ReportWire

Tag: jurisdiction

  • Appeals court reverses decision that freed pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower court decision that released Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia instructed the lower court to dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition, a court filing that secured his release. The panel ruled that the federal district court in New Jersey did not have jurisdiction over the matter because immigration challenges are handled differently under the law.In a 2-1 decision, the panel wrote that federal immigration laws require deportation challenges be made by filing a petition for review of a final order of removal to a federal appeals court — not a lower-level district court.“That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple—not zero or two,” the panel wrote. “But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct.”The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added.Messages sent to Khalil and his legal team were not immediately returned.

    A federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower court decision that released Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.

    A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia instructed the lower court to dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition, a court filing that secured his release. The panel ruled that the federal district court in New Jersey did not have jurisdiction over the matter because immigration challenges are handled differently under the law.

    In a 2-1 decision, the panel wrote that federal immigration laws require deportation challenges be made by filing a petition for review of a final order of removal to a federal appeals court — not a lower-level district court.

    “That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple—not zero or two,” the panel wrote. “But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct.”

    The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added.

    Messages sent to Khalil and his legal team were not immediately returned.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Winning ticket for $980 million jackpot sold in Georgia, Mega Millions says

    [ad_1]

    A Mega Millions player in Georgia won the $980 million jackpot on Friday, overcoming abysmal odds to win the huge prize.The single winning ticket was purchased at a Publix supermarket in Newnan, which is roughly 40 miles from Atlanta, a news release from the lottery says. “We are thrilled to congratulate the largest winner in our state’s history,” Georgia Lottery President and CEO Gretchen Corbin said in the news release.Georgia state law allows lottery winners to remain anonymous if they win a prize of $250,000 or more and provides a written statement asking for confidentiality. The win also earned the store a $50,000 retailer bonus from the Georgia Lottery. The numbers selected were 1, 8, 11, 12 and 57 with the gold Mega Ball 7.The winner overcame Mega Millions’ astronomical odds of 1 in 290.5 million by matching all six numbers. The next drawing will be on Tuesday.A winner can choose an annuity or the cash option — a one-time, lump-sum payment of $452.2 million before taxes. If there are multiple jackpot winners, the prize is shared. There were four Mega Millions jackpot wins earlier this year, but Friday’s drawing was the 40th since the last win on June 27, a game record, officials said.In September, two Powerball players in Missouri and Texas won a nearly $1.8 billion jackpot, one of the largest in the U.S. The current Mega Millions jackpot isn’t among the top 10 U.S. lottery jackpots but would be the eighth-largest for Mega Millions since the game began in 2002. Mega Millions offers lesser prizes in addition to the jackpot. The odds of winning any of these is 1 in 23. There were more than 800,000 winners of non-jackpot prizes from the Nov. 11 drawing. Tickets are $5 each and are sold in 45 states, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Half the proceeds from each Mega Millions ticket remains in the jurisdiction where the ticket was sold. Local lottery agencies run the game in each jurisdiction and how profits are spent is dictated by law. Sometimes gambling can become addictive. The National Council on Problem Gambling defines problem gambling as “gambling behavior that is damaging to a person or their family, often disrupting their daily life and career.” It is sometimes called gambling addiction or gambling disorder, a recognized mental health diagnosis. The group says anyone who gambles can be at risk. Its National Problem Gambling Helpline, 1-800-522-4700, connects anyone seeking assistance with a gambling problem to local resources.

    A Mega Millions player in Georgia won the $980 million jackpot on Friday, overcoming abysmal odds to win the huge prize.

    The single winning ticket was purchased at a Publix supermarket in Newnan, which is roughly 40 miles from Atlanta, a news release from the lottery says.

    “We are thrilled to congratulate the largest winner in our state’s history,” Georgia Lottery President and CEO Gretchen Corbin said in the news release.

    Georgia state law allows lottery winners to remain anonymous if they win a prize of $250,000 or more and provides a written statement asking for confidentiality.

    The win also earned the store a $50,000 retailer bonus from the Georgia Lottery.

    The numbers selected were 1, 8, 11, 12 and 57 with the gold Mega Ball 7.

    The winner overcame Mega Millions’ astronomical odds of 1 in 290.5 million by matching all six numbers. The next drawing will be on Tuesday.

    A winner can choose an annuity or the cash option — a one-time, lump-sum payment of $452.2 million before taxes. If there are multiple jackpot winners, the prize is shared.

    There were four Mega Millions jackpot wins earlier this year, but Friday’s drawing was the 40th since the last win on June 27, a game record, officials said.

    In September, two Powerball players in Missouri and Texas won a nearly $1.8 billion jackpot, one of the largest in the U.S. The current Mega Millions jackpot isn’t among the top 10 U.S. lottery jackpots but would be the eighth-largest for Mega Millions since the game began in 2002.

    Mega Millions offers lesser prizes in addition to the jackpot. The odds of winning any of these is 1 in 23.

    There were more than 800,000 winners of non-jackpot prizes from the Nov. 11 drawing.

    Tickets are $5 each and are sold in 45 states, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Half the proceeds from each Mega Millions ticket remains in the jurisdiction where the ticket was sold. Local lottery agencies run the game in each jurisdiction and how profits are spent is dictated by law.

    Sometimes gambling can become addictive.

    The National Council on Problem Gambling defines problem gambling as “gambling behavior that is damaging to a person or their family, often disrupting their daily life and career.”

    It is sometimes called gambling addiction or gambling disorder, a recognized mental health diagnosis. The group says anyone who gambles can be at risk.

    Its National Problem Gambling Helpline, 1-800-522-4700, connects anyone seeking assistance with a gambling problem to local resources.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New California law banning officers, agents from covering their faces sparks enforcement debate

    [ad_1]

    California has become the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty.Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt. Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.”ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government. “I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X. As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    California has become the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty.

    Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.

    The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt.

    Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.

    The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.

    “ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.

    Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government.

    “I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X.

    As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

    “This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”

    Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”

    The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”

    Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.

    The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.

    The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump can’t deny funds to L.A. and 30 other ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions, judge rules

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of “sanctuary” policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration agencies, a judge ruled late Friday.

    The judge issued a preliminary injunction that expands restrictions the court handed down in April that blocked funding cuts to 16 cities and counties, including San Francisco and Santa Clara, after federal officials classified them as “sanctuary jurisdictions.”

    U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the federal court in San Francisco ruled then that Trump’s executive order cutting funding was probably unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers doctrine.

    Friday’s order added more than a dozen more jurisdictions to the preliminary injunction, including Los Angeles, Alameda County, Berkeley, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago.

    Mayor Karen Bass’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House said the Trump administration expected to ultimately win in its effort on appeal.

    “The government — at all levels — has the duty to protect American citizens from harm,” Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement. “Sanctuary cities interfere with federal immigration enforcement at the expense and safety and security of American citizens. We look forward to ultimate vindication on the issue.”

    The preliminary injunction is the latest chapter in an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to force “sanctuary cities” to assist and commit local resources to federal immigration enforcement efforts.

    Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice published a list of what it determined to be sanctuary jurisdictions, or local entities that have “policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

    “Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said in a statement accompanying the published list.

    Several cities and counties across the country have adopted sanctuary city policies, but specifics as to what extent they’re willing — or unwilling — to do for federal immigration officials have varied.

    The policies typically do not impede federal officials from conducting immigration enforcement activities, but largely keep local jurisdictions from committing resources to the efforts.

    The policies also don’t prevent local agencies from enforcing judicial warrants, which are signed by a judge. Cooperation on “detainers” or holds on jailed suspects issued by federal agencies, along with enforcement of civil immigration matters, is typically limited by sanctuary policies.

    Federal officials in the suit have so far referred to “sanctuary” jurisdictions as local governments that don’t honor immigration detainer requests, don’t assist with administrative warrants, don’t share immigration status information, or don’t allow local police to assist in immigration enforcement operations.

    Orrick noted that the executive orders threatened to withhold all federal funding if the cities and counties in question did not adhere to the Trump administration’s requests.

    In the order, the judge referred to the executive order as a “coercive threat” and said it was unconstitutional.

    Orrick, who sits on the bench in the Northern District of California, was appointed by former President Obama.

    The Trump administration has been ratcheting up efforts to force local jurisdictions to assist in immigration enforcement. The administration has filed lawsuits against cities and counties, vastly increased street operations and immigration detentions, and deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles as it increased immigration operations.

    The U.S. Department of Justice in June sued Los Angeles, and local officials, alleging its sanctuary city law is “illegal.”

    The suit alleged that the city was looking to “thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations” by enacting sanctuary city policies.

    [ad_2]

    Salvador Hernandez

    Source link

  • Justice Department releases a new list of sanctuary jurisdictions. L.A. County is not on it

    [ad_1]

    The Department of Justice published a new list Tuesday of “sanctuary” jurisdictions that it claims have policies, laws or regulations that obstruct enforcement of federal immigration laws.

    Although the list includes the Trump administration’s typical targets — the city of Los Angeles and the state of California — it is much shorter than a previous list issued by the Department of Homeland Security. And at least one local area that has become a major battleground over immigration is not on it: L.A. County.

    Los Angeles County has not formally declared itself a sanctuary jurisdiction. However, the county that it is home to more than 2 million residents who are undocumented or living with undocumented family members was included on a Homeland Security list of sanctuary jurisdictions published in May. That list was subsequently removed from the department’s website.

    In a news release, the Department of Justice said Tuesday that the new federal list of 35 cities, counties and states — a much lower figure than the hundreds of jurisdictions that appeared on the previous Homeland Security list — is “not exhaustive” and “will be updated as federal authorities gather further information.”

    A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not answer specific questions from The Times about why L.A. County was not on the list.

    “These designations were made after a thorough review of documented laws, ordinances, and executive directives by the listed jurisdictions,” the agency states on its website. “This initial list of designated Sanctuary Jurisdictions will be reviewed regularly, to include additional jurisdictions and remove jurisdictions that have remediated their policies, practices, and laws. Each state, county, and city will have an opportunity to respond to its placement on the list.”

    The new Justice Department list is just the latest effort by the Trump administration to ramp up pressure on cities, counties and states that have policies or laws that restrict collaboration with federal immigration authorities.

    But it also represents a more targeted focus. The previous Homeland Security list, which included most of California’s 58 counties, sparked ridicule for its errors. It even included the conservative city of Huntington Beach, which declared itself a nonsanctuary city a few days after Trump took office and sued the state of California over its sanctuary policies.

    Gov. Gavin’s Newsom office dismissed the new Department of Justice list Tuesday as “another PR stunt by the federal government to scare people.”

    “Like their last failed attempt at this ridiculous and meaningless list, which they were forced to pull down within days because of the backlash, this was created without any input or criteria,” Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor, said Tuesday in a statement. “California is confident in the balance of our law.”

    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass also seemed committed to her city’s sanctuary status.

    “Los Angeles’ law is legally sound and we will always stand with the people of Los Angeles, especially in the face of continued assaults on our city,” Bass told The Times.

    Now that the Department of Justice has winnowed down its inventory of offenders, California is one of 13 states, mostly on the West Coast and in the Northeast, that the Trump administration has identified as having policies or laws that impede federal immigration agents.

    Only four county jurisdictions across the country are included in the Department of Justice list: Baltimore County, Md.; Cook County, Ill.; San Diego County and San Francisco County. Three of the 18 cities on the list — Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Francisco — are in California.

    “Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement Tuesday. “The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”

    In April, Trump signed an executive order, “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” directing the Justice Department to work with Homeland Security to publish a list of jurisdictions that “continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.”

    The Justice Department has since taken legal action against a number of sanctuary jurisdictions — including L.A., where the City Council voted unanimously in November to declare the city a sanctuary jurisdiction and block any city resources from being used for immigration enforcement.

    In June, the Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and the L.A. City Council that described L.A.’s sanctuary law as “illegal.” Officials, the lawsuit said, “refuse to cooperate or share information, even when requested, with federal immigration authorities.”

    “Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level,” Bondi said in a June statement. “It ends under President Trump.”

    Last month, Bondi announced a “major victory” for the Department of Justice: the city of Louisville, Ky., she said, was ditching its sanctuary policies after receiving a letter from her office.

    “This should set an example to other cities,” Bondi said on X. “Instead of forcing us to sue you — which we will, without hesitation — follow the law, get rid of sanctuary policies, and work with us to fix the illegal immigration crisis.

    On Tuesday, the Justice Department said in a news release that “the federal government will assist any jurisdiction that desires to be taken off this list to identify and eliminate their sanctuary policies.”

    L.A. County leaders have at times taken steps to oppose Trump’s aggressive clampdown on immigrants. Last week, for example, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 0 to direct county lawyers to draft an ordinance that prohibits officers, including federal agents, from concealing their identities with masks, except for medical reasons or when working in an undercover operation.

    But county officials have stopped short of declaring the county a sanctuary jurisdiction. And on Tuesday few L.A. County leaders responded publicly to the news that the county was no longer on the federal government’s official list of sanctuary jurisdictions.

    In a statement to The Times after the Justice Department released its list, L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who abstained from last week’s vote on masked law enforcement, said she had “worked hard to advance a thoughtful approach to governance — one that upholds the law while respecting the dignity of all individuals.”

    “I remain committed to leading with transparency, accountability, and a balanced perspective that prioritizes both public safety and community trust,” Barger said.

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie

    Source link