# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court granted a stay in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, allowing the government to proceed with large-scale changes to federal agency operations and workforces, such as at the State Department.

# data[].attributes.body
John B

"Under Trump administration, ICE scraps paperwork officers once had to do before immigration arrests"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-ice-scraps-paperwork-officers-immigration-arrests-rcna229407

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For more than 15 years, before they conducted any operation to arrest an immigrant in the United States, officers with Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Enforcement and Removal Operations division have been required to fill out a form with details about their target - name, appearance, known addresses and employment, immigration history, any criminal history and more - and give it to a supervisor for approval.

This year, in a sign of how the agency has moved from targeted enforcement to broad street sweeps under the Trump administration, that policy has been ended, six current and former officials and agents of ICE and the Department of Homeland Security told NBC News.

"It's hard to fill out a worksheet that just says, 'Meet in the Home Depot parking lot,'" one of the former ICE officials said.

The policy shift sheds light on the way ICE is now operating ahead of anticipated immigration crackdowns in Chicago and Boston, and it helps explain the seemingly spontaneous nature of recent arrests in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

Both Darius Reeves, the former director of ICE's Baltimore field office, and two former officials with DHS, under which ICE falls, said the form, known as a field operations worksheet, had been required for nearly every arrest the division made. The only exceptions, they said, were instances in which ICE was called out to assist local law enforcement agencies.

The exact date of the change is unclear, but it happened before this summer. Reeves, who left ICE in May, said that he was made aware of it before he left and that it was communicated down from DHS leadership. The decision was made because of a perception that the worksheet is "a waste of time," he said, but he said he believes it is actually "a very valuable necessity" now "bypassed ... so they could keep constantly flooding the streets" with officers. Reeves said that, even though the worksheets are no longer mandatory, he knows some officers are still using them out of concern for future legal liability.

Top Trump administration officials, like border "czar" Tom Homan, have said they are prioritizing detaining and deporting immigrants with criminal histories - people whom Homan calls "the worst of the worst." But that kind of focused work is at odds with President Donald Trump's promises to conduct the largest mass deportation in American history, sending "millions and millions" of people out of the country. As a result, ICE has been under immense pressure to quickly increase the number of immigrants it is arresting, with less regard for whether they have any criminal histories.

NBC News has reported that in a meeting in May, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller berated ICE officials, threatening to fire the leaders of field offices that conducted the fewest arrests each month if the agency did not begin making at least 3,000 arrests a day.

Since then, ICE has moved toward conducting broad sweeps in places frequented by immigrants -for instance, Home Depot parking lots, where some undocumented people congregate hoping to be hired for construction and other work - and neighborhoods where they live. Social media users capturing viral videos from around the country have alleged officers are profiling rather than specifically targeting individual immigrants.

ICE did not respond to requests for comment before this story was published.

After initial publication, however, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin sent NBC News a statement in which she did not directly address whether the requirement that officers complete an FOW had been eliminated.

"ICE replaced this inefficient and outdated paperwork with a streamlined tech-based platform. This more efficient system cuts down on time and allows our law enforcement officers to spend more time out in the field," she said. "We still have the same information of who we are targeting well ahead of time-including name, appearance, known addresses, employment, immigration history, and criminal history. The only change is instead of manual paperwork-we now are using technology to make our officers more efficient."

Asked about this statement, Reeves said DHS leadership did not provide a new platform as an alternative when the policy mandating FOWs ended.

According to Reeves and two of the former officials as well as a former agent, the FOWs had already been completed electronically, not on paper, and using information taken from computerized databases.

Targeted vs. profiling

Immigration enforcement is likely to ramp up soon in Chicago, where there are several predominantly Latino neighborhoods. DHS is building a staging area at a naval base north of the city and bringing in additional ICE and Border Patrol agents to conduct more immigration arrests this month, two federal law enforcement sources familiar with the plans said.

ICE officers are working on a list of "high-value" targets to arrest in Chicago, one of the current DHS officials said, such as immigrants who have committed crimes.

Scott Shuchart, who was ICE's assistant director for regulatory affairs and policy during the Biden administration, said the efforts in Los Angeles and Washington have also involved ICE's making more random arrests to boost numbers. He did not have knowledge of the policy change to discontinue the worksheets but said that, previously, they were used to show officers had done their "homework."

"There would be a reason that you go for Peter rather than Paul," he said. "They are now interested in numbers, and if you are interested in numbers, you do things like wandering around racially profiling people."

DHS and ICE have denied that they are racially profiling. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has told reporters that "every single operation" ICE conducts is based on "investigative work and on casework."

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons recently told NBC News that the agency is not profiling, but rather conducting "targeted enforcement operations."

One of the former DHS officials said that terminology, though, does not mean ICE officers know in advance whom they are arresting.

Another of the former ICE officials said: "They're bending the definition of 'targeted' to conform with their operations. By 'targeted,' they might mean going to an area where they can find immigrants."

And in July, a federal judge in Los Angeles issued a temporary restraining order blocking ICE from conducting "roving patrols" and from relying on people's races or other factors, like their speaking Spanish, as reasons to detain them.

An analysis by David J. Bier, the director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, found that ICE arrests in the Los Angeles area fell 66% after the judge's order. Data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Deportation Data Project, Bier noted, showed that ICE had made 756 arrests in the area in the week leading up to the judge's order. Two weeks later, the number was at 258.

On Monday, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to lift the judge's order and the restrictions it had placed on stops in the Los Angeles area.

Similar operations appear to have been taking place in Washington. Raquel Sánchez told NBC News that she had been seeing federal officers around her neighborhood in August. Then, early one morning, she and her husband, Jesus Muñoz Colorado, were driving to work when they were stopped by a group including ICE officers. Seven unmarked cars surrounded their vehicle, blocking it from moving forward, she said, and then officers knocked on the car door and told the couple to roll down the windows or they would shatter them.

It is not clear whether Sánchez and Colorado were specifically targeted for arrest, but they were not outside of their home when they were stopped, and Sánchez said that as far as she could tell, the officers did not know their names. Video of the stop provided to NBC News shows them telling officers that they are going through the process of applying for U visas, which is given to victims of certain crimes and people who have information about those crimes and can be helpful to law enforcement, as well as their family members.

Sánchez and Colorado were handcuffed and taken to a local ICE facility. She spoke with NBC News after she was released; he is still in detention.

Their lawyer, Julia Toro, who has been practicing immigration law in Washington for 20 years, said that since the immigration crackdown there began, she has had eight clients without criminal backgrounds who have been arrested.

"The officers ask them, 'Do you have any documents and do you have any papers? Show me,'" she said. "It's not like they know who they are picking up. They are arbitrary stops."

In a statement provided to a reporter with Telemundo 44 in Washington, which is also part of the NBC News Group, an ICE spokesperson said, "Jesus Munoz-Colorado and his wife Raquel Noemi Sanchez-Monge, are illegal aliens with no lawful status to remain in the United States." The spokesperson also said that neither "have any pending visas to lawfully remain in the U.S."

Liability for officers?

Several of the current and former ICE and DHS officials who told NBC News about the end of the policy mandating use of the field operations worksheets also said that the worksheets were not about just planning or establishing justification for arrests: They also protect the officers. For example, Reeves said that though the form does not include a section about it, officers would often write and attach another sheet with information about whether someone targeted in an operation could be armed, information that helps keep officers safe.

The form could also help protect officers legally, they all said.

"For a professional law enforcement agency, you don't just fly willy-nilly. Crossing your T's, dotting your I's, checking with OPLA," one of the former DHS officials said, referring to the agency's Office of the Principal Legal Advisor. "They [ICE officers] may not believe it, but it's truly protecting them to make sure they are actually operating within their legal bounds."

Paul Hunker, who previously was ICE's chief counsel in Dallas, said the worksheets officers filled out could be used to protect them in lawsuits. Officers could be sued for civil rights violations if they make arrests without probable cause, he said.

"What's critical is that ICE has to articulate probable cause to arrest, so the worksheet might be helpful for them if they get challenged on that," Hunker told NBC News.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Under Trump administration, ICE scraps paperwork officers once had to do before immigration arrests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For years, officers were required to fill out "homework" before operations. But, one source noted, "it's hard to fill out a worksheet that just says, 'Meet in the Home Depot parking lot.'"

# data[].attributes.body
A federal judge in California ruled that Trump's use of the national guard without a governor's request was illegal, showing how the government is supposed to be limited in what it can do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump’s use of National Guard in Los Angeles illegal, judge rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ruling comes as Trump seeks to use National Guard troops in order to crack down on crime in other US cities.

# data[].attributes.body
Discusses polls and people voting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether the Trump administration's sweeping global tariffs are legal.

On Tuesday, it said it would review lower court decisions that found the president did not have the legal authority to enact the tariffs, which were brought in through an emergency economic powers act.

The justices said it would hear arguments in the case in the first week of November.

It will amount to the biggest test of Donald Trump's presidential authority and his signature economic policy, potentially forcing the US to refund billions in tariffs.

You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court to decide if Trump's global tariffs are legal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It will amount to the biggest test of his presidential authority and his signature economic policy.

# data[].attributes.body
A local business owner who cleans up waste in Arkansas has been overruled with a new ban on picking up waste except for a select few which turns his business upside down which he has put his heart and soul into.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the local government banned Steven Hedrick from operating his small business in rural Arkansas, the Goldwater Institute took action, suing the city of Holiday Island for destroying his livelihood.

"The city has prohibited me from doing business," Steven says.

On October 2, Goldwater is heading to the Arkansas Supreme Court to defend Steven's right to earn a living. It will be the sixth state high court where we've defended constitutional rights.

Steven poured his heart and soul into his business-renting dumpsters to customers working on large projects then picking up the trash when they're done-and he regularly gets calls from customers needing help. However, the city of Holiday Island banned anyone from picking up solid waste, except for a specially chosen government-run waste company that isn't even required to offer the same services Steven provides-services the people of Holiday Island desperately need.

That's an illegal government-backed monopoly: The Arkansas Constitution explicitly prohibits the government from granting monopolies, as they are " contrary to the genius of a republic." In fact, the Arkansas Supreme Court has explained that monopolies crush competition and deny citizens their right to freely practice their chosen profession. This prohibition is so important that the court has also explained that "no amount of judicial interpretation should ever be permitted to cause the slightest deviation from the clear language of the constitutional inhibition."

The ordinance also deprives Steven of his constitutionally protected right to earn a living. The Arkansas Constitution protects all of its residents' right to acquire, possess, and protect property-and it prohibits the government from depriving an individual of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. This prohibition finds its roots in the Magna Carta, and has long been interpreted as protecting an individual's substantive right to earn a living. But the city of Holiday Island is imposing this exact prohibition on Steven-without any compelling reason to justify the deprivation.

That's why Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit in 2023 on Steven's behalf to challenge the illegal ordinance.

This will be the sixth state supreme court where Goldwater attorneys have stood up for constitutional rights and limited government-in addition to the many other state and federal courts around the country where Goldwater has brought lawsuits against overreaching government officials.

"You shouldn't have to ask permission to put food on your table," Steven explains. "Every day that I'm not allowed to do this actually hurts me long-term. It's angering. All my eggs are in this basket for the rest of my life."

The Institute for Justice and the Pacific Legal Foundation have recently filed "friend of the court briefs" in support of Steven's case.

In Arkansas and across the country, Goldwater will always fight to protect Americans' freedom to earn an honest living in the profession of their choice.
Adam Shelton is a Staff Attorney at the Goldwater Institute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fighting an Illegal Government Monopoly at the Arkansas Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the local government banned Steven Hedrick from operating his small business in rural Arkansas, the Goldwater Institute took action,..

# data[].attributes.body
Although China is threatening to take over Taiwan as it's seen as a Providence to them. Taiwan says it is a Sovereign state as it has a separate constitution and own democratic elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Taiwan convincingly elected its first female president Tsai Ing-Wen on Saturday, after she took about 56 percent of the vote.

# data[].attributes.body
Republicans are trying to change the senate's rules to allow quicker votes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader John Thune says Republicans are ready to change the chamber's rules to allow quick confirmations of dozens of President Donald Trump's executive branch nominees and will move to speed up votes after months of Democratic delays.

Opening the Senate on Monday, Thune said Democrats' obstruction is "unsustainable." He said Republicans will begin action this week to allow votes on groups of lower-level executive branch nominees if a majority of the Senate agrees. Currently, one senator's objection can force days of votes on a single nominee.
READ MORE: Trump and Republican senators fight over 'blue slip process' for judicial nominees
If the Democratic delays continue, Thune said, "there is no practical way that we could come close to filling all the vacancies in the four years of this administration no matter how many hours the Senate works."

Changing the rules would take time, with procedural votes potentially Thursday and early next week to complete the process, according to a person familiar with the GOP plan who requested anonymity because it hasn't been released publicly.

Republicans have been talking about options for changing the rules since early August, when the Senate left for a monthlong recess after a breakdown in bipartisan negotiations over the confirmation process. Democrats have blocked nearly every single one of Trump's nominees, forcing majority Republicans to spend valuable floor time on procedural votes and leaving many positions in the executive branch unfilled.

The delays have infuriated Trump, who told Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to "GO TO HELL!" in a social media post after negotiations broke down over the process in early August.

The changes come after both parties have escalated their obstruction of the other party's nominees for years, and as leaders in both parties have incrementally changed the rules to make the process less bipartisan. Democrats have blocked more nominees than ever before as they have struggled to find ways to oppose Trump and the GOP Congress, and as their voters have pushed them to fight Republicans at every turn.

Schumer has said Democrats are delaying the nominations because Trump's nominees are "historically bad."

"If you don't debate nominees, if you don't vote on individual nominees, if there's not some degree of sunlight, what will stop Donald Trump from nominating even worse individuals than we've seen to date, knowing this chamber will rubber stamp anything he wishes?" Schumer said Monday evening.

Still, the proposal to group nominations is loosely based on legislation introduced by Democrats two years ago as Republicans blocked many of then-President Joe Biden's picks.

But while Senate Republicans forced similar delays during Biden's administration, Democrats have blocked almost all of Trump's picks. It's the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn't allowed at least some quick confirmations.

The GOP proposal would only apply to executive branch nominations, not lifetime judicial appointments, and would exclude the most high-profile positions, such as Cabinet nominees, that require a longer debate time. The process to change the rules will likely require several floor votes and the support of a simple majority, so at least 51 out of the chamber's 53 Republicans. But most GOP senators appear to be on board.

If Republicans act quickly, they could confirm more than 100 of Trump's pending nominations this month.

The Republican move is the latest salvo in years of intensifying Senate standoffs over presidential nominations. In 2013, Democrats changed Senate rules for executive branch and lower court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations as Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's picks. In 2017, Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees as Democrats tried to block Trump's nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Schumer on Monday echoed former GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, who warned then-Democratic Leader Harry Reid in 2013 that his party would regret changing the rules, "and regret it a lot sooner than you think."

"I say to my Republican colleagues, think carefully before taking this step," Schumer said, adding that "it's going to be a decision you will come to regret."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senate will change rules to push Trump's nominees past Democratic delays, Thune says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Senate Majority Leader John Thune says Republicans are ready to change the chamber's rules to allow quick confirmations of dozens of President Donald Trump's executive branch nominees and will move to speed up votes after months of Democratic delays.

# data[].attributes.body
A Federal Judge blocked trump for firing fed governor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump temporarily blocked from firing Fed governor Lisa Cook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The judge’s ruling is a win for the US Federal Reserve following criticism by the president.

# data[].attributes.body
Reassessing how authority functions for popular sovereignty, if the current authority doesn't help the people, then should is it still functioning correctly?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Getting Authority Right: The Common Good and “Popular Sovereignty”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alicea repeats often and correctly the age-old insight that responsibility to care for the common good belongs to each member of the political community. But an equal sharing of authority does not follow from that shared responsibility, and no account of the Constitution’s moral authority will succe

# data[].attributes.body
Voting for same-sex partnership - Stephen LaCLair

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HONG KONG (AP) - At her wedding, Jaedyn Yu felt her father's tears marked a subtle yet touching shift in his attitude toward love between two women.

Yu's family initially struggled to accept her partner after they fell in love in 2019. Seeking both family recognition and legal rights, the couple decided to marry.

But rather than waiting for Hong Kong to establish its framework for recognizing same-sex partnerships, citing the uncertain timeline, they opted to marry via Zoom with a U.S. officiant in May and held their ceremony in Bali, Indonesia.

If passed, the bill would allow residents who already have formed unions overseas to register their partnerships locally and receive rights in handling medical and after-death matters. Lawmakers are set to resume the debate Wednesday, with their vote determining the future of the city's same-sex couples.

Yu's wife, Gloria Tsang, said while the proposal was better than nothing, it would only benefit those who are privileged enough to afford overseas marriages and navigate foreign marriage policies.

"The original purpose of law is to protect everyone," Tsang said.

The fight for same-sex rights has taken years to gain traction in Hong Kong. The city decriminalized gay sex in 1991.

Prominent gay rights activist Jimmy Sham said that in the past some gay and lesbian people stayed on the sidelines or concealed their identities at events about gay rights.

But in 2005, after groups upholding traditional family values ran newspaper advertisements deemed to undermine gay and lesbian rights, more people emerged to mark International Day Against Homophobia, he said.

In 2009, the government introduced a cohabitation relationship definition in a revision to the domestic violence law, extending protection to same-sex couples, in a move that Sham said showed political wisdom.

Some celebrities have come out publicly and now many same-sex couples are seen holding hands in the streets, he said.

Surveys showed 60% of respondents supported same-sex marriage in 2023 in Hong Kong, up from 38% in 2013, according to a report by university researchers. The city also hosted Asia's first Gay Games in 2023.

LGBTQ+ activism in Hong Kong is still making considerable progress despite a government crackdown following massive protests in 2019.

In 2023, the top court ruled in a legal challenge brought by Sham that the government should offer a framework for recognizing same-sex partnerships by October 2025. It did not grant full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

That victory mattered deeply to Sham who, at the time, had been in jail since 2021 for the city's biggest national security case. The court ruling showed he could still make an impact even behind bars, he said.

"Suddenly, I felt those emotional issues being swept away, and I'm back," said Sham, who was released from jail in May.

Bill faces fierce resistance

While many same-sex couples and advocates find the government's proposed framework for recognizing same-sex partnership limiting, some still support its passage in the face of opposition from various lawmakers.

Pro-Beijing lawmaker Priscilla Leung described the bill as "opening a paradox box," while her colleague Holden Chow worried the framework would effectively amount to recognizing same-sex marriages. Another legislator, Junius Ho, said the bill "would harm countless generations of our descendants."

The government also reported 80% of 10,780 public opinion submissions opposed the bill, mainly citing concerns over traditional family values and the marriage system. Those backing the bill agreed the government should respect the spirit of the rule of law.

Hong Kong Marriage Equality, a non-governmental organization, said the submissions did not accurately reflect public sentiment. It noted about half of the publicly viewable submissions against the bill used standardized templates, which suggested "strong mobilization by specific groups."

The government maintained the framework would not equate to marriage and argued that requiring overseas registration would provide an objective way to verify committed partnerships. It said the proposal represents the "greatest common denominator" deemed acceptable to the public.

Erick Tsang, the secretary for constitutional affairs, told lawmakers that the government must fulfill its positive obligations under the ruling, otherwise it would violate the rule of law.

Sham warned vetoing the bill could damage Hong Kong's international status.

"It would make the whole world question Hong Kong's human rights stance, whether it won't even accept such basic protections for sexual minorities," he said.

Pro-Beijing lawmaker Paul Tse, who is inclined to support the bill, said the opposition seen in the legislature was greater than he had expected given the bill's limited scope.

If lawmakers vote the bill down, the city would face a "mini constitutional crisis" as the judicial, administrative and legislative branches would be in a deadlock. The government would then need to report to the top court and seek time to work out other solutions, he said.

Sham previously proposed decoupling the registration system from overseas marriages to address concerns from conservative groups, but Tse cautioned that such a mechanism might trigger more concerns as some people might consider it closer to local marriage.

Equality appears distant for same-sex couples

In Hong Kong, the daily life of same-sex couples is still in many ways different to that of their straight peers.

Yu has to think carefully about telling colleagues about her wife, unlike some of her foreign friends who share such details casually, while Tsang ponders whether to introduce her partner to those who are not close to her. Picking a place for getting married overseas also was a challenge.

The pair don't hold high expectations about the bill's passage. Tsang likened the lawmakers' comments to a return to "antiquated" mindsets, saying the acceptance level might be lower than she had imagined.

Despite the bill not being perfect, she said it would be a pity if it were vetoed as it would mark a step backwards after taking a step forward.

"Equality means providing safeguards regardless of your background, your gender, or your position," Yu said.

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Sept. 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Years of Activism Resulted in a Hong Kong Same-Sex Partnership Bill, but a Tough Vote Remains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HONG KONG (AP) - At her wedding, Jaedyn Yu felt her father's tears marked a subtle yet touching shift in his attitude toward love between two women.

# data[].attributes.body
An agreement or pact with the people and government where the people give up some rights for security and peace.

President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" has "tweaked" or modified the social contract between the states and the government, where the states will be expected to provide for themselves more. More specifically, financial independence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis: Republicans tweak the social contract to ask more of states | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An emerging reality of President Donald Trump’s second term is that the federal government will be doing less and states will need to do a lot more on everything from disaster relief to health insurance.

# data[].attributes.body
A judge blocked Trump's attempt to hurt trans kids' medical records which shows the system of checks and balances and limited government being in place, not letting only the President make decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's attempt to subpoena medical records of transgender patients who received gender-affirming care at Boston Children's Hospital.

In a ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun said the administrative subpoena served by the U.S. Department of Justice was improper and "motivated only by bad faith."

The Justice Department said the information was needed to investigate possible fraud or unlawful off-label promotion of drugs, but the information requested - including actual patient records - seemed to be unrelated, the judge said. Phone messages left with the Justice Department's attorney Ross Goldstein and with a Justice Department public affairs officer were not immediately returned.

"The Administration has been explicit about its disapproval of the transgender community and its aim to end GAC," Joun wrote, referring to gender-affirming care. The judge later continued, "It is abundantly clear that the true purpose of issuing the subpoena is to interfere with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' right to protect GAC within its borders, to harass and intimidate BCH to stop providing such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care."

Just eight days after taking office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at restricting access to medical care for transgender youth. In June, the Justice Department's Civil Division announced the division would use "all available resources to prioritize investigations of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other appropriate entities," in an effort to investigate what it called "radical gender experimentation."

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in a statement July 9 that the Justice Department had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that provide care to transgender patients under 18. Bondi said the requests were part of investigations into "healthcare fraud, false statements, and more." But the requests did not just seek information on policies or billing practices - they also demanded information about individual patients who had been prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy.

Boston Children's Hospital asked the federal court to quash the subpoena on July 8, saying the Justice Department was seeking practically every document related to the provision of gender-affirming care over the past five and a half years, including highly sensitive and personally identifiable information about young patients.

But the Justice Department contended the subpoena was proper and a valid way for the agency to investigate potential violations of off-label prescription drug rules.

Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person's gender identity, including when it's different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It may include counseling, medications that block puberty, hormone therapy to produce physical changes or surgeries to transform chests and genitals, although those are rare for minors.

Most major medical groups say access to the treatment is important for those with gender dysphoria and see gender as existing along a spectrum.

At least 27 states have adopted laws restricting or banning the care for minors, while several others have adopted laws or policies protecting access to transgender health care.

Massachusetts' state constitution protects the right to gender-affirming care, the judge said, making it difficult to understand exactly what the Justice Department was trying to investigate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Judge blocks Trump admin's subpoena of trans kids' medical records from Boston hospital

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's attempt to subpoena medical records of transgender patients who received gender-affirming care at Boston Children's Hospital

# data[].attributes.body
Limited Government:

The Supreme Court agreed to reconsider long held questions and decide whether to significantly scale back on the power of federal agencies. From how the government addresses everything from climate change to public health to immigration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court to hear major case on power of federal government | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to reconsider long held precedent and decide whether to significantly scale back on the power of federal agencies in a case that can impact everything from how the government addresses everything from climate change to public health to immigration.

# data[].attributes.body
The Court overturned the Chevron rule, which let agencies interpret unclear laws. By cutting agency power, this reinforces limited Government while ensuring unelected officials cannot stretch their authority as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Conservative justices power ruling, liberals dissent

It is latest ruling restricting federal agency powers

Business and conservative groups cheer the decision

WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to federal regulatory power on Friday by overturning a 1984 precedent that had given deference to government agencies in interpreting laws they administer, handing a defeat to President Joe Biden's administration.

The justices ruled 6-3 to set aside lower court decisions against fishing companies that challenged a government-run program partly funded by industry that monitored overfishing of herring off New England's coast. It marked the latest decision in recent years powered by the Supreme Court's conservative majority that hemmed in the authority of federal agencies.

Sign up here.

The precedent the court overturned arose from a ruling involving oil company Chevron that had called for judges to defer to reasonable federal agency interpretations of U.S. laws deemed to be ambiguous. This doctrine, long opposed by conservatives and business interests, was called "Chevron deference."

"Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the decision.

The court's conservative justices were in the majority, with the liberal justices dissenting. The ruling will make it easier for judges to second-guess actions by regulators, empowering challengers to regulations across federal agencies.

Business, conservative and libertarian groups cheered the decision, saying it eliminates a rule that requires courts to favor the government in all manner of challenges to regulation. The litigation was part of what has been termed the "war on the administrative state," an effort to weaken the federal agency bureaucracy that interprets laws, crafts federal rules and implements executive action.

The decreasing productivity of Congress - thanks to its gaping partisan divide - has led to a growing reliance, especially by Democratic presidents, on rules issued by U.S. agencies to realize regulatory goals.

Biden's administration had defended the National Marine Fisheries Service regulation at issue and the Chevron doctrine. The fish conservation program was started in 2020 under Republican former President Donald Trump.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, said the ruling elevates the Supreme Court's power over other branches of the U.S. government.

"A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this court has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies," Kagan wrote.

Democrats and groups favoring regulation, including environmental groups, said the ruling will undermine agencies, whose officials use scientific and other expertise to ensure safe food and drugs, clean air and water, stable financial markets and fair working conditions.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the ruling "another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backwards."

"Republican-backed special interests have repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court to block commonsense rules that keep us safe, protect our health and environment, safeguard our financial system and support American consumers and workers. And once again, the Supreme Court has decided in the favor of special interests," Jean-Pierre said.

'UNLAWFUL AGENCY OVERREACH'

A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S., June 1, 2024. REUTERS/Will Dunham/File Photo

The challenge by the fishing companies was supported by various conservative and corporate interest groups including billionaire Charles Koch's network.

Roman Martinez, an attorney for one of the companies, Rhode Island-based Relentless Inc, called Friday's ruling a win for individual liberty that vindicates the rule of law.

"By ending Chevron deference, the court has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach," Martinez said.

The regulation at issue called for certain commercial fishermen to carry aboard their vessels U.S. government contractors and pay for their at-sea services while they monitored the catch.

Beth Lowell of conservation group Oceana said monitors help prevent overfishing, and without them limits become irrelevant.

"Some fishers want to operate in the dark, unmonitored, and return to a Wild West of fishing in U.S. waters, but these companies are fishing on a public resource and making profits," Lowell added.

Kagan wrote: "Who should give content to a statute when Congress's instructions have run out? Should it be a court? Or should it be the agency Congress has charged with administering the statute? The answer Chevron gives is that it should usually be the agency, within the bounds of reasonableness."

"That rule has formed the backdrop against which Congress, courts and agencies - as well as regulated parties and the public - all have operated for decades. It has been applied in thousands of judicial decisions. It has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds - to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe and financial markets honest," Kagan added.

The companies - led by New Jersey-based Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless - in 2020 sued the fisheries service, claiming the monitoring program exceeded the Commerce Department agency's authority.

The conservation program aimed to monitor 50 percent of declared herring fishing trips in the regulated area, with program costs split between the federal government and the fishing industry. The cost to commercial fishermen of paying for the monitoring was an estimated $710 per day for 19 days a year, which could reduce a vessel's income by up to 20 percent, according to government figures.

The Biden administration said the program was authorized under a 1976 federal law called the Magnuson-Stevens Act to protect against overfishing in U.S. coastal waters.

The Washington-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the government.

The Supreme Court has signaled skepticism toward expansive regulatory power, issuing rulings in recent years to rein in what its conservative justices have viewed as overreach by various agencies.

For example, the court on Thursday rejected the Securities and Exchange Commission's in-house enforcement of laws protecting investors against securities fraud and blocked an Environmental Protection Agency regulation aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states.

Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US Supreme Court curbs federal agency powers, overturning 1984 precedent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to federal regulatory power on Friday by overturning a 1984 precedent that had given deference to government agencies in interpreting laws they administer, handing a defeat to President Joe Biden's administration.

# data[].attributes.body
Rapid change in terms of globalization is threatening the government's ability to keep their end of the social contract and fulfill the needs of citizens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Verifying you are human. This may take a few seconds.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mazzy O - Trump says he's "not thrilled" after Israel targets Hamas leaders in Qatar

# data[].attributes.subject
Mazzy O - Trump says he's "not thrilled" after Israel targets Hamas leaders in Qatar

# data[].attributes.body
President Trump said Tuesday he's "not thrilled" and is "very unhappy" after Israel's military said it targeted senior leadership of the Hamas terrorist organization in strikes in Qatar's capital of Doha. The strikes drew condemnation from the Qatari government and push back from the White House.