A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

The states have argued Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to “being vindicated on appeal.”

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was “thrilled the district court again barred President Trump’s flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.”

“American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation’s history,” he added. “The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.”

Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be “tailored to the States’ purported financial injuries.”

Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work.

“That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,” the judge wrote. “In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants’ position in this regard defies both law and logic.”

Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration “are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,” Sorokin wrote. “But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.”

The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump’s efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect.

On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president’s executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court’s nationwide block.

A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.

The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is “enshrined in the Constitution,” and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”

They also argue that Trump’s order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to “provide essential services” — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to “early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.”

At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.

A Virginia man pleaded guilty Friday in a federal case that accused him of stockpiling the largest number of finished explosives in FBI history and of using then-President Joe Biden’s photo for target practice.

Brad Spafford pleaded guilty in federal court in Norfolk to possession of an unregistered short barrel rifle and possession of an unregistered destructive device, according to court documents. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. His sentencing is scheduled for December.

Federal authorities said they seized about 150 pipe bombs and other homemade devices last fall at Spafford’s home in Isle of Wight County, which is northwest of Norfolk.

The investigation into Spafford began in 2023 when an informant told authorities that Spafford was stockpiling weapons and ammunition, according to court documents. The informant, a friend and member of law enforcement, told authorities that Spafford was using pictures of then-President Joe Biden for target practice and that “he believed political assassinations should be brought back,” prosecutors wrote.

Two weeks after the assassination attempt of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2024, Spafford told the informant, “bro I hope the shooter doesn’t miss Kamala,” according to court documents. Former Vice President Kamala Harris had recently announced she was running for president. On around the same day, Spafford told the informant that he was pursuing a sniper qualification at the local gun range, court records stated.

Spafford stored a highly unstable explosive material in a garage freezer next to “Hot Pockets and frozen corn on the cob,” according to court documents. Investigators also said they found explosive devices in an unsecured backpack labeled “#NoLivesMatter.”

Spafford has remained in jail since his arrest last December. U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen ruled against his release last January, writing that Spafford has “shown the capacity for extreme danger.” She also noted that Spafford lost three fingers in an accident involving homemade explosives in 2021.

Spafford had initially pleaded not guilty to the charges in January. Defense attorneys had argued at the time that Spafford, who is married and a father of two young daughters, works a steady job as a machinist and has no criminal record.

Defense attorney Jeffrey Swartz said at Spafford’s January detention hearing that investigators had gathered information on him since January 2023, during which Spafford never threatened anyone.

“And what has he done during those two years?” Swartz said. “He purchased a home. He’s raised his children. He’s in a great marriage. He has a fantastic job, and those things all still exist for him.”

Investigators, however, said they had limited knowledge of the homemade bombs until an informant visited Spafford’s home, federal prosecutors wrote in a filing.

“But once the defendant stated on a recorded wire that he had an unstable primary explosive in the freezer in October 2024, the government moved swiftly,” prosecutors wrote.

President Donald Trump says he is considering “taking away” the U.S. citizenship of a longtime rival, actress and comedian Rosie O’Donnell, despite a decades-old Supreme Court ruling that expressly prohibits such an action by the government.

“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Saturday. He added that O’Donnell, who moved to Ireland in January, should stay in Ireland “if they want her.”

The two have criticized each other publicly for years, an often bitter back-and-forth that predates Trump’s involvement in politics. In recent days, O’Donnell on social media denounced Trump and recent moves by his administration, including the signing of a massive GOP-backed tax breaks and spending cuts plan.

It’s just the latest threat by Trump to revoke the citizenship of people with whom he has publicly disagreed, most recently his former adviser and one-time ally, Elon Musk.

But O’Donnell’s situation is notably different from Musk, who was born in South Africa. O’Donnell was born in the United States and has a constitutional right to U.S. citizenship. The U.S. State Department notes on its website that U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization may relinquish U.S. nationality by taking certain steps – but only if the act is performed voluntary and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.

Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, noted the Supreme Court ruled in a 1967 case that the Fourteen Amendment of the Constitution prevents the government from taking away citizenship.

“The president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born U.S. citizen,” Frost said in an email Saturday. “In short, we are nation founded on the principle that the people choose the government; the government cannot choose the people.”

O’Donnell moved to Ireland after Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris to win his second term. She has said she’s in the process of obtaining Irish citizenship based on family lineage.

Responding to Trump Saturday, O’Donnell wrote on social media that she had upset the president and “add me to the list of people who oppose him at every turn.”

A Georgia appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling that said county election officials in the state must vote to certify results according to deadlines set in law.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney had ruled in October that “no election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance.” The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Republican Fulton County election board member Julie Adams, who abstained from certifying primary election results last year.

A three-judge panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals last week upheld McBurney’s ruling, saying “Adams’ contention that the trial court erred by declaring she had a mandatory duty to certify election results is without merit.”

Certification, an administrative task that involves certifying the number of votes, became a political flashpoint when President Donald Trump tried to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 general election. Republicans in several swing states refused to certify results during primary elections last year, and some sued to try to keep from being forced to sign off on election results.

In the run-up to last year’s presidential election, Democrats and some voting rights groups worried that Trump-allied election officials could refuse to certify election results if he were to lose to then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump ended up beating Harris.

Georgia law says county election superintendents, which are generally multimember boards, shall certify election results by 5 p.m. on the Monday after an election, or the Tuesday after if Monday is a holiday.

McBurney had written in his order that Georgia law allows county election officials to examine whether fraud has occurred and what should be done about it. They should share any concerns with the appropriate authorities for criminal prosecution or use them to file an election challenge in court, but cannot use their concerns to justify not certifying results, the judge wrote.

The Court of Appeals opinion echoed McBurney’s ruling.

The appeals court also noted that state law limits county election officials’ review of documents to instances when the total number of votes exceeds the total number of voters or ballots and also limits the review to documents related to the relevant precinct. To the extent that McBurney’s ruling allows a more expansive review, the judges sent it back to him for reconsideration.



Texas flooding underscore the challenges Trump faces in replacing FEMA

Just weeks ago, President Donald Trump said he wanted to begin “phasing out” the Federal Emergency Management Agency after this hurricane season to “wean off of FEMA” and “bring it down to the state level.”

But after months of promises to overhaul or eliminate the federal agency charged with responding to disasters, Trump and his administration are touting a fast and robust federal response to the devastating Texas floods. In doing so, they are aligning more closely with a traditional model of disaster response — and less with the dramatic reform the president has proposed.

The president approved Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s request for a major disaster declaration just one day after it was submitted, activating FEMA resources and unlocking assistance for survivors and local governments. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told Trump in a presidential Cabinet meeting Tuesday morning that FEMA was deploying funding and resources quickly. “We’re cutting through the paperwork of the old FEMA, streamlining it, much like your vision of how FEMA should operate,” Noem said.

Noem said the rapid delivery of funds to Texas resembled the “state block grants” model Trump has promoted. It’s an idea that would replace FEMA’s current system of reimbursing states for response and recovery expenses at a cost-share of at least 75%.

But ex-FEMA officials say it’s unclear how the response differs from FEMA’s typical role in disasters, which is to support states through coordination and funding. Instead, they say, the vigorous federal response underscores how difficult it would be for states to take on FEMA’s responsibilities if it were dismantled.

“This is a defining event that can help them realize that a Federal Emergency Management Agency is essential,” said Michael Coen, FEMA chief of staff in the Obama and Biden administrations. “Imagine if an event like this happened a year from now, after FEMA is eliminated. What would the president or secretary (Noem) offer to the governor of Texas if there is no FEMA?”

The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA did not immediately respond to questions about Noem’s remarks, including whether FEMA was doing something different in how it moved money to Texas, or why it resembled a block-grant system.

FEMA will have multiple roles in Texas

While Noem and Trump have emphasized that Texas is leading the response and recovery to the floods, that has always been FEMA’s role, said Justin Knighten, the agency’s director of external affairs during the Biden administration.

“The state is in the lead. FEMA is invited into the state to support,” Knighten said. He said that while Texas’ division of emergency management is one of the most experienced in the country, even the most capable states face catastrophes that overwhelm them: “When there’s capacity challenges and resource need, that’s where FEMA steps in.”

One of FEMA’s primary roles will be to coordinate resources from other federal agencies. If the state needs the Army Corps of Engineers to help with debris removal, Health and Human Services for mortuary support and crisis counseling, or EPA for water quality testing, FEMA arranges that at the state’s request and then reimburses those agencies. “FEMA becomes a one-point entry for all federal support,” Coen said.

The agency also coordinates first-responder support — like search-and-rescue teams deployed from across the country — and reimburses those costs. It administers the National Flood Insurance Program, which gives homeowners and renters access to flood coverage not typically included in general policies.

Those with insufficient insurance or none at all will rely heavily on FEMA’s Individual Assistance program, which supports survivors with needs like temporary housing and home repairs. On Wednesday, the agency is opening disaster recovery centers where households can get help applying for assistance, according to Texas Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd. The Public Assistance program will reimburse state and local governments for most or all of the costs of infrastructure repairs.

States would have trouble replacing FEMA

While Trump and Noem often say they want states to take on more responsibility in disaster response, experts say the tragedy in Texas underscores how even the most capable states need support.

“It’s true that Texas is very capable, but I think it’s something that people forget that FEMA pays for a lot of state and local emergency capacity,” said Maddie Sloan, director of the disaster recovery and fair housing project at the policy nonprofit Texas Appleseed. The Texas Division of Emergency Management’s budget of over $2 billion is mostly funded through federal grants.

“If a state like Texas asks for federal assistance within two days, the smaller states that are less capable don’t stand a chance,” said Jeremy Edwards, FEMA’s deputy director of public affairs during the Biden administration.

States would have to set up their own recovery programs and to coordinate with each federal agency if they were given block grants in lieu of FEMA involvement. “Without FEMA, a governor or a state has to be calling around and have a Rolodex of the whole federal government to call and try and figure out what support they can get,” Coen said.

There are plenty of reforms that could improve how FEMA reimburses states and helps survivors, experts said, but eliminating it risks big gaps in recovery. “We have spent a lot of time encouraging FEMA to be better, but if FEMA goes away, there is no help for individual families,” Sloan said.
Uncertain future for federal disaster response

Trump has deflected questions about what the Texas response means for FEMA’s future. A 12-member review council established by the president and charged with proposing FEMA reforms will meet for the second time Wednesday. Abbott and Kidd are both on the council.

At the first meeting, Abbott called FEMA “slow and clunky” and said reforms should “streamline the effort.” He has praised Trump’s quick disaster declaration in Texas.

While no large reforms to the agency have been enacted yet, smaller policy changes could impact Texas’ recovery.

A judge blocked New York City’s mayor from letting federal immigration authorities reopen an office at the city’s main jail, in part because of concerns the mayor invited them back in as part of a deal with the Trump administration to end his corruption case.

New York Judge Mary Rosado’s decision Friday is a setback for Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who issued an executive order permitting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies to maintain office space at the Rikers Island jail complex. City lawmakers filed a lawsuit in April accusing Adams of entering into a “corrupt quid pro quo bargain” with the Trump administration in exchange for the U.S. Justice Department dropping criminal charges against him.

Rosado temporarily blocked the executive order in April. In granting a preliminary injunction, she said city council members have “shown a likelihood of success in demonstrating, at minimum, the appearance of a quid pro quo whereby Mayor Adams publicly agreed to bring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (”ICE”) back to Rikers Island in exchange for dismissal of his criminal charges.”

Rosado cited a number of factors, including U.S. border czar Tom Homan’s televised comments in February that if Adams did not come through, “I’ll be in his office, up his butt saying, ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?’ ”

Adams has repeatedly denied making a deal with the administration over the criminal case. He has said he deputized his first deputy mayor, Randy Mastro, to handle decision-making on the return of ICE to Rikers Island to make sure there was no appearance of any conflict of interest.

Rosado said that Mastro reports to Adams and “cannot be considered impartial and free from Mayor Adams’ conflicts.”

Mastro said in a prepared statement Friday the administration was confident they will prevail in the case. “Let’s be crystal clear: This executive order is about the criminal prosecution of violent transnational gangs committing crimes in our city. Our administration has never, and will never, do anything to jeopardize the safety of law-abiding immigrants, and this executive order ensures their safety as well,” Mastro said.

City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who is running in the Democratic primary for mayor, called the decision a victory for public safety.

“New Yorkers are counting on our city to protect their civil rights, and yet, Mayor Adams has attempted to betray this obligation by handing power over our city to Trump’s ICE because he is compromised,” she said in a prepared statement.