U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

A federal appeals court allowed President Trump’s executive order limiting vote-by-mail to proceed, contradicting another court’s ruling that blocked it. The conflicting decisions suggest the U.S. Supreme Court may resolve the dispute, with the order’s implementation potentially affecting states ahead of the midterm elections.

Federal courts issued conflicting rulings on President Donald Trump's executive order restricting vote-by-mail, with one court allowing implementation and another blocking it, prompting a potential Supreme Court decision. The order requires the U.S. Postal Service and Department of Homeland Security to collect voter data, raising concerns about voter impact ahead of midterm elections.

Federal courts issued conflicting rulings on President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting vote-by-mail. One appeals court allowed the order to proceed, stating agencies had not yet implemented it, while another blocked it, citing potential harm to states. The U.S. Supreme Court may resolve the dispute after the Trump administration appealed.

Federal courts issued conflicting rulings on President Donald Trump's executive order restricting vote-by-mail. The D.C. Circuit Court allowed the order to proceed, while the 1st Circuit Court blocked it, creating a path for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the dispute. The order directs the USPS and DHS to compile voter data but lacks final implementation rules.

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., allowed President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting vote-by-mail to proceed, while a separate appeals court in the 1st Circuit blocked it, creating a conflict likely to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. The order directs the USPS and DHS to collect voter data, but implementation is stalled as agencies have not finalized rules. Voting rights groups argue the order could harm states by diverting election resources.

Conflicting federal court rulings on President Trump's executive order restricting vote-by-mail, with one court allowing implementation and another blocking it, prompting a potential Supreme Court resolution. The order requires the U.S. Postal Service and Department of Homeland Security to compile voter data, with one court deeming the case unripe for review and another finding immediate harm to states.

Federal courts have issued conflicting rulings on President Trump's executive order limiting vote-by-mail, with one court allowing its implementation pending rulemaking and another blocking it due to potential state harm. The Supreme Court may resolve the dispute, as the Trump administration has appealed the opposing decision.

A federal appellate panel refused to block President Trump's executive order restricting mail voting, citing premature legal challenges, while a separate Massachusetts court blocked the order, with both cases pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Postal Service is being directed to create an online portal for mail ballot eligibility under the order, according to postal workers' union representatives.

President Joe Biden dropped a lawsuit seeking to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his 2016-2017 interviews with memoir ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer. A divided appeals court panel had rejected Biden's bid to block the release, citing substantial public interest. The recordings, obtained by special counsel Robert Hur during an investigation of Biden's handling of classified documents, will now be provided to a congressional committee.

Joe Biden dropped a lawsuit seeking to block the release of 2016-2017 audio recordings with memoir ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer. A divided appeals court panel ruled the public interest in disclosing the material outweighed Biden's privacy concerns, allowing the recordings to be released to a Republican-led congressional committee. The recordings were obtained by special counsel Robert Hur during an investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents.

Joe Biden dropped a lawsuit seeking to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his 2016-2017 interviews with memoir ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer. A divided appeals court panel previously rejected Biden's bid to block disclosure, ruling there was a 'substantial' public interest in the material's release. The recordings, obtained by special counsel Robert Hur during an investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents, will now be provided to a congressional committee.

Biden voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit seeking to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his 2016-2017 interviews with memoir ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer. A divided appeals court panel ruled that the public interest in the material outweighed Biden's privacy concerns, allowing its release to a congressional committee. The recordings were obtained by special counsel Robert Hur during an investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a $390 million judgment against Argentina, rejecting its appeal over the 2008 expropriation of Aerolíneas Argentinas and Austral Líneas Aéreas Cielos del Sur. The ruling recognizes Titan Consortium's arbitral award, with interest calculated up to December 10, 2024.

A federal appeals court upheld Peter Navarro's contempt of Congress convictions for defying a subpoena related to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court rejected Navarro's claim that President Donald Trump's executive privilege protected him, noting he failed to prove such an invocation. Navarro had served a four-month prison sentence for the convictions and later spoke at the Republican National Convention.

A federal appeals court upheld Peter Navarro's contempt of Congress convictions for defying a subpoena related to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court rejected his claim that President Donald Trump's executive privilege shielded him, and he had already served a four-month prison sentence for the conviction.

A federal appeals court rejected President Joe Biden's request to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts of his 2016-2017 interviews with memoir ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer. The 2-1 ruling emphasized public interest in disclosure, though it allowed redactions to protect Biden's privacy. The recordings were obtained by special counsel Robert Hur during an investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents.

A federal appeals court rejected President Joe Biden's request to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his 2016-2017 interviews with memoir ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer. The 2-1 ruling cited substantial public interest in the material, which was obtained by special counsel Robert Hur during an investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents. The court allowed redactions to protect Biden's privacy but concluded the public interest outweighed any remaining privacy concerns.

A federal appeals court rejected President Biden's request to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his 2016-2017 interviews with memoir ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer. The 2-1 ruling emphasized public interest in disclosure outweighs privacy concerns, with redactions to protect Biden's privacy. The recordings were obtained by special counsel Robert Hur during an investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents.

A federal appeals court rejected Joe Biden's request to block release of audio recordings and transcripts from his 2016-2017 interviews with memoir ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer. The 2-1 ruling found public interest in disclosure outweighs privacy concerns, with redactions allowed. The recordings, obtained by special counsel Robert Hur during an investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents, were sought by Congress and the Heritage Foundation after Hur declined to charge Biden.

A U.S. appeals court ruled that a 28-year sentence for Libyan militant Ahmed Abu Khatallah, convicted in the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, is unreasonably lenient and ordered resentencing. The court emphasized the severity of Khatallah’s role in the premeditated attack, including his efforts to prevent security forces from intervening.

A U.S. appeals court ruled that a 28-year prison sentence for Libyan militant Ahmed Abu Khatallah, convicted in the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, is too lenient and ordered resentencing. The court found the sentence insufficient for his role in the premeditated attack and transfer of the case back to the district court.

Catherine Herridge, a US journalist, faces a $800-per-day fine unless she reveals sources for 2017 Fox News stories. A district court held her in civil contempt, and an appeals court recently denied her request to stay the contempt ruling.

A federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to abandon a Biden-era EPA rule imposing stricter standards for soot pollution. The ruling upholds a 2024 standard limiting fine particle pollution to 9 micrograms per cubic meter of air, down from 12 micrograms, and criticizes the EPA's arguments as lacking merit. Environmental groups praised the decision as a public health victory, while opponents argued it would increase costs for businesses and families.

A federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to abandon a Biden-era rule that tightens soot pollution standards. The court found the EPA's arguments lacked merit, upholding a 9 microgram per cubic meter annual limit on fine particle pollution. The decision supports public health benefits projected by the Biden-era rule, which aims to reduce asthma cases and premature deaths.

A federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to invalidate a Biden-era EPA rule that tightens soot pollution standards. The court upheld the 2024 rule, which reduces annual fine particle pollution limits from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter of air, despite the EPA's argument that it exceeded statutory authority and ignored economic costs. Environmental groups praised the decision as a public health victory.

A federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to abandon a Biden-era rule imposing stricter standards on soot pollution. The decision upheld a 2024 rule requiring a tighter annual limit of 9 micrograms of fine particle pollution per cubic meter of air, rejecting the EPA's claim that it exceeded statutory authority. The ruling supports public health benefits projected to prevent thousands of premature deaths and hospital visits.

A federal appeals court allowed the Trump administration to resume expanded use of expedited deportations nationwide, overturning a lower court's temporary block. The 2-1 ruling included two Trump-appointed judges who dismissed due process concerns, while a third Obama-appointed judge had previously raised risks of wrongful deportations under the policy.

A federal appeals court allowed the Trump administration to resume expanded use of expedited deportations nationwide, overturning a lower court ruling that had temporarily blocked the policy. The decision, split along partisan lines, upheld the administration's expansion of expedited removal to all undocumented migrants, despite concerns about due process raised by plaintiffs.

A federal appeals court allowed the Trump administration to resume expanded use of expedited deportations nationwide. The three-judge panel, including two Trump-appointed judges and one Obama-appointed judge, overturned a lower court's block on the policy. The administration argued the expansion is legal and necessary for immigration control, while critics claimed it violates due process.

A federal appeals court allowed the Trump administration to resume expanded use of expedited removal for undocumented migrants nationwide, overturning a lower court's block. The 3-judge panel, with two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee, ruled the plaintiffs did not prove the process denied due process. The ACLU criticized the decision as undermining fair deportation procedures.

A federal appeals court allowed the Trump administration to resume expanded use of expedited deportations nationwide, overturning a lower court ruling that had blocked the policy. The decision, split along judicial appointment lines, permits the removal of undocumented migrants beyond border areas, with the administration calling it a key immigration enforcement tool and critics arguing it violates due process.

A federal appeals court allowed the Trump administration to expand a fast-track deportation process, enabling the expedited removal of non-citizens living far from the border. The ruling overturned a previous decision blocking the Department of Homeland Security's expansion of this process.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., is covered by a tarp and scaffolding after President Donald Trump’s name was removed following a court order. The removal followed a federal appeals court upholding a judge’s ruling that blocked Trump’s attempt to rename the center and halt its operations. The center’s spokesperson stated the tarp will remain during facade maintenance.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., has a tarp covering its facade after President Donald Trump’s name was removed following a court order. The removal occurred after a federal appeals court upheld a deadline to take down Trump’s name, which he had added during his efforts to control the center’s governance and programming. A spokesperson stated the tarp and scaffolding will remain for maintenance work on the building’s exterior.

The facade of the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., is covered by a tarp after President Donald Trump's name was removed following a court order. The tarp remains in place during maintenance work, as legal challenges and court decisions continue regarding Trump's involvement with the center's governance and name.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., is covered by a tarp days after President Donald Trump’s name was removed following a court order. The removal occurred after a federal appeals court upheld a deadline to take down Trump’s name, which he had added during his second term, and a judge ruled against his efforts to rename the center and close it for renovations.

President Trump’s name was removed from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts following a court order, with a tarp and scaffolding now covering the building’s facade during maintenance. The removal followed legal challenges and Trump’s efforts to restructure the center, including appointing a new board and planning renovations, which were halted by a court ruling.

A weatherproof tarp covers the facade of the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., after President Donald Trump’s name was removed following a court order. The tarp and scaffolding remain as crews perform maintenance, while legal disputes over Trump’s efforts to rename and control the center continue.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., has a weatherproof tarp covering its facade after President Donald Trump’s name was removed following a court order. A federal appeals court upheld a deadline for the removal, and the center cited maintenance work as the reason for the tarp. Rep. Joyce Beatty’s lawsuit challenged Trump’s efforts to rename the center and block its closure, which a judge later ordered to stop.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., has its facade covered by a tarp after President Donald Trump’s name was removed following a court order. The tarp remains in place during maintenance work on the building’s exterior, while legal challenges and renovations related to Trump’s efforts to rebrand the center continue.