent and context of the law when it was written — attempting to glean the motivations of the country’s constitutional framers 250 years after the fact. Critics argue that originalists often use flawed historical analysis. 

But at the forum, Lazar gave a different meaning to originalism. 

“Originalist means that if you get the statute or the law or the constitutional amendment or whatever it is, you look at it first, and if you can’t answer the question, which you probably can’t, because why is it in front of your court if it’s so obvious? So you look at it, and then you look at headings. You look at statutes around it, you look at other statutes in the law. You start looking around. And that’s originalism. You’re looking at the words as they’re written,” she said. 

Lazar said that trying to determine the intent of legislators gets dangerous. 

“Now, some judicial philosophies go all the way out. And they look at everything, what people say when they write the laws, what their intent was, and that’s a little dangerous,” she said. “To me, that’s judicial activism, because I see judges and justices who get to the end result in their mind and then find a way to get there. That’s not the proper way to look at the law, and that’s not what we do. We don’t legislate on the bench. We’re not activists. We don’t have agendas.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr. at an encampment dubbed "Resurrection City," at the close of the Poor People's March at the National Mall in Washington D.C., in May 1968. (Photo by Pix/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Tributes poured in across the country for the revered civil rights figure the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr., who died Tuesday morning at 84.

The two-time Democratic presidential hopeful and Greenville, South Carolina, native died peacefully, surrounded by his kin, according to his family. 

Jackson, who was active in the civil rights movement as a college student, worked alongside the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. as a young adult before King’s 1968 assassination.

Leading his own political movement, Jackson became known for his populist message, charismatic delivery and organizing prowess that elevated the role and influence of Black political leaders and helped shape the modern Democratic Party.

“Our father was a servant leader — not only to our family, but to the oppressed, the voiceless, and the overlooked around the world,” Jackson’s family said in a statement. 

“We shared him with the world, and in return, the world became part of our extended family,” his family added. “His unwavering belief in justice, equality, and love uplifted millions, and we ask you to honor his memory by continuing the fight for the values he lived by.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, ordered flags to fly at half-staff Tuesday in Jackson’s honor in the state where he lived and worked for many years.

The family statement did not list a cause of death. Jackson was diagnosed in 2013 with Parkinson’s disease. His diagnosis was updated last year to progressive supranuclear palsy, according to a November statement from the Rainbow PUSH Coalition that Jackson founded.

Tributes from Obama, Trump and Biden

Former President Barack Obama, the first Black president, and his wife, Michelle Obama, said Jackson’s runs for the presidency “laid the foundation” for Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign. And Chicago native Michelle Obama’s “first glimpse of political organizing” was at the Jacksons’ kitchen table, they said.

“From organizing boycotts and sit-ins, to registering millions of voters, to advocating for freedom and democracy around the world, he was relentless in his belief that we are all children of God, deserving of dignity and respect,” they wrote. “Reverend Jackson also created opportunities for generations of African Americans and inspired countless more, including us.”

President Donald Trump paid tribute, dubbing Jackson “a force of nature like few others before him” and a “good man, with lots of personality, grit, and ‘street smarts,’” in a social media post Tuesday.  

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress, honored Jackson as a “legendary voice for the voiceless, powerful civil rights champion and trailblazer extraordinaire,” in a social media post. 

“For decades, while laboring in the vineyards of the community, he inspired us to keep hope alive in the struggle for liberty and justice for all,” the New York Democrat said.

Jeffries expressed gratitude for Jackson’s “incredible service” to the country and “profound sacrifice as the people’s champion.” 

Former President Joe Biden called Jackson “a man of God and of the people. Determined and tenacious. Unafraid of the work to redeem the soul of our Nation.” 

South Carolina legacy

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and longtime friend of Jackson, said the civil rights leader lived a life “defying odds,” in a statement Tuesday.  

“Reverend Jackson showed us that if we all work together – we can bend the arc of the moral universe and change history,” Clyburn said while also pointing to Jackson’s impact on “the nation, Black Americans, and movements to encourage civic participation around the world.” 

U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican who is the party’s highest-ranking Black elected official, honored Jackson’s legacy as a leader and role model.

“I don’t have to agree with someone politically to deeply respect the role Jesse Jackson, a South Carolina native, played in uplifting Black voices and inspiring young folks to believe their voices mattered,” Scott wrote on social media. “Those that empower people to stand taller always leave a lasting mark. Rest in peace.”

Jackson’s legacy will live on in the next generation, South Carolina state Sen. Deon Tedder said during a news conference Tuesday. 

“The future generation, they’re picking up that torch, they’re picking up that mantle,” said Tedder, a Democrat, gesturing to students from the state’s historically Black colleges and universities. “The baton has been passed, and now what you see is the future.”

South Carolina state Rep. Hamilton Grant recalled seeing Jackson at the July 9, 2015, signing ceremony of the law that removed the Confederate flag from Statehouse grounds entirely. The flag was taken down the next day, 15 years after it came off the Statehouse dome in a compromise Jackson opposed. 

“For him, being from South Carolina, to see that moment, and me being there in close proximity with him, meant the world to me,” Grant told the South Carolina Daily Gazette. He said Jackson paved the way for Black leaders like him and helped instill in him pride in his identity.

The South Carolina House and Senate held moments of silence in Jackson’s honor Tuesday. 

“There are so many little boys and little girls in South Carolina who can look in the mirror now and say, ‘I am somebody!’ because of this native son,” state Sen. Karl Allen, a Democrat, said.

Shaping Democratic politics

Jackson leaves behind a legacy of political and social justice work that spanned decades. 

He founded the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, a national social justice organization whose name evoked Jackson’s multiracial voter base and the theme of his 1984 Democratic National Convention speech. That organization was formed by a merger between Operation PUSH, which Jackson founded in 1971, and the Rainbow Coalition.

In his 1988 bid for the presidency, Jackson based his campaign in Iowa prior to that state’s presidential caucuses and made the official announcement of his candidacy at a farm in Greenfield on Oct. 10, 1987. 

He finished in fourth place in the caucuses but went on to briefly become the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination by winning a coalition of Black and Latino voters and white liberals, though he ultimately came in second in delegates to Michael Dukakis. 

Similar blocs propelled Obama to victory two decades later and continue to form national Democrats’ base.

Two of Jackson’s sons, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Jonathan Jackson, would represent Illinois in the U.S. House. Jonathan Jackson remains in office after first winning election in 2022.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist from Vermont who endorsed Jackson’s 1988 campaign, said in a Tuesday statement Jackson had been a friend and ally for nearly 40 years and credited Jackson with founding modern progressivism.

“His creation of the Rainbow Coalition, a revolutionary idea at the time, that developed a grassroots movement of working people — Black, white, Latino, Asian-American, Native-American, gay and straight — laid the foundation for the modern progressive movement which is continuing to fight for his vision of economic, racial, social and environmental justice,” Sanders wrote. “Jackson has had a profound impact upon our country. His politics of togetherness and solidarity should guide us going forward.”

‘Equal justice is not inevitable’

Georgia U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat and a Baptist pastor, recalled the influence Jackson’s presidential runs had on a young Warnock growing up in public housing.

“With an eloquence and rhythmic rhetoric all his own, Jesse Jackson reminded America that equal justice is not inevitable,” he said. “It requires vigilance and commitment, and for freedom fighters, sacrifice. His ministry was poetry and spiritual power in the public square. He advanced King’s dream and bent the arc of history closer to justice.”

Jaime Harrison, a former chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Jackson’s 1988 run, which culminated with a speech at the party convention that lauded the United States’ multiracial identity, inspired him.

As “a poor Black kid from South Carolina,” Harrison said he was drawn to Jackson’s command of the convention hall after accumulating more than 1,000 delegates.

“He did not win the nomination,” Harrison wrote. “But he won our imagination.”

Adrian Ashford contributed to this report.

“I think we're right on track… I'm happy to meet this afternoon. I mean, I'm sure the governor is practicing his speech for tonight. There's probably some time in between. There's a lot of opportunities to discuss," Vos said at a press conference Tuesday afternoon. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) are proposing a $2.3 billion package to Gov. Tony Evers Monday that would provide one-time tax rebates and raise special education funding, but wouldn’t deliver any general school aid increases.

“We actually accepted the governor’s challenge where he said, make sure that we have money for schools and we wanted to make sure that there is money for the residents of Wisconsin,” Vos said during a press conference on Tuesday. Vos said lawmakers sent their letter to Evers on Sunday and had yet to hear from Evers as of Tuesday afternoon but they hope to “hear from him today so we could be in negotiations to have a bill passed before we adjourn Friday.”

The proposal comes after LeMahieu said last week he was being left out of negotiations with Vos and Evers. Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback suggested the leaders sit down to discuss the plan. She has also previously said that any bipartisan agreement needs “investments to ensure our K-12 schools receive the resources they need and were promised in the state budget.”

The Assembly plans to meet in a series of marathon floor sessions this week with the goal of wrapping up its work for the session by the end of the week. The state Senate plans to work during March as well, but with the Assembly’s self-imposed deadline, this month is the last chance to pass bills that could get to Evers’ desk before the next legislative session.

Vos said the end of the week deadline could help ensure that Wisconsin politicians act and said it is a “perfect time for us to engage in the good faith negotiations.”

“There’s no reason for the money to sit at Madison longer than necessary so we can have it actually out the door,” Vos said. 

The back and forth on the property tax reduction and school funding package came as Evers, who opted not to run for a third term in office this year, prepared to deliver his final State of the State address Tuesday night.

“I think we’re right on track… I’m happy to meet this afternoon. I mean, I’m sure the governor is practicing his speech for tonight. There’s probably some time in between,” Vos said. “There’s a lot of opportunities to discuss.”

One major piece of the GOP proposal is an income tax rebate of $500 per person and $1,000 for married joint filers at a cost of nearly $1.5 billion in 2026-27. Senate Republicans first proposed the idea last week.

Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said the surplus is proof that “we’ve over taxed our citizens in Wisconsin” and that the rebate checks could help provide some relief to Wisconsinites.

In response to Evers’ priorities, Republican lawmakers in their letter proposed $200 million for special education costs — including $80 million to bring the special education reimbursement rate to 42% in 2026 and $120 million to bring it to 45% in 2027 — in keeping with Evers’ proposal. 

The state budget committed to reimburse school districts for their special education costs at a rate of 42% in 2025-26 and 45% in 2026-27. However, recent estimates have found that the money that lawmakers and Evers set aside in the budget will not be enough to make good on those promises.

Lawmakers did not provide any additional funding for general school aids in the budget, disappointing school leaders and advocates who said schools will continue to struggle with funding difficulties. Republican lawmakers left out increases to general school aid in part because of their frustration with Evers’ 400-year veto, extending an annual $325 per pupil school revenue limit increase well beyond the last budget cycle. Without state funding, however, schools in Wisconsin only have the option to use the authority Evers extended to increase property taxes to the revenue limit increase amount. 

Evers had proposed $450 million in 2027 for general school aid to backfill the $325 per pupil increase school districts will have the option of using — alleviating the potential property tax increases that communities across the state would see again at the end of this year.

Republicans excluded that request from their proposal and instead suggested $500 million for property tax relief through the school levy tax credit. Evers had suggested $550 million for property tax relief through the school levy tax credit. 

The Wisconsin Public Education Network has called putting state money toward the school levy tax credit as opposed to general school aids “irresponsible and unacceptable.” The credit works by using state funds to reduce property tax bills by making payments to counties and municipalities. It does not provide additional revenue to school districts for operations.

In their letter, GOP leaders expressed concerns about the school revenue limit increases, saying that additional state aid would lead to less responsible spending by school districts.

“While we know you believe that your 400-year veto was a way to permanently send increases to schools for the next 400 years, the truth is it creates a strong disincentive for school districts to find efficiencies while creating an increased property tax burden on taxpayers,” the lawmakers said. 

LeMahieu and Vos said that “no amount of funding increase can address the root causes of the education funding problem” and that leaders should be focused on “reform” as opposed to “guaranteed funding to prop up a broken system.” Republican lawmakers have advocated for bills that would encourage school districts to consolidate this session, which Democratic lawmakers and school advocates have criticized.

Lawmakers said they would also support an individual income tax reduction of up to $300 for teacher expenses at an estimated cost of $1.4 million in 2026-27.

Republicans are also seeking to tie the tax relief package to other priority areas. 

Changes made to the Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program (SNAP) — known as FoodShare in Wisconsin — in the massive tax cut and spending bill signed by President Donald Trump last year included a penalty, requiring states to pick up some costs if the state’s payment error rate exceeds 6%. Wisconsin officials have estimated a penalty could cost the state up to $205 million.

The Evers administration has said $69 million and 56 additional administrative positions for DHS are needed to ensure that the state’s error rate remains below the 6% error rate.

The lawmakers said they would agree to funding for FoodShare to help keep the error rate low, but asked that positions that have been vacant for 18 months be used instead of providing new positions to the agency. 

In addition to the GOP request related to the positions, Republican lawmakers are also seeking to tie a ban on using SNAP benefits to purchase soda and candy to the legislation.

Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) said the change would ensure SNAP is “utilized for healthy, nutritious foods” and will help make sure that “some of the soda, junk food, and other stuff that our kids and our adults are filling their bodies with” isn’t purchased with the benefits.

The proposal also includes funding to the Department of Military Affairs for disaster assistance including $10 million in 2025-26 for awards no greater than $25,000 per household and $20 million in 2025-26 for grants of up to $50,000 to businesses. 

The money is meant to help Wisconsinites affected by record floods last year after a recent request for disaster assistance was denied by the federal government. 

“We feel that the states have a position here that should have some funds available particularly for businesses where they have no relief available to them at all,” Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) said. 

The total price tag of the proposed package is about $2.3 billion — nearly the amount of the state’s entire estimated budget surplus.

“This is a generous, good-faith attempt to achieve our mutual goals of limiting the property tax impact caused by your misguided 400-year veto, helping families address rising costs and ultimately doing what is best for the people of Wisconsin,” the lawmakers stated in their letter. “Majority caucuses in both houses have agreed to this plan in principle. With the legislative session soon ending, time is of the essence. We both stand ready to meet at your earliest convenience.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks to people who held a prayer vigil and rally on his behalf outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Baltimore, Maryland, on Aug. 25, 2025. Lydia Walther Rodriguez with CASA interprets for him. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Maryland Tuesday barred U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from re-detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia, saying the Trump administration lacks plans to remove him from the United States.

“Respondents have done nothing to show that Abrego Garcia’s continued detention in ICE custody is consistent with due process,” District of Maryland Judge Paula Xinis wrote in her order. 

Tuesday’s order solidifies a temporary decision from Xinis last year that blocked immigration officials from re-detaining him. 

Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran immigrant and longtime Maryland resident whose wrongful deportation to a brutal megaprison last year cast a national spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown. 

His case has remained a focal point for the Trump administration, which brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. to face criminal charges lodged against him stemming from a traffic stop in Tennessee. 

Those charges were made while Abrego Garcia remained imprisoned in El Salvador, and after the Supreme Court found his deportation unlawful and said the Trump administration should facilitate his return. 

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to those charges of human smuggling and that case continues.

Since Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S., the Trump administration has tried to deport him to a third country, because he has deportation protections from his home country of El Salvador. An immigration judge in 2019 found he would likely face violence if returned there. 

Costa Rica has offered to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee and he has agreed to be removed there, but the Trump administration has tried to deport him to three African countries: Liberia, Eswatini and Uganda.

“Indeed, since Abrego Garcia secured his release from criminal custody in August 2025, Respondents have made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success,” Xinis wrote. 

Xinis added that because the Trump administration has not secured any travel documents for a third country of removal for Abrego Garcia, his detention would be unlawful. The Supreme Court deemed that immigrants cannot be held longer than six months in detention if the federal government is not actively making efforts to remove them. 

“From this, the Court easily concludes that there is no ‘good reason to believe’ removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future,” she wrote.

Abrego Garcia remains in Maryland with his wife, a U.S. citizen, and their three children. 

A vacant warehouse in Kansas City, Mo., was among a growing number of properties across the country planned for conversion into a federal immigration detention center. After weeks of public pressure, the private developer that owns the property announced last week it would not transfer the property to the federal government. (Photo by Kevin Hardy/Stateline)

Outrage erupted last month when Oklahoma City residents learned of plans to convert a vacant warehouse into an immigration processing facility.

Making matters worse was the secrecy of the federal government: City leaders received no communication from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement aside from a mandated disclosure related to historic preservation.

Planning a major development without city input is antithetical to the in-depth, sometimes arcane permitting, planning and zoning process in Oklahoma City. Mayor David Holt, a former Republican state senator, said those land use decisions are among the most crucial of any municipal government.

“For any entity to be able to open a detention center in our communities, potentially next to neighborhoods or schools, regardless of your views on immigration policy or enforcement, is very challenging, because that’s a very high-impact use, and that’s the kind of thing that we would expect to talk about,” he told Stateline.

Communities across the country are facing similar prospects as ICE undertakes a massive expansion fueled in large part by the record $45 billion approved for increased immigration detention by Congress last summer.

During President Donald Trump’s second term, ICE is holding a record number of detainees — more than 70,000 as of January — across its own facilities as well as in contracted local jails and private prisons. ICE documents from last week show plans for acquiring and renovating 16 processing sites that hold up to 1,500 people each and eight detention centers that hold up to 10,000 each, for a total capacity of 92,600 beds. The agency also has plans for some 150 new leases and office expansions across the country, Wired reported.

But ICE’s plans to convert industrial buildings — often warehouses — into new detention facilities have recently faced fierce opposition over humanitarian and economic concerns. From Utah to Texas to Georgia, local governments have sought to block these massive facilities. But with limited legal authority, city and state officials have turned to the court of public opinion to deter private developers and the federal government.

Holt, who is the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a nonpartisan organization representing the more than 1,400 leaders of cities with populations of 30,000 or more, said cities have little legal recourse over the ICE facilities.

“We all have a clear, unified position that really crosses party lines,” he said, “and then we also have a clear understanding of how limited our options are.”

Local leaders often cite the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says federal laws supersede conflicting state laws. That leaves cities with limited influence over projects that could take industrial space off tax rolls, cause new strains on city services and raise serious humanitarian concerns given the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement, including the high-profile killings of two Americans in Minnesota.

Facing bipartisan opposition, the out-of-state owner of the Oklahoma City warehouse ultimately decided to end talks of selling or leasing its warehouse to the federal government.

Similar public pressure has proved effective in reversing plans in several other cities: In late January, a Canadian firm said it would not proceed with a planned sale of a Virginia warehouse after it faced calls for a boycott from Canadian politicians and businesses. In Mississippi, U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker announced the federal government would “look elsewhere” after he spoke with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who oversees ICE. Wicker, a Republican who said he supports immigration enforcement, echoed local economic concerns of a project planned in Byhalia.

Some officials have welcomed the new facilities: Missouri Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Alford has lobbied to land a detention and processing center in his district. And last week, a Maryland county approved a resolution expressing its “full support” for ICE, which is considering purchasing a warehouse there, despite local protests. But most communities have fought them.

Proposed Oklahoma City ICE facility is off the table

Neither DHS nor ICE responded to Stateline’s questions.

Holt said the discussion resembles other local development concerns where NIMBY — short for Not in My Backyard — is a common description of opponents.

“There are plenty of people who are very law-and-order and supporters of law enforcement who don’t want a jail next to their house,” he said. “That’s why it’s got such broad opposition: NIMBYism is the most powerful force sometimes in American politics and nobody wants a detention center next to their home, their business or their school.”

A political and legal fight

After learning that ICE planned to take over a vacant warehouse within its city limits, the Kansas City Council in January swiftly approved a five-year ban on nonmunicipal detention facilities.

Kansas City Council member Andrea Bough, who is also a private development attorney, said the move was both political and legal: The city wanted to send a clear signal opposing ICE facilities, but it also wants to exert its local authority over planning and zoning.

She acknowledged the legal hurdle posed by the supremacy clause, but said there was enough ambiguity over the city’s ability to regulate land use that it may take the issue to the courts.

“Some would say local building codes and zoning regulations do not apply to the federal government,” she said. “That’s something I think we would probably in this situation be willing to fight until we had clear guidance on that.”

Following weeks of pressure, the Kansas City firm that owns the 920,000-square-foot warehouse announced Thursday it was no longer “actively engaged with the U.S. Government or any other prospective purchaser,” the Kansas City Star reported.

Jackson County, which includes portions of Kansas City and the potential detention facility, is considering a similar ban. And across the state line, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, is considering a similar two-year moratorium.

But there are clear limitations on cities’ ability to stop federal projects, said Nestor Davidson, a professor who teaches land use and local government law at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design.

“The federal government can assert immunity from certain state and local laws, including zoning, but it’s complicated, and there are nuances,” he said.

Still, Davidson said some case law has shown cities may have stronger legal footing for zoning rules that are broad and not directly targeted at specific federal government projects.

“I expect to see litigation,” he said. “I think you’re going to see these conversations play out as land use fights often do: both in a legal venue and in a political venue.”

Governments pressured to act

Kansas City’s moratorium has sparked interest among local activists who have pressured elected officials in other cities across the country to act. But many local officials are adamant that federal law ties their hands.

U.S. Reps. Maxwell Frost & Darren Soto tell Kristi Noem not to open ICE facility in Central Florida

In a legal opinion provided to the Orlando City Council in Florida, City Attorney Mayanne Downs rejected “suggestions of actions we can supposedly take,” including moratoriums or using zoning ordinances to block ICE detention centers.

“However well motivated these suggestions are, the law is very clear: ICE, as an agency of our federal government, ICE is immune from any local regulation that interferes in any way with its federal mandate,” Downs wrote to the mayor and city commissioners.

ICE is reportedly considering a new $100 million processing center in southeast Orlando.

The county commission in Orange County, which includes Orlando, discussed the issue last week after receiving similar legal advice. County Commissioner Nicole Wilson said the board is even more constrained because of a recent Florida law limiting certain local governments’ ability to regulate development through 2027.

After being advised against passing a moratorium, the board agreed with Wilson’s follow-up suggestion to draft a resolution expressing its opposition. That will be considered at a future meeting.

“It doesn’t sound like it has the teeth that a moratorium would have, but it essentially gives an awareness that we’ve established a position in opposition to this type of facility in Orange County,” Wilson told Stateline.

An attorney by trade, Wilson said the case law regarding federal projects largely centers on disputes about post offices, which she said is not an appropriate comparison to the massive detention centers currently contemplated.

“A post office has the same water consumption and sewage as probably a lot of other uses,” she said. “If you take a warehouse that was designed for 25,000 widgets and put 15,000 humans in it, you’ve got a very different set of local needs and services that are being used and being taxed and being burdened.”

Working with the feds

Communities have often opposed various other federal projects, such as federal courthouses. But the federal government generally takes the time to listen to local concerns and communicate building plans with communities, said Jason Klumb, a former regional administrator with the U.S. General Services Administration, which manages the federal government’s real estate.

“Generally, GSA has had kind of a good neighbor approach, understanding that they have requirements for federal facilities, and some of those facilities may not always be popular,” said Klumb, an Obama appointee.

But the federal government has not been shy about exerting its constitutional authority.

For example, late last month, GSA announced it would build a new $239 million federal courthouse in downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee, despite bipartisan lobbying from city and federal officials for a different site.

“The feds get what the feds want, ultimately,” Klumb said.

In a statement, a GSA spokesperson declined to clarify the agency’s current role in acquiring ICE detention facilities. The statement said the agency was “following all lease procurement procedures in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.”

Communities have largely been left out of the administration’s immigration decision-making process.

New documents confirm federal government plans to put an ICE facility in Merrimack

“Most of the information we have received on this facility has been through news leaks and the government has not reached out to us yet,” said Paul Micali, the town manager of Merrimack, New Hampshire.

Through an open records request, the ACLU of New Hampshire confirmed that ICE was planning to convert a 43-acre warehouse property in the town of about 28,200.

The federal plans were obtained from the state’s historic preservation office, which came under fire for not informing Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte of ICE’s proposal. That agency’s top official resigned last week after pressure from Ayotte.

Ayotte’s office did not respond to a request for comment. On Thursday, her office released documents detailing how the federal government’s $158 million plan to retrofit the property would create hundreds of long-term jobs for the region.

Testifying before Congress Thursday, an ICE official said the feds will not cancel the project over local concerns.

Micali said the vacant warehouse currently provides about $529,000 in annual property taxes — a substantial sum given the town’s property tax base of about $20 million.

In a letter to Noem, the Town Council said converting the property to a tax-free federal facility would result in higher local taxes for residents. Merrimack is also concerned about potential demands for water, fire and other city services, Micali said, but can’t even begin to assess needs without more details from the feds.

He’s speaking with lawyers about what options, if any, the town may have to assert local zoning power.

“We’re looking at every possibility,” he said.

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

New home under construction. (Dan Reynolds Photography/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republicans, Democrats and the White House are methodically, calmly inching toward a common goal: agreeing on a thick package of laws that would do something quickly about slowing housing costs and boosting supply.

There’s no talk of gridlock here. No partisan sniping. Just an under the radar effort to show constituents in an election year that their lawmakers realize there’s a big problem when it comes to buying homes.

That’s why the House earlier this month passed its version of housing reform with only nine dissenting votes. The Senate committee writing similar legislation approved it unanimously last year.

While there are still some obstacles ahead before anything reaches President Donald Trump’s desk, what’s happening is almost a throwback to the days when getting 80% of one’s plan was a big victory, a policy prize to tout back home as midterm elections near.

“There is no silver bullet for fixing this problem,” said Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. 

But, he added, “I think that this bill, this legislation, includes a range of meaningful housing reforms that will add to housing supply and ultimately decrease housing costs.”

Housing shortage 

The House and Senate bills have a common purpose, said Emma Waters, senior policy analyst at Washington’s Bipartisan Policy Center. “Both bills really are pushing to make it easier to build more affordable homes,” she said. 

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., a member of the House Financial Services Committee, explained the House bill this way: “It ensures that every dollar we do spend goes further.”

An analysis by the Zillow Group, a real estate company that researches home prices and trends, last summer found that in 2023, about 1.4 million new homes were added to the housing stock, but there were 1.8 million newly formed families.

As a result, the housing shortage was up to 4.7 million units. Other estimates put it as high as 7 million.

The typical home price in January in the United States was $359,078, up 0.2% from a year earlier, Zillow found. Prices depend on a wide variety of factors, including labor costs, cost of materials, interest rates, supply and demand and more.

What government can do

The congressional legislation tries to help ease supply and stabilize prices as much as the government can at this point. 

The House and Senate bills share several similar provisions. The  Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based research organization, estimated that the House bill includes pieces of at least 43 different House or Senate bills, 27 of which have had bipartisan support.

Under the House plan, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development would update the department’s construction standards for manufactured housing. The Senate bill has similar provisions.

Rep. John Rose, R-Tenn., a housing subcommittee member, explained the problem: “Municipalities across the country have restricted or outright banned homes built on permanent steel chassis. The result has been less construction, higher costs, and fewer opportunities for working families to own where they live.”

The House bill would provide money for “pattern books” for such housing that would feature pre-approved plans that could speed up the approval process.

The legislation would also provide “a lot of provisions to make it easier for state and local governments to reduce regulatory barriers,” said Waters.

The bills would allow money from Community Development Block Grants, which help fund neighborhood projects, to better support housing production.

The Senate bill would reward CDBG recipients that have, unrelated to their other CDBG projects, increased their housing production in the previous year. 

As a reward for building more housing in the previous year, those jurisdictions would receive additional CDBG funding, but there are still restrictions on how those funds can be used. 

The House bill, though, would change the restriction so that CDBG money could be used for housing construction.

Help for consumers

Housing experts believe a reason landlords balk is they’re reluctant to endure the government’s inspection process; the bills would streamline that process. Landlords would get incentives to accept tenants with rent vouchers.

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which aids state and local efforts to provide housing for lower income families, would also get a makeover of sorts in the bills. 

For instance, the House bill says environmental impact statements would no longer be needed for many projects, and it would be easier to tap money from the HOME budget.

Also likely to help consumers: making it easier for banks, usually community institutions that focus on local needs, to invest in more affordable housing. The House bill would raise the public investment welfare cap, allowing more such investments.

Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., was enthusiastic about this provision. “Our bill helps banks access stable deposit funding, streamlines the exam process that’s tailored particularly for our vital community banks, and helps promote more community banks to do what they do best, lend locally and support their communities,” said Hill, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, in a statement.

What’s ahead 

The banking provision is one of the few major areas where the Senate and House disagree. There’s concern among some Democrats that the House bill lifts too many bank regulatory barriers.

“We have a bipartisan bill with unanimous support in the Senate that will help build more housing and lower costs for the American people. I’m glad to see the House move forward on housing proposals,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee.

But, she said, “House Republicans should not hold housing relief hostage to push forward several bank deregulatory bills that will make our community banks more fragile while harming consumers, small businesses, and economic growth.”

Also having potential to stymie negotiations is the White House’s eagerness to ban institutional investors from buying single family homes. There’s not much congressional support for that idea.

Trump last month issued an executive order telling “key agencies to issue guidance preventing relevant Federal programs from approving, insuring, guaranteeing, securitizing, or facilitating sales of single-family homes to institutional investors.”

Staying upbeat

There’s still a sense in the Capitol that Republicans and Democrats will come together on a major housing bill, particularly since Congress and the White House agree on most key provisions and leading interest groups are helping push legislation forward.

The National Association of Realtors has been enthusiastic about the House and Senate bills. 

 “By addressing barriers at every level of government, the legislation will make it faster and cheaper to build new homes,” the organization said after the House passed the housing reform  bill. The Realtors had similar praise for the Senate version.

The Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition also liked the House bill, as CEO Emily Cadik called it “a set of common sense, bipartisan housing proposals that would increase the supply of affordable housing.”

Most in Washington who follow housing policy closely are upbeat about the legislation’s prospects.

“It’s all pretty positive stuff,” said Waters.

Then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at the Faith and Freedom Road to Majority conference at the Washington Hilton on June 24, 2023, in Washington, D.C. Trump spoke on a range of topics to an audience of conservative evangelical Christians. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Roughly one in three Americans are Christian nationalists or sympathetic to the cause, according to a new survey.

The survey, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, also found strong connections between support for Christian nationalism and support for the Republican Party and President Donald Trump in particular.

“I think the threat is (to) our democracy,” said Public Religion Research Institute CEO Melissa Deckman. “We found consistently that Christian nationalists tend to endorse more illiberal views in the sense that they’re more likely to embrace more authoritarian views, which can essentially be used to justify limiting access to the ballot for some people, or it can be used to use undemocratic means to stay in power.”

Most Christian nationalists want America to be a theocracy ruled explicitly by biblical principles, often interpreted through a fundamentalist lens. Many also think only Christians should be able to hold political office.

While the vast majority of Americans do not support Christian nationalist ideals, the survey found that about 11% of Americans are active Christian nationalists while another 21% are sympathizers. Researchers categorized most Americans – 64% – as either skeptics or rejecters of Christian nationalism.

“Long story short, far more Americans reject it than endorse it,” Deckman said in an interview. “But politically, why it’s so important to measure is that we now have a political party where you have prominent Christian nationalists in charge right within the Republican Party, whether it’s in the Trump administration, and, the executive branch, that really have disproportionate influence and folks like the speaker of the House is someone that would endorse this currently in Congress.”

Public Religion Research Institute survey finds strongest support for Christian nationalist views in people from the South

The findings were based on interviews with more than 22,000 adults conducted throughout 2025. 

The survey found that 56% of Republicans are adherents or supporters of Christian nationalism, compared to a quarter of independents and 17% of Democrats. It also found a correlation between support for Trump and support for Christian nationalism. Backers of the ideology were far more likely to express support for political violence than their fellow Americans.

The states that held the most Christian nationalist views are concentrated in the South. Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia and Oklahoma registered the highest support for the ideology. But ruby red Idaho has become a center for Christian nationalist thought, as the home of influential pastor Doug Wilson’s, whose Christ Church and connected national education and church networks have helped shape a generation of far-right leaders. Wilson has called for America to be run as an explicitly Christian nation.

 One Idaho pastor calls for faith leaders across the U.S. to push back

Idaho-based pastor and writer Ben Cremer said that school of thought should worry Americans.

“Every American would have their lives dictated by the set of beliefs by a single Christian sect, whether they aligned with those beliefs or not,” he said. “Given the patriarchy, supremacy, and racism intertwined with the current brand of Christian nationalism, you would see women losing the right to vote and ethnic and religious minorities sidelined and infringed upon.”

Cremer said it’s incumbent on faith leaders to push back on what he sees as a perversion of Christianity.

“First, Jesus called us to love our neighbors as our selves – that is part of his greatest commandment to us,” he said. “My neighbor is every human being. Christian nationalism is actively harming and dehumanizing so many of my neighbors and our planet. That is simply unacceptable. Secondly, it is carrying this harm out in the name of my sacred faith.”

Christian nationalism, until recently a fringe ideology, has been in the spotlight in recent years, as Donald Trump has become receptive to the movement’s ideas and even appointed some Christian nationalists to prominent positions. 

Trump’s Defense secretary nominee has close ties to Idaho Christian nationalists

For example, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is a member of one of Christ Church’s affiliates, sports Crusader tattoos and has broken down the separation of church and state in the military. Russ Vought, one of the architects of Project 2025 – a Christian nationalist blueprint for government – is Trump’s Office of Management and Budget director.

Deckman said if Americans want to see Christian nationalism banished to the fringes again, demographics are on their side.

“I guess the answer is … voting,” she said. “I think that you know this is something that’s not going to change overnight, necessarily. You know, younger Americans are more secular, they’re less likely to be conservative Christians. I think it’s just a matter of people voting right and getting enough people who are willing to challenge these kinds of viewpoints within the Republican Party.”

Correction: This story was updated at 9:45 a.m. Feb. 17, 2026, to correct the percentage of Americans who sympathize with Christian nationalist ideals. It’s 21%.

Protesters rally in downtown Milwaukee in May 2021 to show support for Palestinians living in Gaza. A bill to define antisemitism will go before the Wisconsin Assembly for a vote Tuesday. Supporters say it's necessary to differentiate between criticism of Israeli policy and anti-Jewish hate, but critics say it would conflate political speech with antisemitism. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Assembly will vote Tuesday on a bill that would define antisemitism and that has prompted deep divisions — including among Jewish leaders, who are found among both the supporters and opponents of the measure.

Proponents of the legislation contend it is needed to take a stand against a surge in antisemitic actions, on college campuses as well as in other contexts.

Critics, however, argue that the bill would criminalize political speech critical of Israeli actions, most recently in the ongoing conflict in Gaza — which has also divided the Jewish community.

The bill would codify in Wisconsin law a definition of antisemitism that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016.

The definition states: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The IHRA has also published a list of bullet points as “contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere…”

The legislation, AB 446, requires local and state governmental agencies to consider the IHRA definition “including its examples” when investigating allegations of racial, religious or ethnic discrimination. Its Senate companion is SB 445.

The definition would also be used to determine “enhanced criminal penalties for criminal offenses” if a defendant is found to target a victim “because of the victim’s or group of victims’ actual or perceived race, religion, color, or national origin.”

The bill “doesn’t create any new criminal penalty or compel any legal proceeding to be initiated,” testified its Assembly author, Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison), at public hearings on the measure. “Rather, it provides a standard to be used in evaluating whether an alleged criminal act as provided for under current law was motivated by antisemitism.”

Both the IHRA’s examples and the bill’s criminal penalty language have become key points of criticism for the legislation’s opponents, however. Rabbis have testified both in favor of the legislation and against it.

“Nothing about this bill would prevent me, or anyone else, from rebuking Israel for its actions when conscience demands it,” said Rabbi Noah Chertkoff, who serves a congregation in the Milwaukee suburb of Fox Point, testifying in support of the bill at its Jan. 28 state Senate hearing.

At the same hearing, Rabbi Dena Feingold, the retired leader of a Kenosha congregation, called the IHRA definition “highly controversial and problematic in a number of respects” in her opposition testimony.

“It is far from universally accepted within the Jewish community, and many scholars and leaders have outright rejected it,” Feingold said.

The number of examples offered by the IHRA treating “anti-Israel rhetoric as antisemitism gives the impression that anti-Israel critics and protesters are by far the most likely sources of antisemitism in America,” Feingold added. “On the contrary, I believe that racists and white nationalists are the largest sources of antisemitism in this country.”

The legislation’s sponsor list is heavily Republican. A handful of Democrats in both chambers have signed on, but some have subsequently withdrawn their support.

At both the Assembly public hearing in October and the state Senate hearing in January, witnesses supporting the bill described increased antisemitic violence and actions, particularly since the massacre of more than 1,200 people in an attack on a music festival in Israel by the Palestinian political and military group Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023.

Ari Friedman, executive director of the Jewish Security Network, said at the January hearing that an audit by the Milwaukee Jewish Federation’s Jewish Community Relations Council found a 192% increase in antisemitic incidents in Wisconsin and similarly a national escalation in anti-Jewish hate crimes, according to the FBI.

The legislation “is not about suppressing free speech or political disagreement. Those rights are fundamental,” Friedman said. “But when expression crosses into harassment, intimidation and threats of violence directed at people because they are Jewish, it ceases to be abstract debate and becomes a public safety issue.”

The IHRA’s definition of antisemitism “explicitly does not criminalize speech,” testified the Jewish Community Relations Council’s chair, Jill Plavnick. “It provides clarity; helping schools, workplaces and courts recognize when hate crosses the line into discrimination.”

But Hannah Rosenthal, a former CEO of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation who served as a special envoy on global antisemitism during the Obama administration and also led the national Jewish Council for Public Affairs, testified in opposition to the bill in January, describing it as part of a Trump administration push to target critics of the administration’s Middle East policy.

She said the White House appears intent on using the IHRA definition of antisemitism “to identify individuals or organizations that disagree with the administration’s goal to fight any pro-Palestinian efforts as part of a Hamas network, and therefore antisemitic or even a terrorist.”

The IHRA definition “does include some very important examples of antisemitism,” Rosenthal testified. “But it is silent on conspiracy theories, the great replacement theory, white nationalism, Christian nationalism, deicide, blaming Jews for funding opposition efforts, and the like.”

(The “great replacement theory” is a conspiracy theory that “Jews and some Western elites are conspiring to replace white Americans and Europeans with people of non-European descent,” explained Rodney Coates, a Miami University professor, in a 2024 article for The Conversation.)

Advocates have pointed to language stating that the bill may not be construed to infringe on constitutional rights under the First Amendment or to conflict with federal or state antidiscrimination laws.

“It affirms that nothing in this bill may be used to infringe on free expression,” Chertkoff testified.

But Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, said that the bill incorporates the IHRA definition and its examples into Wisconsin’s antidiscrimination law — making what she called the “First Amendment savings clause” meaningless.

“Although the ACLU of Wisconsin appreciates the sentiment expressed by this provision, it cannot override the bill’s plain terms,” Merkwae said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A picture sits at a memorial to Alex Pretti on Jan. 25, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The FBI formally notified Minnesota officials on Friday that it would not grant them access to evidence from the investigation into the killing of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis, the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said on Monday.

The BCA has historically investigated shootings by law enforcement officials but has been blocked from participating in the investigations of federal immigration agents killing two Americans and shooting a Venezuelan national in three separate incidents in Minneapolis in January during “Operation Metro Surge.”

“While this lack of cooperation is concerning and unprecedented, the BCA is committed to thorough, independent and transparent investigations of these incidents, even if hampered by a lack of access to key information and evidence,” BCA Superintendent Drew Evans said in a statement.

When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good in her car on Jan. 7, BCA agents were on the scene collecting evidence as part of a joint investigation with the FBI. Then the U.S. Attorney’s Office “reversed course” and decided the investigation would be led solely by the FBI, Evans said at the time.

A week later, an ICE agent shot Julio Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan national, in the leg after a car chase with a different individual, whom agents had confused for someone else. The BCA were again on the scene then in north Minneapolis and collected evidence but the FBI told the BCA it would not share any results of its initial investigation.

A little over a week after that, a U.S. Border Patrol agent and a Customs and Border Protection officer shot and killed Alex Pretti on Jan. 24 as he was observing federal immigration agents in south Minneapolis. BCA agents responded at the request of the city of Minneapolis but were blocked from accessing the scene by personnel with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security despite having a judicial warrant.

In all three incidents, Department of Homeland Security officials made extraordinary statements about the victims. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem described Good and Pretti as domestic terrorists within hours of their killings.

Homeland Security, in an official release, initially said Sosa-Celis and another man, Alfredo Aljorna, violently assaulted an officer leading the agent to fire a defensive shot. The Department of Justice has since dropped felony assault charges against the two men and is instead investigating two ICE officers for lying about the incident.

Public outrage over the Pretti killing appeared to pressure the Trump administration to consider allowing state officials to cooperate on the investigation. The Star Tribune reported that the BCA and FBI were close to announcing a deal on a joint investigation. Then the Trump administration pulled back, apparently because of a leak about the deal, Gov. Tim Walz said on Thursday.

Democratic leaders say the lack of local participation on independent investigations into the shootings compromises public trust.

In the Pretti killing, the Department of Homeland Security initially said it would take the lead on the investigation — essentially investigating itself — before the FBI took over. The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the killing.

The lack of cooperation with the state also hinders local prosecutors in weighing whether criminal charges against the agents are warranted, leading Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to begin collecting evidence themselves with the BCA.

The BCA is requesting anyone with information about the shootings of Pretti, Good or Sosa-Celis to contact them at 651-793-7000 or by email at bca.tips@state.mn.us.

Tristan Wright, founder and president of Lost Boy Cider, stands near his production line on Feb. 6, 2026, in Alexandria, Virginia. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Aluminum cans rolling off Virginia cider maker Tristan Wright’s production line cost more because of increased tariffs on aluminum.

Minnesota baby product inventor and seller Beth Benike ran out of inventory and lost income for months last year when President Donald Trump sparked a trade war with China.

Maryland dog apparel producer Barton O’Brien pulled the plug on a new line of Irish-style fisherman sweaters. Importing from his manufacturers in India became unfeasible.

Pennsylvania glass and ceramic decorator Walt Rowen worries about his tariff bill each time he replenishes stock.

“If there’s one thing that’s universal in business, no matter what you’re doing, it’s that stability and calmness create a positive market,” said Rowen, a third-generation owner of Susquehanna Glass Company in eastern Pennsylvania.

But many small business owners feel anything but calm since Trump began his whiplash trade policy shortly upon starting his second term. And now they are waiting on the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been mulling since November what was supposed to be an expedited opinion on whether large shares of the president’s unilateral emergency tariffs are legal. 

The Supreme Court is not scheduled to release opinions again until Feb. 20.

In a tariff impact survey to roughly 3,000 small business members from June to November 2025, the advocacy group Main Street Alliance found that 81.5% indicated they may raise prices to offset tariff costs, 41.7% reported they would delay business expansion and 31.5% said employee layoffs were likely if tariff rates remained unchanged. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated as of August that Trump’s tariff policies will cost America’s roughly 236,000 small businesses about $200 billion annually.

Tariffs are taxes paid by U.S. importers to U.S. Customs and Border Protection on goods purchased from abroad. 

Trump tariffs pass one-year mark

Trump began using the novel approach of imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, just over a year ago. 

As the first president to use the 1970s emergency statute to trigger import taxes, Trump slapped duties in February 2025 on products from Canada, Mexico and China, pointing to a crisis of illicit fentanyl smuggling. 

He next targeted global imports in April with a universal 10% import tax, adding varying “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from numerous trading partners — all due to his declared emergency on trade deficits.

A handful of small business owners, led by a New York-based wine and spirits importer, sued and won in two lower courts.

Trump appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted an expedited case.

The justices grilled the government and lawyers for the small businesses in early November on whether the president legally used the statute — which does not include the word tariffs — and if his presidential power extends to unilaterally upending trade policy.

The arguments attracted rare appearances in the courtroom from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other Cabinet members.

The case outcome will only apply to the import taxes the president imposed under his declared emergencies. Sectoral tariffs on imports on metals, critical minerals and pharmaceuticals, put in place by Trump because of national security concerns or unfair trade practices, will remain.

“We’ve been waiting on it. Nobody’s sure what really is going to happen — are they going to decide one way or another, and then what will happen?” Rowen said.

Rowen’s company, among other things, sandblasts and laser engraves glassware, mugs and tumblers found in winery tasting rooms, on restaurant tables and in university gift shops. 

“If they decide that the president’s policies are legal, then we’re stuck where we’re at. Potentially, he might become emboldened to do even more. If they decide that (he) can’t then what happens? What happens to all the money that’s already been set aside?” Rowen asked.

Trump promises on tariffs

The Trump administration hails the tariffs as a windfall for the country. He’s promised the customs duties collected from U.S. businesses and other importers will, in part, help the country crawl out of its nearly $39 trillion debt. 

Trump has also said tariffs will bring factories back to U.S. soil, provide for $2,000 dividend checks to taxpayers and even offset the cost of child care.

The import taxes pulled in $195 billion in 2025, up from $77 billion in 2024. 

So far for fiscal year 2026, which began Oct. 1, the government has earned about $118 billion in tariffs, according to the U.S. Treasury monthly statement through Jan 31, though the report does not delineate between emergency and sectoral tariffs.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates roughly 41% of tariffs collected last year were due to those imposed under IEEPA. The office projects if tariffs are left in place, revenue will jump to $418 billion in 2026 — exceeding corporate income tax receipts for the first time since the 1930s, a high-water mark for levies on imports.

Wright, founder and president of Lost Boy Cider in Alexandria, Virginia, said the administration is “literally banking the future of the country on the tariffs.”

“They don’t have another way of getting us out of this debt situation (and) you can point all the fingers you want over the last couple of decades,” he said.

While Wright has not had to directly pay tariffs, he’s shelled out more and more money for the aluminum cans that hold his specialty cider. China is, by far, the world’s largest aluminum producer.

“We work with a lot of people that purchase internationally because they can’t get the products here. And I understand it. You know, some point in five, 10,15 years from now, maybe we have 16 aluminum plants in the country. But you don’t just snap your fingers and, like, create an aluminum plant,” Wright told States Newsroom during an interview at his cidery.

Costs to households

Economists argue that while tariffs have raised revenue, they hurt the economy by shrinking business growth and reducing consumers’ purchasing power.

“You can’t do partial accounting. How much additional income growth and business income growth did you not get because of the tariffs?” Wayne Weingarden, an economist with the pro-growth Pacific Research Institute, told States Newsroom.

“If you wanted to raise taxes, there are ways of doing it that would be less obstructive to the economy than imposing tariffs,” he said.

The Tax Foundation estimates the president’s tariffs will cost households roughly $1,300 in 2026.

“If you have $100 to spend on groceries every week and the price of coffee goes up by like $5, your grocery budget doesn’t magically increase to $105 to pay for the higher coffee price. Instead, you’re forced to make trade-offs. If I want to buy the coffee, then that means I have $5 less to spend,” said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy for the think tank, which advocates for business growth.

O’Brien, owner of the Annapolis, Maryland-based Baydog company, said he boosted his inventory of woven collars manufactured in India and dog harnesses from China to get ahead of the tariff costs.

“I have been forced, as a business owner, to borrow money and tie up all that cash in product,” he said.

“If I look at other dog harness manufacturers, the prices have gone up everywhere. We have chosen not to raise prices, but to take that money out of our own pocket. So instead of everybody paying five bucks more for a dog harness, basically everyone at Baydog makes less money, myself included,” he said in an interview with States Newsroom.

Benike, who owns 15 patents for specialty baby products including silicone dining trays with attachments for toys and sippy cups, said she had to lay off her brother and forfeit her own paycheck last year.

The owner of Busy Baby told States Newsroom in an early February interview that she delayed a shipping container of her product from China’s Guangdong province, in case the Supreme Court ruled Trump’s emergency tariffs were illegal.

“I was holding off on shipping it until that decision was made, because the difference would have been $40,000 for me,” she said.

She had to pull the trigger in mid-January as the Supreme Court continued deliberating and she began running out of product.

“I have a container that should be sitting at the port. It should be clearing customs, hopefully, like as we speak, so I’ll have a tariff bill to pay,” Benike said.

The following day she emailed to say she didn’t realize Trump had lowered the fentanyl emergency tariff on China last year during negotiations. 

“​​So my final tariff ended up being 10% less than I expected. YAY!” she wrote.

The big ‘what if’

Shawn Phetteplace, national campaigns director for Main Street Alliance, said the advocacy organization is preparing to help its network of small business members if the Supreme Court strikes down the emergency tariffs. 

“My understanding is that the things that can be done to get people’s money back is either some type of class action lawsuit, so that it forces customs and government to essentially refund the dollars,” Phetteplace said in an interview with States Newsroom. “But that process will take quite a bit of time. The other option is for individual businesses to sue the government and to recoup those costs.”

O’Brien said of the delay, “The Supreme Court has proven they can issue decisions very quickly when they want to. Every day that goes by, they’re making the mess bigger.”

In a response to States Newsroom, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in an emailed statement, “President Trump promised to bring prosperity back to Main Street with an America First agenda that benefits every small business, just as he did in his first term.” 

“In addition to slashing regulations and lowering energy costs, the Trump administration signed the largest Working Families Tax Cut in history to unleash unprecedented growth for small businesses with a permanent 20% tax deduction and full expensing of equipment investments,” according to Rogers’ statement.

Oak Bluff Natural Area in Door County, which was protected by the Door County Land Trust using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds in 2023. (Photo by Kay McKinley)

The Wisconsin Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee voted to advance a Republican bill that would reauthorize the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship program with additional amendments Monday.

The bill, SB 685, passed the committee with 11 Republican votes. Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha), Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) and Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) voted against advancing the bill. In conjunction with SB 316, the bill would continue the program for an additional two years, but in a limited form.

“When we start to dismantle programs that have been in place for 30 years that were built on bipartisanship, I start to seriously have my doubts,” Andraca said. She added  that Republican lawmakers were willing to kill a popular program because of a state Supreme Court decision that removed their ability to anonymously veto particular projects. 

For many years, Wisconsin lawmakers exercised control over the Knowles-Nelson program through the Joint Finance Committee as members could anonymously object to any project and have it held up for an indeterminate time. That ended last year after the state Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that anonymous objections were unconstitutional. Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote for the majority that the statutes “encroach upon the governor’s constitutional mandate to execute the law.”

“This is not the best that you could do. This is the best that you chose to do,” Andraca said. “Killing a popular bipartisan program out of spite does not make a great bumper sticker, but it does make it a whole lot easier for your constituents to know where you stand on conservation.” 

The program is currently authorized at $33 million annually. The GOP bill will continue the program at a funding level of $28.25 million and limit land acquisitions for the two-year reauthorization period.

The Assembly passed its versions of the bills on a 53-44 party-line vote in January. 

The Senate Financial Institutions and Sporting Heritage Committee approved changes to the bills on Friday. The recent amendments in the Senate mean the bills will need to pass a vote in both houses of the Legislature. The Senate plans to meet for a floor session on Wednesday.

One recent change to the bill eliminates a requirement that land-acquisition grants to nonprofit conservation organizations only be used for land south of U.S. Highway 8. Another change specifies that provisions related to minor land acquisitions will only be effective in 2026-27 and 2027-28. Under the bill, the department will only be able to make “minor land acquisitions,” defined as parcels of land that are five acres or less in size and would improve access to hunting, fishing or trapping opportunities, or are contiguous to land already owned by the state.

During the two-year period, the DNR would need to conduct a survey of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program including an inventory of all land acquired with money. It would also have to report proposed project boundaries and land acquisition priorities for the next two to five years and proposed changes.

Another change in the amendments prohibits the DNR from acquiring land in 2026-27 and 2027-28 if it would result in more than 35% of the total acreage in a municipality being owned by the state, city, village, town or federal government, unless the municipality adopted a resolution approving the acquisition. That provision does not consider county-owned land in a given municipality.

Democrats wanted a more robust investment in the program. Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) proposed a bill that would dedicate $72 million to the stewardship program  and Gov. Tony Evers called for over $100 million for it in his budget.

The program, initially created in 1989, has allowed for state borrowing and spending for state land acquisition and for grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations with the goal of preserving wildlife habitat and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities throughout Wisconsin. It has traditionally had bipartisan support and has been reauthorized several times throughout its history, including last in 2021. 

The program’s funds will run out on June 30, 2026 if a reauthorization bill is not  signed into law. 

Bill coauthors Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), who are both members of the budget committee, were critical of Democrats.  

Kurtz said he supports conservation and said the bill had been “hijacked” by politics, including blaming the state Supreme Court decision for the current situation. He also preemptively blamed Democratic lawmakers for the potential end to the program. 

Kurtz said he “wasn’t crazy” about the process, but asked the Legislative Fiscal Bureau what percentage of projects were approved under the program even with the anonymous objector process in place. An LFB staffer said 93% submitted to JFC were approved. 

“93% that was submitted to the Joint Finance were approved — 93% — so basically, we’re bickering over 7% that you didn’t like,” Kurtz said.

Kurtz said there could also be other opportunities to acquire land by passing other bills. 

“If there’s a piece of land that comes up next to Devil’s Lake, and the DNR wants to buy it, and they come to me and say, ‘Hey, Rep. Kurtz, we didn’t get the money in this authorization, but this is an opportunity that we can expand Devil’s Lake’ — I will be the first one to jump on that bill, because I know how important it is,” Kurtz said. “So when people say that it’s only $28.25 [million] they need to start thinking outside the box… If this fails, this is on the doorsteps of the Democrats in the state of Wisconsin, period, and I will sing that every day, 24/7, 365,” Kurtz said. 

Johnson pushed back on Kurtz’s comment, noting that Republican lawmakers currently hold the majority in the state Senate and Assembly. 

“[That] ultimately means that you can do whatever you want,” Johnson said, adding that she was confused by the Republican lawmakers trying to pass blame to Democrats. 

Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) commented that Evers will need to sign the bills for them to become law. 

“This notion that this is somehow going to kill the program. That’s not accurate. We’re trying to save it because there are those of us up here who value conservation,” Testin said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Friends and family members hold posters of missing and murdered Indigenous Women and Girls at the 1th annual event commemorating MMIW/R in Duluth, Minnesota on Feb. 14, 2026. | Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner

Local officials from Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin spoke to the crowd gathered for the  11th annual Memorial March for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives (MMIWR) on Valentine’s Day  in Duluth.

The movement to address the scourge of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls started in Canada 35 years ago on Valentine’s Day. Later, missing and murdered men and relatives were added.

Held at the American Indian Community Housing Organization (AICHO), the event featured proclamations from both the cities.

Duluth’s proclamation noted that Native American women face murder rates 10 times the national average and that the “Minnesota MMIWR Task force reports that indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people are more likely to experience violence, be murdered or go missing compared to other demographic groups in Minnesota.”

Superior Mayor Jim Paine said because his wife and daughters are Alaskan natives, he is personally  invested in addressing the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women.

He described attending the State of The Tribes address by Nicole Boyd, chair of the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa at the Wisconsin State Capitol on Feb. 10.

“The only time she broke down in that speech, the only time she wavered at all, was talking about Native women and girls and the fact that too many of them are missing, too many of them have been murdered, and the mission to save them, to protect them, to remember them,” he said.

Paine added,  “We’re doing a lot more this year than last, but that work continues today, and every single day of the year, obviously, like you, the Native women in my life are the most important part of my life, I am deeply grateful for everything that they do for me, and I would do anything to protect them, like all of you, and that means on days like today, we have to speak as loudly and as clearly that the Native women that are in our lives, that are here. We love you. We will protect you. We will do anything for you. To the Native women that are missing, we will never stop looking for you, and to those that have truly been lost or have walked on, we will remember and protect and treat your legacy and memory with the safety that you didn’t have in life.”

Jana Williams, a member of the Leech Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Minnesota, talked about the alleged failure of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) to investigate the death of her niece, Allison Lussier, a member of the Red Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Minnesota, whose body was discovered in February 2024 in her apartment. No death investigation was conducted, Williams said, even though Lussier had contacted the police to report abuse by her boyfriend.

“If you know Allison’s story, you know this, MPD saw an indigenous woman,” said Williams. “They saw drug paraphernalia in her apartment and around her body, a staged scene. And instead of following their own protocol, a supervisor intentionally called off the crime scene. … That one decision destroyed every piece of evidence that could have brought justice to her name.” According to Williams, community members reported that her niece’s killer bragged about her murder. Because of Williams’ activism, the Minneapolis City Council has requested an independent investigation of the case. 

“Who is going to fight for you if we do not stand together?” Williams  asked the crowd. “We are less than 2% of the population. We cannot afford to be divided. We must stand as one.”

Rene Goodrich. organizer of the event, noted the official Minnesota Missing and Murdered Indigenous Relatives (MMIR) office in Minnesota, founded in 2019,  the only state office in America officially focused on the issue, served 25 families in 2025 and was involved in eight new cases, including four that were resolved in the Duluth area with three being safely found.

Goodrich also noted the state’s MMIR office has a reward fund, up to $10,000 per person, that was inspired by a city of Duluth reward fund, the first in the nation, called Gaagige Mikwendaagoziwag or “They will be remembered forever.”

Late in the meeting, relatives and friends held posters and said the names of missing or murdered people, including Sheila St. Clair, missing since 2015, Nevah Kingbird, missing since 2021 and Peter Martin, missing since 2024. Others held symbolic red dresses.

After a drum dance, about 100 people gathered on the street with posters, banners and dresses and marched to  the Building for Women where the marchers released tobacco they were carrying into a sacred fire, a tradition for seeking a blessing. 

Correction: An earlier version of this story misspelled Jana Williams’ name. We regret the error.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Taycheedah Correctional Institution , a women's prison in Wisconsin.| Photo courtesy Wisconsin Department of Corrections

In the Wisconsin prison system, incarcerated mothers still lack a program that would allow physical custody of their children, a year after a court ruling affirmed that a state law requires the Department of Corrections to take steps to bring together incarcerated moms and babies. The ACLU is suing to try to force the issue.

Wisconsin statute 301.049 calls for a “mother-young child care program” allowing women to retain the physical custody of their children during participation in the program. It says a woman entering the program must either be pregnant or have a child less than a year old. 

Alyssa Puphal and Natasha Curtin-Weber are plaintiffs in the case against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC), and are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and Quarles & Brady LLP. 

While a judge sided with the plaintiffs last year, they are attempting to re-open the case, saying the DOC has not implemented the program required by law. 

“At this moment, each and every woman in DOC’s physical custody with a baby under one year old sleeps apart from her child every single night,” the Feb. 4 filing stated. 

Nine states have prison nursery programs, and a few others are considering or developing a program, Stateline reported in January. 

According to Wisconsin Public Radio, DOC communications director Beth Hardtke wrote in an email that because the Legislature turned down a budget request from Gov. Tony Evers to expand earned release to allow mothers to spend more time with their children outside of prison, the department is now being required to expand the mother-child program to include incarcerated mothers despite a lack of additional funding and of statutory changes that would allow more incarcerated women to take part.

DOC had previously argued that it was meeting the requirements of the 1991 statute by facilitating contact between babies and mothers on probation, extended supervision and parole. But a year ago, in February 2025, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Stephen Elkhe disagreed, ordering DOC to provide a mother-child program inside Wisconsin prisons.

“Reforming the criminal justice system to make our communities safer is a key priority of (Gov. Tony Evers’) administration and that includes corrections reforms such as a mother-young child program for incarcerated women,” Hardtke wrote, according to WPR. 

The ACLU motion called for remedial sanctions to get the agency to comply with the court order, including a daily fine for each day the contempt of court continues. The organization asked that the money from the fines be set aside to support the mother-child program, and claimed that a growing fine would ensure resources for the program. 

“With each month that passes, Defendants’ failure to act violates state law and violates the Writ,” the motion stated. 

When the lawsuit was filed in June 2024, Puphal had already given birth while incarcerated, while Curtin-Weber was pregnant. As of the filing of the lawsuit, their requests to participate in the mother-young program were refused or had not been responded to, according to a complaint published online by the ACLU. 

Puphal and Curtin-Weber were released on extended supervision last year, according to online DOC records. 

The state law enacted in 1991 states that the department shall provide the program for females who are prisoners or on probation, extended supervision or parole and who would participate as an alternative to revocation. 

When a person is released from prison to supervision, they must follow certain rules. If their supervision is revoked, the person will either be returned to court for sentencing or transported to a correctional institution. 

The department contended that it was in line with the law and that the word “or” in the statute indicated the agency could either provide the program for incarcerated mothers or for mothers on supervision.

DOC argued that it had a mother-child program for women on probation, extended supervision or parole who are pregnant or have a child under the age of one, and that it didn’t have to offer the program to incarcerated mothers. Wisconsin’s state budget includes $198,000 for a mother-young child program. 

Ehlke sided with the plaintiffs. He said they had established a clear right to be included in the class of people the department must consider for the mother-child program. 

The ACLU motion on Feb. 4 stated that the court had ordered the department to establish the program “forthwith,” or without delay, and  moved to reopen the case, arguing there has been “no meaningful progress” since that order despite three meetings between department representatives and counsel for the plaintiffs. 

“To avoid another year of excuses — or worse, another 35 years — Plaintiffs ask the Court to reopen this case for the purposes of enforcing the Court’s Writ,” the motion stated. 

The plaintiffs’ filing includes a letter and a list of questions sent to the Department of Corrections in December. It states that the Ostara Initiative offered to create a mother-young child care program for DOC at no cost to the agency in April 2024 and has continued to approach the agency. It described the Ostara Initiative as “a credible non-profit that DOC has already partnered with for other services.” 

The Examiner reached out to the Department of Corrections for a response to the plaintiffs’ filing, and also asked if the claims about Ostara were correct and if the department is planning to partner with Ostara on the program. Hardtke wrote that it is the department’s practice not to comment on ongoing litigation. 

A telephone scheduling conference in the case is scheduled for March 2. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A child rests among signs at Milwaukee climate march. (Photo by Isiah Holmes)

The federal administration’s decision to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency’s Endangerment Finding may sound technical. In reality, it targets the legal foundation that has allowed the United States to regulate climate pollution for more than a decade. For Wisconsin, the move introduces new uncertainty just as communities, farmers and businesses invest in cleaner energy, efficiency and more resilient infrastructure.

The 2009 Endangerment Finding concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. Courts have upheld that determination repeatedly. Eliminating or weakening it does not change the science behind climate change, but it could reshape how power plants, vehicles and industrial facilities are regulated. That shift carries consequences for states already dealing with smoky summers, heavier rainfall and rising infrastructure costs.

Wisconsin’s clean energy economy has expanded steadily, often without much attention. Renewable projects now generate enough electricity to power about 560,000 homes. Roughly 75,000 residents work in clean energy fields, and more than 350 Wisconsin companies supply technologies or services that reduce energy use or emissions. Together, these efforts reflect a broader reality: climate progress here tends to be practical and locally driven because it lowers costs and strengthens communities.

Examples are visible across the state. School districts and municipal buildings are cutting operating expenses through efficiency upgrades supported by Focus on Energy programs. Tribal and low-income households are receiving targeted weatherization investments that improve comfort and reduce utility bills. Builders and manufacturers are adopting higher performance standards to reduce long-term risk.

Federal rollbacks do not automatically halt these efforts, but they complicate financing and planning. Investors and local governments rely on predictable rules. When national standards shift, projects that once appeared viable can stall.

Some of the clearest examples are unfolding in rural Wisconsin. The SolarShare Wisconsin Cooperative is expanding community-owned solar projects that keep energy dollars circulating locally while pairing installations with pollinator habitat or sheep grazing. Hidden Springs Creamery installed a 50-kilowatt solar system to power its creamery and farm operations while continuing to produce artisanal cheeses. These projects reflect a simple idea gaining traction across the state: build it here, power it here, prosper here.

Wisconsin’s dairy sector has also become a testing ground for methane reduction strategies. Anaerobic digesters, renewable natural gas systems and advanced manure management technologies are already operating throughout the state. They reduce emissions while improving water quality and creating new revenue streams for farmers. If federal climate incentives weaken, fewer of these projects may move forward, leaving producers to absorb more risk and potentially slowing innovation that began here.

At the same time, new pressures are emerging from the rapid growth of artificial intelligence and large-scale data centers. Utilities are proposing infrastructure expansions to meet rising electricity demand, raising questions about cost allocation, water use and oversight. Small businesses, tribes, farmers and rural communities are organizing around siting decisions that affect farmland and ratepayers.

This week, the Power Wisconsin Forward campaign, supported by the Clean Economy Coalition of Wisconsin and more than 50 partner organizations, urged the Public Service Commission to ensure that data center costs do not shift onto ordinary customers. The debate highlights a broader reality. Wisconsin’s energy landscape is changing quickly even as federal climate policy moves in the opposite direction.

It would be misleading to suggest Wisconsin’s political environment has become less polarized. Recent legislative sessions show deep divisions and limited consensus on climate priorities. That context makes federal rollbacks more consequential. Without consistent national guardrails, states rely more heavily on local initiatives and market forces, which can advance progress but unevenly.

Legal challenges to the EPA decision are likely, but outcomes remain uncertain. In the meantime, utilities, farmers and local governments must make decisions without clear signals from Washington.

The practical question facing Wisconsin is not whether federal politics will shift. It is whether the state continues investing in projects that already deliver measurable results. Efficiency upgrades lower utility bills. Community solar keeps energy spending local. Methane reduction technologies help farms manage waste while improving soil and water conditions.

In a politically diverse state, climate progress rarely looks dramatic. It often appears as quieter momentum built through local partnerships and incremental gains. The federal rollback raises real risks, but it does not erase the infrastructure or collaboration already underway.

What happens next will be shaped less by national rhetoric and more by decisions made at the Public Service Commission, in county zoning meetings and on working farms across Wisconsin.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A sign identifies the Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, N.M., where many immigrants are held. A new court ruling and proposed federal rule are making it harder for detained immigrants to appeal for relief in court. (Photo by Patrick Lohmann/Source NM)

Despite immigration detention numbers receding from recent highs and even as conservative judges are opting to release more detainees by rejecting President Donald Trump’s mass detention policy, tools for detainees to seek release or appeal cases are disappearing. 

A proposed federal rule will make it harder to appeal immigration cases nationally. And a federal appeals court ruling stops immigrants from requesting release on legal grounds in three Southern states if they entered the country illegally, no matter how long they’ve been here. 

As of late January, there were 70,766 people in immigration detention, up from about 40,000 at the start of the second Trump administration, with about 74% having no criminal convictions. (The number of detainees declined to 68,289 as of Feb. 7 amid increasing releases of immigration prisoners by federal judges, even many appointed by the Trump administration.)

This month’s court ruling in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which affects immigrants held in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, is a victory for a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy set last July. It requires detention without bond for many immigrants who arrived at the border without permission, even if they had been paroled with a court date. 

It comes as habeas petitions from people claiming illegal detention skyrocket — from a few dozen a week in early 2025 to thousands a week recently, according to a ProPublica report. The largest numbers of cases are in Texas, California, Minnesota, Florida and Georgia. 

Rekha Sharma-Crawford, an immigration attorney in Missouri and second vice president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said she believes hundreds of other federal judges disagree with the Feb. 6 appeals court order. 

‘Mandatory detention’

The ruling found that a landmark Clinton-era immigration law, called The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), “unambiguously provides for mandatory detention” for people who crossed the border illegally. 

A dissenting judge, Dana Douglas, wrote that drafters of that law ”would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people. For almost thirty years there was no sign anyone thought it had done so.” 

Sharma-Crawford said the ruling would likely be challenged, but that it may be too late for people who may give up under the stress of detention, and agree to deportation. 

“I have a client in detention who’s been here [in the United States] 30 years, no criminal history, and has a family,” Sharma-Crawford said in an interview. “In the past the individual would be eligible for a bond hearing and be able to fight their immigration case in due course. These people are not accustomed to being in jail.”  

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem praised the court decision on social media, saying “activist judges have ordered the release of alien after alien based on the false claim that DHS was breaking the law” and said the ruling proved the administration “was right all along.”

Another obstacle for detainees

Similarly, a new rule on the federal Board of Immigration Appeals makes it harder for immigrants to appeal cases like denial of asylum in immigration court.   

Open for comment until it takes effect March 9, the rule shrinks the deadline to appeal a decision to 10 days from 30 days, and the board will automatically deny a case unless a majority of the board votes to hear it.

Immigration attorney Raul Natera of Fort Worth, Texas, who posted a comment critical of the proposed rule, told Stateline it would be a “flat-out assault on due process,” because the Department of Justice could appoint board members who will not vote to hear appeals. Last year the Trump administration fired board members who had been appointed during the Biden administration. 

“Judges can make wrong decisions. If we do not ensure that those decisions can be reviewed, then there is no point to the judicial system in this country,” Natera said.

The Department of Justice argues in its proposed rule that denying appeals in most cases will speed up the process and clear a backlog of immigration cases.

Others disagree. The new rule will increase strain on courts if immigrants can no longer appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and instead must file more lawsuits with appeals courts, said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a lawyer and policy analyst at the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute.

“The federal courts are already buckling under the weight of all these habeas petitions [alleging illegal detention],” Bush-Joseph said. “It’s a huge lift to be litigating all this.”

Sharma-Crawford called both measures a “numbers game” to get deportation numbers up before court challenges can make a difference. 

“All these things don’t happen quickly, and people will suffer while litigation is ongoing,” she said. “How much travesty and injustice is going to occur while the courts grapple with the legality of what the administration is doing?”

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

Clinic escorts attempt to stand between patients and anti-abortion protesters outside A Preferred Women’s Health Center of Atlanta in Forest Park, Georgia, in July 2023. Some abortion opponents say a law created to protect access to reproductive health clinics and houses of worship should be repealed, though providers fear a continued rise in violence. (Photo by Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder) 

The Trump administration is using a law Congress passed in the 1990s after a wave of deadly violence at abortion clinics to prosecute demonstrators and reporters who were at a immigration-related church protest in Minneapolis last month. 

Independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, along with several activists, are accused of violating a 1994 law that made physically obstructing access to reproductive health clinics and places of worship a federal crime. Lemon pleaded not guilty Friday, while Fort is set to be arraigned next week and has denied any wrongdoing. Other plaintiffs have vowed to fight the charges — they’re also accused of conspiring against churchgoers’ right to worship — and maintained they were exercising their First Amendment rights. 

Some abortion opponents say the law should be repealed entirely, even though the statute also protects access to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. Reproductive rights advocates say getting rid of the law altogether could spur more attacks on clinics and providers, which already increased in recent years. 

“It would give an even stronger signal to the zealots who would wish to shut us down to intimidate and harm our clinic folks and patients,” said Julie Burkhart, who owns clinics in Wyoming and Illinois. 

The Minnesota indictment is only the second time that the Department of Justice has brought charges under the religious provision tucked in the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. In September, the federal government filed a civil complaint against pro-Palestinian groups and demonstrators, accusing them of violating the FACE Act after they protested outside a New Jersey synagogue in 2024.

During a news conference announcing the charges, Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s civil rights division, said the New Jersey case was the “first time in history” the FACE Act was used to “prosecute an attack civilly on a house of worship.”  

While the Trump administration has started to use the FACE Act in religion-related cases, it has also relaxed enforcement of the law against people who interfere with access to abortion clinics. 

Republican President Donald Trump pardoned 23 anti-abortion protesters convicted of violating the law within weeks of taking office in January 2025, and the DOJ released a memo that stated abortion-related cases should only be pursued in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as death, serious bodily harm or severe property damage. 

“This sent a very clear signal to anti-abortion extremists that this administration was OK and even encouraged anti-abortion violence, and we’ve seen the same people that were pardoned within Trump’s first week in office go right back out and start harassing abortion providers and their patients, whether that is putting together blockades or clinic invasions,” National Abortion Federation President and CEO Brittany Fonteno told States Newsroom. 

FACE Act followed murder of abortion provider, clinic sieges 

Tactics by the anti-abortion movement were starting to reach a fever pitch in the U.S. before the FACE Act’s passage. In 1988, hundreds of protesters were arrested in Georgia during the “Siege of Atlanta,” where abortion opponents staged routine clinic blockades over a three-month period. In 1991, thousands of anti-abortion protesters were arrested by local officials for invading abortion clinics in Kansas during the “Summer of Mercy.” 

“We were literally unable to do our jobs,” said Burkhart, who worked in Wichita that summer with Dr. George Tiller, a provider who was later killed by an anti-abortion extremist. 

In 1993, Dr. David Gunn was murdered by an anti-abortion protester outside a Florida clinic, and six months later, Tiller was shot outside his Kansas clinic. Tiller survived that attack, but he was assassinated at his church in 2009.  

Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Rep. Chuck Schumer, both Democrats, introduced the FACE Act in Congress alongside former Republican Rep. Connie Morella, and President Bill Clinton signed the legislation the following year. 

Legal experts said the religious part of the reproductive health law was added to broaden legislative support for the bill. 

The law protects reproductive health clinics and places of worship from being physically obstructed or damaged, and makes it a federal crime to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with access to those places. Violators face up to a year in prison or a $10,000 fine, and up to six months in prison for nonviolent obstruction. A defendant could face 10 years if they inflicted bodily harm or life behind bars if someone is killed.  

Mary Ziegler, an abortion historian and professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, said the measure was modeled on other civil rights laws, which typically include protections for religious institutions. She said Congress already had a Democratic majority at the time, but the religious part of the law could have been added to avoid accusations of viewpoint discrimination. 

“Even people who saw themselves as pro-life were disturbed by some of the violence,” Ziegler said. 

After the law took effect, violence against abortion clinics declined by 30%, according to the National Abortion Federation. 

The power of anti-abortion groups like Operation Rescue, known for orchestrating mass clinic blockades, waned. 

“The FACE Act was created to suppress civil disobedience at abortion centers, so it’s had a massively negative impact on the anti-abortion movement,” said Terrisa Bukovinac, the founder of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising. 

Bukovinac’s group along with Students for Life of America and Alliance Defending Freedom have called for the law’s demise since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal right to an abortion in June 2022. 

Trump reconfigures enforcement while abortion opponents call for repeal

Violence against abortion clinics increased after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. From 2021 to 2022, clinics saw a 100% increase in arsons, a 25% increase in invasions and a 20% increase in death threats or threats of harm, according to the National Abortion Federation. 

The Biden administration pursued enforcement of the FACE Act by prosecuting people convicted of blocking access to abortion clinics in Michigan, Tennessee and Washington, D.C. 

Trump pardoned all of those defendants. But for some abortion opponents, the Republican administration’s narrow use of the FACE Act does not go far enough. 

“It should be repealed because it’s a draconian law,” Bukovinac said. “There are local laws that address trespass, disorderly conduct, disruptions of churches, and various other violations of statutes, but the FACE law adds the full weight of the federal government in these situations.” 

Ziegler said the law isn’t a trespassing statute, it’s about conduct and obstruction. No legal challenges against the law have held up in court before or after Dobbs, she said. 

“If you’re shooting someone in the head because they’re trying to go to a synagogue or they’re trying to go into an abortion clinic — or you’re threatening to kill them or you’re physically blocking all the entrances — that’s not speech protected by the First Amendment,” Ziegler said. 

Matthew Cavedon, a criminal justice and religious liberty expert at the libertarian CATO Institute, has written that the law may be unconstitutional. He said the federal government has typically defended the FACE Act’s constitutionality based on the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment.

“Pro-lifers have made the point that in order to defend the FACE Act under the 14th Amendment, you have to have some sort of federal constitutional right to have an abortion,” Cavedon said. “Back in 1994 when the act passed, the Supreme Court said that you did have that right. It doesn’t anymore. That’s been reversed. So I think that’s a very strong argument.” 

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican, introduced a bill last year that would repeal the law. The House Judiciary Committee advanced the measure in June, States Newsroom reported. 

Roy did not respond to requests for comment, but during a hearing for the bill, he said he has been criticized by Trump administration officials who wanted to use the law to defend churches. 

“That’s not what my goal is,” he said. “My goal is to alleviate the politicization in the first place.”

Renee Chelian, the founder and CEO of Northland Family Planning Centers in Michigan, testified before the committee about the importance of the FACE Act and the invasion of one of her clinics during the first Trump administration. 

“Once the law went into effect, the violent blockades immediately stopped. This all ended when President Trump took office for his first term, emboldening extremists to resume their attacks,” she said. 

In August 2020, a group of protesters blocked the entrance to Chelian’s Sterling Heights clinics, preventing patients and staff from entering the clinic. 

“Patients were stuck in their cars, including three women who were coming in for abortions following the detection of fatal fetal anomalies,” Chelian said. One of those patients was losing amniotic fluid and needed to get to her appointment for the second day of her procedure, but protesters surrounded her car and chanted at her, her mother and her husband, according to the DOJ. 

Trump’s decision to pardon seven people who invaded her clinic “left us reliving our trauma and feeling abandoned by the government that is supposed to protect us,” Chelian told lawmakers. 

Last month, the Center for Reproductive Rights sued the Trump administration after the government did not respond to Freedom of Information Act requests about “selective enforcement” of the FACE Act and Trump’s pardons of 23 anti-abortion protesters convicted under the law. 

“This is straight out of the anti-abortion movement’s playbook,” said Sara Outterson, the center’s chief federal legislative counsel. “They know they can’t ban abortion outright in a number of states, so they’ll try everything they can to restrict access to care, including allowing criminals to harass people as they try to go in to get care.” 

Barbed wire and fences surround the Charles H. Hickey Jr. School, a juvenile detention center in Maryland. Juvenile justice is one of the focuses of criminal justice legislation nationwide this year, including in Maryland, where lawmakers are considering a bill that would reduce the number of juveniles charged as adults. (Photo by Amanda Watford/Stateline)

Criminal justice has emerged as one of the most wide-ranging and politically charged areas on lawmakers’ agendas in this year’s state legislative sessions. Across the country, legislators are weighing proposals that affect nearly every part of the criminal justice system, including policing, gun policy, solving crimes, sentencing, prison oversight and reentry support.

The breadth of legislation reflects how deeply crime policy intersects with daily life, shaping public safety, civil rights, state spending and the scope of law enforcement. It also comes amid a shifting national conversation about crime itself. While violent crime rose during the pandemic, recent data shows declines in many categories, despite continued public concern.

According to Gallup’s most recent annual crime poll, Americans’ perceptions of crime improved in 2025. Approximately 49% of adults now say crime is an “extremely” or “very” serious problem in the United States, and the same share believe crime has increased in the past year. Both figures are down significantly from 2024 and are at their lowest levels since at least 2018.

Still, crime remains a top political issue, particularly in statehouses where lawmakers may face pressure to respond to high-profile incidents and constituent fears.

Gun policy

Firearm-related legislation has moved quickly in several states, with lawmakers pursuing sharply different approaches that reflect regional politics and partisan control.

In Democratic-led states, lawmakers have advanced proposals aimed at tightening restrictions on firearms.

Virginia House Democrats approved a sweeping package of bills this month that would restrict access to assault-style weapons, tighten firearm storage and transfer rules, limit where guns can be carried in public and expand civil liability for the gun industry. The bills are now being considered in the Senate.

Maryland lawmakers are debating a measure that would prohibit the manufacture, sale, purchase or transfer of certain handguns that can be converted into automatic weapons using an illegal accessory known as a pistol converter.

The bill doesn’t name specific firearm models, but it would effectively ban secondhand sales of some popular discontinued guns. In urging its members to oppose the bill, the National Rifle Association’s legislative arm says on its website, “These conversion devices are already illegal, yet this proposal targets responsible firearm owners rather than criminals who ignore existing law.”

But sponsors noted that the measure would exempt current owners of the affected firearms and argued that it doesn’t punish responsible firearm owners. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott led a rally last week in favor of the bill, saying it would reduce homicides. And a high school student testified to lawmakers about her fears of a school shooting.

Other states have focused on regulating firearm sales.

New Mexico senators passed legislation restricting certain firearm transactions, while lawmakers in New York and Washington state have proposed measures that would prohibit the production and possession of 3D-printing files used to manufacture gun parts to build so-called ghost guns.

Gun control advocates say 3D-printed guns are becoming more common, especially among young people. Just this week, a ghost gun was recovered after a student was shot inside a Maryland high school. The student’s injuries weren’t life threatening, and a suspect has been charged with attempted murder.

But some gun rights advocates say those measures go too far.

“We believe that making your own firearms, if you have the skills to do it, is an American tradition. It literally dates back to the founding of our country,” said Chris Stone, the director of state and local affairs for Gun Owners of America, one of the country’s largest gun advocacy groups. The group opposes bans on 3D-printing firearms.

Republican-led states are pushing in the opposite direction, removing specific firearm regulations, limiting local regulation, strengthening legal protections for gun shops and dismantling “gun-free” zones, such as areas near schools or inside government buildings.

South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law this week that deregulates gun silencers, or suppressors. These devices will be removed from the state’s definition of a controlled weapon.

In Georgia, lawmakers approved a ban that would keep local governments from adopting gun storage requirements. The bill has not yet been sent to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp for consideration.

In South Carolina, legislators have proposed a measure that would protect gun shops from being held liable in lawsuits when crimes are committed with products they sold, as long as the original sale was lawful. That bill remains in committee.

Florida lawmakers advanced legislation last month to lower the age to purchase long guns to 18. The West Virginia Senate also passed a bill that would allow 18- to 20-year-olds to carry concealed weapons without a permit, removing current training and licensing requirements for that age group.

New Hampshire and Wyoming legislators are considering proposals that would prohibit public colleges and universities from regulating whether students, faculty or visitors are able to carry concealed firearms and nonlethal weapons on campus.

Immigration and policing

Questions about the role of law enforcement — particularly in immigration enforcement — have become a flashpoint in state legislatures, as lawmakers debate how closely local and state agencies should cooperate with federal authorities.

In some states, lawmakers are moving to require or expand cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Bills in Alabama, Arizona, Iowa and Kentucky would encourage or mandate that state or local law enforcement agencies collaborate with ICE or expand officers’ authority to question or detain people over their immigration status. Supporters argue the measures are necessary to enforce federal law and improve public safety.

Other states are taking the opposite approach. In Virginia this month, Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger ended a 287(g) agreement with ICE that allowed state police and corrections officers to assist the agency with certain federal immigration enforcement functions. Spanberger, who has a background in law enforcement, had promised in her campaign to end the agreement, saying she wants policing agencies to focus on their core duties.

The move drew sharp criticism from state Republican leaders, with GOP lawmakers arguing that the decision prioritizes politics over public safety and could expose the state to retaliation from the Trump administration.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, introduced a similar proposal last month that appears to be gaining more support from police and elected officials.

The Maryland House and Senate this month also overwhelmingly approved bills that would prohibit 287(g) agreements between local police and federal immigration agencies. Democratic Gov. Wes Moore is expected to sign them. Several local law enforcement officials across the state have urged the governor to veto the measures, arguing that ending the agreements would lead to more federal immigration enforcement activity and higher crime rates.

Beyond immigration, legislatures also are grappling with broader questions about policing authority and accountability.

In Indiana, lawmakers approved legislation expanding the role of the National Guard’s military police in certain law enforcement functions, giving the governor authority that some Democrats say could be abused.

Iowa lawmakers are considering a proposal that would eliminate affirmative action and anti-bias training requirements for police officers.

A bill in Utah would create the Violent Crime Clearance Rate Fund, which would provide grants to law enforcement agencies to support efforts to improve the rate at which violent crimes are solved.

Sentencing and prison conditions

State legislatures also are revisiting what happens after arrest, with several states considering tougher penalties for certain crimes.

Iowa Republicans have proposed a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for some repeat offenders.

Alabama lawmakers are considering a bill that would raise the base penalty for fleeing from police from a misdemeanor to a felony, with harsher penalties for repeat offenses and other aggravating factors.

The Kentucky House advanced a bill aimed at cracking down on street racing. It would impose penalties of up to 30 days in jail and $1,000 in fines, and allow vehicles used in the offense to be destroyed or auctioned to support the state’s crime victims compensation fund.

Other states are pursuing more rehabilitative approaches.

Lawmakers in Washington state are considering legislation that would give people serving long sentences a new pathway to release.

Oklahoma lawmakers have proposed a measure that would eliminate the requirement that a prison inmate serve a set amount of time before becoming eligible for good-time credits, which would also allow people awaiting transfer to prison to earn these credits sooner.

Last month, Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Clean Slate Act into law, paving the way for an estimated 1.7 million adults with nonviolent criminal records to have them automatically sealed beginning in 2029.

Juvenile justice debates also have been unfolding alongside these efforts.

States including Colorado, Utah, Missouri, Maryland and Kansas are reconsidering when young people can be charged as adults, how long they can be detained and what role rehabilitation should play.

In Kansas, for example, lawmakers are considering expanding judges’ authority to send youths to juvenile prison and increasing detention limits, moves that opponents say would reverse a decade of changes designed to keep low-risk youths out of custody.

In recent years, poor prison conditions and lax oversight have emerged as a bipartisan concern, driven in part by staffing shortages and the rising costs associated with incarceration.

Florida legislators are considering proposals that would create an independent ombudsman to monitor prison conditions. Alabama and Arizona lawmakers have filed measures that would address oversight of food services in prisons and fund the state’s independent prison oversight office, respectively.

Several states are working to expand death penalty options, both for crimes and for execution methods.

Alabama legislators passed a measure this month that would expand the death penalty to include child sex crimes. The bill is now awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, who expressed her support for the proposal last month.

In Indiana, lawmakers considered a proposal that would add firing squad and gas as execution methods.

In New Hampshire, lawmakers are considering two Republican-backed bills that would reinstate the death penalty — nearly seven years after the state voted to abolish it. One bill would bring it back for homicide or sexual assault offenses against children under 13, while the other proposal would reinstate it for capital murder, which would combine the murder with aggravating circumstances.

Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte told reporters last fall she would like to see capital punishment restored in the state.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

A sign protesting Enbridge Line 5 in Michigan. (Laina G. Stebbins | Michigan Advance)

On Friday, an administrative law judge upheld a permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources last year to allow the Canadian oil company Enbridge to build 41 miles of new pipeline in northern Wisconsin. The current rerouted path for Enbridge’s Line 5 would mean that although the pipeline would avoid the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa reservation, it would still go through the Bad River’s watershed. 

The judge’s decision is likely to be appealed, and the Bad River Band is continuing to challenge the pipeline project in federal court. But the approval of the DNR’s permit came as a blow to environmental advocates working alongside the Band to challenge Line 5. 

Evan Feinauer, an attorney with Clean Wisconsin, said that “despite this ruling, the evidence presented during the hearing remains undeniable: Enbridge’s Line 5 reroute poses significant long-term risks to wetlands, waterways, and treaty-protected resources in northern Wisconsin.” Feinauer said in a statement that “experts testified that the DNR underestimated ecological impacts, relied on an inadequate monitoring plan, and overlooked Enbridge’s troubling history of environmental violations. This decision does not erase those facts.”

John Petroskey, a senior attorney with Earthjustice, also said that the judge’s decision ignored “strong evidence that the DNR broke the law when it approved the Line 5 reroute.” Petroskey added, “Enbridge’s project threatens permanent damage to the Band’s treaty-protected water, plants, and medicines, all for the enrichment of a foreign oil pipeline company. The Band will continue to fight to protect their interests and halt construction.”

Rob Lee, senior staff attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates, said that while the decision was disappointing, “it does not diminish our resolve or end our responsibility to protect Wisconsin’s waters from the irreversible harm this project threatens to cause.” Lee continued, “the record in this case is clear, and our work is far from over. Based on the significant legal issues presented and the strength of the record, we believe there is a strong basis for appellate review, and we are considering all appropriate next steps.”

Other environmental groups and tribal allies expressed that they remain determined to keep fighting Line 5. “Ultimately, this doesn’t change the fact that Line 5 must be shut down to protect the Great Lakes and our climate,” said Elizabeth Ward, chapter director of the Sierra Club – Wisconsin. Debta Cronmiller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, said that standing up to Line 5 is in line with the group’s values of protecting sensitive environments, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, advancing renewable energy and supporting tribal rights. 

“Every effort to oppose the construction of new pipeline infrastructure builds power in the broader movement to end our reliance on dirty fossil fuels,” said Emily Park, co-executive director of 350 Wisconsin. “Instead of facilitating more carbon emissions, we should be investing in renewable energy, sustainable transportation, and technologies that will help us transition to a clean energy future.” 

Environmental groups and the Bad River Band are pushing for Line 5 to be shut down, with a court-imposed deadline for their case set in June. The reroute project would involve blasting and horizontal drilling through at least 186 waterways and 101 acres of high-quality wetlands which drain into Lake Superior.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE