News
Trump-appointed federal judge blocks use of Alien Enemies Act for Venezuelans in South Texas
17 alleged members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang and members of the MS-13 gang, who were deported to El Salvador by the US in San Salvador, El Salvador on March 31, 2025.
El Salvador Press Presidency Office/Anadolu via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
El Salvador Press Presidency Office/Anadolu via Getty Images
A federal judge in Texas Thursday ruled that President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and deport Venezuelan immigrants from South Texas was “unlawful.”
U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., a Trump appointee, wrote that Trump’s invocation of the act “exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”
The government, he ruled, does not “possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the Proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country.” The men in this Texas case have been threatened with imminent removal under the Alien Enemies Act, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. They are accused of being members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. They remain in detention at El Valle Detention Center in Raymondville, Texas.
The judge’s decision covers all of the Southern District of Texas, which includes Brownsville, McAllen and Houston.
Other courts have sought to block the Trump administration from deporting anyone under the act. But this is the first time a judge has ruled that the act cannot be used against people who are alleged gang members invading the United States.
“The court ruled the president can’t unilaterally declare an invasion of the United States and invoke a wartime authority during peacetime,” Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union and lead counsel for the three Venezuelan plaintiffs, said in a statement. “This is a critically important decision that prevents more people from being sent to the notorious CECOT prison (a maximum security prison in El Salvador).”
After extensive analysis of historical records, Judge Rodriguez concluded in his ruling that the ordinary meaning of “invasion” or “predatory inclusion” when the Alien Enemies Act was enacted required a military incursion. He found that the criminal activities of Tren de Aragua members described in the Proclamation, while harmful, did not constitute an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” as understood under the Act.
“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,” Judge Rodriguez wrote.
“Thus, while the Court finds that an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion’ must involve an organized, armed force entering the United States to engage in conduct destructive of property and human life in a specific geographical area, the action need not be a precursor to actual war.”
The Department of Homeland Security didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment. If the Trump administration appeals the decision, it would go to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals, considered one of country’s most conservative courts. The case could eventually be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
President Trump issued a proclamation in March accusing Tren de Aragua of “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.”
“(Tren de Aragua) is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela,” Trump wrote in his proclamation.
Trump has used the Act to remove more than 130 Venezuelan men to a maximum security prison in El Salvador. The administration has accused all of them of being Tren de Aragua, but has conceded not all of them have criminal records.
The Texas suit is one of several court cases on the topic sparked by Trump’s proclamation and his administration’s actions.
In late March, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a ruling by federal Judge James Boasberg and denied the White House’s use of the wartime authority by a vote of 2 to 1. Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, cited a lack of opportunity for the alleged gang members to contest the cases.
“The government’s removal scheme denies Plaintiffs even a gossamer thread of due process,” Millett wrote in a concurring statement.
The Supreme Court has already ruled the Trump administration can remove migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, but with a caveat. Migrants alleged to be gang members must be given “reasonable time” to challenge their removal from the country. The high court did not specify a length of time.
News
Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks at the Reagan Library on Sept. 9, 2025, in Simi Valley, Calif. Barrett discussed and signed copies of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Mario Tama/Getty Images
Even as the Supreme Court was handing down one legal thunderbolt after another last week, the justices were quietly releasing their annual financial reports. Justice Samuel Alito was the only sitting justice to request an extension, which he has done for 15 years. The disclosures do not give a complete account of the justices’ total income and wealth, but they give insights into their concertgoing, guest professorships and even their involvement in youth sports.
In addition to their salaries, much of the justices’ reported income came from their book deals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the pack earning more than $1.1 million last year for a total of roughly $4 million since her memoir, Lovely One, was published in 2024.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy also reported income from published books. Earnings from their books ranged from $849,000 for Barrett, to $300,000 for Gorsuch and $88,000 for Sotomayor, whose books include her 2013 autobiography and five children’s books. Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously earned $1.5 million for his 2007 memoir, listed no publisher payments last year, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of 13 co-authors of a 2016 legal treatise, also received no payments last year. Kavanaugh is said to be working on a memoir but he listed no payments for the anticipated book. Alito does have a book coming out in the fall, but with his financial report still outstanding, there is no data on how much he was paid for the work in 2025.
The only two sitting justices who have not written books are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan.
Many justices also earned income from teaching at law schools. Roberts reported income from New England Law, located in Boston, and Gorsuch reported teaching income from George Mason University in Virginia. Thomas taught classes at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and Barrett and Kavanaugh taught at Notre Dame Law School. Barrett graduated from the school and began teaching there 23 years ago; Kavanaugh has family connections to Notre Dame.

The disclosures also report gifts, travel, food and lodging that the justices received in 2025. Jackson and Sotomayor were the only two to report gifts. Jackson was given a painting for her chambers valued at $2,500, and Sotomayor reported a trip to Kansas City to watch the opening of a musical based on her children’s book, Just Ask.
In addition, she reported receiving free tickets worth $4,333 while on “a private trip to Puerto Rico.” The tickets were from the record label that represents Bad Bunny, and her trip coincided with the artist’s months-long concert series in San Juan. Sotomayor’s parents were from Puerto Rico, and she has spent much time there over the years.
The justices also disclosed significant reimbursements for travel throughout 2025. Thomas’ travel, food and lodging expenses were paid for by the Hoover Institution for speaking at a celebration of conservative economist Thomas Sowell.
Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson were reimbursed for international travel, where they gave speeches, spoke about their books or taught. Roberts was the only sitting member of the court not to report any gifts or travel reimbursements.
The annual filings also shed some light on the justices’ activities off the bench. Kavanaugh reported that in addition to his duties as a Supreme Court justice, he serves as a coach to multiple D.C.-area Catholic Youth Organization girls’ basketball teams. Coach K, as he is known by his players, wrote the court’s June decision declaring that states can ban transgender women and girl athletes from playing on women’s and girls’ sports teams.

The justices’ salaries are established by law. The chief justice earns the most, at $320,700 per year. The eight associate justices earn $306,600 per year. While that is a lot of money to most Americans, the justices and even their law clerks could earn more the minute they leave their Supreme Court jobs for large law firms.
Roberts was the only member of the court to report investing in individual stocks. Alito in the past has also owned shares of individual stocks, but his report is not due for three months when his extension runs out. For the most part, the justices do not own individual stocks, but do invest in index funds, mutual funds and other such investment programs in order to both make money and limit potential conflicts of interest that would require their recusal from certain cases.
However — and this is a big however — the financial reporting forms the justices are required to fill out are so unspecific and the reporting ranges for investment earnings are so broad that it is impossible to determine any justice’s overall wealth. In addition, the current value of the justices’ homes isn’t reported. Neither is their spouses’ income, which in the case of the chief justice, for instance, likely far exceeds his take-home pay.
News
Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show
At least two structural columns buckled and failed in a 37-story office tower in Midtown Manhattan on Tuesday, prompting evacuations of nearby streets and buildings. While city officials asserted that the tower was in no danger of collapsing completely, outside engineers said further failures in the structure could not be ruled out.
A pair of columns that failed completely were part of the tower’s existing structure. A New York Times review of images and videos from inside the building has found that several floors were added atop these columns.
City officials said in a news conference on Tuesday that the building was continuing to move, while they simultaneously assured the city that the building would not suffer “total collapse.” “The way this building is constructed, it’s a steel-frame building,” John Esposito, a chief in the Fire Department in New York, said at the afternoon news conference. “So, it would not be a total collapse. It would be more of a localized collapse.” Still, he said, “that remains our concern, that it’s moved.”
Engineers said that the movement itself was cause for concern. In a properly designed steel building, they said, loads should redistribute quickly to surviving structural supports if columns failed.
Joe DiPompeo, a former president of the Structural Engineering Institute at the American Society of Civil Engineers, said that if the structure had been overloaded, he would expect any movement “to happen very quickly,” rather than gradually.
“Generally when a column buckles, it’s a sudden failure,” Mr. DiPompeo said. He said that a full collapse remained unlikely given the redundancies built into the building codes.
Engineers often refer to the most dangerous possibility as a progressive collapse, a process in which structures near the initial failure become overstressed and also fail, potentially bringing down the building if the sequence continues. While unlikely, it cannot be ruled out, Mr. DiPompeo said.
Footage recorded from inside the building shows at least two structural columns appear to have failed completely, Mr. DiPompeo said. Other nonstructural, interior walls — or at least the metal “studs” that were in place to hold them up — also appear to have deformed.
“The only way that really happens is if the floor above them dropped. It looks like the floor above could have dropped a foot or two, which is obviously not a good situation,” Mr. DiPompeo said.
The 37-story building is in the process of being converted from office space into residential units. Four new floors and a large vertical portion were added onto the existing building in recent months. The vertical portion consists of a stack of over a dozen new floors cantilevered out over the existing building below.
Engineers said that there was nothing inherently wrong with adding residential floors or the cantilevered section above the columns that failed, as long as the original structure and the modifications had properly accounted for the added weight and wind loads.
“The cantilever alone doesn’t change anything,” Mr. DiPompeo said, but it does put additional load on the columns underneath — a factor that should have been reflected in the design.
Nathan Berman, managing principal and founder of MetroLoft, the developer overseeing the conversion, said on Tuesday that “this incident is nothing more than a typical construction mishap.”
He said two columns near the northwest corner of the tower had bent under the weight of additions to the building above, most likely because those columns had not been properly reinforced, though he said an investigation would determine the cause. The rest of the columns, he said, “picked up the weight.” He estimated the affected floors above the failed columns had sagged by a maximum of four inches.
Mr. Berman said that he expected the problems to be fixed and the project to be completed with, at most, a slight delay.
On Tuesday evening, installation of temporary shoring was set to begin shortly, in order to help stabilize the 20th and 21st floors of the building.
News
DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote
The Justice Department sent letters warning election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that they could face criminal prosecution over noncitizen voting, a spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed Tuesday.
The letters, signed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads up the department’s Civil Rights Division, give states five days to explain how they will comply with federal voter eligibility laws and how they will maintain “clean voter lists.”
“The Department sent these letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asking for voluntary compliance in a timely manner with their obligations under federal law to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.
Noncitizen voting in federal elections is extremely rare, but Trump and his administration have falsely portrayed it as a widespread issue.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson are among those who said they received the letters from the Justice Department.
The letters say state election officers “could be criminally prosecuted for aiding and abetting” noncitizen voting. They further specify that any election officer who knowingly retains noncitizens on a statewide voting registration list or who facilitates noncitizens’ receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability.
“An intentional act that is aimed at diluting the votes of citizens could also constitute a violation” of federal law, the letters said.
Henderson wrote on social media that the threats constitute “truly bizarre behavior.”
“Got another love letter this morning from the DOJ sprinkled throughout with threats of criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “I’m sure I’m not the only chief election officer of a state who is being targeted for following state and federal laws by resisting DOJ’s demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts.”
The letters are the latest move in the Justice Department’s campaign to assert more federal control over state elections.
While some states have complied with the administration’s demands that they hand over voter roll data, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for resisting. So far, 11 different federal courts have dismissed the Justice Department’s efforts to seize voter rolls.
-
Denver, CO4 minutes agoDenver officers cited for separate incidents, 1 fired
-
Seattle, WA11 minutes agoStudy finds dangerous chemicals in the breast milk of Seattle moms
-
San Diego, CA14 minutes agoTom Krasovic: Justin Verlander’s announcement recalls Padres’ 2004 draft blunder
-
Milwaukee, WI19 minutes ago‘Peace on Every Block’ brings Milwaukee community together to fight gun violence
-
Atlanta, GA26 minutes agoAtlanta smash-and-grab: Masked men ram U-Haul into clothing store
-
Minneapolis, MN29 minutes agoMinneapolis police drone debate sparks privacy concerns
-
Indianapolis, IN34 minutes ago
Adam Vinatieri will celebrate on the field in Indianapolis again as Colts’ Ring of Honor member
-
Pittsburg, PA41 minutes agoU.S. launches more strikes against Iran