A federal judge in California has shot down an attempt by the Trump administration to scrub away the government’s 28-year-old Flores Settlement Agreement, which calls for court-mandated oversight on the treatment of immigrant children in federal custody.
U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee issued a 20-page order on Friday, keeping the 1997 agreement in place as Justice Department lawyers “fail to identify any new facts or law” that warrant its termination “at this time,” according to the Barack Obama appointee.
The administration had previously tried terminating the Flores agreement in 2019 at the end of Donald Trump‘s first term, but was unsuccessful then, too. Gee reportedly called a hearing last week on the matter “deja vu” as the government tried propping up similar arguments.
“The court remains unconvinced,” Gee wrote in Friday’s order. “There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law.”
Under the Flores Settlement Agreement, immigrant children must be held at “state-licensed” facilities — treated properly and humanely — before being released into the custody of family members or guardians “as expeditiously as possible,” per Gee’s order. The settlement is named after Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old detainee who sparked a class-action lawsuit to be filed in 1985.
The Trump administration recently argued that the Flores agreement was no longer needed because Congress had approved legislation to help deal with the issues the settlement addressed. It also claimed that government agencies had implemented practices and standards to ensure youths were being treated properly.
“The legal basis for the agreement has withered away,” DOJ lawyers argued in a May 22 motion for relief. “Congress enacted legislation protecting UACs [unaccompanied alien children], and the agencies promulgated detailed standards and regulations implementing that legislation and the terms of the FSA,” the lawyers said, blasting the agreement as an “intrusive regime” that has “ossified” federal immigration policy.
“The legal and policy landscape has also changed beyond recognition,” they added.
Gee noted Friday how she had heard this all before.
“These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical,” the judge blasted.
“Incredulously, defendants posit that DHS need not promulgate regulations containing an expeditious release provision because ‘this Court has interpreted [expeditious release] to apply to accompanied children,'” Gee explained. “But ‘the FSA was intended to provide for prompt release of unaccompanied children.’ This is plainly incorrect and ignores the rulings of at least three separate courts.”
Gee concluded her order by saying it was ultimately the Trump administration that “continues to bind itself to the FSA by failing to fulfill its side of the parties’ bargain.”
Lawyers for immigrant children named in the class action complaint that spurred all this have said Trump’s second term has seen similar violations of the Flores agreement that have been alleged in the past.
“In CBP facilities across the country, including in cases documented by class counsel in New York, Maine, Illinois, Ohio, Arizona, Texas, and California, plaintiffs report being held for days and sometimes weeks in restrictive, traumatic conditions,” the lawyers said in a June 17 motion to enforce the FSA. One parent, whose allegations were included in the motion, described how they and their child were held at a facility where “the rooms have hard walls, like cement, and there is a window facing the hall but you cannot go out or see the sun,” per the motion.
“We are never allowed to go out,” the parent said. “The children keep telling us, ‘This is not America.’ They feel imprisoned and confused. They are seeing the sun for the first time in this interview room. They both ran to the window and stared out, and my son asked, ‘Is that America?'”
The plaintiffs’ lawyers accused the Trump administration of wanting to be released from the settlement “not because they have complied with and will continue to observe its fundamental principles, but because they want the flexibility to treat children however they wish,” according to the June motion.
DOJ officials did not respond to Law&Crime’s requests for comment Sunday.
The New York court weighing President Trump’s appeal of a roughly $500 million civil-fraud judgment typically acts swiftly and unanimously, with many of its decisions coming within weeks after hearing arguments.
Trump’s experience stands out as an unusual exception.
A five-justice panel has yet to render a decision nearly a year after taking up the case, leaving him and his business in limbo. Behind the scenes, members of the panel have been divided, and three of them have been writing opinions, according to people familiar with the matter. It couldn’t be determined how they are split. Justices do occasionally shift their positions, and the number of opinions could change, the people said.
A spokesman for the New York state court system said it doesn’t comment on pending litigation. A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said, “It is time for the New York Courts to step in and end this witch hunt once and for all.”
For the New York Appellate Division’s First Department, the Trump matter is among the most high-profile cases in its history, and the outcome could influence future business regulation in the state. For Trump, whose legal entanglements largely faded after his return to the White House, the fraud case is his main private legal headache. At stake isn’t only the half-billion dollar penalty, growing by the day with interest, but the possibility that his sons could be barred from running his family company in the near term. The president asks regularly why the court hasn’t ruled, said people who speak to him.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, sued Trump in 2022, alleging he fraudulently inflated the value of parts of his real-estate empire for financial benefit, primarily lower-interest loans. Justice Arthur Engoron presided over a monthslong civil trial and ruled James proved her case, which relied upon a state statute that grants the attorney general broad authority to investigate “persistent fraud or illegality” in business.
The judge in February 2024 ordered Trump to pay more than $350 million plus interest and imposed an array of other sanctions that restricted the Trump Organization from borrowing money and effectively prohibited Trump’s two eldest sons from running the business for two years. Trump quickly appealed, and the First Department put those restrictions on hold while it considered the case.
The appeals court heard arguments this past September, and some of the judges’ questions appeared favorable to Trump. One wondered whether there should be some “guardrails” on the attorney general’s power. Another questioned the size of the judgment. “The immense penalty in this case is troubling,” said Justice Peter Moulton. A lawyer for James defended it: “There was a lot of fraud.”
Other justices appeared to see James’s lawsuit as within the bounds of the law, despite the Trump lawyers’ arguments that banks didn’t lose money and no victims were harmed. Presiding Justice Dianne Renwick noted the statute refers to “persistent fraud or illegality,” but not harm.
Lengthy waits and disagreeing judges are a common occurrence on some appeals courts. But recent leadership of the First Judicial Department, which reviews thousands of lower-court decisions and motions annually, has emphasized speed.
The First Department typically issues decisions within 30 days, according to a 2024 court report. For each of the past five years, that report said, the court began its new annual session each September with zero pending and undecided appeals.
“Is this normal? No,” said Bill White, a lawyer at appellate consulting firm Counsel Press. “This is something I imagine they are anxious to have on their docket for so long, with everyone’s expectation and the pressure building.”
Alongside that promptness has come unanimity. From 2024 through this July, the court decided roughly 2,900 appeals, according to an analysis of public court data. Only about two dozen of those rulings—or less than .01%—came with a recorded dissent.
If the court upholds the trial judge’s decision, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. would be barred from holding a position as an officer of a New York company for two years. Trump and his company for three years couldn’t apply for loans from financial institutions registered in New York. The losing side can appeal to the state’s highest court.
The wait has cost the company. It is paying a court-appointed monitor, the former federal judge Barbara Jones, whom Trump lawyers previously accused of charging “exorbitant fees” amounting to more than $2.6 million over 14 months. On top of that, Trump has paid more than $2 million in fees on the bond he secured to guarantee the judgment while he appeals, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The panel hearing the Trump appeal includes four judges appointed by Democratic governors and one Republican appointee, David Friedman, who is regarded as among the most conservative of the court’s 21 members. The court’s presiding justice, Renwick, also on the panel, is viewed as a stalwart liberal who has an institutional interest in seeking consensus and guarding the court’s reputation.
All eyes will be on Volodymyr Zelensky when he arrives at the White House on Monday afternoon—if only to see what he’s wearing when he meets President Donald Trump.
Ukraine’s wartime president found himself the target of a pile-on in his last Oval Office visit in February, when Vice President JD Vance accused him of being “disrespectful” to the U.S. by not wearing a suit and tie.
Keen to avoid a repeat, White House officials have reportedly been pressing Zelensky to dress up for Monday’s crucial talks at the White House, where Zelensky and Trump will be joined a slew of major European leaders.
Citing two sources inside the Trump administration, Axios reported Monday that the White House had explicitly asked Ukrainian officials whether Zelensky would be wearing a suit to the Oval Office.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
One source told the outlet that Zelensky would be wearing the same sort of black jacket he wore to meet Trump at the NATO summit in June, rather his usual army-style sweatshirt. “Trump was happy about that,” Axios reported in its newsletter.
Monday’s talks, which come on the heels of Trump’s summit meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, could help bring an end to Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II.
But all anyone in MAGAworld seems to have cared about over the past few days is what Zelensky will be wearing when he shakes Trump’s hand.
In a scathing preview of the Oval Office talks, Real America’s Voice host Brian Glenn told viewers on Sunday: “Two questions right now. One: Will we have peace? But two: Will Zelensky wear a suit?”
The channel, which calls itself the “authentic voice and passion of real people all across America,” then played a clip from Zelensky’s infamous visit to the White House earlier this year when Glenn himself sparked a brutal pile-on from the room by criticizing Zelensky for what he was wearing.
Zelensky’s casual battle dress was reminiscent of that worn by previous wartime leaders during visits to the White House, including Britain’s prime minister during WWII, Winston Churchill. But the February meeting descended into acrimony, with Vance leading what many observers considered an ambush of Zelensky.
Zelensky will be joined at the White House by European leaders including Britain’s Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron of France who will try to persuade Trump that the pressure should be on Putin to end the conflict he started in 2022. Casualties are widely reported to be past the million mark after more than three years of attritional fighting.
The Oval Office talks come just days the Alaska summit, at which no real progress appears to have been made—and which some White House officials reportedly left looking ashen-faced.
Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin, who has largely been ostracized by the international community since his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. After greeting him like an old friend, Trump let Putin talk first at a post-summit press conference—with no actual questions allowed—and even game him a lift in his armored “Beast” limousine.
It remains clear, however, that Putin is still clinging to his maximalist demands for sovereignty over large parts of Ukraine and subsequent demilitarization.
Trump is expected to greet Zelensky today at 1 p.m. ET, with a series of meetings with other European leaders scheduled throughout the afternoon.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/shallow-trump-pressures-zelensky-to-wear-a-suit-to-the-white-house
They say that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. The recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” however, claims to eliminate one of those — at least for overtime hours.
The budget bill, passed in July, followed up on a key Trump campaign promise to eliminate taxes on overtime pay. Even better: the law is retroactive to the beginning of 2025, giving those who work overtime an additional six months of tax-free wages ahead of all the money the bill will save them going forward.
But the reality may be far less generous than it sounds.
Before you start planning how to spend all that extra cash, be aware that the new law contains several big, not-so-beautiful catches.
Not all overtime pay is tax exempt
In touting the elimination of taxes on overtime pay in the budget bill, the White House claimed that the law “makes good on … President Trump’s cornerstone campaign promises and benefits hardworking Americans where they need it the most — their paychecks.”
And in some ways, it does. The reality, however, is that the “Big Beautiful Bill” only eliminates some tax on overtime pay.
To start, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) noted that the tax break only pertains to a portion of overtime pay, or the “‘half’ of ‘time and a half pay’, required under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.”
For example, if a worker makes $40 an hour, then their time and a half overtime would amount to $60 an hour. Of that $60, only $20 (the “half” part of “time and a half”) remains tax-free.
Additionally, “no tax on overtime” is a federal income-tax change only. State and local income taxes still apply (unless your state separately conforms), and Social Security and Medicare taxes are still withheld on all wages, including overtime.
As well, there’s a cap to how much overtime pay remains tax-exempt: $12,500 per person annually, or $25,000 for people filing together. Earners who make more than $150,000 (or $300,000 combined between two people filing together) are not eligible for tax-free overtime pay.
Another issue, raised by Forbes, is horizontal equity: two people with the same annual pay can end up taxed differently. An hourly worker who logs FLSA overtime can deduct part of that overtime, while a salaried worker putting in the same extra hours gets no break.
Then there are those workers whose overtime pay is dictated by different agreements or laws. The WSJ pointed to airline and railroad workers as examples of those “who often get overtime pay under union contracts and are exempt from FLSA because they are covered by the Railway Labor Act.” These workers generally will not qualify for the deduction on their contract overtime.
They added that “One result is different treatment for similar jobs. An airline jet mechanic wouldn’t get the deduction but an airplane mechanic at a separate maintenance company could.”
The long-term fallout
Beyond the immediate monetary effect, a more broad catch to the new law could make itself known in the long run.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) raised concerns that the law will incentivize many to work as much overtime as possible to gain the extra income, including evenings and weekends — habits “associated with a range of negative impacts on physical and mental health, well-being, and productivity.”
In addition, those unable to work overtime for personal or health reasons will lose out on the benefits. The EPI called the law “another gimmick that does more harm than good” and suggested that offering workers raises so they don’t have to work the extra hours would prove a better option.
Forbes, meanwhile, labeled the law “a stealth anti-job creation measure” because it lessens the need for employers to hire more workers.
“A 50-hour week for one employee can be replaced by tacking on an additional 10 hours across five separate workers. The overtime deduction thus may boost take-home pay for some, but it does so by encouraging a labor distribution that concentrates hours in the hands of fewer people.”
That said, according to Tax Policy Center estimates, only 9% of American households will actually save money by paying fewer taxes on overtime pay, resulting in an average added windfall of roughly $1400 annually. Most workers will see the benefit at tax time.
And, of course, there’s one final caveat to the “no tax on overtime pay” law: it expires in 2028.
President Donald Trump has taken aim at MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace in a bizarre social media rant.
The drama started when 79-year-old Trump kicked off his Sunday morning with a cryptic post on Truth Social.
“Bela,” he wrote, leaving his followers to debate the meaning of the word.
In a reply, one user posted a doctored photo of Wallace with a “Karen” haircut and a red nose alongside the text, “Typhoid Mary Nicole Wallace,” “Clown news,” and “Nicole Wallace is afraid of losing her job. Get her a Waaambulance.” A fake news ticker showed the MSNBC logo alongside the word “misinformation.”
Wallace, who now hosts Deadline: White House on MSNBC, was former White House communications director under President George W. Bush.
“She is a loser, with bad ratings, who was already thrown off of The View,” Trump replied on Sunday. “She will be fired soon! MSNBC IS DEAD!”
The post came after the president shared his disdain for members of the media after he met with President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, where he failed to secure a ceasefire.
Before the meeting on Friday, Trump firmly stated that Putin could expect “severe consequences” if he didn’t agree to end the fighting in Ukraine. But the president has since changed his tune, saying achieving peace will require territorial concessions from Ukraine. He is slated to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday.
“It’s incredible how the Fake News violently distorts the TRUTH when it comes to me,” he raged. “There is NOTHING I can say or do that would lead them to write or report honestly about me. I had a great meeting in Alaska on Biden’s stupid War, a war that should have never happened!!!”
In a second post, Trump added, “If I got Russia to give up Moscow as part of the Deal, the Fake News, and their PARTNER, the Radical Left Democrats, would say I made a terrible mistake and a very bad deal. That’s why they are the FAKE NEWS!”
District Judge Jennifer Thurston has ordered the release of Syrian asylum seeker Salam Maklad and barred her rearrest without constitutional safeguards. Advocates have raised concerns that contested grant rules are disrupting essential services, while officials have noted that the cases have tested federal authority.
In addition to Thurston’s decision, U.S. District Judge William Smith has blocked new Justice Department grant conditions related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and transgender rights. Both rulings represent legal blows to the Trump administration, as they directly challenge and overturn key policy actions.
Both rulings, issued this month, limit the administration’s ability to enforce its immigration and social policy priorities. Critics say this highlights judicial checks on executive authority despite Republican control in Congress and the White House.
Thurston wrote, “Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining Ms. Maklad absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice—describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest—and detention, and a timely bond hearing.”
Thurston added, “At any such hearing, the Government SHALL bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Maklad poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Ms. Maklad SHALL be allowed to have her counsel present.”
Thurston ordered Maklad’s release after an ICE check-in triggered her detention, noting she has no criminal history and is not a flight risk. She barred ICE from rearresting Maklad without notice of changed circumstances and a timely bond hearing.
Smith granted preliminary relief to 17 nonprofits challenging updated Office on Violence Against Women grant terms. He found the conditions likely arbitrary under federal law.
Smith wrote, “On the one hand, if the Court does not grant preliminary relief, then the Coalitions will face real and immediate irreparable harm from the challenged conditions, conditions which the Court has already concluded likely violate the APA.”
Smith added, “This could result in the disruption of important and, in some cases, life saving services to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. On the other hand, if the Court grants preliminary relief, then the Office will simply have to consider grant applications and award funding as it normally does.”
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman said, “The Justice Department should be exploring what they can be doing to keep people and communities safe, not threatening funding for local and community organizations with proven results.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-suffers-double-legal-blow/ss-AA1KGtBW
The sunlight dimmed along this stretch of U Street to the familiar soundtrack of a city ready for the weekend: rumbling buses taking home tired commuters, high heels clacking along sticky sidewalks and chattering crowds ready to order their first round.
Then a group gathered on a street corner with pots and pans, jingling them as the darkness grew closer. They whooped and cheered for a few minutes, a brief moment of joyful resistance seeking to counteract the image of the crime-ridden city described by the president.
Among the clubgoers in miniskirts and sweat-soaked T-shirts, there were federal agents hopping in and out of unmarked cars. A protester held a sign reading “America has no kings.” Police officers were met with boos and phones ready to record.
Welcome to the first Friday night in D.C. since President Donald Trump announced he was placing the local police under federal control and sending in National Guard troops to a city where 9 in 10 voters cast ballots for his opponent. The next morning, the White House would announce that the overnight operation yielded 52 arrests and the seizure of three illegal firearms. Twenty-two multiagency teams were deployed throughout the city.
Trump justified the exertion of executive power to reduce crime by depicting the city as a lawless wasteland, despite violent crime reaching 30-year lows. But many of those gathered around the bars and clubs in Northwest Washington on Friday night said they felt more unsettled by the federal presence than any other safety concerns.
Washington Post journalists spent Friday night in a popular section of U Street — a nightlife hub that is among the areas of the city with the highest number of crimes reported this year. Earlier this summer, D.C. police implemented a youth curfew over concerns about rowdy crowds in some areas.
Nearby, two nights earlier, a mix of local and federal authorities pulled over drivers for seat belt violations or broken taillights while onlookers chanted: “Go home, fascists.”
On Friday, crowds were smaller, bartenders and club managers said, and they wondered if patrons were staying inside to avoid federal authorities. And yet, there were still people ready to party.
The largest police response The Post witnessed Friday night was over a claim of a stolen bike. It was around 8:30 p.m., and the sky was ink blue.
One couple heading home from an event at a nearby synagogue looked on with furrowed brows. They spotted a few D.C. police cruisers blocking traffic and agents donning vests labeled “HSI” — Homeland Security Investigations. They hadn’t seen that before, not here.
A pair of French tourists, in D.C. for the first time and looking for a bar, paused when they saw the police cruisers and growing crowd. Earlier, they had strolled by the White House and marveled at the Capitol, and now they were trying to make sense of the flashing lights.
They had loosely followed the week’s headlines and were still thrilled to be visiting.
“We’re on vacation, so we try to cut [out] the news,” Solène Le Toullec said, and they walked on.
At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk — watching, filming, booing.
“Get out!”
“Go!”
“Quit!”
Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left.
…
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-night-in-d-c-after-trump-s-national-guard-deployment/ar-AA1KFJnn
During Donald Trump’s first term, his top advisers attempted to run a traditional process for shaping foreign policy, tapping experts from the White House’s National Security Council, debating recommendations from across the government, and steering the president away from decisions that they feared would damage America’s interests. But Trump was deeply mistrustful of the NSC, which he saw as too big, too cumbersome, and too attached to Republican orthodoxy.
Back in office, Trump has pushed away the help of career experts, and major decisions—the handling of the war in Gaza, for example, and negotiations over Ukraine—are now made by a tiny core group of loyal advisers, including Vice President J. D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Chief of Staff Susie WiIes, and one or two others. The president “is now fully the quarterback, and he doesn’t want too many guys in the huddle,” a former official, who remains in close contact with the White House, told us. “And those that are there need to run the play he calls, no questions asked.”
