News

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge in Boston Thursday will consider pumping the brakes on a controversial Trump administration policy of removing migrants to countries where they have no prior connection without allowing them to raise concerns about their safety.

A group of noncitizens with final removal orders filed a federal lawsuit challenging the policy last month, arguing that being removed to countries like El Salvador, Honduras or Panama — despite having no connection to those countries — risks their safety and violates their rights.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee who temporarily blocked the policy last month, will consider extending his order and certifying a class of noncitizens who would be protected from removal to a so-called third country.

“The need for preliminary injunctive relief in this case is vital,” lawyers representing the men argued in a recent court filing. “Indeed, it may be the difference between safety and torture, life and death, for many noncitizens, including ones who have been living and working in this country for decades.”

The hearing also comes as the Trump administration faces new allegations that they violated Judge Murphy’s order by removing more than a dozen migrants to El Salvador last month despite the judge’s order barring such transfers.

The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit argue that the Department of Homeland Security’s policy results in the removal of migrants to third countries without providing them a chance to raise concerns about potentially being persecuted, tortured, or killed. In one instance, they allege that the Trump administration removed a Guatemalan man to Mexico without giving him the chance to raise concerns that he was previously raped there and now fears prosecution in that country.

“Defendants have resorted to violating noncitizens’ clear statutory rights to apply for protection from removal to countries where they face persecution or torture,” the lawyers wrote.

Lawyers with the Department of Justice have argued that Judge Murphy lacks the jurisdiction to intervene in DHS’ policies after a final order of removal has been issued by an immigration judge.

They have also argued that a preliminary injunction is no longer necessary because DHS implemented a new policy of getting “diplomatic assurances that aliens removed from the United States will not be persecuted or tortured,” or screening noncitizens for their eligibility for protections under the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture.

“As this Court indicated during the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants are entitled to issue guidance to satisfy any potential due process concerns. Defendants have now done so,” they argued.

But lawyers for the men who brought the lawsuit have argued that those measures are “woefully inadequate” and pointed to two recent examples where they allege that DHS potentially violated the court’s temporary order.

Two days after Judge Murphy blocked the deportations, the Trump administration announced that it had removed 17 alleged members of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT mega-prison. According to the plaintiffs, at least two of the men on those flights had final orders of removal to Venezuela and were never given the right to challenge their removal to El Salvador.

According to the plaintiff’s lawyers, one of those men is Maiker Espinoza Escalona, who entered the United States last year with his partner Yorely Bernal Inciarte and their one-year-old baby.

After the three turned themselves in to immigration authorities, they were separated, their family told ABC News. Inciarte has been detained at a detention center in El Paso, Texas, their baby has been in government custody, and Escalona is detained at CECOT in El Salvador, according to Inciarte’s mother.

The Trump administration alleged that Escalona is a member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, an accusation his family denies.

“They are liars,” said Inciarte’s mother Raida of the Trump administration. “I cannot believe that half of Venezuela is Tren de Aragua. That can’t be.”

“For them to be sent [to El Salvador] you have to investigate and prove they are what they are being accused of,” Raida said. “We’re distraught, I don’t wish this on anyone.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Asian and European markets rallied in Thursday trading in response to President Donald Trump’s dramatic decision to suspend planned tariffs on nearly all American trading partners for 90 days — with the exception of China.

Key Asian indices recorded notable recoveries on Thursday — marking a reprieve for most after a week of turbulence and selloffs driven by fears of escalating trade wars and recessions.

In Japan, the Nikkei 225 closed 9.1% and the broader TOPIX index closed up 8%. South Korea’s Kospi closed up nearly 6.6%.

Taiwan’s Taiex index jumped 9.3% and Australia’s ASX 200 rose 4.5%.

Key Chinese markets were also in the green, despite Trump’s decision to raise tariffs on Chinese goods to a cumulative total of 125%. The president alleged a “lack of respect” from Beijing to explain the latest hike, his latest broadside coming after China announced 84% reciprocal tariffs on U.S. goods on Wednesday.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index climbed 2%, the Shanghai Composite Index jumped 1.1% and the Shenzhen Component Index rose 2.2%.

In Europe, the pan-continental STOXX 600 index jumped more than 7%.

Upon opening, Britain’s FTSE 100 climbed 6%, France’s CAC 40 6.4%, Germany’s DAX 8%, Italy’s FTSE MIB 7.5% and Spain’s IBEX 7.2%.

U.S. markets closed after major rebounds on Wednesday following Trump’s announcement that most of his sweeping tariffs would be paused.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 2,962 points, or 7.8%, marking the index’s best day since 2020. The S&P 500 jumped 9.5%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq soared 12.1%.

U.S. stock futures dipped ahead of Thursday’s trading session. As of early Thursday morning, Dow futures were down 1.1%, S&P 500 futures down 1.53% and Nasdaq futures down 1.8%.

ABC News’ Max Zahn contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Karen Read’s emergency request to delay her state murder trial until it reviews her appeal. No explanation was given for the denial of her request.

Read had filed an emergency petition on Monday, asking the court for a stay of her retrial — which has begun jury selection — pending review by the high court on her claims of constitutional violation.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson denied the request on behalf of the court.

Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, in January 2022. Prosecutors alleged Read hit O’Keefe with her vehicle and left him to die as Boston was hit with a major blizzard. Read has denied the allegations and maintained her innocence.

Read claims her retrial would violate double jeopardy after several jurors from her first trial said she was acquitted of two of the three counts. The judge declared a mistrial in Read’s first trial last year after the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.

She was charged with first-degree murder, manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. She pleaded not guilty.

Read’s attorneys have asked multiple appeals courts — and now the Supreme Court — to dismiss the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident in the retrial. They argued in court filings that retrying her on the charges would violate double jeopardy protections because, based on subsequent statements from four jurors, the jury had reached a unanimous decision to acquit Read on the charges.

All of those requests have been rejected by judges.

Three new jurors were seated on Wednesday, bringing the running total to 15. The panel is comprised of eight men and seven women.

The court seeks to seat 16 jurors in total, with12 deliberating the case and four serving as alternates.

Read told reporters outside the courthouse on Wednesday that the defense has used 11 of their 16 challenges, and the commonwealth has used 12 during jury selection, according to WCVB.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MOSCOW, Idaho) — University of Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger returned to court on Wednesday for a high-stakes hearing to decide what evidence will be allowed at his trial, which is set to begin in August.

The use of particular language has been a major point of contention in the ongoing hearing.

Judge Steven Hippler agreed to the defense’s request to ban the words “psychopath” and “sociopath” from the trial.

The defense asked that the phrases “touch DNA” and “contact DNA” be excluded, arguing that it is misleading and can be misunderstood by a jury.

Hippler said he was not inclined to “police phraseology” and noted the concern that if a “banned word” is accidentally used in the courtroom it could result in a mistrial. Hippler encouraged council to avoid the terms but said he will not “police experts in the field” and encouraged legal teams to not “underestimate the reasonableness and intelligence of jurors.”

Kohberger’s defense team also worked to ensure their client will have the opportunity for physical support from his family during the trial.

The judge asked the state to call Kohberger’s family members who are witnesses early in the trial so they can sit behind him in the courtroom after they testify.

“I think their ability to be here to see the trial is important,” Hippler said.

Kohberger is accused of fatally stabbing Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen and Xana Kernodle at the girls’ off-campus house in Moscow in the early hours of Nov. 13, 2022. Chapin, Kernodle’s boyfriend, was sleeping over at the time.

Kohberger, a criminology Ph.D. student at nearby Washington State University at the time of the murders, was arrested in December 2022. He’s charged with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary, and a not guilty plea has been entered on his behalf.

The judge said Wednesday that he will allow a 3D model of the home at trial.

Many arguments have still yet to be ruled on by the judge.

One point of contention is a description of the intruder from one of the two roommates who survived the murders. The roommate said in the middle of the night she saw a man with “bushy eyebrows” walking past her in the house, according to court documents.

The defense wants that description banned during trial. The defense argues the roommate’s account lacks credibility, claiming that in interviews with police she admitted to drinking heavily throughout the day and that she had an “absolute lack of certainty.”

The defense is also pushing for the death penalty to be taken off the table if Kohberger is convicted, citing what they say is Kohberger’s autism spectrum disorder.

“When it comes to evidentiary hearings, the prosecution’s goal is trying to admit as much damning evidence as possible,” ABC News legal contributor Brian Buckmire said, while the defense tries “to limit how much evidence comes in that is detrimental to their case.”

The hearing is ongoing Wednesday and may continue on Thursday.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration has frozen more than $1 billion in federal funding to Cornell and $790 million to Northwestern, as the government investigates alleged civil rights violations at the schools, according to two White House officials.

“On Monday, several Trump administration agencies froze roughly $790M of federal funding and roughly $1.05B of federal funding from Northwestern and Cornell, respectively,” a senior administration official told ABC News. “The money was frozen in connection with several ongoing, credible, and concerning Title VI investigations.”

The funding pause mostly involves grants from and contracts with the Department of Agriculture, Defense, Education and Health and Human Services, according to White House officials.

Northwestern said in a statement to ABC that it was informed by “members of the media” that the federal government plans to “freeze a significant portion of our federal funding. The University said it “has not received any official notification.”

“Federal funds that Northwestern receives drive innovative and life-saving research,” the University said. “This type of research is now at jeopardy. The University has fully cooperated with investigations by both the Department of Education and Congress.”

Cornell wrote in a statement they have received “more than 75 stop work orders from the Department of Defense related to research that is profoundly significant to American national defense, cybersecurity, and health.”

“We are actively seeking information from federal officials to learn more about the basis for these decisions,” Cornell said.

“The affected grants include research into new materials for jet engines, propulsion systems, large-scale information networks, robotics, superconductors, and space and satellite communications, as well as cancer research,” the school continued.

The New York Times first reported on the funding freeze.

Legal experts are questioning the authority of the Trump administration to pause the federal funding.

“This is completely lawless, as far as I can tell, to the extent that we don’t even know what legal provision the government is relying upon,” Genevieve Lakier, professor of law at the University of Chicago, said.

If the funding halt is justified under the Civil Rights Act, as White House officials have told ABC News, Lakier said the law requires there to be a set of procedures followed and notice given.

“There has to be a hearing. You have to give members of Congress 30 days before you do it. You have to give the school 30 days. You have to allow the right to appeal. None of this is being followed,” Lakier said.

Michael Dorf, professor at Cornell Law School, echoed Lakier’s assessment.

“There’s a federal statute that explains if agencies and the government believe a funding recipient is not complying with its civil rights obligations, there’s a whole set of procedures they have to follow before you cut those off,” Dorf said. “The government has followed none of those procedures.”

The move comes as the administration doubles down on allegations of antisemitic conduct and harassment from elite universities.

The Department of Education and other agencies are reviewing Harvard University for allegedly fostering antisemitism on its campus. The administration stripped Columbia University of $400 million in grants earlier this month after a task force investigation says it found inaction by the school to protect Jewish students.

In response to the review, Harvard President Alan Garber released a statement saying, “We fully embrace the important goal of combatting antisemitism, one of the most insidious forms of bigotry.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.